At the heart of the latest allegations swirling around George Brandis, the chronically dysfunctional first law officer, is the claim that he failed in his duty to protect the constitution and the revenue in order to perform a favour to political soulmates in the government of Western Australia.

That was what the West Australian newspaper said on Friday, in a useful article that tied together some of the loose strands still flapping in the wake of Brandis’ entanglement with the former solicitor general, Justin Gleeson.

If the allegation is true then it would be unconscionable for Brandis to remain attorney general.

Senate votes for inquiry into George Brandis and Bell litigation – politics live Read more

It was asserted by the paper that Brandis instructed the solicitor general not to run an argument in the high court on behalf of the commissioner of taxation that would jeopardise legislation passed by the Western Australian parliament to close down the long-running Bell litigation, where creditors were fighting over the carve-up of assets from the carcass of Alan Bond’s corporate interests.

Instead of lawyers in court scrapping over money, the WA government wanted to take control and arrange its own scheme of distribution. This was of immediate concern to the commissioner of taxation, who was in line for $300m in unpaid Bell taxes and concerned that he would be at the mercy of bureaucrats in Perth.

The Bell Act sought to alter, impair and detract from the commonwealth’s ability to enforce the recovery of a tax debt.

Gleeson thought it was constitutional law 101 that the WA legislation ran foul of the conflict of laws provision of the constitution.

The Taxation Commission sought the solicitor general’s advice and was told there was an excellent chance the high court would find what the law men from the wild west had done was invalid, which it duly found in May this year.

Brandis made a statement to the Senate on Monday, where for all the world he looked like a man whose career was balanced on eggshells. He said it was absurd for the opposition to say that he had “failed sufficiently to protect the interests of the commonwealth”.

The attorney made four key claims:

He had no knowledge of discussions between then treasurer, Joe Hockey, and his Western Australian counterpart. Further, there is no “evidence” of an agreement between the commonwealth and WA that led to the introduction of the Bell Act.

The first he knew about how the WA law might impact the commonwealth was on 3 March this year. This was when federal minister Christian Porter, a former Western Australian attorney general and treasurer, came to see him.

On 4 March, he considered that the ATO “should not intervene in the [high court] proceedings”. This was only something he wanted to “test” with the assistant treasurer, Kelly O’Dwyer. Then he later thought it was “desirable” that the ATO should intervene in the case brought by other Bell Group creditors.

The solicitor general came to see him to say that the commonwealth should intervene as well. On Brandis’ instructions, the commonwealth became an intervener on 30 March.

There are a couple of things to note about those dates. The ATO intervened in the high court case on 8 March, while Brandis only allowed the commonwealth to get its foot in the door six days before the argument kicked off in the high court on 5 April.

One possible explanation for this delay was that the attorney general was trying to keep faith with the Western Australian Liberals, by at least staying the commonwealth’s hand, even though the ATO had independently decided to press ahead.

It was only when Gleeson came to see the attorney general sometime before 30 March, to insist that the commonwealth should intervene in the litigation that the government’s senior lawyers got the green light to be involved.

Brandis has tried to suggest that the commonwealth didn’t need to get involved because the commissioner of taxation had mounted his horse.

One other thing – it doesn’t wash for him to claim that the letters between Hockey and the WA treasurer, Mike Nahan, are not evidence of an agreement between the state and federal government. If anything, Hockey’s letter gives the Western Australians a great big, gleaming green light to press ahead with their Bell legislation. All the commonwealth treasurer was concerned about was ensuring Australia is an attractive destination for foreign investment. Here’s Hockey:

I acknowledge the desire of the Western Australian government to see an efficient and timely conclusion of the Bell Group insolvency process.

We actually have to go to the high court transcripts to get further and better particulars as to what went on.

On 8 February, seven weeks before the commonwealth intervened in the litigation, there was a directions hearing in the high court.

Dr James Watson, instructed by the Australian government solicitor, appeared and told Justice Virginia Bell:

We are seeking to appear at these directions. The commonwealth attorney has not yet made the decision to intervene but, in practical circumstances, we have been in touch with the other parties about programming and timetables and we seek that leave in the interests of hopefully assisting the court.

One implication of what Watson told the court on 8 February was that the AG was still to decide on something he had in contemplation – yet the Senate was told that the first that Brandis had any “personal involvement” was 3 March.

This is something that any inquiry by a Senate committee might tease out.

The alternative position is that the government solicitor was acting without the attorney general’s knowledge, which stretches incredulity when it comes to a control freak like George Brandis, particularly in a high profile piece of politically sensitive litigation.

On the same day (8 February) barrister Anthony D’Arcy appeared for the Bell plaintiffs and said that his clients wanted a special case that embraced the legislation’s inconsistencies with both the Tax Act and the Corporations Act.

In other words, while Brandis later indicated he was chewing his fingernails about whether it was preferable to engage the Tax Act argument alone, the plaintiffs seven weeks earlier were pressing for an all-in case that included the Corporations Act.

The questions that Brandis’ statement to parliament did not answer are these:

What happened between 8 February, when the directions hearing took place in the court, and 30 March when he intervened?

Did the commonwealth’s lawyers appear in court on 8 February and make submissions without his knowledge?

What caused him to change his mind? After all, on 3 March he was not inclined to intervene yet by 30 March he was.

Did the attorney general instruct, at any point, the solicitor general to run dead on the constitutional challenge by Bell creditors?

Did George Brandis mislead parliament over solicitor general changes? | Richard Ackland Read more

A casual observer might think that protecting the commonwealth’s interests would involve getting on the bus from day one, not three weeks after the tax office was on the case and seven weeks after the AGS lawyers told the court the AG “has not yet made the decision to intervene”.

Then there is the timing of the 4 May super-duper Legal Services Direction, which required all government agencies (including the Commissioner of Taxation) to seek the attorney general’s approval before running off and getting advice from Gleeson. The attorney issued that direction 12 days before the high court handed down its decision.

All very puzzling. No doubt Justin Gleeson could clear up the confusion if he was asked to give evidence to another performance of the legal and constitutional affairs committee.

In the meantime, the lawyers can get back to feasting on the 25-year banquet that is the Bell creditors’ litigation.