WA's Attorney-General has apologised to the state's parliament for what he described as a "silly little error" while giving evidence in a defamation case between Clive Palmer and Mark McGowan.
John Quigley initially gave evidence in the Federal Court case in March but had to return the next month to correct it.
He said his busy work schedule may have contributed to him forgetting when he found out there was a risk of Mr Palmer registering crucial arbitration, which could have led to a massive damages claim against the state.
Mr Palmer was pursuing damages, potentially worth $30 billion, over the previous state government's refusal to assess the Balmoral South iron ore project in the Pilbara.
In handing down his judgement in the case last week, Justice Michael Lee said Mr Quigley's evidence was not dishonest but was "all over the shop".
"It is worth stressing that being a confused witness is quite a different thing from being a dishonest one," he said.
The situation has been used by the opposition to call for Mr Quigley to resign from his portfolio.
But that idea has been repeatedly rejected by the government, including Mr McGowan and Mr Quigley.
Under questioning from the opposition in parliament on Tuesday, Mr Quigley said he stood by his record as Attorney-General, which included introducing 70 bills.
"The silly little error was not an issue, in fact, in the trial," he said.
"So I have apologised to the court, I apologise to this chamber, that I made a silly error that was an honest error."
Mr Quigley also said he felt "embarrassed" over the mistake, but believed he did the right thing.
"When one makes an honest mistake, what should one do? Move immediately to correct it, as soon as you realise that you've made an error, which is what I did."
Premier 'defending the indefensible'
But that answer did not satisfy the leader of the opposition, Mia Davies, who called on the Premier to remove Mr Quigley as Attorney-General, describing him as a "liability".
"Instead of showing leadership, the Premier is defending the indefensible," she said.
"Historical loyalty, Premier, doesn't cut it when there are so many other competent people in your backbench."
Ms Davies also read parts of Justice Lee's judgement, including where he described Mr Quigley's evidence as "confused and confusing".
"You would hope that the chief law officer of the state would be at the very least honest, and that's the only good thing that Justice Lee could find in that judgement to describe what the Attorney-General did in that sad, sorry state of affairs," she said.
In answering Ms Davies' original question on Tuesday, Mr Quigley also referred to an incident some time ago where he said Ms Davies was confused about which bill the parliament had been debating.
In response, she said it was an "appalling response from the Attorney-General to a question I know many people have wanted the answer to, and you have refused to provide any comment".
