Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is considering the Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill 2009. The so-called ‘special purpose vehicle’—SPV, dubbed OzCar—was established to help car dealers unable to obtain ongoing finance because of the credit squeeze. I remind the Senate that the credit squeeze was exacerbated by the mismanagement of the credit squeeze by Labor. Firstly, Labor’s ill-thought-out bank guarantee saw a flight of capital from credit companies to the banks. The consequences are there for all to see. Also, Labor’s huge spendathon, which has now sucked up $200 billion—and it is ever increasing—from the credit markets, made the credit supply all the more difficult. I still do not know how Mr Rudd and Mr Swan say with a straight face that somehow you deal with a credit crisis by putting a greater demand on credit resources by borrowing an extra $200 billion, which, by the end of it all, I think will be $315 billion.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bizarre.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It really is, as Senator Fifield says, quite bizarre. It is an act of economic stupidity and long-term vandalism to the rightful inheritance of the next generation of Australians. When Labor make these economically irresponsible decisions there are flow-on consequences. And, of course, the flow-on consequence for car dealers was that they found themselves in real strife. That is what happens. Once you start unsettling one part of the economy, there are flow-on consequences. Therefore, a mechanism was needed to assist the car dealers. That mechanism was established with the great announcement and great fanfare of the $2 billion OzCar fund. We now know, courtesy of Senate estimates—and it was never issued by way of press release—that although the $2 billion was announced with great fanfare, it shrank to $850 million, and we think it is now down to $450 million. There was no further discussion by way of media releases as to that, but we found that out.

We have also found out that OzCar, the special purpose vehicle facility, would not be in existence but for the need of Ford Credit, for which the parameters of the original OzCar were substantially changed. Indeed, the incontrovertible evidence is that, but for Ford Credit’s needs, OzCar would not even have been established. What was the importance for Ford Credit? Very simply, Ford Credit provides funding to the car dealerships which, not surprisingly, sell Ford motor vehicles. If the car dealerships that sell these vehicles cannot exist, there is then—and this is interesting—a knock-on effect to Ford manufacturing in this country. Therefore, this facility is needed, and we support the government in establishing the facility and expanding the parameters to allow Ford Credit into the scheme, something which it was not designed for originally. These are the flow-on, knock-on consequences of the irresponsible decisions which Labor has taken.

There has been some questioning around the issue of Ford Credit’s involvement in the OzCar scheme, and I want to place a few statements of fact on the record. But, first, I want to deal with a number of smokescreens that have been put up. Firstly, there has been a deliberate campaign by Labor to suggest that the opposition created a fake email. There is no evidence, and, might I add, it is a completely false assertion. Are we actually to believe that somebody from the opposition, on the evidence known, broke into Treasury to create it on a Treasury computer? That is fanciful stuff. I know there have been a number of journalists anxious to ask me questions. Given that it was created on a Treasury computer, I just wonder why they do not ask Mr Rudd and Mr Swan, ‘Do you believe that somebody from the opposition actually went in there to create this fake email?’or whether he will now apologise. I think we know what the answer will be. They will not even bother to ask Mr Rudd that question, unfortunately. The second point and the second smokescreen is that the whole case of the opposition against Mr Swan was based on the email. Can I simply say that that email bore no relationship whatsoever, in any way, shape or form, to the allegations that still stand firm against Mr Swan—and they remain very firm.

I will make some other observations, especially in relation to my friends in the media who, all of a sudden, seem very interested in me: some of your members have been willing to risk imprisonment for not revealing their sources. It is a matter of great honour to them, yet they apply a completely different standard to the opposition when the opposition says, ‘We will not reveal our sources.’ It is interesting. Remember when Mr Rudd was going on about the Australian Wheat Board and he had cable after cable leaked to him?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where did he get those from?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could ask that question, Senator Fifield, but, interestingly, Mr Rudd was not asked by the media: ‘Reveal your sources.’ No such demand was made. Why not? Where is the standard here? I say to those journalists who rely on information provided to them: be very careful with this push—and I would in fact invite them to read the editorial in the Australian.

Can I also say that I am astounded at the language used. It seems that if a public servant gives information to a Labor opposition, all of a sudden they become a hero and they are a whistleblower. If a public servant gives information to a Liberal-National opposition they are a mole—an interesting change and nuance in the language employed by our very objective friends in the media! I would invite them to consider, and consider very carefully, their use of language and the way that they have sought to pursue this matter.

In case anybody is interested, the Hansard is up. On Friday, 19 June there was a hearing of a Senate committee, and I invite everybody to read that Hansard and the statements contained therein. May I say that the questions that I raised therein were proper for any opposition to follow up on the basis of information received. If certain questions had not been asked and journalists had somehow found out that certain information may or may not have been received by the opposition, the headlines would have been that we are gutless and that we do not know what the role of opposition is. The role of opposition is to test the material that is supplied to us from time to time. Read the Hansard, even upside down if you like, and you will find nothing other than a testing of information, a testing of propositions, which, as we now know, the witness was not allowed to answer because of the deliberate interference of Labor senators and the senior officer at the table.

But let us get back to the facts that do not rely on any email whatsoever. The facts are these: the Treasurer of this country knew via emails going to his home fax that a Treasury official would raise the issue of a Mr John Grant at a meeting on 23 February 2009—a crucial meeting. Without its $550 million requirement of guarantee Ford Credit would be sunk and, without Ford Credit, Ford manufacturing would be sunk. This was the seriousness of the proposition; there were thousands of jobs at stake.

We weasel into the discussion courtesy of a Treasury official with the specific instruction of the Treasurer: ‘By the way, there’s a fellow called John Grant who needs financing for his car dealership. By the way, I just happen to have with me his mobile telephone number. It might be helpful. By the way, he is a mate of the Prime Minister, but that is all irrelevant and the mobile number’s here. Give him a ring.’ And the Ford officials rang Mr Grant that very day and arranged to have further discussions a few days later. Can you imagine the immense pressure on Ford Credit? They were fighting not only for Ford Credit’s life but also for Ford’s manufacturing life in Australia—$550 million for Ford Credit plus all their investment in Ford manufacturing.

It was a huge burden and I lay no blame on Ford Credit for ringing Mr John Grant. But I do blame the Treasurer of this country for using his officers to ask for such an accommodation for Mr John Grant. Out of all the car dealers that had problems in this country, not a single one got the favoured treatment that John Grant did. Why John Grant, a mate and benefactor of the Prime Minister of this country? No questions about that. That is the absolute truth. That is the absolute situation. Mr John Grant, out of all the car dealers, was offered that special deal. Indeed, in trying to run his own defence—and the media should see this as very contemptuous of the parliament—Mr Swan put down a press pack of emails. He did not table it in the parliament where he was under attack but gave it to the media late in the afternoon so the opposition could not see it and respond to it until the next day. See how Labor is always driven by the media cycle? But finally the media did provide us with a copy of the emails and, as a result, the opposition could go through them.

Those emails are very telling, because they disclose that those car dealers on which Treasury officials were working had a detailed analysis attached to them: somebody was not in a financially sound position; somebody else was an elderly couple, but the children did not want to take over the family business and there no succession plan. And so the detailed analysis went on. Where was the analysis of Mr John Grant’s business? It was not even John Grant. I think it was just ‘John tells us he fits the criteria’. That was the rigorous assessment that the Treasurer demanded. What a rigorous assessment: ‘John tells us it’s OK’. What else do the emails tell us? Every other car dealer was referred to by the name of the business. What about Mr Grant’s? Was it John Grant Motors? Was it even Mr Grant? Was it even John Grant? No, the emails flowing to the Treasurer’s home fax spoke of ‘John’: ‘John this’; ‘John that’; ‘John said.’ The familiarity just reeks of Labor Party mateship and Labor Party deals. No other car dealer was referred to only by their Christian name in these emails emanating from Mr Swan’s office which reported progress back to Mr Swan’s home fax. No other car dealer got that sort of special treatment.

Our case against Mr Swan is based on his misleading advice to the parliament that John Grant was dealt with in no special way; that he was dealt with no differently. We now know for a fact that it was only John Grant’s case that went to the Treasurer’s home fax. We now know from the information released that the only car dealer who was referred to by Christian name only was our dear friend John, Mr John Grant. We know that it was the only case raised on that particular Monday, 23 February with Ford Credit. Others had been raised with Ford Credit previously, but it was the only case on that particular Monday at the crucial meeting in Melbourne which was to help determine whether Ford Credit would be accommodated. The case of John Grant was raised and his mobile phone number handed over with a message ‘He’s a mate of the Prime Minister.’ It was all done with the full knowledge of the Treasurer, and when the bureaucrat got back to Canberra he sent an email outlining what he had done and that then got shot off to the Treasurer’s home fax as well.

The case is now clearly established that Mr Swan can no longer maintain and sustain his argument about Mr Grant. Mr Swan cannot say in any way, shape or form that John Grant was not treated in a preferential manner. He was treated in a preferential manner, and when the bureaucrat first got the message from the Treasurer’s office it was made perfectly clear that this was no ordinary constituent. There was something special about this man; he was a mate of the Prime Minister.

The legislation before us is necessitated by Labor’s poor handling of the economy. The credit crisis has been exacerbated by Labor’s foolish bank guarantee, which has had a flow-on consequence with people withdrawing money from credit companies into banks, and as a result the credit companies cannot provide the credit assistance that they have in the past. And if Ford Credit—and that is basically the only company that is now being accommodated by this—were not accommodated, Ford dealerships may well collapse around the country which would have dire consequences for Ford Australia’s manufacturing.

If Mr Swan’s involvement in Mr John Grant’s case had happened in the state of New South Wales, it would, without any measure of doubt, have been referred to ICAC. I thought my home state of Tasmania were the limbo champs with the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. Senator Parry and Senator Bushby, who are sitting here with me, know that when somebody is caught misleading the parliament—even in state Labor—they do the decent thing and actually resign. And here is Mr Swan continuing to assert that nothing special was done. Clearly, something very special was done, and to suggest that the opposition’s case against Mr Swan relies on the email is simply false. It is untrue. The evidence is there for itself.

In my time as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian, I have always told people, ‘You can rely on my assurance that I will not breach confidences.’ If something is given to me confidentially, it will remain so with me—even if it becomes uncomfortable for me and even if it does become easier to reveal my source. My own personal integrity and my own professional integrity say that you cannot be concerned about yourself; it is about those people to whom you have given a promise and an assurance. So I say to my friends in the media and the Labor Party: do you really want a senator to breach a confidence and pursue that or do you want to pursue a Treasurer who, on the documentation that he has tabled in his flawed defence, shows that he has misled the parliament not once, not twice, but on more than half a dozen occasions over the past week or so. So, I indicate that the opposition supports the bill.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will not be supporting this legislation. I will give cogent reasons for that in a moment. First, I want to refer to the contribution from Senator Abetz. He has turned his guns on the journalists today, saying that some of the members of that group have been prepared to go to prison rather than reveal their sources. But there is no journalist who has the power in the first place to veto a court that might hear the case that would lead to that outcome. This is not so with Senator Abetz. Today in this parliament, when a motion was put up by Senator Ludwig to refer matters to the Privileges Committee, the coalition and Senator Fielding effectively abolished the court, by refusing that reference. So there is not a clear analogy here at all. What should have happened, of course, was that the reference to the Privileges Committee—which, by the way, meets in camera and does protect sources—should have gone ahead. But it was blocked. Senator Abetz may have fled the chamber at the time of the vote—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. Firstly, it is a reflection on a senator to suggest that I ‘fled’ the chamber. Secondly, I was paired. Given that the motion related to me personally, I thought that I should not be casting a vote and that a pair was appropriate. But Senator Brown cannot help himself; he has to reflect on me.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying: Senator Abetz fled the chamber, through the pair mechanism, and that is on the record. Senator Abetz has at least now—

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I ask you to withdraw your comments about Senator Abetz ‘fleeing’ the chamber.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. He left the chamber—if you see a difference there, Madam Acting Deputy President. He said he did himself.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Brown, I ask you to withdraw your statement about Senator Abetz ‘fleeing’ the chamber.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did and I do. He left the chamber, as he said, and was not present for the vote. What we have established now is that Senator Abetz knew—I did not—that the reference to the Privileges Committee involved him. That is his own admission. He said, ‘I invite anyone to read the Hansard.’ Well, I do read the Hansard. On page 35 of the Hansard of the economics committee proceedings last week, Senator Abetz says, ‘A person, a journalist in fact, has suggested to me that there may have been a communication from the Prime Minister’s office.’ I asked Senator Abetz to say who that journalist was, and—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don’t reveal my sources.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is not going to reveal his sources! I asked him if he would talk to that journalist and say, ‘Do you mind if you have me reveal the source?’ You see, what is happening is that there are double standards; one applies to journalists but the other applies to—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senators will remain quiet and we will listen to Senator Bob Brown in silence.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is one set of standards that applies to journalists, who Senator Abetz has turned his aim at. But the other set of standards applies to unknown people, who he says are journalists—and only he can tell us whether they are fictional or not—that he wants to protect. He says that the role of the opposition is to test material provided. Well, so is the role of the Privileges Committee. Its role is, above all, to defend the integrity of the committee system and this chamber and to make sure that there is no avenue for deceit, cover-up, misinformation or the Senate being left without information which ought to be before it. If there were integrity and honesty in the stand of Senator Abetz, who now identifies himself, he would have ensured that, rather than being paired, he came across and voted for the inquiry, because the inquiry would have enabled him to clear any inference at all about him. But instead—in a very sad day for the Senate—the numbers were used in a political exercise to block the Privileges Committee from defending the interests of this Senate and its committee system. I would ask all members of the coalition and Senator Fielding to reflect on that. That motion should be back in here and reversed before the day is through, and it is up to them to decide whether they are going to do that or not. But, of course, there is no chance, because there is a political influence on the vote in this chamber to defend the opposition.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: Senator Brown is referring to a vote of the Senate early today which, under standing orders, he is not allowed to do.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Brown is allowed to refer to the vote. I do not believe he is reflecting on it.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry has not been here nearly as long as I have, or he would know better than that.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, could I ask you to refer that matter to the President. That matter was reflecting on votes. Senator Brown asked us to come back and vote again. That is reflecting on a vote of the Senate.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I heard the point of order as I was entering the chamber and, in a disorderly comment, I actually said that you are able to refer to a vote in the chamber. Madam Acting Deputy President, you may well accept Senator Parry’s invitation to raise that matter with the President, but I would make this point to you: there is nothing to prevent any senator at any time from referring to a vote in the chamber. There is, of course, a standing order that relates to reflecting on a vote in the chamber. When Senator Parry made his point of order, he actually used the terminology ‘referring’, and I made a comment as a result of that. But I would respectfully suggest that that is a very different issue from a point of order that might be taken—a matter for ruling, of course, by the chair—about reflecting on a vote of the Senate. There is a substantive difference, and I would respectfully suggest that Senator Parry needs to take account of that.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do believe Senator Faulkner may be correct about my terminology being incorrect. However, I still ask that the President review this matter, look at Hansard and determine whether or not Senator Brown was reflecting on a vote of the Senate.

The Acting Deputy President:

I will refer it to the President.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I endorse that reference, Madam Acting Deputy President. The Greens will not be supporting this legislation. We believe there is a much better use for this guarantee money than the use to which the government now wishes to put it. But we do not want to back an estimated $550 million more of taxpayers’ money going to this industry. It must be seen in the context of a much wider support base for the industry from government in Australia. The fringe benefits tax concession was worth $1.9 billion. The Commonwealth recently gave $149 million to Holden for the production of four-cylinder cars. The government announced last year a $1.3 billion Green Car Innovation Fund. The government is carrying on the Howard government’s move to continue to provide $2 billion more to industry over the period 2006 to 2010 through tax credits on imported cars. The Rudd government has committed a further $3.4 billion in assistance for the industry, which it plans to roll out from 2011 to 2020.

The addition $550 million in support for car dealerships stands in contrast to the outrage expressed by the industry against the increase in the luxury car tax in 2008. There are legitimate questions over why this industry is supported above funding for the public transport sector. The government indicated in the last budget that it will spend $3.2 billion on metro rail over five years at an average of just $637 million a year. This is just one-third of the annual assistance provided to the car industry from the fringe benefits tax. Surely, that is totally out of whack in an age of climate change and an age of a very great need for infrastructure to go into the public transport sector. Such funding further institutionalises car dependence, increases our vulnerability to rising oil prices, and creates costs to our health and our community.

In the second reading debate the coalition indicated they are largely supporting this bill because it will support and protect jobs in country areas. We believe the money could be much better spent not just on protecting jobs in country regions but through a green new deal creating thousands more jobs in the country. The government ought to be equally concerned about the impact of climate change on many more jobs in rural and regional areas, including 128,000 jobs in the Murray-Darling Basin and 63,000 jobs on the Great Barrier Reef. It ought to be willing and prepared to support a higher renewable energy target and a higher greenhouse gas abatement target. That will do much more to generate employment than ensuring the car industry in the diminishing way in which this program has been put forward. It is public money. There are alternative uses. There are better uses for creating jobs in rural and regional Australia. The Greens have put those uses forward, and we want to see the money go in that direction instead.

Debate interrupted.