National Observer Home > No. 42 - Spring 1999 > Editorial Comment

The Credibility of Mr. Daryl Williams

The position of Attorney-General is unique, for the Attorney-General is both a politician and the principal law officer of the Commonwealth. It is necessary that he should be credible, and that his political activities should not undermine his standing as principal legal officer.

Unfortunately Mr. Williams has not performed well in these respects. He recently entered into the republic debate — he is of course a republican — and made comments that are unfortunately misleading.

On 9th September 1999 he delivered a biased address in which he claimed incorrectly that the current republic proposal was one where the Prime Minister did not gain greater power and that the proposal would not make the removal of a president any more likely than the removal of a Governor-General.

This comment does not, of course, reflect the reality. The reality is that under the republic proposal a Prime Minister could instantly dismiss a president at any time — an extraordinary position in itself — whereas under the current system a Prime Minister must go through the constitutional process of causing a Governor-General to be removed by the Queen. The significance of this critical distinction, and of the increased power that it would in practice confer upon a Prime Minister, is explained at length by Professor Flint in an important article published in this issue of the National Observer.

Mr. Williams has proved himself to be one of the least satisfactory Attorney-Generals of the past several decades, and it would be appropriate that he be replaced by someone perceived to be more capable and commanding greater respect.

National Observer No. 42 - Spring 1999