Look, at least no one can accuse Australian politics of being boring.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says the solicitor-general’s legal advice on whether Peter Dutton is eligible for parliament needs to be seen by Liberal MPs before another leadership spill.
Dutton, who is gunning to replace Turnbull as prime minister, has been facing questions over his interest in two Brisbane centres through his family’s RHT Family Trust.
Turnbull said if the solicitor-general’s advice cleared Dutton on Friday morning, there could be a partyroom meeting and a spill motion, but he also wants to see the letter purportedly signed by 43 Liberal MPs calling for the meeting – to be held at noon.
“You can imagine the consequences of having a prime minister whose actions and decisions are questionable because of the issue of eligibility,” the prime minister told reporters in Canberra on Thursday.
From July this year, childcare centres receive a direct subsidy from the federal government, raising questions as to whether Dutton could be under a constitutional cloud.
Dutton queried why the story came out as he was challenging the prime minister.
“The timing on the eve of current events in Australian politics is curious,” he said in a statement.
“There has never been any doubt about my eligibility to sit in the parliament and I attach the unequivocal legal advice I obtained in 2017 to that effect.”
Top Comments
This is unacceptable. Since when did it become common practice to have leadership spills? Our legislators need to get on with running the country instead of bickering amongst themselves. I highly suspect Liberal wouldn’t win with Dutton either, he’s borderline fascist.
At least Turnbull is centrist, I suspect history will be kind to him. Even though they can’t see it now, he has been reasonable and not hardline. Shorten is a deplorable Unionist.
Like George Dunford said above, I really wish we had a leader that had enough nous and foresight to prepare Australia for the coming climate catastrophe.
The sad reality is that Australia's contribution to the impending climate catastrophe is very minimal.
It’s not a good idea to build more coal power stations, allow foreign countries enormous water rights for nothing, continue to farm cotton and put absolutely no plans in place (as far as I can see) for water restrictions, food production and shortage during drought, increase in sea levels and the huge influx of environmental refugees, not to mention displacement of millions of Australians. As usual, we’ll probably wait until the last minute, making every decision based on economic benefit for those at the top, and then we’re all scr*wed.
It's also not a good idea to cripple your industries by not being able to supply a reliable, cheap power source. Not to mention making power so expensive that people have to choose between heating their houses, or eating.
Your view is erroneous, Building new power stations (or refurbishing dirty old ones) is far more expensive than alternative energy sources, not to mention the cost to society and the environment with continuing to use dirty power. We could implement the NEP and reduce costs and reduce emissions instead of trying to roll the PM (again). Also, no one will care about energy prices when society collapses because of hothouse earth.
Tony Abbott and Peter Dutton just had it brought into sharp focus just how unpalatable their toxic ideas are to the rest of their own party. And at the same time, handed Bill Shorten the next election.
Also, that the Liberal party has so thoroughly done to itself what it spent all of Rudd and Gillards terms calling Labor incompetent for doing is frankly a most exquisite delight. The only way it could get better is if Abbott and Dutton both slink off into the political obscurity they deserve (and have earned).
It would be nice if their constituents booted their sorry arses to the curb.
Even if, hypothetically, you were like "they represent my views" wouldn't you want someone putting those views out there with a bit of eloquence? Someone that doesn't make you sound like a throw back to the 50's?
How do you figure that? Dutton got the support of about 40% of the party room. That's not an inconsequential number.
I believe that a Dutton/Abbott leadership would have a much better chance at derailing Shortens PM plans than if they stick with the dud Turnbull.
I figure that by looking at how he couldn't get the support of his party members to oust the second most unpopular Liberal leader in living memory. Although it was a bold move using the backing of the most unpopular Liberal leader in living memory to do so.
That and that a fair chunk of the people who put their support behind Dutton have tendered their resignations. Surely that's not going to help him if he challenges again (as his refusal to rule out challenging again indicates he will).