Why let the law get in the way of a court case? That appears to be the view of Attorney-General George Brandis – the man who sits at the apex of the nation's legal system.
The scandal-prone Queensland senator is mired in fresh strife amid reports he directed the government's chief lawyer not to bring up politically inconvenient subjects like the Constitution in the High Court.
More Videos
Brandis in hot water again
Labor has said George Brandis acted corruptly following fresh revelations from Justin Gleeson about a secret deal to benefit the West Australian Liberal government.
A blazing row between Brandis and the now former solicitor-general, Justin Gleeson SC, made headlines for months before Gleeson sensationally quit last month, saying their relationship was "irretrievably broken".
The genesis of the row had been unclear but some of the fog appeared to lift on Friday when The West Australian reported Gleeson defied an instruction from Brandis not to raise a specific legal argument in a High Court case involving Alan Bond's failed Bell Group of companies.
The argument, which ultimately found favour in the High Court, pointed to glaring constitutional problems with a political deal struck between the Coalition government, then led by Tony Abbott, and their conservative West Australian counterparts.
The deal allowed the WA government to take control of the group's $1.8 billion, giving it first dibs on any money flowing from its liquidation and potentially frustrating attempts by the Australian Taxation Office to claw back $300 million.
There was an apparent "understanding" that the Commonwealth would not kick up a fuss about the constitutional validity, or otherwise, of the arrangement.
The ATO, unsurprisingly, found the deal a bit galling. The WA laws effecting the arrangement were inconsistent with federal tax laws and, accordingly, fell foul of section 109 of the Constitution – which says federal laws trump state laws.
![Attorney-General Senator George Brandis during question time at Parliament House in Canberra on Thursday 10 November ...](/web/20161125125908im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/s/x/s/t/u/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gsxeo4.png/1480074582814.jpg)
Gleeson was acting for both the Commonwealth and the ATO in a High Court challenge to the WA laws.
He had a duty, including under "model litigant" obligations that apply to Commonwealth agencies, to raise points that would assist the court in determining the dispute.
![Attorney-General George Brandis is under renewed pressure.](/web/20161125125908im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/i/y/9/x/y/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gsxeo4.png/1480074582814.jpg)
Brandis would be well aware of those obligations. If, as has been alleged, he directed Gleeson not to frustrate a political deal, he ought to resign.
The controversy also casts a different light on the dispute between the two men.
![Illustration: Ron Tandberg](/web/20161125125908im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/s/x/z/0/h/image.related.articleLeadNarrow.300x0.gsxeo4.png/1480074582814.jpg)
Brandis introduced a controversial direction on May 4 preventing ministers and departments, including the ATO, asking Gleeson for advice without his written approval.
He has described the direction, made a month after hearings in the Bell Group case concluded on April 7, as mere "administrative housekeeping". The timing suggests other factors were at play.