Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his claim that Mr Grant was treated ‘just like everybody else’. In an email dated 17 April 2009, Treasury advised the Treasurer’s office that a car dealer, car dealer No. 1:

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

In a second email on 24 April 2009, Treasury advised that a second 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.

And in a third email dated 20 February 2009 the Treasurer was directly advised:

Currently being financed by GE or GMAC and being a good business should be enough and John [Grant] has assured us he fits these criteria.

Doesn’t this prove that John Grant was assessed on the sole criteria of being a mate of the Prime Minister?

See this speech in context