In a potential bombshell for Australian politics, One Nation Senator Tyron Whitten finds himself in a constitutional predicament. The nation's leading constitutional expert, Prof. Anne Twomey, has weighed in, suggesting that Whitten may be in breach of Section 44 of the Australian Constitution due to his involvement with a family company that secured a lucrative contract with Snowy Hydro.
The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of 'pecuniary interest.' While Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation, dismisses any concerns, Twomey argues that the High Court's precedent in the Bob Day case could be pivotal. Day was disqualified for an 'indirect' pecuniary interest in the lease of his electorate office, and Twomey believes a similar approach could be taken with Whitten.
Whitten's company, Whittens Group, secured a substantial $75 million contract with Snowy Hydro, a public company. The timing of Whitten's shareholdings and his directorship in the company raises questions. Corporate records show that his trustee company held shares until after his election, and then transferred them to his brother's company, C & L Whitten Holdings.
This transfer, however, occurred after Whitten's office was questioned about the shareholdings. In his first speech to Parliament, Whitten declared his disassociation from the company, stating, 'I’m no longer a part of Whittens Group, and I wish my brother and his wife every success in the future.'
The key issue, according to Twomey, is whether Whitten's situation constitutes an indirect pecuniary interest. The timing of shareholdings and the subcontracting relationship with Snowy Hydro are critical factors. If the High Court takes a 'broad' interpretation of Section 44, Whitten could face disqualification.
Twomey's expertise in constitutional law is well-known, especially after the 2017 eligibility crisis. She emphasizes the importance of ensuring that members of Parliament act in the public interest, free from personal financial influences. The Snowy Hydro scheme, she notes, is a significant political issue, and Parliament has the power to hold the government accountable for cost blowouts and legislative changes.
The potential breach of the Constitution has sparked debate, with Liberal senators calling for scrutiny. The opposition's stance remains uncertain, but Labor has ruled out a referral. As Twomey suggests, the case highlights the need for a careful interpretation of Section 44 to maintain the integrity of Australian politics.
