:::In case I was unclear above, I was agreeing with you - opining that the statement is not neutral point of view, & hence bad. Continuing discussion on this topic from  and , and noting amendment of the wording to "often cited as an example of an unethical politician"... 

 :::I agree with  that neither the Press Council nor the ABC Forum links stand up as an example of Heffernan being called an 'unethical politician'. The Press Council link reports that he 'recklessly' broke a standing order (as discussed earlier in the article) and that's about it. The rest of that section is a commentary on the options available to people on the other end of such breaches, and the only appearance of the word 'unethical' is in a different section unrelated to Heffernan. 

 :::The ABC forum intro describes the basic facts of the incident, but the only judgement it passes on Heffernan is that "the incident still amounts to an abuse of parliamentary privilege". (I looked through the comments but couldn't find anybody actually calling him unethical - in any case, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet, which states that this sort of forum should not be used as a source for verifiability reasons.) 

 :::In the MUP lecture Latham accuses Heffernan of engaging in "the politics of personal destruction". That accusation might be notable in itself, but again the only use of 'unethical' is in an unrelated context elsewhere in the document.  

 :::Wikipedia:No original research is relevant here, in particular the prohibitions against interpretation, explanation, and synthesis. Even if we could find three unambiguous citations for people calling Heffernan an "unethical politician", converting that into "often cited" would be teetering on the edge of synthesis.