Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House censures the Treasurer:

(1)

For failing to make a full and unreserved statement about his personal involvement and that of his office in the Ozcar ‘deals for mates’ scandal and for his failure to disclose the following information:

(a)

The number of car dealers that received special treatment from the Treasurer, his office and senior Treasury officials—as was the case with John Grant;

(b)

The number of car dealers that held personal telephone conversations with the Treasurer to discuss their financing troubles—as was the case with John Grant;

(c)

The number of car dealers that were the subject of regular and lengthy updates to the Treasurer’s personal home fax—as was the case with John Grant;

(d)

The number of car dealers that had their telephone contact details handed over by Treasury officials at a high level meeting to discuss a half a billion dollar funding proposal—as was the case with John Grant; and

(e)

The number of car dealers that were described in meetings between Treasury officials and finance companies as an “acquaintance” of the Prime Minister—as was the case with John Grant; and

(2)

importantly, that this House censures the Treasurer for failing to table all emails (from departmental, APH and personal accounts), all correspondence, all fax records and all phone records related to the Ozcar ‘deals for mates’ scandal.

Mr Speaker, it is vital that this matter be discussed today and that this censure motion be debated today. We have had debate in this House today about the Treasurer’s conduct. Now he is walking out of the House, hiding behind another issue.

The reality is this: that the email evidence that has been given, without contradiction and without contravention, in the Senate today has demonstrated that the Treasurer has failed to tell the truth to this House. The Treasurer has failed to disclose the very special treatment that John Grant received at his hands, at his insistence. He has failed to disclose the way in which John Grant alone, of all the car dealers, had the privilege of being represented by the Treasury at a meeting with Ford Credit when they were seeking $500 million of Commonwealth funds—as vulnerable and dependent on the Commonwealth’s goodwill as any company could be. And there it was that the Treasury officials with the knowledge, the connivance, the support and the encouragement of the Treasurer himself, all documented in the emails before the Senate, wanted Mr Grant to get that special treatment.

They say that nothing wrong has been done. They say that this is just a smear. This, of course, is the party that stands up and raises issues of the HIH takeover of FAI 11 years ago, and fails to mention that a royal commission investigated it comprehensively and made no adverse findings against me or the firm I was a partner of at the time, Goldman Sachs. This is a government whose practice and policy is one of smear and yet here we have the absolute proof positive that what the Treasurer said in the parliament was wrong. What did he say? He said, ‘Mr Grant was treated like any other dealer.’ Palpably false. He was treated like no other dealer. When asked a second time to see if he would stand by the first answer he gave, he said that Mr Grant would have had the same assistance as any other dealer and he did not really know what had happened about it, as though he was indifferent to the proceedings on behalf of Mr Grant and indifferent to what had been done. It was just a bit of routine stuff and yet here we have the regular reports repeating everything that was said at the meetings. On 20 February, that afternoon it says:

Treasurer, both Godwin Grech and I have spoken to John Grant this evening.

It goes on:

Godwin will arrangement for Capital Financial to contact John in the next couple of days. Capital has been very aggressive in the market, so it is a good chance to take on John’s business.

As a fallback, Godwin will also raise John’s case with Ford Credit when he sees them in Melbourne on Monday.

So we know that the Treasurer was aware that John Grant’s case was going to be raised with Ford Credit. And what was the meeting with Ford Credit about? Well, it was about getting $500 million—totally dependent on the Commonwealth for their survival. And duly, after that meeting, Mr Grech reported at 8.23 pm to the Treasurer and his staff. He said:

… I raised the case of John Grant with the CEO of Ford Credit, Greg Cohen, during my meeting—

He met with them as part of his ongoing negotiations to come up with help for them, they—Ford Credit—needing access of up to $500 million. He said that Ford Credit had said they:

…will shut down the business if they could not secure access to capital.

And he said that he had raised John Grant’s concerns. The chief executive of Ford Credit, Mr Cohen—who said to the Senate that he was told that Mr Grant was a friend or an acquaintance of the Prime Minister—gave an undertaking to Mr Grech that Ford Credit ‘will actively look at taking Grant on’. He said:

Although [they] do have independents on their books … they have been rationalising these in recent months…

The reality is this, and the facts are plain: whatever the distractions, whatever excitement the government can present, whatever smears they can fling across the chamber, the facts are inescapable. John Grant was a very special person; he got very special treatment. He was given the endorsement of the Commonwealth in circumstances where that endorsement was as powerful as it possibly could be. And yet nobody else got that. No other dealer got that sort of support. And the Treasurer has lied about it in this House. He said he got the same treatment as everybody else, would have been treated the same as everybody else, and yet the documents that his own department produced in the Senate demonstrate conclusively that his answers were false.

The government is concerned, as we are, about the email allegedly from the Prime Minister’s office to Mr Grech. We have seen reports today saying that the AFP has formed preliminary conclusions that it had been concocted. We have seen reports that it had been concocted in the Treasury. If that is true, it is a matter of enormous concern to everybody in this House. That is why, if the government was serious about taking these dealings relating to John Grant on, of really investigating it, they would hold a full judicial inquiry. We will attend; everything can be available to the judicial inquiry. Let us get to the bottom of this because what we have is a Treasurer who has unquestionably misled the House. There is no doubt about that. The case is closed on that, and the Treasurer is conveniently hiding behind the issue of the alleged email between Charlton and Grech as a means of avoiding scrutiny.

But the fact of the matter remains that the seriousness of the Treasurer’s conduct cannot be overstated because it is not simply a matter of misleading the House—that in itself is bad enough and justification for him to resign. The fact is that the power and the influence of the Commonwealth was brought to bear in conditions where Ford Credit was so vulnerable, so susceptible—no doubt so anxious to secure support from the Commonwealth—and that was done on behalf of somebody whose only qualification was that he was a crony and a benefactor of the Prime Minister. And they wonder why we opposed Ruddbank? They wonder why we were concerned about the Treasurer leaping up and identifying a property development in Brisbane—presumably a developer he knew well, who needed support. Cronyism, looking after mates is absolutely fundamental to the DNA of the Labor Party—as are smears.

The Treasurer has been caught out and he has to be brought to account for it. He has to be censured for it, and it is vital that we deal with this censure today because all of the other issues that can be debated and that should be ventilated through a judicial inquiry cannot escape the fact that the Treasurer misled the House twice, and that he conferred an extraordinary and unprecedented benefit on John Grant in a situation where the person from whom that advantage was being sought, Ford Credit, was vulnerable—susceptible to pressure from the Commonwealth. He set out to do that for no reason other than that Mr Grant was a crony and a benefactor of the Prime Minister. And for those reasons, leave is required today, urgently, to allow us to censure the Treasurer for his conduct.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I second the motion. Today we ask the first of many questions that we will be asking of the Treasurer about this matter, particularly in relation to John Grant. The first question here:

Will the Treasurer advise the House how many other car dealers he spoke with directly on the telephone before referring them to Treasury for assistance?

No answer.

Will the Treasurer advise the House how many other car dealers had updates on their cases faxed directly to his home?

No answer.

Can the Treasurer confirm that at a meeting between Treasury officials and … Ford Credit … [that a] mobile telephone number handed over by Treasury officials in the full knowledge of both the Treasurer and his office?

No answer.

Can the Treasurer confirm that Treasury officials told Ford Credit that Mr Grant was ‘an acquaintance’ of the Prime Minister, whom he knew from his dealings in Queensland?

No answer. And that is in the Senate Hansard. Ford Credit: they do not have any particular motive. In fact, they came to this government asking for $½ billion to keep their business afloat, and now they are saying that they were told unequivocally: ‘This man—here is his mobile phone number—needs your help. He is a friend of the Prime Minister and we are thinking of giving you $½ billion to keep your business afloat’. What does that smell of?

You know what? If it quacks, waddles, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and behaves like a duck, it is a duck. The Treasurer had the audacity to walk into this place and say that this is an entirely normal situation. It is entirely normal that a company on its hands and knees comes to the government and asks the government to change the rules for a $2 billion fund so it can access half a billion dollars to keep its business afloat. The Treasury emails say unequivocally: ‘Ford Credit will shut down the business if it cannot secure access to capital.’ So Ford Credit came to the government with a begging bowl. In that discussion they were told by the Treasury official, ‘There’s someone that we really want you to help. He’s not a Ford dealer; he’s not a Volvo dealer; he’s got no relationship with you guys and we know that you don’t actually provide credit to these sorts of people. We know that, but we want you to have a good look at this case of Mr John Grant, a friend of the Prime Minister’s from Queensland. Here is his mobile phone number. Please ring him.’ No wonder Ford rang that day—the cheapest half a billion dollar phone call it ever made. I say to the member for Dunkley and the member for Murray, ‘Why didn’t you call Wayne’s World? He’ll ring you back straightaway. He’ll ring the dealer straightaway. You can get half a billion dollars of credit immediately—no problems.’

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will refer to members appropriately.

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

The interesting thing is that John Grant was only asking for $1½ million—a small amount of money.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

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

That is right. A tiny amount of money. Do you know what is interesting? John Grant does not even sell Fords. He does not sell Fords; he does not sell Volvos. He sells Kias, and second-hand Toyota HiLuxes to the Treasurer. We will have a few questions on that as well. You see, there is a political strategy by the government, and it should not surprise anyone: they will say that the best form of defence is attack. When a Treasury official is shut down by Labor senators in not one but two Senate hearings—during estimates and again last Friday—and shut down by senior Treasury officials, instinctively you know something smells. All of us on this side know it, and you know what? Everyone out there knows it: something smells with the Treasurer. It is just unbelievable, and he says that this man was treated just like everybody else.

We will not let this rest. You can have all the diversions and distractions and all the inquiries you like, but we are going to point out to the Australian people unequivocally that the Treasurer is not only lying to the Australian people but engaged in conduct unbecoming of a Treasurer.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will withdraw the last comment. The House is debating a motion to suspend standing orders.

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

I am happy to withdraw.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his assistance.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an extraordinary motion to suspend standing orders. This is the third opportunity that the Leader of the Opposition has given himself today to make the same speech. He has failed strategically and he has failed tactically, but, more importantly, he has failed the responsibility that he has as the alternative Prime Minister of this nation.

This morning I came into this House and indicated on behalf of the government that we would grant leave for any motion that the opposition chose to move. We would debate it for as long as they wanted to, and they were the ones who chose to shut it down when they did. We would have been happy to still be going on that debate, but they chose to shut it down. They proposed a number of speakers to the debate and then reneged on the arrangement. They could not even control the member for Mackellar. That said it all. There is a serious motion before this House and who do you have in the chamber to speak on it? Do you have a member of the frontbench? No, you have the member for Mackellar on your speaking list because you cannot actually rustle up enough frontbenchers. They are busy, off doing media conferences, in the case of the member for Dickson, or engaging in activities in their offices and not participating in the debate.

This exposes the incompetence of the opposition. I never thought I would say this, but they have been found wanting for the lack of the presence of the member for Sturt. I never thought I would say that. We offered to grant them leave for any motion they cared to move, and they failed to move a censure motion against the Prime Minister or the Treasurer. Even though last Friday they indicated that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer should resign from the highest offices in the land, today they came in and could not even get their act together to move a censure motion—because they know that they have no case. In fact, they know that the only person in this parliament who has a case to answer is the Leader of the Opposition. Where is the email? What was their involvement in the distribution of it? What was their involvement in the promotion of it? What was their involvement in spinning it around the gallery? We still do not have an answer.

We had a significant debate in this parliament. We had a debate that went from 12 o’clock until 20 past three. It was only concluded because the opposition wanted it to conclude. We then had a question time in which the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were available for over an hour to answer any questions that were put before the parliament, yet here we have this absurd motion. Again, it is not a motion whereby they are actually seeking to censure the Treasurer but a motion in which they are seeking to suspend standing orders. There was no attempt to ask for leave to move a censure motion—historically, when that occurs it is granted—because they wanted us to have just 10 minutes to respond. It is not surprising when you look at the details because, as their case crumbles around them, they are increasingly just making things up.

I do note that the member for Higgins is not here in the chamber today. He is on a delegation. But I make this point: nominations for the seat of Higgins close on 30 June. It is time for the member for Higgins to reconsider, because quite clearly there is a vacancy of leadership in the opposition. It is extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition said during the debate, ‘The Treasurer has conferred an extraordinary and unprecedented benefit towards Mr Grant.’ What is it? Not a cent was given to Mr Grant—unlike when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Environment and Water Resources and gave a grant of $10 million for Rainmaker to a mate, even though his department suggested $2 million, and two days into the election campaign but just before the writs were issued. That is a scandal. That is how that side of the House operate in terms of their mates. I see it every day because I am the minister for regional development and I see the way that those on that side of the House manipulated processes to ensure that their mates were looked after, whether it be an ethanol plant in Gunnedah that does not exist, whether it be a cheese factory that had closed down in the electorate of Indi or whether it be a railway that had burnt down. There is a lot of talk about inquiries. Let me say this: some very interesting things have happened to that company that was involved in the ethanol plant. It is very interesting and I encourage a bit of research on the issue.

In terms of the case to be made and the road we want to go down, those in the opposition have a real problem. They have a real problem because this entire issue is based upon a fraud. It is based upon an email that does not exist. It is a fabrication. It was not done by Mr Andrew Charlton. It was not done by the Prime Minister’s office. It was not done by the government. Their whole case rests upon this. The fact is that it is clear from the Leader of the Opposition’s pointing towards Mr Charlton in the advisors box, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did during the Leader of the Opposition’s question when he first raised it on 4 June, it is quite clear from the comments that have been made by senior members of the press gallery, including Paul Kelly, Phil Coorey and Sid Maher, and it is quite clear from the intimidation that occurred of Dr Charlton at the press gallery ball that those opposite were involved in pedalling round this story and making serious accusations but having absolutely nothing to back it up. You compare it with the history of the Leader of the Opposition and, when you look at his history of bullying, his history on fake documents and his history on all of these activities, what it shows is a man without integrity who is prepared to do absolutely anything to get ahead.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A grubby opportunist.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A grubby opportunist is what the Leader of the Opposition is.

Question put.