George Brandis is adamant he has not misled parliament about when he first became personally involved in the Bell Group litigation.
The attorney-general was grilled for more than two hours at a Senate estimates hearing late on Tuesday night, which descended into a debate about semantics.
Senator Brandis stood by his claim that his first "personal involvement" in the matter was on March 3, 2016, despite West Australian attorney-general Michael Mischin saying last week the pair had spoken about the issue in early February.
Senator Brandis said he did not dispute Mr Mischin's comments but that had "no recollection" of the exchange.
"I do not say that it did not happen," he said. "I merely say that I do not recall it."
He suggested it was possible the Bell case was mentioned at the end of a conversation they had on the appointment of a Family Court judge in WA.
Nevertheless, Senator Brandis argued he was not in a position to discuss it with Mr Mischin because he had not yet been briefed on the matter.
"I do not regard that as personal involvement," he said.
Labor believes the federal attorney still misled the Senate in a statement last November, leading to intense exchanges about his use of the words "I recall".
Greens senator Nick McKim labelled Senator Brandis' explanation as "absolute sophistry of the highest order".
"I have to say this is the lamest series of excuses I've heard since the 'dog ate my homework," he said.
Non-government senators have been seeking to clarify whether the attorney-general sought to favour the WA government over Commonwealth taxpayers when it came to the liquidation of the failed Bell Group of companies operated by Alan Bond.
The WA government believed it had an agreement with Canberra, but was dudded when the Australian Taxation Office and the commonwealth successfully challenged WA laws relating to the Bell Group in the High Court.
Share
