ANALYSIS

THE unseemly uproar between Attorney-General George Brandis and his departed solicitor-general Justin Gleeson was always personal.

Soon after Mr Gleeson quit in late October, when it was clear the two could never work together, Senator Brandis underlined that personal nature.

He withdrew an instruction that the solicitor-general had to get written permission before giving legal advice, whether to other ministers, departments or government agencies.

It had been specifically an anti-Gleeson directive, and now we are being given one version as to why.

And it could have devastating consequences for Senator Brandis and the Turnbull Government, posing questions about what Labor’s Penny Wong has already labelled corruption or moral bankruptcy.

Mr Gleeson ignored a verbal instructions from Senator Brandis to support the elevation of the West Australian Government’s insurance agency to the top of the list of creditors wanting money from the failed Bell Group.

The claim is in a detailed news report by The West Australian newspaper today.

Instead, Mr Gleeson effectively told the High Court the Australian Taxation Office should stay on top of the list, and get the first repayments. He opposed the WA Insurance Commission jumping two places, and the court agreed 7-0.

He had blocked a bid by Senator Brandis to channel a big load of funds to the friendly West Australian government by taking it from the Commonwealth — a $1 billion sweetheart deal.

It was associated with WA complaints that it was not getting its rightful share of GST money. This was to mend hurt feelings and a strained state budget.

A similar theory was reported by The Australian Financial Review in June, during the election campaign. The point was lost amid heated debates over whether Mr Gleeson should have confirmed to the Labor Party, during that campaign, the existence of the Brandis instruction on written permission.

If accurate, the combined claims expose a secret agreement to divert $300 million owed to the federal taxpayer to the state taxpayers of WA.

And it would be seen as an attempt to manipulate the Constitution and the High Court to achieve this sneaky backhander.

Mr Gleeson followed the law rather than what could be seen as political directives.

The Brandis/Gleeson clash had previously been focused on the question of whether the Attorney-General had properly canvassed the directive on written permission being needed before the legal adviser could issue advice.

That now looks a quaint debate compared to the political brutality attributed to Senator Brandis in these latest accounts.