It's quite simple. You have two experts in two separate fields telling you it needs to be changed, to be addressed, and to be more sensitive to and compliant with our charter itself.
You've alluded to tradition. Our summary trial is a carbon copy and flows from the U.K. military law, which was transported to Australia and New Zealand. The European court said they needed to change, and the U.K. has changed it. In the process, they've also changed not only the summary trial but the military justice system by civilianizing the Office of the Judge Advocate General and making sure a senior member of the bench now takes that position. Every judge in a military tribunal court martial in the U.K. is now a civilian judge.
I think we can learn a thing or two from our mother country. Their tradition that was passed on to us has changed recently. I am suggesting not to adopt it, but to at least look at it, be sensitive to it, and see why we should not follow suit. Maybe there is a good reason for not following suit, but I don't see it anywhere.