“The attempt to combine wisdom and power has only rarely been successful and then only for a short while” - Albert Einstein
"War booty", a term mostly reserved to describe enemies tactics of Australia, US and UK. It is a well known historical fact that this was a war tactic long before the taliban. Descendants of most Australians, British soldiers were historically known for engaging in such acts during thier conquest of Ireland. Throughout war history, prisoners of war were women and children as such acts got to the heart of the enemy. It is therefore no mistake that the portfolio of the Attorney General consists of military, courts, surveillance and the odd one out..Family.
Services like the Family Court, Resolution and Dispute could have very well fit neatly under the portfolio for Families, Housing and Community Affairs.
But to examine the Attorney Generals Portfolio from a constructivist angle is to really analyse the mechanics of power, one that is greatly imbalanced, hidden and cruel towards the weak. If the Australian government was truly accountable, the Attorney Generals portfolio would consist of military aspects and family services would be handled by another minister. Military, by default is a right wing political attitude. It discriminates even by the best code of ethics. One has to simply survey the checks at airports between those of Caucasian to those of middle eastern decent to learn that there are racist attitudes meshed with detecting terrorists. ASIO, was noted to have a thriving right wing culture, their history of activities drives further away from accountability:
He is also in charge of administering the Evidence act, which not only has the power to control the questions to witnesses, their presentation of evidence but what documents produced or omitted in a hearing under the heading, "The Courts Control Over Questioning Of Witnesses". He has the power to intervene in cases by the director of prosecutions, whom claims to be an independent agency. Section 8 of the "Director of Public Prosecutions Act" includes the directions and guidelines by the Attorney General that the Director must carry out. First view, the guidelines appear amicable and just where directions must be published in the gazette and recorded in Parliament, but it then deviates to being that the Attorney General may deem some directions not to be disclosed. To add to the contrast of responsibilities, the Attorney General is responsible for both border protection and the Human Rights Commission, which might give some insight as to why the Attorney General rejected proposals for a Human Rights Charter.
As well as a monopoly on some of the most powerful organisations and laws, the Attorney General has a hand in censoring outcries with a smörgåsbord of means. The Family Law Act Section 121, the Copyright act to the Protection of National information infrastructure. In fact, the latest commentary from Robert Mc Clelland is not about Family law, National Security, but silencing Wikileaks, an organisation based upon the values of Freedom of speech. Without free speech, human rights cannot be voiced and governance is not accountable. Such a monopoly would never be allowed if these departments were businesses, yet this portfolio exists. It is the foundation of a right wing dream, to control the family, maintain Australia's White Policy and punish the defenseless.