Bob Day creates fresh headache for Malcolm Turnbull

SHOULDN’T-have-been senator Bob Day is today creating a new obstacle to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s plans for a big legislative finish to 2016.

Bob Day is Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s latest banana skin. Picture: Adam Taylor

SHOULDN’T-have-been senator Bob Day is today creating a new obstacle to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s plans for a big legislative finish to 2016.

The once-Family First senator from South Australia who resigned suddenly yesterday went on the offensive today and Labor is questioning the timing of his departure.

Mr Day entered Parliament in July, 2014 but quit amid concerns he was disqualified by a business arrangement with the Commonwealth.

He has denied breaching any constitutional rules on election eligibility. But the Government will next week formally ask the High Court to rule on the legal standing of Mr Day’s two years in Parliament, and it might order a re-court of the South Australian Senate vote of July 2.

Mr Day today went on the offensive in a defiant text message to reporters calling on all MPs and senators to “immediately disclose whether they have any financial interest in any property or company that has a contract, lease or agreement of any kind”.

He has also made known he looks forward to the court’s ruling.

Mr Day’s departure will significantly change the numbers in Parliament, where on roughly 95 per cent of ballots he sided with the Government.

The number of senators will go from 76 to 75, South Australian numbers from 12 to 11, and the number of cross bench senators from 11 to 10.

The Government will have to get the vote of eight out of 10 cross benchers to defeat Labor and the Greens, compared to nine out of 11 before he resigned.

His absence from the Senate for the final three sitting weeks of the year will add to the Government’s fears for critical legislation, including the permanent ban on asylum seekers getting here, revival of the Australian Building and obstruction Commission, and the same-sex

marriage plebiscite.

He was set to back the Government on all three.

At issue is S44(v) of the Constitution which bars from elections someone who “has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth”.

In July 2014, Mr Day’s electorate office was in a building he owned.

When told this was not acceptable he, in September 2014, sold the building to a business associate.

It is understood he contributed to the mortgage repayments on the building.

The Commonwealth was not charged rent for his office since last December, but one legal view is that the nub of the problem is the existence of a contract, whether or not money was exchanged.

The contract was terminated on October 7.

The Government sought legal advice on the matter back in August and it was delivered last Thursday.

Mr Day on October 17 announced he was leaving the Senate to help repay creditors following the collapsed of a group of home building companies he was linked to. This was after he was made aware of legal doubts about his election.

He then postponed his departure, saying he wanted to support the Government on the same-sex marriage and ABCC bills and did not want his state of South Australia to lose a senator.

He then changed his mind on Tuesday and resigned immediately because of the doubts over his eligibility to be there in the first place.

Had Mr Day quit on October 17 it is possible he would have been replaced by another Family First member filling a casual vacancy. That now seems unlikely because of the legal confusion.

Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong said “on the face of it” there was a case for Mr Day to answer but she wanted to see the referral to the High Court made by Attorney-General George Brandis.

“But obviously there are questions about the extent to which this has been something people have been concerned about for some time,” she told ABC radio today.

“The best thing that George Brandis could do as Leader of the Government in the Senate is to be completely transparent about the timetable.

“This goes to the function of our democracy, because this goes to the integrity of the Senate.”