The One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, has agreed that Rodney Culleton’s eligibility as a senator should be referred to the high court – a process that may render him ineligible to sit in parliament.
Over an extraordinary few hours in the federal parliament, Hanson told the Senate on Monday afternoon she would support the question of Culleton’s eligibility going to the high court, because he had given assurances he could be validly elected in accordance with the constitution when he stood for One Nation at the federal election, and this was now an integrity issue for her.
Legal advice from solicitor general Justin Gleeson to the attorney general, tabled in the debate, concluded that Culleton was not duly elected as a senator.
Speaking before Hanson, Culleton had made it clear he did not support the process, and said he had been advised by the clerk of the Senate he could continue to vote in the chamber while the matter was determined.
The open schism in One Nation came as new questions emerged over when the federal government was aware that the former Family First senator Bob Day might have had a constitutional issue that rendered him ineligible to sit in the parliament.
The Day eligibility case relates to allegations the then Family First senator had a financial link to the building housing his Kent Town electoral office. Section 44 of the constitution prohibits parliamentarians from having “any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the public service of the commonwealth”.
New correspondence tabled in the Senate suggests that on 25 January Day gave an official of the finance department information suggesting that he had an indirect financial link to the building in which he had asked his electorate office be situated.
Day told the finance department he had sold the building housing his electorate office in Kent Town to Fullarton Investments on a vendor finance basis, and he retained the bank loan.
The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, told the Senate in a statement the government had discovered before July’s federal election that a bank account set up to receive rental payments for Day’s Kent Town electorate office “was an account linked to then Senator Day”.
But the government did not seek independent external legal advice on Day’s position until after the election.
In correspondence tabled in the Senate on Monday, Day complained that the government did not give him clear advice that his financial affairs might trigger constitutional problems.
He contended that officials and government ministers had indicated only that it was “not a good look” for a senator to own his or her office, and the arrangement would not “pass the pub test”.
Labor pursued the matter during question time in both houses until Bill Shorten moved a suspension of standing orders in the House of Representatives.
The Labor leader said it was now clear the prime minister knew “for more than two months there was a potential issue under section 44 of the constitution in relation to Senator Day” and chose to keep “that information secret from the Australian people”.
Hanson’s decision to essentially cut her fellow One Nation senator loose was made plain during a debate on Monday determining whether both cases should proceed for legal deliberation.
In an emotional speech to the Senate, Hanson said Culleton had guaranteed to One Nation that he was eligible when he nominated, but this was now a matter of honesty that now must be tested by the court.
Culleton confirmed during the debate he would continue voting in the Senate while his eligibility was considered by the high court. In a rambling contribution, he demanded a jury trial and questioned the ability of the high court justices to judge him.
Gleeson’s advice said that despite the annulment of Culleton’s larceny conviction after the election, the “better view” was that he was ineligible because the conviction existed at the time of his election.
Hanson told the Senate chamber: “I have always stood for honesty, integrity and what is the truth.
“I was of the opinion when he nominated for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation ... that he stated that he was eligible to stand under the requirements of the constitution.
“I took that to be his oath, it was signed and witnessed by a [Justice of the Peace].”
Hanson said that she and her colleagues supported Culleton but “on too many occasions” politicians had not been accountable to the Australian people.
“I will not stand here and be of the same ilk. I believe that it should go to the high court to make a ruling on this matter,” she said.
Hanson said she hoped and would “dearly love” if the court found Culleton was eligible to keep his Senate seat.
“I know that senator Culleton will not be too happy with what I have said.
“But I think that my integrity and my honesty – and I have fought for 18 years to be on the floor of this parliament as a representative of the people – and I cannot sit back and disregard what may have been a wrong judgment, but I will leave it up to the courts to make the final decision.”
During that debate in the chamber, the Justice party senator Derryn Hinch said the eligibility of all parliamentarians should be checked, given the questions that had been placed over two senators.
In an interview with Sky News later on Monday, Hanson said that One Nation could not afford to pay Culleton’s legal bills and expressed doubt about her decision to encourage him to run for the party.
“Maybe I have made a mistake, but you know what, I think the man has a lot to offer on the floor of parliament,” she said.
Asked if her staffer James Ashby could take Culleton’s seat if he were forced out, Hanson said that would “never” happen because it was unfair to parachute a non-Western Australian into the seat.
The referral of both senators passed the Senate on the voices. Day’s referral passed before question time.
The Senate referred Culleton later in the afternoon after he made an unsuccessful attempt to adjourn the Senate until he could provide further documents.
