One Nation senator Tyron Whitten could be in breach of constitution and ineligible to sit in parliament, expert says – The Guardian

Leading constitutional lawyer says WA senator could be disqualified over Snowy Hydro contracts, but Pauline Hanson says there is no question over his eligibility
Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast
Australia’s leading constitutional expert says One Nation senator Tyron Whitten could be in breach of section 44 over a family company which has contracts to help build Snowy Hydro.
Pauline Hanson has rejected claims her senator is ineligible to sit in parliament, noting Snowy Hydro was a public company and not a government department. But Prof Anne Twomey said “there is a possibility it could be a disqualification” if the high court followed a precedent it set in disqualifying former senator Bob Day over an “indirect” pecuniary interest, depending on a number of factors around the timing and details of Whitten’s shares in the company.
Twomey said Whitten would have a “good argument” to fight off any disqualification questions, but said the case was not clearcut, and “possibly” there were issues to address.
Whitten, elected as a senator for Western Australia at the 2025 poll, had disclosed shareholdings in Whittens Group Pty Ltd and his directorship of trustee company T & A Whitten Holdings Pty Limited on his parliamentary register of interests when entering parliament. The Australian newspaper first reported Whittens Group – a civil construction company the senator founded with his brother – had been awarded a $75m contract to work on Snowy Hydro.
Whittens Group’s website states the company was “engaged by Snowy 2.0 Project principal contractor Future Generation Joint Venture” to work on concreting and tunnel work on the project, with the website stating the project duration was “October 2024 – ongoing”.
Section 44 of the Australian constitution states anyone with “any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth” is ineligible to sit in parliament.
Corporate records obtained via the Australian Securities and Investments Commission suggest Senator Whitten’s trustee company, T & A Whitten Holdings, held shares in Whittens Group until 29 July 2025 – after he was elected in May 2025 – whereupon the shares went to his brother’s company, C & L Whitten Holdings, the only other listed shareholder in Whittens Group.
In the senator’s first speech to parliament, also on 29 July, he said: “I’m no longer a part of Whittens Group, and I wish my brother and his wife every success in the future.”
While the senator listed shareholdings in Whittens Group in his initial declaration of interests after the 2025 election, that shareholding was deleted from his register as of 4 June this year. The Australian reported that change came after the newspaper asked his office about the shareholdings on 4 June.
Whitten’s office was contacted for comment.
Hanson, in a social media post on Tuesday, criticised Coalition members for raising concerns over Whitten’s eligibility, calling them “gutless” and “hypocrites”.
“The fact is, there is no question over Senator Whitten’s eligibility. Snowy Hydro is a public company, not a government department … I wish the Coalition would put as much effort into working together and fixing the country as they put into trying to take One Nation down,” she said.
Section 44 eligibility matters are examined by the high court if the parliament votes to refer a matter to the court of disputed returns, or if the court receives a petition within 40 days of election writs being returned.
While Liberal senators James McGrath and Jonno Duniam have called for Hanson to refer her own senator for legal scrutiny, it is unclear whether the opposition will make such a referral themselves. It is understood Labor will not seek such a referral.
Twomey, professor emerita at the University of Sydney, said the key issue was whether Whitten’s situation constituted an indirect pecuniary interest in an agreement with the public service. Other factors would include the fact Whittens Group sub-contracted from the main contractor, as well as timing around when Senator Whitten held or disposed of any shares in the company.
Twomey said while Snowy Hydro is not part of the public service, and was a company separate from the commonwealth, the commonwealth did own shares and fund the company – meaning any probe would hinge on whether the court takes a “literal” or “broad” interpretation of section 44.
“If the court took a literal view, he’s in the clear. If it took a broader view about whether he could be influenced by his own private interests with any shareholding, there is a possibility it could be a disqualification,” Twomey said.
Twomey, who became a prominent commentator on section 44 during the eligibility crisis of 2017, said the high court had taken a “broad view” on pecuniary interests during the case of former senator Day, who was ruled ineligible over an indirect interest in the lease of his electorate office by the commonwealth.
“The Snowy Hydro scheme is a political issue. Parliament can hold government to account on cost blowouts for instance. Parliament could legislate to end or change the way Snowy Hydro works, affecting the financial interests of its contractors and sub contractors,” she said.
“In the Bob Day case the court took a broad view. It identified the purpose behind the disqualification as being to ensure that members of parliament act in the public interest without their personal financial interests influencing them.”

source