Dutton court bid could hit other MPs: PM

If Home Affairs Minister is referred to the High Court, Prime Minister Scott Morrison warns other MPs will follow him.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison speaks to the media during a press conference at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires.

Scott Morrison has delivered his strongest threat yet that his government will attempt to send three Labor members to the High Court if parliament refers Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, but appears to have backed off moves to also refer independent Kerryn Phelps.

A Dutton referral is set to be the greatest challenge for the Morrison government in the final parliamentary sitting week of the year, with Labor needing just one more crossbench vote to test his eligibility to sit in parliament under section 44 of the Constitution after Julia Banks’ defection to the crossbench plunged the Coalition deeper into minority status.

Independents Andrew Wilkie, Rebekha Sharkie, Cathy McGowan and Greens MP Adam Bandt, as well as ex-Liberal MP Ms Banks, support the referral, while Bob Katter is opposed.

Dr Phelps’ vote will see the referral motion succeed or fail but she has said she won’t be rushed in considering the matter.

“There are three other house members that have the same issues that have been suggested about Peter Dutton so any principled position, any consistent position, anyone seeking to be truly fair about these things would apply the same rule to all those members but the government isn’t seeking to refer any of those members,” Mr Morrison said from the sidelines of the G20 in Buenos Aires.

“If the parliament sought to do so it would only be the principled thing to do to apply the same treatment to all members similarly affected.”

The Australian understands Mr Morrison was referring to Labor MPs Tony Zappia, Michael Freelander and Anne Aly, but not Dr Phelps.

Leader of the House Christopher Pyne this week singled out Dr Phelps and Mr Freelander, who are GPs, and Mr Zappia, who was a partner of a fitness centre that offers clients services through Medicare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

He also questioned the eligibility of Dr Aly, who was the chief investigator for two Australian Research Council grants paid to Edith Cowan University.

The ECU told The Australian the grants were allocated to the university, not Dr Aly.

“Dr Anne Aly resigned from the university on 8 May 2016 and as she was the chief investigator for both projects, the grants were relinquished,” an ECU spokesman said.

“Dr Aly was appointed an adjunct professor on 1 September 2016. This is an unpaid position.”

Mr Dutton is the beneficiary of the RHT Family Trust, the trustee of which is RHT Investments, which owns the Camelia Avenue Childcare Centre in Queensland and which receives federal money in the form of the child care subsidy.

The childcare centre also received more than $15,000 under the government’s Inclusion Development Fund to provide a teacher for children with special needs — an arrangement that required a separate agreement.

Under section 44 a politician is disqualified if they have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest through an agreement with the commonwealth.

The government argues Mr Zappia and Mr Freelander fit under the same category as Mr Dutton because of the possibility they benefited from offering clients the Medicare rebate — comparable to the child care subsidy.

Constitutional lawyers say what is more problematic for Mr Dutton is the separate agreement that provided a special needs teacher, while a childcare subsidy or Medicare rebate paid under a statutory scheme may not breach the Constitution.

With Dr Phelps refusing to release legal advice that she says clears her, there are unanswered questions as to whether she had some kind of an agreement with the commonwealth through Medicare that could give rise to a direct or indirect pecuniary interest at the time of her nomination to run in the Wentworth by-election.