One Nation senator Tyron Whitten with $75 million tie to Snowy Hydro 2.0 denies constitutional breach
A defiant Western Australian One Nation senator has challenged rival parties and independents trying to assess his constitutional suitability for legal review to “take me to the Supreme Court”.
Tyron Whitten’s eligibility to stand in parliament has been thrown into doubt because of his family’s role in construction company Whitten Group, which is involved in a multimillion-dollar Commonwealth project.
When Whitten was elected, he still held shares of the company he and his brother founded, which had a $75 million contract for the government project Snowy Hydro 2.0, a potential violation of the 44th Amendment to the Constitution.
He told this imprint in an exclusive interview that he “doesn’t believe I pose any risk.”
“Take me to the Supreme Court, folks. I have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing,” Whitten said.
“The business, Whitten’s Group, never had a contract with Snowy Hydro, it had a contract with FGJV. [then] The company was a subcontractor.”
Liberal frontrunner Jonno Duniam said: Australian If One Nation leader Pauline Hanson wants to be prime minister, she needs to clear the air.
“This needs to be tested by the Disputed Returns Tribunal and a clear line must be drawn under it,” Duniam said.
“The fact that they appear on his record after being elected senator shows that: [a breach]But the only way we can know this is whether the Supreme Court, which serves as the Disputed Returns Court, has thoroughly examined this issue.”
Whitten tried to deflect this attack by declaring that he would defend himself in court if necessary, but stopped short of referring to himself.
“I have legal advice and good legal advice and I do not believe I have violated Section 44 at any point,” Whitten said.
“If you want to waste Parliament’s time and taxpayers’ money, destroy yourself. I’ve shown you the evidence.”
This imprint received legal advice from One Nation lawyers, including the contract in question, showing that Tyron Whitten is eligible to sit in parliament.
However, the party was advised not to provide a physical copy, meaning the document could not be independently verified.
Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey said the ‘spirit’ of the constitution’s meaning could only be tested by the Supreme Court, but she believed any decision would likely end in Whitten’s favour.
“Snowy Hydro is certainly not a Commonwealth utility in the true sense of those words. But could the Supreme Court in principle take a broader view?” Twomey said.
“However, it is still taxpayers who are financing the Snowy Hydro project at billions of dollars in lost costs, and the government ultimately controls the project to the extent it holds all shares.”
Twomey touched on the case Family’s First Senator Bob Day. The Supreme Court ordered a recount of the Senate votes after her election was deemed invalid due to family ties to the company that owns the building where the voter’s office is located.
this monthAustralian The latest records of interests revealed that Whitten still holds shares in Whitten’s Group; many details were subsequently promptly deleted from the official website. Whitten regretfully declared that the entry was a “clerical error.”
Records kept by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission show Whitten sold his shares on July 29, 2025.
Whitten said he agreed to sell the business to his brother in 2023, long before he considered running for parliament. The amount of the sale was not disclosed, but it was understood that its value was in seven figures.
He confirmed that he was a shareholder of the company when he was nominated for parliament on April 10, 2025.
“I stopped being a shareholder that morning, July 29, when I gave my first speech,” Whitten said.
“It doesn’t meet the test under Section 44 of the Constitution. I was told there were two parts to it; I failed one because I still had a stake… but I passed the other criteria, meaning 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 Supreme Court if the motion was carried when Parliament meets next week.
Beginning the featuring a roundup of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
