The Greens are seeking fresh legal advice about the eligibility of new senator Andrew Bartlett after the high court ruled New South Wales Liberal member Hollie Hughes is ineligible to sit in parliament.
A Greens spokesman has conceded the high court’s decision about Hughes on Wednesday has raised fresh doubts about Bartlett, who was sworn in as a senator this week.
“In light of questions raised by the high court’s unexpected ruling on Hollie Hughes’ ineligibility to serve in the federal parliament, the Australian Greens are seeking fresh legal advice about the case of the Greens senator Andrew Bartlett, who was employed at the Australian National University at the time of his election,” a Greens spokesman said on Thursday.
“Previous legal advice received by the Australian Greens on the matter indicated with a strong degree of confidence that Senator Bartlett does not hold an office of profit under the crown and it is noted that the high court certified his election earlier this month.”
But University of New South Wales law professor George Williams has told Guardian Australia the Greens’ decision to get fresh legal advice may not help them very much, because the high court has never ruled on the eligibility of a person employed by a university.
“It’s a grey area. We just don’t know,” Williams said.
“We know that anyone employed in the public service is disqualified, but universities, like local government, are one step removed from that. We don’t know where the high court can draw the line and there is no way to resolve that uncertainty at the moment, absent a high court ruling.
“Bartlett was fortunate that the high court didn’t take the case directly as they did with Hughes. They just didn’t have the material before them. The high court hasn’t by any means given him a clean bill of health, they just haven’t looked at the issue yet.
“There’s enough doubt about this that it is very common that people employed by universities will resign before standing for parliament. It’s standard practice in the ALP for example,” he said.
The Liberal senator Eric Abetz has called for Bartlett to be referred to the high court.
“Given the very clear interpretation of the high court in the Hughes case, means Andrew Bartlett has very real questions to answer and should be referred to the high court,” he said in a statement.
“If Senator Bartlett believes he is completely in the clear, as he claims, he should have no concerns about having his eligibility tested before the high court. Queensland electors deserve nothing less.”
The high court found by unanimous decision on Wednesday that NSW Liberal member Hollie Hughes was ineligible to replace the National party’s Fiona Nash in the Senate.
Hughes held the sixth spot on the Coalition Senate ticket at the 2016 election, and she was tipped to replace Nash after the high court found Nash was ineligible because she held British citizenship by descent from her Scottish-born father.
The court ruled Hughes was ineligible to replace Nash after considering questions about her eligibility, given Hughes was appointed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in June this year, after the 2016 election.
Section 44(iv) of the constitution disqualifies anyone who holds an office of profit under the crown from election.
The high court heard on Wednesday that Bartlett still had a cloud hanging over his eligibility, given he was working for the Australian National University when he was nominated for the Senate last year.
The high court is yet to consider whether university employment is considered as receiving profit from an office under the crown.
Bartlett has previously addressed the issue of a potential challenge to his eligibility by referring to legal advice obtained by the Greens that did not see university work as an issue.
On Wednesday the solicitor general, Stephen Donaghue, said Bartlett’s position had not been tested and the Senate might have to refer Bartlett to the high court to do so.
