[LINK] SMH Op-Ed: Williams Character Assassination

[Roger Clarke]

[Richard Ackland - he of Media Watch - puts very nicely what I think 
of the worst Attorney-General this country's ever suffered]


The very picture of a petulant AG
The Sydney Morning Herald
Date: April 4 2003
By Richard Ackland
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/04/03/1048962881547.htm

What is it with "Rowdy" Williams QC, MP? The federal Attorney-General 
seems so miserable, pushed as he is to adopt the less amusing 
hallmarks of a grim regime.

This is not to suggest that Daryl Williams was ever anything other 
than a lawyer's lawyer and all that is embraced in that exciting 
concept. But what makes one convinced of his unhappiness is his 
consistently constipated performance under light questioning. He's a 
stuttering vision in puce and if ever a man wasn't set on fire by the 
certainty of his conviction, it is the Attorney-General.

It's comforting to remember that Williams is in charge of our 
national security. The fact that his security legislation cannot pass 
the Parliament is a testament to the proposition that no one takes 
seriously his insistence on the need to hold men and women  without 
immediate access to lawyers in the interests of national 
tranquillity. It is just that Rowdy is not persuasively fearsome 
enough.

For someone who gives the appearance of non-rabid avuncularity, 
Williams has come up with some pretty unsubtle assaults on the 
traditional apparatus. The latest was announced yesterday in the form 
of a reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission for it to 
investigate how best to prevent information the Government wants kept 
secret from being ventilated in court proceedings.    Williams says 
he is going to legislate in any event to protect certain information 
turning up in court cases and thereby becoming public. This is not 
classified information, but "security sensitive information", which 
potentially covers an awful lot of things the Government would prefer 
you didn't know. The commission has been given the job of sorting out 
how best to do this and has until the end of next February to come up 
with a formula, whether it be closed hearings or court orders 
limiting the disclosure of material.

In the seven years that Williams has been Attorney-General he has 
made just eight references to this first-rate law reform body, 
including reviews of the Archives Act, Proceeds of Crime Act, Marine 
Insurance Act, Judiciary Act, penalties in the federal civil and 
administrative jurisdiction and protection of human genetic 
information. It is but one measure of his raciness.

The other sinister little invasion in the name of national security 
is the new requirement that any defendant in a "national security" 
case cannot obtain legal aid unless the defendant's lawyer has a 
security clearance. The Law Council of Australia protested but 
Williams, a former council president, knows how much weight that 
carries.

Not that there's much legal aid left, anyway. This was the No. 1 
assault of  Williams when he took office in 1996. The cuts to legal 
aid in the Coalition's first Budget were deep as Williams made it 
clear that apart from Family Court matters, this should primarily be 
the responsibility of the states. The Commonwealth sought to 
encourage the private profession to fill the gap with a more zealous 
commitment to pro bonoism, which is all very well but hardly a 
substitute for a sensible method of consistently applied assistance 
for the indigent who require "access to justice".

Then there was last week's encouraging announcement from Williams 
that "the human rights of all Australians will be strengthened under 
a bill introduced into Parliament today". A more graphic piece of 
Orwellian double talk one is unlikely to find, for as Steve Dow 
explains on this page, the legislation does precisely the opposite as 
it seeks to diminish the powers and protections, limited as they are, 
afforded by the existing Human Rights and Equal Opportunity 
Commission.

A more accurate reflection of the Williams's feeling about human 
rights can be gleaned by the fact that he is spending what must be an 
inordinate amount of taxpayers' money on endless appeals against 
Family Court findings that validate a marriage in which one party  is 
a transsexual. The threat  such arrangements pose to a well-ordered 
society is of such  concern to Williams that he is contemplating 
seeking special leave of the High Court to appeal against a Full 
Family Court ruling in this case.

Maybe many people will sleep better once they know Williams has left 
no stone unturned to protect the immutability of "traditional" 
marriage. Let's hope the High Court uses the opportunity to express 
some useful dicta about the rights of a married man to be brought a 
cup of tea in the morning.

Then, of course, there is the issue of film and literature 
classification and Daryl's quiet but effective orchestration of a 
shift in direction that would not displease the Amish.

It all adds up to one thing. That we should no longer be charmed by 
this piano-playing, chilli-munching party boy. He seems to mean 
business.

-- 
Roger Clarke              http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
			            
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                 Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au            http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program, University of Hong Kong
Visiting Professor in the Baker Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre, U.N.S.W
Visiting Fellow in Computer Science, Australian National University