Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to treat all car dealers equally in relation to the OzCar scheme

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

I will provide no rhetoric and no great emotion—even though this is an issue that calls for some emotion—but just a clinical analysis of what is going on. On 4 June 2009, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Treasurer said in relation to John Grant Motors:

It is the case that Mr Grant made representations to my office, and he was referred on to the SPV—

the special purpose vehicle—

just like everybody else.

Just like everybody else. He went on to say:

I have no idea what the outcome of that was. But it is entirely normal that, in circumstances where car dealers right around this country were potentially going to the wall, car dealers would have been ringing members of parliament, including the Treasurer’s office, asking how they could make contact with this organisation in the Treasury establishing the vehicle. That is the situation—an entirely normal situation, as the Treasury officials have reported in estimates today.

So the Treasurer said in this place that the treatment of Mr Grant was an entirely normal situation and he was treated just like everybody else.

His own words in the Hansard from Monday, 22 June were, ‘We on this side of the House took the responsible decision to involve them in the special purpose vehicle that 240-odd dealerships, most located in rural and regional Australia, would not go to the wall.’ After numerous questions today and over the last few days, for the first time the Treasurer conceded that of the 240 car dealerships—of all the car dealerships, and the Treasurer has referred to many—that were seeking support from the government and that approached his office, approached their members of parliament and approached the Treasury, only one car dealer had a direct conversation with the Treasurer, and that was John Grant from John Grant Motors, who, it has been established without any dispute, donated a car to the Prime Minister. Step 1: only one dealer had the personal phone conversation with the Treasurer.

Step 2. After numerous questions today, which the Treasurer could barely bring himself to answer, it appears that only one car dealer—just one out of 240 that were interested—had details and regular updates about their progress going directly and indisputably to the Treasurer through the Treasurer’s home facsimile.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who was it?

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

John Grant from John Grant Motors. Just one car dealer got a personal phone call and just one car dealer gets regular updates sent to the Treasurer’s home.

The most significant correspondence has yet to be further discussed in this place. The starting point is the correspondence from Mr Andrew Thomas directly to Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, at his home fax. It is dated 20 February 2009—a Friday night—at 7.27 pm. It went to the Treasurer’s home. It reads like this:

Treasurer, both Godwin Grech and I have spoken to John Grant this evening. Godwin will arrange for Capital Financial to contact John in the next couple of days.

In other words, over the weekend. It goes on:

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. John has not yet been in contact with either. We are confident—

this is the Treasurer’s adviser talking directly to the Treasurer—

we can arrange for John to be taken up by one of these two.

After John Grant had approached the Treasurer—and I assume that there was one phone call but, I tell you what, we are going to find out if there were more—John Grant’s case is taken up. The Treasurer’s DLO says that they will work over the next couple of days—over the weekend—to find finance for the Prime Minister’s benefactor. And you know what? Here they are saying that before this crucial meeting with Ford Credit on Monday that they are absolutely confident that one of two finance companies will take up this facility.

On the Monday, there was a meeting with Ford Credit. You need to understand where Ford Credit was at, at that particular moment. Ford Credit was on the verge of complete collapse. I refer to the email from Godwin Grech to the Treasurer’s home on the Monday, at 8.23 pm. These words went directly to the Treasurer. They were not ‘reply to all’, they were actually to the Treasurer’s home—to the Treasurer. It was to the Treasurer and to Andrew Thomas, from his office:

Andrew, as promised—

that is, as promised to the Treasurer’s office—

I raised the case of John Grant with the CEO of Ford Credit, Greg Cohen, during my meeting with Ford Credit in Melbourne today.

I met with Ford Credit as part of the ongoing negotiations I have been having—along with Credit Suisse—to come up with a possible response to Ford Credit’s request … that the Government arrange for Ford Credit to access up to $500 million for around 12 months to allow it to continue to run its wholesale floorplan financing business in Australia.

As you know, Ford Credit will shut down the business if they cannot secure access to capital.

That was sent directly to the Treasurer. So the Treasurer—firstly—engaged in a direct conversation with just one dealer, John Grant from John Grant Motors. Secondly, the Treasurer has updates and briefings sent directly to his home for just one car dealer: John Grant, of John Grant Motors. Thirdly, the Treasurer is informed, directly to his home on a Friday night, that at a crucial meeting with Ford Credit that goes to the very survival of Ford Credit—access to $500 million—the Treasury official was going to raise the issue of just one car dealer: John Grant, of John Grant Motors. Then there is the report facsimile in relation to just one car dealer on the night of the meeting with Ford Credit, and it is that of John Grant. In fact, in that email, no other car dealership was raised. The head of Ford Credit and others have suggested that there might have been others. But what we do know, from evidence presented to the Senate, is that there was just one car dealer who had his mobile phone number passed across to the CEO of Ford Credit in that meeting where they were on their hands and knees begging for government support. He was described to the CEO of Ford Credit as an acquaintance of the Prime Minister, from Queensland. His name: John Grant, from John Grant Motors—one car dealer. You know what? The Treasurer said in this place that this was an entirely normal situation. He said:

It is the case that Mr Grant made representations to my office and he was referred on to the SPV just like everybody else.

Did everybody else receive personal phone calls from the Treasurer? No. Did everybody else have updates of their personal circumstances faxed directly to the Treasurer’s home? No. Everybody else got the attention on a Friday night, where it was flagged. It was guaranteed by the Treasurer’s own office to the Treasurer that if Ford Credit will not do it someone else will. At a meeting on the following Monday, there was a guarantee from the departmental liaison officer to the Treasurer that ‘John will be taken care of’. And then, on the Monday, the Treasury official Godwin Grech reported back to the Treasurer at his home. More than half of the email refers to the fact that John Grant, and I quote:

… Cohen—

that is, the head of Ford Credit

gave me an undertaking that Ford Credit will actively look at taking Grant on.

Ford Credit do not provide credit to Kia dealers. It is extraordinary, really.You are asking the Ford dealership to provide credit to a Kia motor dealer. Of course they are going to look at it. Of course they are going to break the rules of Ford Credit. Why wouldn’t they? It is the Treasurer. It is an acquaintance of the Prime Minister. It is someone who has given a car to the Prime Minister. It is someone that the Prime Minister knows from Queensland. ‘And, of course, here is his mobile phone number. Please action, Ford.’ What a surprise! How astounding that Ford would react and say: ‘Yes, we will discuss it. Of course we will contact John Grant.’ How ironic it is that Ford moved so quickly that this email update to the Treasurer’s own home, on the Monday night after the meeting, said:

John Grant called Godwin Grech earlier this afternoon (from Auckland)—to say that Ford Credit had been in contact with him after my meeting.

Well, of course! The head of Ford Credit goes straight out the door, rings the mobile phone straight away and says, obviously, ‘We will look at your case.’ The email goes on to say:

Ford Credit and Grant are to commence serious dialogue this Thursday.

so three days later. The email continues:

Grant seemed pleased.

I bet he did. He got the Rolls Royce treatment from the Treasurer, who said that John Grant was treated ‘just like everybody else’.

That says something about this debate—that the Treasurer has not shown the courage to walk in here and defend his own actions. Instead, he has sent the kid. If there were an MPI about my integrity or, having said that, about any minister’s integrity, that minister would have the courage to come into this place and defend their reputation, but not Wayne Swan. Wayne Swan is not in the business of defending his reputation—

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

The member will refer to members in the appropriate way.

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

The Treasurer is in the business of obfuscating. You know what, we are not going to give up on this because we know that this Treasurer has misled the Australian people about the relationship with the Prime Minister’s benefactor and mate from Queensland.

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

I remind members that a general warning still applies.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a weak attempt from a desperate opposition. Is it any surprise that the Leader of the Opposition is not in the chamber? Just last Friday he was calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister of Australia and the Treasurer of Australia. It comes to Tuesday and he has not even turned up for the first MPI on this matter. It just shows how seriously the Leader of the Opposition has miscalculated. He has gone from calling for the resignation of the leader of this nation to being missing in action within a couple of days.

Yesterday was a remarkable day. It is not often you see the credibility of a member of this House shredded in the course of 24 hours, and that is what we saw yesterday with the Leader of the Opposition and alternative Prime Minister. His credibility was destroyed within 24 hours, such that it is no longer tenable or sustainable for him to remain in his office and he must resign.

The opposition has been a flailing around trying to salvage a skerrick of credibility over the last 24 hours out of this imbroglio that they have created for themselves. There have been some bizarre moments as they do that. Bizarre moment No. 1 came yesterday when the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, who we just heard from, laid claim to some form of vindication because the Australian Federal Police had found an email. He breathlessly rose at 12.50 pm yesterday in the House and said:

Mr Speaker, I should inform the House of a news report on the ABC Broadcasting site which is headlined, ‘Australian Federal Police descend on Grech’s house’ …

He went on to say:

The report goes on to say the ‘police are now interviewing Mr Grech about the email which appears to have been concocted inside the Treasury Department.’

Breathless, he was. He then said:

So, an email does exist, according to this report. The Prime Minister said there was no email, and yet evidence … from a Federal Police investigation suggests that an email—

does exist—

Evidence from an emerging report suggests, firstly, that an email does exist, which contradicts what the Prime Minister said on Friday night, that an extensive search of the computer systems of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet as well as the Treasury department said no email exists.

So the member for North Sydney did not seem to care it was a fake or a forgery or a fraud; he was just happy that they had found an email, as he tried desperately to seek some vindication for himself out of the events that he and his leader had created.

Bizarre moment No. 2 came last night. This has already been referred to but it is too good to let go. This is just breathtaking. Last night on the 7.30 Report we saw the Leader of the Opposition in what must go down as one of the most woeful performances in the history of that fine program. It is a big call but I am prepared to make it—that that was the most woeful performance we have seen on the 7.30 Report. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said last night:

All we’ve heard, as we heard in the introduction to this program, is that it appears that if it was concocted, it was concocted in the Treasury. That’s Mr Swan’s responsibility, not mine.

Now we have heard it all: the Treasurer has been conspiring against himself! It is his responsibility that this has happened—not the Leader of the Opposition’s responsibility that he took a forgery, a fraud, a fake and based upon it a call for the resignation of the Prime Minister of Australia. That apparently is not the member for Wentworth’s responsibility; that is somehow Mr Swan’s responsibility. So desperate to distract from the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had called for the resignation of the Prime Minister, based upon a lie, that he is prepared to claim that a forgery that was allegedly concocted in the Treasury to ensnare the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is the responsibility of the Treasurer.

The Treasurer has been conspiring against himself, according to the Leader of the Opposition, but of course none of this can divert from the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is failing to adequately account for his knowledge of events leading up to yesterday.

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

The minister needs to be careful about the reference to lying. That is for future reference.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be clear, I was referring to the fake email as a lie.

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

I understand, but I will draw the member’s attention to it.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do take your point, Madame Deputy Speaker. We know that the Leader of the Opposition told Dr Charlton at the Midwinter Ball in the Great Hall that there was documentary evidence about the Prime Minister making representations to the Treasury. Unless he was referring to something else, I assume he was referring to the email we now know is a forgery. He admitted this morning on the Sunrise program—and this is also very interesting—that he knew about certain matters:

Turnbull: We did not make any accusation against the Prime Minister until after Godwin Grech had given sworn evidence in the Senate.

Koch: Did you know that was coming?

Turnbull: Well of course we had some, absolutely, we, we—

Koch: And you knew what he was going to say?

Turnbull: Well we certainly were expecting based on information we’d received from—

Koch: From who?

Turnbull: (inaudible) I’m not going to go into that he would say—

Koch: Why not?

Turnbull: that he had had a communication. Well Kochie I don’t want to go any further than that.

I wouldn’t either. Then this morning it gets worse. On AM Lyndal Curtis, an award winning journalist no less, said:

LYNDAL CURTIS: … Has anyone in the Opposition, to your knowledge, spoken to Mr Grech in the last few months apart from that conversation Joe Hockey said he had?

In fairness, I do not think Joe Hockey did have a conversation. I wish to say that the member for North Sydney left a message, which is completely different. The interview continued:

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I’m sure they have. I mean Mr Grech is very well known and I have certainly spoken to Mr Grech.

So said the Leader of the Opposition. So could the Leader of the Opposition do one thing before he tenders his resignation? Could he provide full disclosure of the opposition’s knowledge about this sordid little matter?

As we all know, the opposition’s case has two parts to it, and the second leg has as little substance as the first. The first is that the Prime Minister made representations to the Treasury—Dr Charlton did it on his behalf—by sending an email. We now know that to be a complete and utter fraud. The second leg has as little substance: that the Treasurer gave favourable treatment to Mr John Grant. That has been completely debunked over the last 24 hours. First, we saw the chief executive of the Motor Traders Association of Australia, Michael Delaney, who has been closely involved with the government in sorting out problems for car dealers—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And for the Labor Party.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And yes, we just heard the opposition again doing what they did in question time by now traducing his reputation. It was not good enough to traduce the reputation of ministers of the Crown; now we traduce the reputation of a man who represents employers in this country, because he had the temerity to tell the truth. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should hang your head in shame, as should your colleagues, traducing the reputation of a man because he dared to tell the truth, because he dared to stand up and say that the government has done nothing wrong. That is what this opposition does; it is their modus operandi—when caught out, traduce; when caught out, smear; when caught out, exaggerate. The chief executive of the Motor Traders Association, an organisation which represents employers, came out and said that this case was handled no differently from any other. In fact Mr John Grant probably got a little worse treatment because he went directly to the Treasurer not to the Treasury. It was a pretty compelling statement.

Then overnight the Treasurer released a series of emails showing that a range of cases received close and personal attention from the Treasurer’s office. None of them were from Mr John Grant of John Grant Motors. I will share one example with the House, an email of 28 April, 7.01 pm. The opposition has made the claim that because emails are sent after hours somehow that shows that special attention is being given. Okay, fair enough. This is in relation to a female dealer. I do not know her name because it is blacked out, appropriately, in the email, but we can take it as read that it is a female, that it is not John Grant. The email says:

I took a call this morning from [name]. She told me that the Treasurer’s office suggested she speak to me …

So she was referred to the Treasury as Mr Grant was. It goes on to outline some details and then it says:

I and Credit Suisse spoke to the Australian head of [an unknown finance company] early this afternoon to determine what scope there was for that company to keep financing [name].

So there you have the Treasury official talking to the Australian head, the chief executive, of a finance company trying to get finance for this individual. It is exactly the same as occurred with Ford Credit and Mr John Grant. But this person, presumably, had never had the misfortune of meeting a member of the government or of knowing the Prime Minister, because, according to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition, that would disqualify them from getting that assistance. It goes on to outline the support given by the Treasury and the Treasurer’s office to that individual. When you look through these emails it is quite clear on any objective reading that the Treasurer’s office was actively working and assisting a whole range of car dealers, and so they should, because that is the job of the Treasurer and the Treasurer’s office.

The opposition makes a case that Ken Henry, the Secretary of the Treasury, was personally copied in to the emails on Mr Grant. They said that that was inappropriate: how could the Secretary of the Treasury be singled out to be informed about one dealer? There is only one problem with that little equation: out of the 131 emails between Mr Grech and the Treasurer’s office, 82 were copied to the Secretary of the Treasury, dealing with a range of car dealers.

As I said yesterday in the House, the Treasurer of Australia is a very good man. He is also a very good Treasurer and a very competent man. When did the opposition first raise this issue? When it became apparent that Australia had returned positive growth in the last quarter. So they had their little tactics meeting and they said: ‘Well, we had better get off the economy. We cannot attack the Treasurer’s competence and we cannot attack the Prime Minister’s competence, because they are leading Australia through the global economic crisis. We are actually now the fastest-growing developed country in the world. We have the second-lowest unemployment of any developed country in the world. So we had better not make those cases anymore because they are in tatters. I know what we will do. We will traduce the reputation of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. We will raise questions about their integrity, because we can no longer raise questions about their competence.’

Oppositions are entitled to pursue whatever tactics they like. They are entitled to raise questions. They are entitled to raise issues. They are more than entitled, they are obliged to do that. But what they are not entitled or obliged to do is to call for the resignation of the leader of the nation based on a forgery. They are not entitled to traduce the reputations of good people whether they be government ministers or heads of employer organisations or public servants or others.

But we all know this opposition, who—so disappointed at having been thrown out of office in 2007—when under pressure, traduce the reputation of good people and public servants. They have done it to Ken Henry and Graeme Samuel; they have done it to many. Now they are doing it to the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and Mr Delaney. The opposition can make all sorts of allegations in any method they like, but the activities of the opposition over the last few days say a lot more about them and the Leader of the Opposition than they ever will about the government, the Treasurer or the Prime Minister.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The hallmark of this government, which is 19 months old tomorrow, is already crystal clear: reward your mates and punish your enemies. There are the Labor mates, the Ipswich car dealer who parties and dines with the Prime Minister. He needs a bit of government assistance and the government is there and ready. Those people who are battling in small business right around the country, when they need assistance, there is nothing on offer. When the car dealer from Ipswich speaks to his local member, the member for Oxley, he contacts the Treasurer who immediately offers to ring up the car dealer, Mr John Grant. This is service of high quality. It is the service that you would expect, perhaps, for the Queen.

The Treasurer did not call any other car dealer, just this one who was a Labor mate and who just so happened to need some assistance. After the government released selected emails, it became all the more clear that this car dealer was singled out for special treatment. The member for Flynn made representations about Longreach Motors. Longreach Motors did not get a special call from the Treasurer. The member for Grey raised concerns about a car dealer in his electorate but that car dealer did not get a special call from the Treasurer. They often talk about the service that was provided to the member for Riverina in response to concerns about one car dealer, but that car dealer did not get a special call from the Treasurer. We heard in reply to this matter of public importance a reference, a few moments ago, to a female car dealer that the government lauds as an example of their quality of service, but that car dealer did not get a call from the Treasurer. Only one car dealer got a call from the Treasurer.

But the red carpet treatment did not end there. Mr Swan then passed details to his senior adviser, who contacted the Treasury official with responsibility for the program in question, OzCar. The official then rang Mr Grant and reported back to a series of people in the Treasurer’s office and his own department. That information was then relayed from the Treasurer’s office to Mr Swan’s Brisbane home via fax. No other car dealer got a progress report for the Treasurer faxed to his home. The car dealer in Longreach did not get a progress report faxed to the Treasurer’s home on the weekend about what was happening in his case. The car dealers in Grey and Riverina did not get a fax to the Treasurer’s home about progress on their cases and neither did the female car dealer referred to just a few moments ago. Her case was not reported to the Treasurer by fax. The reality is that no other car dealer got such close attention and detailed reports back to the Treasurer’s home on Friday on his home fax.

And then, of course, there was a lot more than that. That was not the end of the service. When there was a discussion going on about how car dealers could be assisted, the Treasury officials chose to mention and give the phone number of this car dealer to Ford Credit. The car dealer at Longreach’s phone number was not given to Ford Credit and neither were the phone numbers of the car dealers in Grey and Riverina or the female car dealer referred to a few moments ago. None of that was provided to Ford Credit with the request that they provide some assistance. Just one car dealer was chosen for this kind of special treatment, and that car dealer was a friend of the Prime Minister, a friend of the Treasurer—a car dealer who just happened to provide a vehicle for the Prime Minister, with all expenses paid year-in-year-out to assist him in his electoral duty. This for a Prime Minister who has already got an electorate car, a chauffeur driven limousine in Canberra, access to the whole Comcar fleet and the VIP aircraft to fly him all over the country, but that was not enough.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And a Mazda ute.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He also had to have a Mazda ute to drive around in his electorate, and that came by way of a special treat from a special friend—a person who just happened to live down the street. The Treasurer is asking the parliament to believe that there was nothing unusual about all of this special attention to this car dealer—that it was nothing out of the ordinary. And yet, with all the email traffic that has been released over these days, we cannot find another example where the Treasurer has taken time out, on one of his undoubtedly very busy days, to personally contact an individual car dealer or to have the latest news in relation to his case faxed to his home or to have his case taken up by Treasury officials with Ford Credit.

I know the job of Treasurer is very demanding, and that Friday—20 February—when all of this was happening was probably fairly torrid. A quick check of the records shows that Mr Swan announced on that day the interim chief executive of the Ruddbank—another institution being set up to help the Labor mates, those involved in unit development and property development. It is a bank that is there to help people at the big end of town—there is nothing around to help small business who might have these sorts of problems. But the Treasurer was busy that day trying to set up this new Ruddbank so that there could be assistance provided to people in the big building industry. On that day also the government was providing details on its second cash splash—the big handout. That was all happening. The proposed emissions trading scheme was on his agenda and so, as he said in parliament today, it was a busy day. But, in spite of all that, he could find time to ring up a car dealer to see how he was getting on and how his finances were going. One car dealer got this special treatment even though the Treasurer had weighty things of state on his agenda. I just wish that everybody else could get that level of service.

Treasury officials went to an important meeting with Ford Credit knowing that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer had a special interest in this case. They gave John Grant’s phone number to Ford Credit at the same time as Ford Credit were asking for support for $500 million. I am not suggesting that the Treasury officials were so ham-fisted that they said, ‘If you give this guy a million and a half dollars we’ll give you $500 million.’ I am not suggesting it was like that. I am sure that it was all done with very straight faces and that they talked in very great detail about the importance of the $500 million to protect all of the car dealers of the country. But on the side they would have said, ‘Here’s a phone number. We’d like you to call this guy. The fact that he isn’t a Ford dealer is beside the point. He’s a Kia dealer, but you might like to fix this guy up. Have a bit of a chat to him. Whether he is in New Zealand or wherever he might happen to be, have a bit of a talk to him.’ And this special treatment occurred for this dealer. It did not occur for the dealer at Longreach or for the female dealer we heard about just a few moments ago. It did not happen for the car dealers in Grey or in Wakefield, and yet we are asked to believe that nothing special happened.

I just wish that all ministers were that prompt in responding to issues. I have been waiting for months for replies to letters that I have written to ministers. In fact, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has not replied to a single letter I have written to him since he was appointed minister. That is the normal standard of government response to correspondence, or it is a frequently used standard of response. But here we have a Treasurer, busy at home on a weekend, who can find time to phone up for one of his mates. The reality is that we do not get that kind of treatment when it comes to looking after ordinary Australians. We do not get that kind of treatment when it comes to looking after small business men who are battling. What we have here is something that has clearly happened to support one key person—a person who is a known friend of the Prime Minister, a dining partner who lives up the street and who provided him with a ute. And we are asked to believe that this was just business as usual.

This morning the member for Wakefield parroted the whole line that the government is putting out: ‘All the car dealers were treated the same. It is as simple as that. If there is no email, if the email is a forgery, there is no scandal.’ One email may be a forgery, but there are many others that are not. All of them prove conclusively that the Treasurer gave this car dealer an unparalleled level of attention. There is a scandal all right and the member for Wakefield should know it. There is a long time left for this to run as far as the Treasurer is concerned. Labor resorts, in response, to smear. Right through question time we had answers of smear, raising irrelevant issues that have nothing to do with this, to try and hide the real facts that this government has done a favour for a mate that is not available to ordinary Australians who are doing the tough work themselves.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been hearing over the weekend and in the early part of this week that this is the debate that will bring down the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of the country. You know what the attendance was at the shadow Treasurer’s address on this? Twenty-five of the 64 coalition members thought it was important enough to come along. They stayed away in droves. Thirty-nine coalition MPs thought it was such a yawn that they did not even bother to turn up. Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition, who said this was the great debate that was going to bring down the Prime Minister and that was going to bring down the Treasurer, did not bother to turn up either. They stayed away in droves. Although I do not know the details—it might have been another fractious party room meeting of the coalition this morning—I am assured it is not true that Brendan had someone in a half-nelson. But I believe it is true that the member who has just spoken, the Leader of the National Party, had most of the party in a sleeper hold, so boring was he in his address here in the great debate that was going to bring down the government, bring down the Prime Minister and bring down the Treasurer.

A number of accusations have been made by the coalition, and I want to address some of them. For example, there is an accusation that only John Grant received special attention. The truth of the matter is that the emails that the Treasurer released yesterday show that other car dealers were receiving as much, if not more, attention from the Treasurer. At least three other dealers got similar or greater assistance to that which was offered to John Grant. Treasury also assisted at least four of these dealers by arranging meetings with financiers, including Ford Credit. So that demolishes the argument about special treatment for Mr John Grant.

The coalition are astonished that the Treasurer of the country would have a home fax. That does reveal that they work absolutely strict hours—nine to five. They were a nine-to-five government. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister of this country, now that the Labor Party is in government, do actually work after 5 pm and do have home communications. This is a novelty to the coalition: ‘Wow! How is it that the Treasurer would actually be working after five o’clock and receive faxes and emails at home? Well, well, well!’ What a revelation.

Another accusation is that only John Grant had personal updates sent to the Treasurer’s home fax.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

True!

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

’True,’ he says. Almost 30 per cent of all emails on OzCar that Mr Grech sent to the Treasurer’s office contained documents specifically for the Treasurer’s attention. That a fax went to Brisbane simply reflects the fact that the Treasurer was in Brisbane. If the Treasurer had been in Canberra it would not have been sent to his home fax; it would have been sent to his office. Wow! Remarkable revelation! The fact is that this year the Treasurer’s office has sent 209 faxes to his home via email—and sending a fax to the Treasurer’s home fax is supposed to be a unique event!

A further accusation is that only John Grant, according to the coalition, received personal referrals to finance companies, in particular Ford Credit. Mr Gregory Cohen, Managing Director of Ford Credit, was asked a question about this at a Senate inquiry just the other day. Senator Abetz said:

During those meetings, was the plight of any particular car dealer mentioned to you?

Of course, Senator Abetz thinks: ‘Got him! We’re going to get some really great information.’ Mr Cohen said:

Yes.

Senator Abetz said:

And how many?

He was thinking that Mr Cohen would say, ‘Just the one.’ His answer was:

There are at least three or four that I can recall.

So much for special treatment for one person, John Grant.

On the issue of special treatment—that no-one else got any particular considered treatment—the member for Riverina has been generous enough to acknowledge that her constituent did receive some very good treatment. The member for Riverina made a request on behalf of her constituent, as did Bernie Ripoll, the member for Oxley, and in her case she got a response from the Treasurer’s office saying:

Kay,

I will refer your request to the appropriate person in the department, who will get in touch with—

the car dealer.

I have asked them to keep me informed, so I will let you know when I hear anything.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need to follow anything up.

Regards

Amanda

Amanda is an adviser in the Treasurer’s office. The response from the member for Riverina said:

Thankyou so much Amanda. I so appreciate it

Cheers Kay

Isn’t this personal treatment for the constituent of the member for Riverina? Then there was an email from the treasury department to the Treasurer’s office on Monday, 23 March 2009 saying:

FYI in case Kay Hull asks you where this is at - I have spoken with the dealer … and explained to him where things are at.

Later in the email the Treasury official advised as follows about Kay Hull’s dealer:

I told him to contact Capital Finance and to let me know if he gets resistance.

The case of John Grant was supposed to be a unique event, but that is the treatment that was given to a constituent of the member for Riverina, and she has been generous enough to acknowledge that fact.

The Leader of the Opposition has been saying that he has made no accusations against the Prime Minister or the Treasurer. Well, on Friday, 19 June, he said, ‘The Prime Minister and Treasurer have used their offices and taxpayers’ resources to seek advantage for one of their mates, and then lied about it to the parliament.’ That is a very serious accusation, which the Leader of the Opposition is now denying. He says: ‘I never made any real accusations. I was just saying: “Look, if it is right then there is a problem here.” ‘ This is the same Leader of the Opposition who today, under pressure in the media, admitted to having conversations with Mr Godwin Grech. The shadow Treasurer has also admitted to having conversations with Mr Godwin Grech and yet they have given this impression that here was this public servant doing his job, giving honest and impartial advice, and then they were shocked that he gave this evidence, and on the basis of that evidence called for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to resign. But the truth is that they had been in personal contact with him, including as recently as Saturday. Is it common for the coalition to ring up Treasury officers on a Saturday and say, ‘Oh, I was just thumbing through the phone book and there we are under ‘g’—oh, Grech. I wonder who that bloke is. I’ll give him a call. Hello, Godwin, how are you, brother.’ We know now of some of the basis of that relationship.

The Leader of the National Party just said something that I regard as very offensive. He said that the Australian Business Investment Partnership was set up to support Labor mates. I will ensure that all of those people, including the tradies, the electricians, the plumbers and the carpenters, who would have benefited from this initiative and those who would be in a position to secure the jobs of 50,000 people understand that the Leader of the National Party regards them all as Labor mates. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the National Party do not care about them. We will continue to support small business in this country.

But in the last few weeks the opposition leader has been promoting around town, to everyone who will listen, a false email that he hoped would be his dirty little shortcut to the prime ministership. Well, it has not worked. A dirty little shortcut to the Lodge; that is what he thought he had, in a forged email, despite being told by Dr Andrew Charlton at the mid-winter ball that he did not send that email. The Leader of the Opposition ignored that advice because he thought he had a dirty little shortcut to the Lodge.

Yet, on the Alan Jones program, the opposition leader was asked: ‘Have you sighted the email.’ This was yesterday; it was hilarious. The Leader of the Opposition realised there was a problem emerging with the email so he responded as follows: ‘Alan, I do not want to say any more about the email.’ Yet within 30 seconds the opposition leader volunteered this: ‘This email, let’s talk about the email.’ He is like a moth circling around the light. The law of the light is there and the Leader of the Opposition gets zapped and falls to the ground in a burnt mess. His wings are burnt and he is embarrassed and then dead. Why doesn’t someone do the job for us? Brendan Nelson, come on down; you can be the Colin Barnett of the federal parliament. Come on, Brendan; come on, Peter: save the coalition from this useless Leader of the Opposition.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me first deal with this confected outrage and hypocrisy on the part of the Prime Minister and the ministers who have come in here to try to defend the indefensible. The Prime Minister has now started referring to himself, in the third person—as ‘the Prime Minister’. If you watched him on the 7.30 Report last night you would have been amazed at his confected outrage that somebody would dare to question the Prime Minister’s integrity and would actually ask for the Prime Minister to resign. Well, did you know that during 2006 the member for Griffith called for the resignation of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the minister for agriculture? He did it on 15 different occasions in 15 different press conferences, all based on allegations and accusations that were found not to be true. He did this during the course of a royal commission, while the proceedings were on foot, day after day. The member for Griffith—I don’t think he was the Leader of the Opposition at that time—came into this House and moved censure motions, matters of public importance and asked a series of questions making the most egregious accusations against the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He accused them of heinous crimes. He accused them of lying. He accused them of turning a blind eye to the funding of suicide bombers in Iraq. That is the depth to which this Prime Minister was prepared to go. He accused them and implicated the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the funding of suicide bombers.

He knew that the royal commission would require that those ministers give evidence. He knew that the making of such heinous allegations in the House every day would be covered by parliamentary privilege yet still be reported on the news at night. He went on and on, not just calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister but actually calling for the Deputy Prime Minister to resign and leave the parliament, and this was all during a royal commission. Then, when the royal commission made no adverse finding against the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, did the member for Griffiths apologise? Did he say, ‘I’m sorry, I’ve overreached; I am sorry I have made these heinous allegations based on no evidence at all’? Did he resign? No. Do you know what he did? He stood for the leadership of the Labor Party. That is the kind of conduct that this government condones.

I turn now to the Treasurer. I witnessed the Treasurer’s brazen evasion of answers in question time today. He refused to answer the most basic, straightforward, simple questions such as, ‘How many car dealers got this kind of treatment, Treasurer?’ Guess how many car dealers? One—the Prime Minister’s used-car dealer mate who is a member of the Prime Minister’s luncheon club, who lives down the road from the Prime Minister, who has given the Prime Minister a free car year after year after year worth thousands of dollars to the Prime Minister. The Treasurer refused to answer any of these questions.

The Australian public would be astounded to learn that, under the Prime Minister’s own Standards of ministerial ethics, a minister is required to provide ‘an honest and comprehensive account’ of his activities in answer to questions from members of parliament. A failure to comply with these standards is considered to be a breach of those ministerial standards. The Treasurer has failed to provide an honest and comprehensive account time after time. I listened to the Treasurer say in parliament on 4 June that the Prime Minister’s used-car dealer mate was treated just like everyone else and his comment, ‘I have no idea what the outcome of that was.’ Evidence that was given under oath in the Senate inquiry contradicted the Treasurer on every single claim that he has made, yet the Australian public will be astonished to find that in the Standards of ministerial ethics ministers are not to mislead the House. It is not only a breach of this House but also a breach of the standards—(Time expired)

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Although I am a newcomer to this place, I understand that this would be the first time that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been reduced to speaking in the last five-minute slot. What a shame, with the success of Peter Costello, that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party is being treated with such disrespect by her own party as to be made the nightwatchwoman in this very sad debate.

I have waited for an hour in this MPI to hear the killer blows on the Treasurer. I realise now that those opposite are putting forward five little points. The first point they have made is that somehow Mr Grant is the only person that the Treasurer has assisted. This is not at all true. Mr Greg Cohen, a director of Ford Credit, recalled in his cross-examination by Senator Abetz that at least three or four people with many more communications than Mr Grant were promoted. Yet the opposition bangs on like a broken record on this issue. In fact, between 15 October 2008 and 19 June 2009, there were something like 130 emails from Mr Grech to the Treasurer, 20 of which related directly to car dealers. Again, even though they try to say that Mr Grant received special treatment, Michael Delaney, the head of the Motor Traders Association of Australia, has made it clear that many people received assistance from the government.

The second proposition that the opposition have tried to raise on this issue during this MPI is that sending faxes home somehow proves something sinister. Their third proposition is that to send a fax home on a Friday night must clearly indicate some sort of malfeasance. Not at all—in fact, as the Treasurer has already related, there were 209 faxes this year alone, comprising 1,487 pages. Indeed, 4,638 pages have been sent to the Treasurer’s house since 2007. If we go further, another implication is that raising the issue of individual car dealers with Ford somehow left Ford with no choice but to look at these matters. This is not true and actually gets to the heart of the issue that the Treasurer was dealing with. In the car-dealing industry in Australia, there are 1,400 new car dealers with 3,500 outlets. Over a million new cars were sold in 2007-08. The new car retailers have an estimated turnover of $47 billion and 52,000 people are directly employed. There was a liquidity crisis late last year for car dealerships previously financed by GE Money and GMAC. This led to the establishment of the OzCar SPV. Ford Credit—the parent company in America—had not made any decisions at the time of the foundation of the SPV in December last year to withdraw from the Australian market. However, following complex negotiations, signalled already I stress by the government in December—because the arrangements for Ford were different from those for GE Money and GMAC—Ford Credit was eventually included in the facility. There we have it. The Treasurer, his office, his officials and the government as a whole, on the one hand, have been endeavouring to ensure that there was no collapse of the car industry.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By giving out his phone number.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the member for Bowman finds certain facts inconvenient, but it has been said by the Motor Traders Association of Australia—it has been established—that if this support had not been offered to the car dealers late last year there would have been 500 dealers out of business and the potential loss of 75,000 direct and indirect jobs. The cascade effect into the component industry and the production of automobiles in Australia would have been diabolical. Indeed, the impact upon the bottom line of state revenues would also have been serious. This was the issue that the Treasurer was dealing with. These trumped-up charges that somehow one dealer was getting special attention are not borne out by an examination of the facts.

The truth of the matter is that this MPI is a desperate gesture because the opposition overplayed their hand. They relied on faulty information. They relied on verballing the Prime Minister’s staff at social functions. They have been hawking documents around like some tawdry, bizarre dealership. The questions which they should be offering to answer are: who has read this email; who were they giving it to; who gave the document to Senator Abetz; why was the Leader of the Opposition so confident that evidence was coming; who was doing the briefing; and, most importantly, who was doing the checking? Unfortunately, Wile E Coyote could not have done a better job of running out of cliff and getting himself into all sorts of trouble than the Leader of the Opposition. And that is the problem with the last two days: the opposition have wasted the time of the parliament of Australia—(Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now concluded.