OK, so you are a Labor politician, and you don't give a damn about the welfare of Australians. All you care about is staying in office and collecting your indexed linked pension when you retire.

You know that one of your political opponents is a rising star, who's popularity with the public rests upon the fact that he has thrown out over 1,600 serious foreign criminals resident in Australia. You know that this is exactly what nearly all Australians want. But you also know about identity politics. So you know that certain crime and welfare prone foreign ethnicities, who are your primary constituency, will praise you if you get Dutton. You will also get back slapped from the educated elite demographic, who have been conditioned to believe that always supporting foreigners while dumping on your own people is indicative of their moral superiority and high intelligence.

So, you do a bit of digging and figure out that Mr Dutton just might be in breach of rules regarding parliamentary pecuniary interests. You trumpet this news far and wide, before it is even tested in court. You know that this should win you masses of votes from the sort of foreign groups who's member are always very disproportionately represented in serious criminal behaviour. And also from the lefties who seem to have a curious affection for criminals, probably because they are the ones who sell them their cocaine and ecstacy.

Of course, you will get hated by those responsible Australians who really applaud Dutton for keeping their communities safe from imported criminals. But those people aren't the ones stupid enough to vote for you, anyway.

If you are right and Dutton get the chop, you can congratulate yourself for getting rid of one of your opposing parties rising stars. it also means that 1,600 of the worst criminals who once resided in Australia can return to continue their criminal activities.

But he only thing important here is to stay in power. Those Australians that will become the victims of the re imported foreign criminals you regard as just collateral damage.

But the only thing important here is to stay in power which is so difficult now. "It took place as the blades were being sharpened for a palace coup in August" said Binoy , mopping up the 2nd bucket of blood from the Members on the right. They secretly agreed for Dutton to be held in a child-care centre for tantrum therapy.

Yes, Peter might have an out bu,t will need to have that thoroughly tested before the high court, like all those before him that also thought they were on safe ground.

And if Labour can't get such a commitment from a minority government? May be able to block everything except supply until that happens?

It'd be very awkward if Peter recontested his seat and won, only to face being referred to the High court at the earliest opportunity and retrospectively by a probable Labor government?

Such an outcome and his rearguard action to prevent it with just one vote, his! May ruin his future prospects as a candidate for anything ever again? Were I stood in his shoes, I would acknowledge the inevitable and have my eligibility tested, then make sure if I still wanted to stand, get into damage control!
Alan B.

Dutton, as a politician in power, is comfortable knowing he's above the law.

OLO's rightwing commenter majority fairly swoon before rightwing standover politicians in power.

Dutton, after all, is the Minister running the Attorney General's Department and several law enforcement agencies.

Hence Dutton knows the Law won't touch him while he remains Senior "Law Enforcement" Minister.

"Doubts surrounding Dutton's eligibility to be elected to parliament emerged on the grounds of section 44(v) of the Australian Constitution, as the family trust owned by Dutton operated a child care centre that received over $5.6 million in funding from the Commonwealth Government, in a situation similar to Bob Day's case. Although Dutton had received legal advice stating that he was not in breach of section 44(v), Labor had received contrary advice; at Turnbull's request, the Attorney-General referred the matter to the Solicitor-General..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dutton#Leadership_challenges

But the Libs now have no majority in the House - so "no-confidence" or other motions may send Dutton before the High Court - even before the Libs lose power in May 2019.

Oh Boohoo! OLO's rightwing commenters :)

Peter is not the only one with a possible problem with perceived pecuniary interests and section 44, but 3 labor lites and possibly the new member for Wentworth?

Mind you, Labor might consider it worthwhile to proceed to challenge Peter and refer him anyway, given it would likely destroy him politically, along with all those who supported his recent leadership ambitions? And sure to ramp up the self-destruct sh!t storm and internal bun fight inside the "liberal" party!?

As for Kelly threatening to sit on the cross benches unless re-indorsed!? Suggest this particular bluff be called and the preselection conducted by the rank and file as they see fit! As opposed to this sort of bully boy, blackmail?
Alan B.

The citizen problem for MPs may be mistaken with judges asserting powers beyond the law allowing appeals to Britain.

"Under United Kingdom law, Australians are Commonwealth citizens and those living in the UK have the right to vote and stand for public office there. The legal meaning of Australian citizenship has never been singularly defined and there is absence of a coherent concept of Australian citizenship ."

In the constitution, Australia has 1 connection to British government.
S 74. Appeal to Queen in Council.
An appeal shall be permitted on state powers if the High Court says the question is to for Her Majesty in Council. The Constitution shall not impair any right of Queen to hear this appeal .

Constitution s 74 has not been amended, and the Constitution cannot be amended by legislation. Judges claim they won't follow s 74 but that is grounds for the Gov Gen in Council to remove them. Australians have rights to vote in UK and appeal to UK law which sounds very like being a citizen of UK . Legally the British MPs in Canberra could be valid members.

So ok I really give a toss. My vote is with Peter Dutton.

I note a "Church" - were they really serious - that stated on their front sign Dutton was a Sodomite....... during same sex marriage voting.

Is this really Australia today - I found this so OFFENSIVE to all citizens albeit they may not have supported their ethos or not.

This was absolutely OFFENSIVE to all/any citizens of any faith including citizens of no faith.

So I pose a question to this Church - Who do you think you are?

Where someone claims:

"Dutton was a Sodomite"

do they have evidence for that?