We have all been hearing about the seven dual citizens we have in our Parliament. It is still seven, isn’t it? No new ones today?
They have fallen foul of a part of Section 44 of the Constitution. That is the section which states who is ineligible to stand for election in the first place.
Because it is being talked about so much, here is Section 44 in its entirety
.
Yes, this is the fine print. Now look closely at subsection (v) and think upon it for a minute.
OK, Now let us look at one particular Member of Parliament. Several screen shots are next. They are from this tweet;
To see those images more clearly, here they are;
Next let us look at the Parliamentary Register of Members Interests which are fully available online at;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Members/Register#cf
These are the relevant parts of Peter Craig Dutton’s Register.
.
So Dutton has done the correct thing and shown his involvement in the RHT group. He benefits financially from his wife’s child care business.
Now, does this put him in contravention of Section 44 (v)?
Apparently not because no one is querying his position. Not out loud and not in the MSM, anyway.
And reading this article from the SMH shows why, in a round about way.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/boom-time-for-corporate-childcare-in-australia-20161109-gslgx2.html
The Government gives money to parents as subsidies to Parents. These are not small sums, either; ‘costs to the taxpayer of a staggering $10 billion a year in parent subsidies’.
These subsidies are given to parents for the specific purpose of paying for child care at a Child Care Centre. The payments are not ‘untied’ money. The money is paid on condition it is passed to a Child Care Centre.
So, in one way, the legalistic Public Service way, the Child Care Centre, and its owners are not receiving money from the Government.
In another way, in the logical world of real people and real events and real reality, that money is Government money being paid to the Child Care Centres!
Now we come back to the question of Peter Craig Dutton’s eligibility to stand for election for the Division of Dickson under Section 44 (v). Technically and probably legally it would seem that he is. It would be interesting to see the outcome of High Court challenge.
Morally and ethically, he is not.
But how long has it been since moral or ethics played a part in Dutton’s life?
Like this:
Like Loading...
