New Australian Military Court Declared Invalid...

Who would have thought that a new Military Court would be declared constitutionally invalid because of a teabagging case. Teabagging, for those of you who do not know the term, is an act performed by a man that involves putting his testicles onto the face of another person. However, this is just what happened to the new Australian Military Court. Well, that and a government not prepared to listen to any advice that the court would not survive a constitutional challenge.

The High Court of Australia has handed-down a unanimous decision that the Military Court as it is currently constituted does not comply with the requisite judicial power outlined in the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

The Court made this decision because the court was designed to exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth and as such the court had to be established in a particular manner in order to be valid. This was even after reading and considering the legislation that established the court. The relevant legislation goes to some length to state that the Military Court is to act more like a tribunal and therefore did not need to comply with the constitution's judicial power clauses.

How this came to be a High Court matter is an interesting tale of events. Brian Lane joined the Navy back in 1998. In 2005 he was photographed teabagging an army sergeant while the sergeant was asleep. Lane was then charged with committing an act of indecency and assaulting a superior officer. He was charged in August 2007 and discharged from the Navy in November 2007.

When the case came to court, Lane objected to the jurisdiction of the court and lodged an appeal to the High Court to determine whether there was valid jurisdiction. The High Court said that the provisions creating the Military Court were invalid because it was created as a court of record and because it was to have the power to issue binding and authoritative decisions of guilt or innocence. Simply, if it was to have the power to do these things then it must be a court that is properly constituted.

The High Court has ordered a writ of prohibition be issued. In essence, this writ stops the proceedings against Lane from going forward in the constitutionally invalid Military Court.

Perhaps this post lends itself to a picture of teabagging?

Army Boots

Keeping with the military theme of the last post, here is one of those "are you kidding me" moments also known as a "WTF" moments. It bothers me that this is a story originating out of Australia. Not least because of its stupidity but because I have a brother who serves in Australia's armed services and I would think that my tax payer dollars that have been taken over the years have been spent on worthwhile things like comfortable and fit for purpose clothing for those people that serve our country while we wrap ourselves in the warm blanket of freedom!

The story goes like this! Australia's armed forces have said that soldiers serving in combat zones such as Iraq, Afghanistan, or Timor Leste are permitted to buy their own combat boots from one of four approved providers in the event that the army issue combat boots are not suitable. The army has recognized that the current issue boot is no longer fit for purpose, particularly in the demanding combat zones that Australian troops find themselves in, and are developing a new boot.

In the interim, the army has said that soldiers may by their own boots and a good pair of boots could cost upwards of AUD 600, which seems like a small investment for what could conceivably be the difference between life and death, literally. Unfortunately, soldiers who do this will not be reimbursed for the cost of the boots they buy.

The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Defence, Greg Combet, stated that the government's position is that the current issued boots are suitable. By the sounds of it he needs to get out a little more and talk to some people down at the Department of Defence because if these boots are so good then there seems to be no need to develop a new and improved pair!

For me, here is the cold hard reality, we are asking these young men and women to lay their lives on the line for us every single day they are in a combat zone and we are debating whether or not the government should reimburse these brave young men and women for a pair of boots, stupid! If you're not going to reimburse them directly then one would hope that a special provision within the tax law would allow these boots to be claimed back through the tax system.

I am definitely anti-war but I am pro-people. If we are going to send people into the line of fire then we have a responsibility to ensure that they are fully equipped and the equipment is fit for purpose. If not, then we must not send them into that danger, for me there are no ifs, buts, or maybes on this one!