John Howard had no right to commit Australian troops to Afghanistan

In any event, pl.51 provides: The Parliament shall…have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: … (vi) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth.

Even in the days of corporatism, and Government by Executive, there can be no comfort for John Howard (nor his cronies and other supporters) in those provisions. The fact that the Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party, Kim Beazley, endorsed what Howard has done in sending Australian troops to a foreign war on foreign soil in support of a foreign power in no way validates the action. If anything, it simply illustrates the Opposition Leader's hubris.

Coming back to the question I posed at the outset: the Constitution further provides (pl.68) : The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.

There is no suggestion - neither implicit, nor explicit - that vesting is limited in some way; that it may be exercised by the Prime Minister, let alone an erstwhile Member of the House of Representatives, posturing as such!

With all due respect to the Governor-General, if he had even a scintilla of understanding of the Constitution and his powers and authority thereunder, he would order the immediate return of those troops.

On my reading of the Constitution, it appears that John Howard has not only attempted to circumscribe the Constitution, in so far as he purports to exercise powers which can no longer be vested in him, but he has also attempted to usurp the role and function of Parliament, and the authority of the Queen as exercised by the Governor-General.

From that, I go so far as to say, that anyone who is disaffected with John Howard's hubris in sending Australian troops to war at this time, anyone who has the passion and the resources, would have a court action against him on those very grounds. When the body-bags start coming back, will the parents or families consider they have an action in damages against John Howard as John Howard? It's an issue worth pondering.

And if they don't think that way, what does the Constitution mean?

Should it mean that these issues never arise for discussion or debate? If so, why are these issues not explicitly stated in the Constitution?

When I spoke at the Constitutional Convention in February 1998, I specifically called, not for a tweaking of the Constitution, not for the replacements of frills and furbelows with buttons and bows, but for a complete re-working of the Constitution, one which would serve a modern, intelligent, independent nation of proud, democratic people, who value peace and justice, respect and mutual understanding on which to build our social cohesion. At that time, I could never have predicted, let alone expected, that this need would become so urgent so soon.