A defiant West Australian One Nation senator has challenged rival parties and independents, who are weighing a move to refer his constitutional eligibility for legal scrutiny, to “take me to the High Court”.
Tyron Whitten’s eligibility to sit in parliament was thrown into doubt because of his role in his family’s civil construction company Whitten Group, which is involved in a multimillion-dollar Commonwealth project.
When Whitten was elected, he still held shares in the company he and his brother started, which had a $75 million contract on government project Snowy Hydro 2.0, a potential breach of Section 44 of the Constitution.
He told this masthead in an exclusive interview he “didn’t believe I had any risk at all”.
“Take me to the High Court guys. I’ve got nothing to hide – absolutely zero,” Whitten said.
“The business, Whitten’s Group, never had a contract with Snowy Hydro, it had a contract with FGJV. My [then] company was a subcontractor.”
Liberal frontbencher Jonno Duniam told The Australian if One Nation leader Pauline Hanson wanted to be prime minister, she should clear the air.
“That needs to be tested by the Court of Disputed Returns and draw a line under it once and for all,” Duniam said.
“The fact that they were on his register after being elected as a senator suggests [a breach], but the only way we’ll ever know is if the High Court, sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns, has a good look at this.”
Whitten attempted to ward off that attack, declaring he would defend himself in court if required, but stopped short of self-referring.
“I’ve got legal advice and good legal advice, and I don’t believe at any point I was in breach of Section 44,” Whitten said.
“If you want to waste the Parliament’s time and taxpayer’s money, knock yourself out. I’ve shown you the evidence.”
This masthead was shown legal advice from One Nation lawyers – including the contract in question – that indicate Tyron Whitten is eligible to sit in parliament.
However, the party was advised not to hand over a physical copy, meaning it could not be independently verified.
Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey said the ‘spirit’ of the constitution’s meaning could only be tested by the High Court, but believed any ruling would likely fall in the favour of Whitten.
“Snowy Hydro is certainly not the public service of the Commonwealth within the literal meaning of those words. Might the High Court, however, take a broader view based on principle?” Twomey said.
“Nonetheless, it is still taxpayers who are funding the Snowy Hydro project to the tune of billions in cost blow outs and the government ultimately controls the project to the extent that it holds all the shares.”
Twomey referred to the case of Family First senator Bob Day. The High Court ordered a recount of the Senate ballot, after his election was found invalid because of family links to the company that owned the building where his electorate office was located.
This month, The Australian revealed the most recent register of interests showed Whitten as still holding shares in Whitten’s Group before several details were promptly deleted from the official website. Whitten regretfully declared the entry had been a “clerical error.”
Records held by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission show that Whitten sold his shares on July 29, 2025.
Whitten said he agreed to sell the business to his brother in 2023, well before he considered running for parliament. The sum of the sale was not disclosed, however it was understood to be valued at seven figures.
He did confirm he was a shareholder in the business when he was nominated for parliament on 10 April 2025.
“The day of my maiden speech, on the 29th of July, that morning I ceased to be a shareholder,” Whitten said.
“It doesn’t meet the test under the constitution for Section 44. I’ve been advised there’s two parts to it; I failed one, because I did still have a shareholding… but I passed the other criteria, which was that there was no direct or indirect pecuniary interest,” Whitten said.
Greens leader Larissa Water said her party would consider a motion to refer Whitten to the High Court, if it was moved when Parliament returned next week.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
