Peter Dutton suggests public-funded legal fund for MPs to sue for defamation

Peter Dutton has suggested a legal fund using taxpayers’ money that MPs can use to pursue defamation claims as a “workplace entitlement”.

Defence Minister Peter Dutton has raised the idea of a taxpayer-funded legal fighting fund for MPs to pursue defamation claims, claiming it should be considered as a “workplace entitlement”.

Mr Dutton has raised the proposal amid a furore over the blind trust established to allow a group of multiple anonymous donors to contribute over $500,000 to former Attorney-General Christian Porter’s legal fund.

Mr Porter is facing an estimated $1 million legal bill for his discontinued legal battle with the ABC over a report that revealed he faced a historical rape allegation.

Mr Porter denies the allegation. He will not reveal how much cash he was given to pay his bills through the blind trust or who gave him the money. But he says it is not from criminals or groups that raise foreign influence concerns.

Peter Dutton has raised the proposal, which he said could be a ‘workplace entitlement’. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

But Mr Dutton, who is himself suing a voter who criticised him on Twitter in the Federal Court after he claimed he was a “rape apologist” has suggested that MPs may need to be funded to sue people as a “workplace entitlement”.

“Defamation trials, in particular, which are expensive — and we note that — particularly when a member of parliament is taking an action against a corporate entity, a media organisation or a government body, for example. These are difficult matters for members,’’ Mr Dutton said.

“I think there are other steps that, frankly, should be contemplated between the government and the opposition in relation to what is a significant issue. There are many people who come into this parliament, on both sides, with significant wealth — and good luck to them. There are many members, as I look around, who don’t have those deep pockets to defend a defamation trial, in some cases costing over a million dollars. That’s the reality.

“I think there is a sensible discussion to be had at the appropriate time between the government and the opposition to see what the appropriate next step might be for this parliament. I think it’s a workplace entitlement issue and I think it’s a broader discussion that should be had. We are, as a government, prepared to have that discussion.”

It comes amid a furore over the blind trust established to allow a group of multiple anonymous donors to contribute over $500,000 to former Attorney-General Christian Porter’s legal fund. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

News.com.au understands that Mr Porter could still face a secret probe into his blind trust despite the Prime Minister’s decision to use the government’s numbers on the floor of Parliament to shut down a referral. Independents have also complained they didn’t get a chance to vote on the decision because they were not properly paired.

The Prime Minister has been accused of “embarrassing” the Speaker by defying his declaration that there was a prima facie case to investigate the matter.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull slammed the decision, accusing Scott Morrison and Christian Porter of “gaslighting” voters by suggesting that it was OK.

“At the risk of offering a penetrating glimpse of the obvious … an obligation to disclose gifts to MPs plainly requires the identity of the donor. Saying ‘I received a gift of an undisclosed sum from a secret donor’ is not a disclosure and suggesting it could be is gaslighting,” the former Prime Minister said.

Christian Porter and Peter Dutton in Parliament. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

But News.com.au has confirmed with senior MPs that the vote in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon to shut down a referral to the Privileges Committee is not the end of the matter.

Instead, the Privileges Committee, which is led by chair Russell Broadband and deputy Patrick Gorman, are required to consider any complaints and correspondence on the register.

Under this scenario, the committee could recommend that Parliament consider the matter for a second time, ratcheting up the pressure on the Coalition and Christian Porter to reconsider his refusal to declare the mystery donors.

However, the final decision on whether it would be formally considered by the committee would ultimately be a matter for Parliament.

That means someone would need to change their mind to support a referral. Or, Mr Porter would need to back down and disclose his donors to Parliament if it requested.

To date, Mr Porter has declined to do so and quit the ministry rather than reveal the identity of his donors.