Rebekha Sharkie wants a stronger threshold for Section 44 referrals to High Court

Independent MP Rebekha Sharkie wants a stronger threshold to determine which MPs go to the High Court under section 44 of the Constitution.

Kerryn Phelps and Rebekha Sharkie confer during Question Time yesterday. Picture: Gary Ramage

Independent MP Rebekha Sharkie wants a stronger threshold to determine which MPs go to the High Court under section 44 of the Constitution, as key crossbenchers and the government consider a mass referral that includes Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton.

The Centre Alliance MP said the Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue QC could provide advice on members under an eligibility cloud.

If the government or Labor attempted to refer a parliamentarian who according to Dr Donaghue’s advice still had questions to answer, they should be referred.

“My position is that Peter Dutton has questions to answer as raised in the advice offered by the Solicitor-General,” Ms Sharkie told The Australian.

“I will not play favourites and I would support a motion to refer any member where the Solicitor-General provides advice to government (that the government then provides to the parliament) that raises a question with respect to section 44. We need to have a threshold and I think that is a fair and reasonable one to take.

“So far to my knowledge, we have Peter Dutton in that category.”

Labor will have enough support to refer Mr Dutton, who is facing questions over an arrangement between the commonwealth and his Family Trust, if it convinces independent MP Kerryn Phelps to back a referral motion.

Dr Phelps, who is also facing eligibility questions, said she was “very seriously” considering all issues before her including a Dutton referral.

Constitutional lawyers have questioned if the doctor at the time of her nomination to run for the seat of Wentworth had some kind of an agreement with the commonwealth through Medicare that could give rise to a direct or indirect pecuniary interest.

Dr Phelps said she had not received Practice Incentive Payments “for over two years” and dismissed concerns the Medicare rebate she gives to patients would make her fall foul of the Constitution, which disqualifies MPs who hold a direct or indirect pecuniary interest through any agreement with the commonwealth.

Her crossbench colleague Andrew Wilkie named Mr Dutton, Liberal MP Chris Crewther, Labor MP Tony Zappia and Nationals MP David Gillespie as parliamentarians with question marks who should be sent to the High Court.

“As much as I’d like to see Peter Dutton go to the High Court, as much as a lot of people would like to see Peter Dutton referred to the High Court, we shouldn’t be blinded by emotion,” Mr Wilkie said.

“We should be guided by high principle and that is that everyone over whom there is reasonable doubt should go and should go together and it be a one off and then the matter is dealt with.”

Mr Wilkie, the Tasmanian MP for Denison, told The Australian he wanted to see all parliamentarians facing questions under section 44 of the Constitution referred to the High Court “in one lot”, after the government was thrown deeper into minority status with the defection of Victorian Liberal MP Julia Banks to the crossbench.