Conflict of interest
- Bob Day’s election to the Senate was challenged in 2017 under section 44(v) of the Australian Constitution on the basis that part of his business involved financial interests with the Commonwealth – therefore, that he had a conflict of interest if he was a member of parliament.
- The High Court overruled the previous interpretation of section44(v), finding that Bob Day’s business arrangement did indeed disqualify him.
3. James Webster was elected to the Senate even though his company supplied timber to Commonwealth agencies. In Webster, then-chief justice Barwick determined that s44(v) did not exist to “protect the public against fraudulent conduct of members of the House,” but to protect parliament from the influence of the Crown. He found that the section would only be breached, therefore, if, “through the possibility of financial gain by the existence or the performance of the agreement, that person could conceivably be influenced by the Crown in relation to Parliamentary affairs.” Webster already had contracts for the timber and once the timber was delivered those contracts would be discharged, so he found there was no conflict.
4. In 2017, the Court interpreted s44(v) more broadly than in Webster. It said: “In our view, Webster proceeded upon a wrong view of the place of s44(v) in the Constitution and of the purpose of that provision, and did not give effect to its terms. It should not be followed.”The High Court’s interpretation is an example of overruling the previous interpretation of s44(v) as the Court chose to reject an old principle of law.