Clive Palmer argues it is impossible to have a conflict of interest if you are already so rich you have everything you need. It's a convenient argument from his perspective, but also patently untrue.
The new Abbott government also seems to think there are no conflict-of-interest problems associated with the political ascent of Clive. Really?
...
Those are two balance-of-power votes that could be crucial to every law the Abbott government wants to pass – the same government that will decide whether Palmer's $6.4bn Galilee coal project meets federal environmental standards, what it will be required to do to meet new environmental provisions that require a federal assessment of the water impacts of large coal mines and, eventually, whether Palmer ever gets to build a new coal port at Abbot Point, north Queensland.
They are also two balance-of-power votes that could be cast on any attempt by the Abbott government to water down existing environmental laws to make good the Coalition's promise of a "one-stop shop" with state governments for environmental approval of big projects – such as Clive's. And two votes on any future push by the Coalition to reverse Labor's last-minute crackdown on 457 visas, which put more onerous requirements on employers – such as Clive. And two votes in favour of the repeal of the mining tax, which would mean Clive wouldn't have to pay it.
The potential for a conflict of interest seems self-evident, but on the ABC's Q&A on Monday night he laughed off the notion with claims that he belonged to a disadvantaged minority – billionaires. He seemed to agree that he would at least fill out the parliamentary register of pecuniary interests, but it was hard to be sure.
Interviewed during Channel Seven's election-night coverage, Palmer rejected the whole idea and said he had no intention of divesting himself of anything.
Pressed by Mark Riley, he explained why in his view there was no problem.
"Mate, I've got more money than you could ever dream of, what's the conflict of interest? I want to get ideas going, you know … how much money could I get out of the government? You don't need to judge people by how much money they've got, it's the content of their character that matters," he replied.
Riley pressed on: "Don't you have to judge a public official though, Clive, by the interest they have and the potential they have to make more money by having influence on the political process?"
Clive was having none of it: "That's only if you live your life based upon the idea money is all you need. I can tell you now you can only sleep in one bed, have one meal at a time and, if you are lucky, go out with one woman at a time."
The truth is Palmer's power in this parliament poses some new questions. He is obviously not in the same category as a minister, which would require him to divest himself of everything.
...
But nor is Palmer in anything like the same position as other backbenchers, who declare their personal assets and shareholdings on the register and then, almost always, proceed to vote along party lines and therefore have no personal discretion to determine the outcome of anything or to benefit their personal interests.
Asked about the situation at his first press conference on Monday, Abbott said Palmer would be subject only to the same rules as backbenchers, but that he was preparing "slightly tougher" ministerial guidelines for his own frontbench team.
