The mythology is that Australia’s Commitment to Vietnam was Constitutionally Valid, under SEATO, because of a “request” received from The South Vietnamese Government.

The facts are that Australia’s Commitment never satisfied the requirements of SEATO, nor the UN Charter, in relation to “aggression by armed attack”.

Why has this never been challenged in the High Court?

The only opinions that count in this matter are the judgments of the High Court Judges.

Any challenge should be a public interest issue and funded by the government. However such an approach would be a very grave tactical error.

The best approach would seem to be to fund the challenge through a fund contributed to by concerned citizens.

Because it is an intended “Class Action” there are no benefits initiating it through one or more of the various ex service organisations. Those entitled to can join the action.
 

Significance of Cricket’s Rule 27 

Most Australians would be familiar with the essence of Rule 27 which is that an umpire cannot give a batsman out unless the opposing team appeals to him (or her).

 This cricket analogy is probably fairly appropriate for the Constitutional Challenge where the teams would be:

 Citizens’ Team versus Government Team

 Umpire: High Court of Australia

 As in cricket, the umpire (High Court) cannot give a decision about something the Government Team has done unless the Citizens’ Team appeals to it.

 As in cricket no one but the umpire can make the decision. The club president cannot make the decision, nor can any of the fans watching the game. They can form an opinion, but they cannot make a decision. No one except the High Court judges can make a decision. Politicians can’t. Lawyers can’t.

The quickest way to get a solid grasp of the technical fundamentals is to view "Legal Flow Chart 2" in the "Web Page" column immediately below. It has hyperlinks to the appropriate sections of relevant documents. You will need to use the "back arrow" on your mouse or browser.