Peter Dutton denies could be disqualified Parliament after rumours of challenging Malcolm Turnbull

Peter Dutton has denied extraordinary claims he could be disqualified from Parliament for breaching constitutional law.

Two top lawyers told Ten News that the Home Affairs Minister, who is rumoured to be considering challenging Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership, could be ineligible due to his business interests.

A spokesman for Dutton said: ‘Mr Dutton’s legal advice clearly states there is no breach of Section 44.’  

The Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton (pictured), has been rumoured to be considering challenging Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for his leadership

Mr Dutton has a stake in two child care centres in Brisbane, which could lead to him being disqualified from Parliament. 

The Camelia Avenue Child Care Centre and one in Brisbane’s northern suburb of Bald Hills are for-profit operations owned by RHT Family Trust, according to ASIC documents.

Dutton’s Parliamentary register says that he, his wife and his children are a ‘beneficiary’ of the RHT Family Trust.

A change in the law, effective as of July 2, means these two childcare centres, along with majority of others, now receive direct grants from the Commonwealth.

This replaced the old system where benefits and rebates were paid to families.

Under Section 44(v) of the Constitution, any person with ‘any direct or indirect pecuniary interest with the Public Service of the Commonwealth’ is disqualified from Parliament.  

A breach of constitutional law could see Mr Dutton ineligible from sitting in Parliament at all

A breach of constitutional law could see Mr Dutton ineligible from sitting in Parliament at all

Sydney University professor of constitutional law Anne Twomey told the Sydney Morning Herald that Mr Dutton could be in trouble.

‘I think there is a reasonable case for his disqualification but he also has a reasonable defence,’ she said.

‘It is a real case and I would describe it as borderline.’

University of NSW constitutional law professor George Williams agreed with Professor Twomey, saying it would depend on ‘as yet undetermined’ legal precedent.

In any case, it would be a matter for the High Court to decide on.

Professor Williams says that the matter might not make it to the High Court, because it would take an unlikely vote of the lower house to refer it there. 



Read more at DailyMail.co.uk