As revealed by Fairfax Media in February, Dr Gillespie owns a small suburban shopping complex in Port Macquarie and one of the shops is an outlet of Australia Post – a government-owned corporation. Labor is challenging Assistant Health Minister David Gillespie's eligibility to sit in Parliament Credit:Alex Ellinghausen The ALP has obtained high-level legal advice that says this arrangement could result in the Nationals MPs' election last year being ruled invalid, just like it was for former Family First senator Bob Day. The case is being brought by the former Labor candidate for the seat, Peter Alley. "This is not a step that has been taken lightly," Mr Alley said. "It has been taken after considering expert legal advice from senior counsel about the constitutionality of Dr Gillespie's election in 2016.

"I don't believe I have a choice but to make this application. Over 100,000 people who voted in Lyne last year deserve to know that the member for Lyne was eligible to be elected. This is their democratic and constitutional right." Professor Anne Twomey from the University of Sydney Law School. Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop said the challenge was a Labor stunt: "It sounds like another attempt by Labor to disrupt and distract from the government's policies that are clearly being effective." But constitutional lawyers believe there is a case to answer. Labor candidate Peter Alley is bringing a legal challenge against Nationals MP and minister David Gillespie.

John Williams from the University of Adelaide said it was a "mug's game" to try and predict what the High Court will do but the case did raise the sort of questions section 44 was designed to prohibit. "We just don't know where the line is and the Day case broadened the definition," Professor Williams said. "This is a case that is very fact-heavy - as it was in the Day case - and it will really turn on those facts." Fellow expert Anne Twomey, from the University of Sydney, said Mr Gillespie's arrangements seemed to be "reasonably remote" but "you never can tell what the High Court will do". "It's more likely than not that it's on the side of being reasonably safe," Professor Twomey said. "But the High Court has been quite strict on these provisions, because rightly they say it is very important to make sure for democratic reasons that we have people in parliament that aren't the subject of undue influence."

Fellow expert George Williams has also said he thinks Dr Gillespie has a case to answer based on the broad definition of "indirect pecuniary interest" the High Court applied in the Bob Day test case. In the court's April decision, Mr Day was ruled ineligible to be elected because he had an indirect financial interest over a taxpayer-funded electorate office leased to the Department of Finance. Dr Gillespie said: "As the matter is now subject to legal proceedings it would be inappropriate to comment any further at this time." The ALP has assembled a high-powered legal team to argue the case, led by Bret Walker, SC, and barrister James Mack. Ray Finkelstein, QC, is also assisting. Dr Gillespie and his wife, through their company Goldenboot, lease the shop space in question to a local woman who is an Australia Post licensee – meaning he has no direct financial link to the postal service.

Section 44(v) of the constitution says any person who "has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than 25 persons shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives". Loading The section is an anti-corruption measure, designed to stop people sitting in Parliament and at the same time making money through contracts with the Commonwealth. Follow us on Facebook