Dutton’s last stand
HOME Affairs Minister Peter Dutton’s arrogant stance on his eligibility to sit in Parliament and apparent confusion between paid legal advice and judicial ruling of contested interpretation of law seems to be a desperate attempt to avoid a referral to the High Court for a decision of whether he has a “direct or indirect pecuniary interest with the Commonwealth”.
This is under Section 44 of the Constitution regarding payments by the Commonwealth to two childcare centres he has an association with in Queensland.
Whether Mr Dutton (pictured) refers himself, or is referred by Parliament, to the High Court, he cannot be sure that his case will succeed.
Recall the dual-citizenship saga of Justine Keay (federal Member for Braddon) and ACT Senator Katy Gallagher, who both had to resign after the High Court ruled that Ms Gallagher did breach section 44 of the Constitution regarding her UK citizenship.
These were lucid cases where a politician’s legal advice and High Court ruling were incompatible partners regarding interpretation of law. Kenneth Gregson, Carindale
BURIED in all the babble about Peter Dutton’s right to remain in Parliament is the insane “captain’s call” by Malcolm Turnbull to hand over $444 million of our money to The Great Barrier Reef Foundation, simply to appease the Left. The decision helped spark the revolt in the first place. P.C. Wilson, Gold Coast