Two small words proved the stars of Tuesday night's much-anticipated questioning of attorney general George Brandis on the Bell Group matter: "I recall".
If you're not across the Bell Group matter, read this. It's a tussle over the distribution of funds from the collapse of Alan Bond's company in the 1990s – and reports have alleged a secret deal between the federal and Western Australian governments.
On November 28, 2016, Brandis delivered a statement to the Senate on the matter. He said that the first meeting he had with Western Australian attorney general Michael Mischin was on March 4, 2016.
But last week, Mischin said he had spoken about the Bell matter with Brandis in early February – a WHOLE MONTH before Brandis said they had spoken.
This prompted a bunch of senators from Labor, the Greens, and the crossbench to write to the Senate president accusing Brandis of misleading the Senate.
Here's WA A-G Michael Mischin confirming George Brandis spoke to him on Bell in early Feb 2016 as revealed by… https://t.co/NZkuM4laMO
On Tuesday night, the whole gang – plus committee chair Ian Macdonald – spent hours in a committee room hashing out the question: Did Brandis mislead the senate?
Here is a rather rudimentary, but ultimately accurate, representation of this entire discussion.
Here is a helpful diagram I have made of a central question facing tonight's Brandis #estimates hearing
Brandis contends that the sentence starting "The first conversation I had with Mr Mischin..." is qualified by the "I recall" two paragraphs earlier.
To make matters more complicated, Brandis said that in HIS copy of his statement, it was all in the same paragraph – but in the Hansard, it's a couple of paragraphs down.
"On page four of the text of the typescript, which I am sure is the same as the Hansard, this is what I said: 'The first personal involvement I recall having in the matter was on the 3rd of March this year'," Brandis said.
"This statement I gave to the Senate was chronological. So of course, if the first involvement in the matter I recall was on the 3rd of March, then everything subsequent to that is qualified by the words 'I recall'," he concluded.
The assertion prompted significant mirth in opposition senators.
"The words 'I recall' magically cascade down the rest of the statement!" said Wong.
But Brandis wasn't backing down.
"The statement on the 28th of November is chronological and it locates a place in time, that is, the visit to my office from Mr Porter on the 3rd of March," he said.
"Obviously, if the first involvement I recall is on the 3rd of March, then nothing before the 3rd of March I am saying I recall. And I don't."
The discussion went on...
Brandis is now going through the statement and clarifying what he recalls, what is fact, and what he does not recall. #estimates
... and on...
Brandis suggests he could have put "So far as I recall" at the top of each page. McKim: At least that would have been factually accurate!
... and on...
"Obviously and necessarily, if I have already said the first involvement I recall was on March 3, then I am saying I recall nothing prior."
... and on...
Brandis says "stylistically" he could start every sentence with "so far as I can recall" #estimates
... and on.
We are back on which paragraph the "I recall" refers to. #estimates
Another important two words to note are: "personal involvement". Brandis offered a specific description of what constitutes "personal involvement" in the case – which he maintains did not commence until he had a meeting with Christian Porter on March 3.
"When a minister becomes personally involved in a matter, he becomes engaged in it, familiarises himself with the issue, and puts himself in a position to discuss it and make decisions about it," Brandis said.
At one point, Brandis said he loved "nothing more" than talking about language... and said he owns the first AND second editions of the Oxford English Dictionary.
"I like nothing more than talking about language," AG Brandis says, adding he owns both 1st and 2nd eds of Oxford English Dictionary #auspol
Around 11pm, the questioning of Brandis on the Bell matter finally drew to an end – but none of his Senate opponents were convinced on the placement of "I recall".
The last word goes to Twitter user @54dogboy, who told BuzzFeed News the hearing was "better than ball-by-ball on Cricinfo".