House debates

Thursday, 3 June 2010

Questions without Notice


3:37 pm

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

As I said when asked about this by the media earlier today, as far as Sir Rod’s comment goes on the question of consultation we welcome any commentary from those outside who want to see a good outcome to the negotiations currently underway between the government and the mining industry. Therefore, within that spirit I welcome Sir Rod’s comments on the question of consultation. I note however, that this question was asked by the Leader of the National Party and I note that he is not actually bringing into the frame the leading pin-up boy of the National Party in Queensland, Clive Palmer.

I know Clive was in town yesterday. It is hard to miss Clive—not just his jet, but Clive himself—when he is in town. He made some interesting comments last night, I think. His description, which I presume reflects the position of those opposite, was that once there was Marx, then there was Engels and now there is Rudd. Marx, Engels and Rudd, so there is a communist conspiracy underway. But what I find confounding is this: the Clive Palmer who bankrolls the Liberal and National Party in Queensland seems to make a powerful amount of money from Chairman Mao’s China.

I say to those opposite that when they seek to invoke the names of various commentators in the debate on the future of the super profits tax it is very instructive to reflect on: firstly, who bankrolls the Liberal and National parties?—Clive Palmer. Secondly, who stands up, therefore, and says that these resources are not owned by the Australian people?—Clive Palmer. And thirdly, therefore, are those opposite acting in the national interest in their participation in this debate or acting simply as emissaries of various branches of the mining industry? On the question of employment which was raised—


No comments