Military v Civil Action. Then back on topic.
Creampuff;
As per your previous The Minister for Defence states a civil action, but like the Korea War, a 'Police Action' was run by the Military and sanctioned by the Minister of the day. This Minister is acting on behalf of the Executive of the Government. The Indonesians are now patrolling their borders. Is this a Civil or Military Action?
The Military owes it duty to the elected government of the day.
The Governor General is appointed by the government of the day and is Commander in Chief of the Defence Force who's duty is to The Queen.
To quote from my Commission: "To xxxx whereas you have been appointed to be, on and from xx/xx/xxxx an officer of the Australian Army; Now therefor I, the Right Honourable Sir John Robert Kerr, a member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight of the Order of Australia, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight of the Most venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, one of Her Majesty's Cousel learned in the law, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, issue in pursuance of section 10 of the Defence Act 1903, this Commission to you as an officer of the Australian Army: AND I do Charge and Command you to discharge your duty faithfully and to observe and execute all such orders and instructions as you may receive from your superior officers. Given under my hand etc. ... It's got nothing to do with loyalty to any particular party. It's duty.
To get back to where I tried to liken this fact to the strange addiction that besets us with political advisors left over from the last mob, I would suggest this is because of the epidemic of public servants ensconced in positions so firmly that any new government are loathe to divest themselves lest memories from the past are brought to the present day.
Regarding the CASA Board, I would suggest their duty should eclipse the standard of the Corporations Act and answer to a higher moral and ethical jurisdiction.
I doubt they do. It's my opinion they are treated like mushrooms and when the day of reckoning arrives they will wonder what they were doing there in the first place.
If the DAS is on that Board, I feel it is compromised.
EDIT for denabol post: Amazing that they would invite further criticism by rejecting public submissions after they were solicited. To call it outrageous would be accurate but there must be a better word to use.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 1st Mar 2014 at 23:00.
Reason: denabol post catch up.