Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this matter of public importance on a critical issue that the government has blocked discussion of all day. This issue started 20 days ago when the Treasurer stood at that dispatch box and said that Mr Grant was treated ‘just like everybody else’. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out at the beginning of the debate on this matter of public importance, what has emerged is that John Grant, far from being treated just like everyone else, was treated like no-one else. No other car dealer received this treatment and personal contact from the Treasurer. When the Treasurer made that statement 20 days ago, he stood at that dispatch box knowing that John Grant had received personal and special treatment.

We have just heard speakers from the government in this debate who are speaking here, of course, because the Prime Minister will not attend an MPI debate and the Treasurer himself, as the shadow Treasurer said, is refusing to attend and speak on a matter of public importance that goes to the heart of his conduct. This is repeated behaviour from the Treasurer, and we have seen it all day today. At nine o’clock this morning the Leader of the Opposition sought to suspend standing orders with respect to a motion for a judicial inquiry. What did we see from those opposite? An immediate decision to cease debate and to prevent debate. That is the Labor Party’s first instinct. All day they have voted and acted to prevent any debate whatsoever. All through question time, and through every question time since this issue was raised 20 days ago, they have refused to answer questions.

We saw that today when the Treasurer was asked a series of specific questions based on emails that his own office had released. As the shadow Treasurer pointed out, the Treasurer, firstly for the Senate hearing last week, did not ask Treasury to release some of his emails—he did not release them himself—but he got Labor senators to release them. Very interesting. Then on Monday night he released a whole series of other emails. He was asked specific questions about those today by the shadow Treasurer. He was asked about an email from 17 April, distributed by his office, that advised the offices of the Prime Minister and his office that a car dealer is:

… very deep in debt, has little equity and has a marginal business case. It is high risk.

He was asked whether John Grant’s finances were assessed in a similar way. Of course, he did not answer that question. He did not answer the question about another email, on 24 April, again distributed by his office and again advising both of those offices, that said that a car dealer has:

… high debt and low equity. The principals … are a couple in their 60s and their kids don’t want to run a car dealership. There is no succession plan.

He was asked whether John Grant’s finances were assessed in a similar way. He refused to answer.

He did not answer the question because he knows the answer is that John Grant received very special treatment from the Treasurer. When the Treasurer stood in this House 20 days ago and said John Grant had been treated like everybody else, he knew that to be false. He knew that he had rung John Grant. He knew that there were a series of emails that had updated him. He had received them on his home fax. But he did not tell the House that at that time. That is why in this MPI debate we have heard from those opposite no mention of the Treasurer—no mention whatsoever. They have been calling for transparency but voting against the establishment of a judicial inquiry. At nine o’clock this morning, in the middle of question time, by those opposite who have spoken in this MPI debate and by the speaker who follows me, the Treasurer’s name has not and will not be mentioned. (Time expired)

See this speech in context