Rodney Culleton’s eligibility to sit in the Senate will be heard by the high court in December but hearings to test Bob Day’s eligibility and the method to replace him will not occur until the new year.

At a directions hearing at the high court in Canberra on Monday, Culleton received support from two unlikely quarters: with a show of support outside the court from Bob Katter, and the prospect that the attorney general, George Brandis, will appoint counsel to defend Culleton’s eligibility or offer legal aid for him to get his own lawyer.

Katter revealed a third party had asked Culleton to join the Katter Australia party, which both had rejected, but Katter left the door open to take him on board if One Nation “ratted” on him.

Culleton’s case turns on whether a conviction for larceny, since annulled, rendered him ineligible because the conviction stood at the time of his election to the Senate.

Culleton, who represented himself, used the hearing before chief justice Robert French to criticise Brandis, accusing the attorney general of “grabbing a sow’s ear to make a silk purse” by referring his eligibility to the court despite defects in the original case brought against him by Bruce Bell.

The One Nation senator asked for the case to be put off “well into next year” in order for him to get counsel or put his own case together.

“I need to rehydrate my piggy bank financially,” he said. “This case will take substantial time – I don’t have the artillery of the attorney general.”

Culleton said he wanted time to prepare “so that I’m not swatted because I can’t get prepared”.

French acknowledged the public interest in clarifying whether the subsequent annulment of a conviction meant a parliamentarian was eligible for election. The chief justice ordered the attorney general to file written submissions by 25 November.

If Culleton had not appointed legal representation by then, the commonwealth should appoint an independent barrister to run arguments for Culleton’s eligibility as an amicus curiae, allowing Culleton to continue to represent himself separately.

Culleton criticised that approach, likening it to “sleeping with the enemy” to have the attorney general to appoint a lawyer to argue against the commonwealth. But he expressed concern at picking his own lawyer, explaining the difficulty would be “trying to find a senior counsel that loves One Nation”.

Counsel for the attorney general revealed Culleton had recently made a request for legal aid and French advised him to quickly resolve whether it could and would be given.

French ordered the case go before the full court in the December sitting, which could be as early as 7 or 8 December. He said the case could be dealt with quickly as it concerned the narrow constitutional point of the effect of the annulment and whether it operated retrospectively.

Culleton disputed the orders, telling the court they were not procedurally fair, imposed a “massive workload” on him, foreshadowing an appeal to the full court of the high court.

Culleton disputed the circumstances of his conviction for larceny, telling the court the truck key he had allegedly stolen in a dispute with a repossession agent had been “lost in a hug” and he had only been convicted in absentia because he was unable to attend court.

Culleton said he “didn’t want to be convicted of a crime” and told reporters he intended to ask for a jury trial but he was corrected by French, who said he was not being accused of a crime.

Appearing outside the court, Katter claimed the case set a bad precedent, as misplacing a key was not a crime and Culleton had not been declared bankrupt or insolvent, the other basis of Bell’s challenge.

Katter accused the One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, of failing to support Culleton by agreeing to the referral of his eligibility to the high court. Katter also criticised her for not supporting his proposal for a bank royal commission and backing two government bills he called an “attack on trade unionism”, which Culleton opposes.

Katter said he wished Hanson would show support for Culleton but he was “certain Hanson would come back to the fold”.

“I’m not, like everybody else, abandoning Culleton,” Katter said. “No, I’m going to stand right beside him with as much aggression as I can possibly show.”



Katter revealed a third party, without his knowledge, had approached Culleton to ask him to jump ship to the Katter Australia party but was rejected.

“I said at the time we don’t take rats ... and I know Culleton and he ain’t a rat, so he won’t come anyway,” Katter said. “[Culleton] is not a rat, his party has ratted on him, it would appear, and I said that at the time ... If it turns out that he hasn’t ratted but he’s been ratted on, that’s a horse of a different colour.”

Asked about his future in One Nation, Culleton said: “Well I had a shave this morning and you don’t see any whiskers – I’m not a rat, I wouldn’t want to be a rat and don’t ever refer that I would be a rat.

“I’m One Nation at the moment ... I’ll serve my term with One Nation.

“If I was to go it wouldn’t be my choice, I’ll leave it to others.”

French stood over Bell’s challenge against Culleton until after the court dealt with the Senate referral on Culleton’s eligibility.

In the Day matter, French ordered parties to agree on a set of facts by 22 December or a single justice would hold a hearing on factual disputes. The matter will return to the court of disputed returns in 2017.

A spokesman for Hanson told Guardian Australia that Katter should “stay out of it”.

He said One Nation had supported the referral because “accountability is everything our party stands on” but Hanson and the party were “extraordinarily supportive” of Culleton.

He refuted Katter’s contention the party had not supported calls for a bank royal commission and said that was party policy even before Culleton’s candidacy.