The attorney general, George Brandis, has claimed he had no knowledge that finance department officials had warned the Abbott government against allowing former Family First senator Bob Day to move his office to a building he had owned.

The relocation is at the heart of a pecuniary interest controversy surrounding Day, who resigned earlier this week over the collapse of his building company, and then was hit with a government challenge in the high court regarding his validity as a senator.

The Day court outcome will determine whether another member from his party can take his position or whether it is determined on a recount, possibly going to the Labor party.

Government challenges election of One Nation senator Rod Culleton Read more

Also on Wednesday, Brandis announced he would also seek a high court ruling on the eligibility of the election of One Nation senator Rod Culleton over a larceny charged which was later annulled.

Following the government’s announcement Culleton questioned the jurisdiction of the high court but then vowed to represent himself.

“If I do [participate in the high court] I will simply go down and shear a sheep and take the belly fleece and stick it over my head and I’ll represent myself because I am a true Australian standing up for the Australian people,” Culleton said.

The referrals of Day and Culleton, on top of the breakdown of Brandis’ relationship with the solicitor general, place the attorney general in the middle of the Coalition’s political storm ahead of the resumption of parliament next week.

Asked whether he had familiarised himself with the details of the leasing conditions, Brandis said he had not.



“I have no knowledge at all of what the finance department may have done in 2014,” Brandis said.

Explainer: Senator Bob Day's electorate office In January 2014 Family First Senator Bob Day discusses with federal Department of Finance officials establishing his electorate office in a building in Fullarton Road, Kent Town, Adelaide. Day doesn't want to use former senator Don Farrell's old office in Adelaide CBD (already leased at $99,000 pa until mid-2016). In February 2014, finance officials tell then-special minister of state Michael Ronaldson they do not recommend establishing a new office for Day. They note Day owns the building and intends to sell it on condition the office is leased to the commonwealth, and write: 'Finance has concerns about how such a transaction might be perceived.' Ronaldson tells Day in March 2014 he can move but the commonwealth won't pay his rent while the Adelaide CBD office lease is still in place. Day agrees to terms for Fullarton Road lease including rent-free period while the CBD office is empty. On 4 August 2016 Day approaches the new special minister of state Scott Ryan about rent on the office. Ryan seeks further information and discovers there may be a constitutional breach. Ryan terminates the lease on 7 October 2016 and seeks independent legal advice from constitutional law expert David Jackson. On 27 October 2016 Ryan receives legal advice regarding the possible invalid election of Day - concerns over indirect pecuniary interest because building owner owes Day money. Day says he has legal advice there is no breach because he does not have a contract or agreement with the commonwealth.



“The matter came to my notice as the attorney general when the special minister of state, Senator [Scott] Ryan, came to me, discussed the matter and we decided to get advice initially from the Australian government’s solicitor [Justin Gleeson] and then Mr Jackson, that came in late on Thursday.”



“I’m saying to you is that whatever happened in 2014 involving the special minister of state is not something about which I can speak.”

But when pressed, Brandis said he could assure people the Abbott government ministers acted at all times “in good faith”.

According to documents obtained by Fairfax, officials from the finance department warned the then special minister of state, Michael Ronaldson, against the relocation of Day’s electorate office from the central business district of Adelaide to a building he had owned.



The finance department’s entitlements manager wrote to Ronaldson in February 2014, advising: “I recommend that you agree to not approve the establishment of a new electorate office for Senator-elect Day.”

Day wanted to move from an office at 19 Gilles Street, Adelaide – which was already leased by the Senate for the outgoing Labor senator Don Farrell – to Day’s 77 Fullarton Road building in Kent Town.

What is section 44? Why it matters if Bob Day is declared ineligible Read more

Under the rules Day could not remain owner so subsequently sold the Fullarton Road building but provided finance for the new owner, Fullarton Investments.

After further negotiations between Ronaldson and Day, the government agreed but imposed conditions on the move, including that no rent was paid on the Fullarton Road building until August this year. Day has said he received no rent from the building.

But Farrell, who returned to the Senate in this year’s election, said the advice also pointed out that the senators and members’ handbook made it clear that “it is expected that an incoming senator or member will occupy the office vacated by his or her predecessor”.

Day has said he had advice he was eligible for the Senate, based on a high court decision that a family company having a contract with the commonwealth did not represent a pecuniary interest.

“In my case, I had no contract or agreement with the commonwealth. I had an agreement with someone else who had an agreement with the commonwealth.”

It is the latest development on the Senate crossbench, which was increased after Malcolm Turnbull called the double-dissolution election on 2 July.

As a result of the week’s extraordinary events, parliament will return next week one senator down and another under a cloud.

On Wednesday morning, the government insisted it would press ahead with its agenda, which has included the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) bill and the marriage plebiscite.

The high court referrals will occur on the first day of sitting on 7 November. As Day has already resigned, the Senate numbers will sit at 75 but Culleton has raised the prospect of not voting in the senate until the matter is resolved.

In the Culleton case, at issue is his earlier conviction in his absence earlier this year for stealing a tow truck key from a driver who was trying to repossess one of his company cars in 2014.



The conviction was later annulled in August, after the July election and declaration of the polls. Culleton’s election has been challenged by a former associate.



Culleton said Brandis contacted him last Saturday regarding the matter. He said he had not had time to read and “digest” the legal opinion of the outgoing solicitor general, Justin Gleeson.

He said taking a $7.50 key was “no different to taking a scone off someone’s plate” but said everyone had the right to challenge his election, according to the constitution.



Culleton again claimed he was innocent but did not deny he had taken the single key, after which, “a good old punch-up occurred”.

“I have never denied I didn’t take a key to defend my assets,” Culleton said.

Culleton also he was not sure whether he would vote in parliament but would take advice from the clerk of the Senate.



“I want a stamped document to say in a sense that what I am doing is not prejudicing myself and the Australian people, I don’t want to do that,” Culleton said.

A number of constitutional experts said the previous legislative votes supported by Day in this parliamentary term would likely remain valid.



Constitutional legal expert George Williams, professor of law at the University of New South Wales, said the high court did not tend to examine the internal affairs of parliament.

Hold on to your hats as the Bob Day and Rod Culleton show shakes up the Senate | Katharine Murphy Read more

“There are many precedents that demonstrate this,” Williams said. “It suggests that the high court will look at the eligibility of the senator, but will not be prepared to revisit any prior votes by that chamber.”

Professor of law at the University of Sydney Anne Twomey said the courts would not usually go behind the passage of a law to look at who voted and whether or not they were qualified at the time.

“There is not a lot of authority on this point, but the best we have suggests that there would be no consequences from him having voted in the Senate while [possibly] disqualified,” Twomey said. “Such votes would continue to stand.”