The Right of Appeal: Real or illusionary for the ADF?
Share the post "The Right of Appeal: Real or illusionary for the ADF?"
This is a story about a misuse of power.
Her Excellency, the Governor General, is the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). She represents the highest avenue of appeal to redress decisions affecting the ADF.
So it was that a letter was sent to Government House, asking that the decision to strip tanks from 1st Armoured Regiment after 75 years continuous service to the nation be reconsidered. A small part of this letter is copied below:
“I write on behalf of a group of veterans among whose collective efforts were those which contributed to the award of the three battle-honours emblazoned on the 1st Armoured Regiment’s Standard, as well as the Unit Citation for Gallantry awarded for the Battles of Coral-Balmoral.
We are all heart-broken that the heritage and tradition built up year by year during the unit’s service to the nation, will undoubtedly now be lost.”
The letter was a lengthy one. The Defence Act (1903) states that “the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) must utilise the Defence Force in such manner as is reasonable and necessary, for the purpose specified”.
Not only that, any orders given by the CDF or his service chiefs, have to be ethical. [The ADF’s ‘Military Ethics’ doctrine states: “We must all understand our ethical and legal obligations to know when orders are ethical and lawful and when they are not”.]
It was our assertion that the CDF’s decision to force 1 Armd Regt to adopt a non-Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC) role was unreasonable and unethical.
For reasons known only to herself and her staff, Her Excellency declined to respond.
Given that there is no higher appeal authority; what was it that Her Excellency (or her staff) was actually saying? Is it possible that appeals to Her Excellency re ADF matters could have been abolished?
Surely this couldn’t be true? The appeals process is one of the foundations of the Rule of Law. The Governor General I had the honour to serve – the late Sir Zelman Cowen, AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC, used to be adamant about such things.
My understanding was that, as long as Her Excellency held the rank of Commander-in-Chief, the right of appeal to her would continue. This being the case, the question was: how can it be made to work? If Her Excellency doesn’t condescend to respond to an appeal made to her – what happens next?
I now know better.
With respect to ADF matters, Her Excellency acts on the advice of the responsible minister. So it was that the Minister for Defence – the Hon Richard Marles, MP, became involved for a second time in a matter having a direct impact on 1 Armd Regt.
The Minister had previously refused to follow the established Parliamentary protocol of responding to a Petition to Parliament (one which gained 176 signatures, more than three times the number warranting his response).
The following matter had been raised with him vide the Petition:
“We therefore ask the House to urge the Defence Minister, Richard Marles, to reinstate 1st Armoured Regiment as the nation’s tank regiment, overturning the Department of Defence’s decision to remove one of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps’ (RAAC’s) oldest and most decorated regular army units from the ORBAT.
We seek this so as to honour the service and sacrifice of tank crews during the past 75 years, creating an inspirational legacy worthy of being passed on to those serving today.”
In keeping with Her Excellency, but contrary to all Parliamentary protocols, the Minister declined to respond to the Petition. A co-incidence? Unlikely. It would seem that his intention was very much a premeditated one!
Would it have not been the ethical thing for the Minister to have excused himself on the grounds of conflict of interest (either in advising the Governor-General not to respond to our letter or in not responding himself to the Parliamentary petition).
If this is the ethical standard set by the highest appointees and politicians in the land, what hope is there for our Nation’s future?
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
.
.
ChatGPT image
.
.
.
.
Sounds like an ops normal response from Liebor, they have turned non response into an art form.
What can you expect from people so removed from the operations and knowledge of military activities? Under this current government and GG they only see Defence as a department to cut budgets from to and apply to celebrations of causes that fit their narritive. With respect to military tradition and the comraderie of veterans – that is what DVA is for. I find it quite sad that what a major unit such 1st Armoured Regiment is broken up and the standard put away, similar to 4RAR – even though they became 2 Commando. still the memories and stories remain with the veterans of those battles but will they be remembered by new soldiers of those units?
Only when the GG and government are embarassed into action is when something might happen. Given the recent circumstances, they will not give a flying football about it as they have no honour or comittment to duty except to their party and ideaology.