High court judge rejects key Labor arguments against Bob Day
A high court judge has rejected two key arguments made by Labor against the former Family First senator Bob Day.
Day will face the full bench of the high court on 7 February in relation to whether he had a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a lease agreement between the owner of his electorate office premises, Fullarton Investments, and the federal government.
Under the constitution, such an arrangement would disqualify him from sitting in parliament.
What is section 44? Why it matters if Bob Day is declared ineligible
Read more
If he is found to have been disqualified, a recount would be needed, but if he wins, Family First would fill the casual vacancy caused by his resignation last year.
However, before the 7 February hearing starts, the former Labor senator Anne McEwen asked to have certain findings accepted by the court and other evidence allowed to be introduced.
McEwen asked that it be found Day “controlled” the affairs of Fullarton Investments and he knew that following the transfer of the property to the company he retained a financial interest in the property and the lease to the commonwealth.
However, Justice Michelle Gordon disagreed in a judgment on Friday.
“The evidence ... does not persuade me that Mr Day knew, following the transfer of the Fullarton Road property, that he retained a financial interest in the Fullarton Road property and that he had a financial interest in the lease of the Fullarton Road property to the commonwealth,” she said.
She also rejected the finding that Day knew, as a result of the asserted financial interest, that there was a serious risk that he might be disqualified under the constitution.
McEwen also argued Day’s appearance on the ballot paper distorted the vote for Family First in South Australia, and without him there would have been fewer “above the line” votes for the party.
This meant the second person on the Family First ticket, Lucy Gichuhi, would have had no chance of being elected.
Justice Gordon said the finding was “at best hypothetical. It is not made”.
McEwen did however win the right to present some extra evidence in the case, comprising a 126-page bundle of documents relating to the electorate office and a two-page conveyancing settlement statement dated 11 April 2014.