This Bills Digest replaces a preliminary Digest published on 1 September 2025 to assist in early consideration of the Bill. 

Key points

• The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal has operated as an independent statutory body since 2011 (from 2008 to 2011 its predecessor operated as an administrative body).
• The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 (the Bill) seeks to amend the Defence Act 1903 to modify review arrangements by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal for defence awards, defence honours and foreign awards.
• The proposed amendments seek to tighten eligibility criteria for applicants and impose time limits for review of decisions by the Tribunal.
• The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (SFADT) Committee conducted an inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system in 2024, where the Department of Defence and the Tribunal were at odds about proposals for legislative change.
• The SFADT Committee inquiry into this Bill attracted a significant number of submissions (65).
• The Tribunal’s submission to the Bill’s inquiry shows it is still opposed to some of Defence’s proposed legislative changes.
• The SFADT Committee inquiry into this Bill is due to report by 30 October 2025.
• The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights made minor comments concerning the Bill’s engagement with the right to equality and non-discrimination ‘as there is a direct discriminatory intent to treat people differently on the basis of age, which is a protected attributed’.
• The Opposition proposed amendments to the Bill, which are supported by some of the Independents, but did not receive the support of the House of Representatives.

Introductory Info

Date of introduction: 28 August 2025
House introduced in: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Defence
Commencement: On the earlier of proclamation or 6 months after Royal Assent

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 (the Bill) is to amend the Defence Act 1903 to ‘modernise the arrangements for review by the Tribunal, better aligning it with arrangements governing contemporary review bodies’ (Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2).

The proposed changes also seek to enable regulations under Part 6 of the Defence Regulation 2016 to modify review arrangements by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in its consideration of defence awards, defence honours and foreign awards.

Background

Defence honours can be granted for acts of gallantry, distinguished service or conspicuous service while Defence awards recognise a person’s length of military service, service in a particular campaign or operational service (p. 5).

The Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal was originally established in 2008 as an administrative body. On 5 January 2011 the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) commenced operating as an independent statutory body.

The Tribunal was established by an amendment to the Defence Act 1903 (the Act) in the Defence Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2010, which received Royal Assent on 5 July 2010. The 2010 amendments inserted a new Part VIIIC in the Act to establish the Tribunal. An excerpt of Part VIIIC of the Act is accessible on the Tribunal’s website. 

One of the purposes of establishing the Tribunal as an independent statutory body was to provide it with the authority to ‘independently consider broader recognition issues relating to Defence service’ (Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 4).

The April 2010 Bills Digest provides background information on the development of Australia’s honours and awards system and inquiries into that system, as well as details about the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010.

Since 2014, around 67 reviews were conducted by the Tribunal that resulted in military medals being awarded. The majority involved non-commissioned officers (NCOs—also categorised as ‘other ranks’ – OR). Published data shows a greater number of honours and awards are received by ADF officers than NCOs. A consolidated table of all ADF members who received defence honours and awards over the last 5-years (as at September 2025) indicates more than double the number of officers to NCOs were the recipients of medallic recognition.

Table 1  All ADF members honours and awards 2020–2025

	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Total officer	136	146	163	116	109	116	786
Total OR	56	56	70	49	51	57	339
Total by year	192	202	233	165	160	173	1,125

Source: Library research using the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Australian Honours Database based on Honours Lists for meritorious awards (including the Order of Australia) and Australian bravery decorations in relation to ADF service (i.e. categorised as ‘Military Division’).

Committee consideration

Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

Inquiry into the defence honours and awards system

In July 2024 the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (SFADT) Committee commenced an inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system. One of the terms of reference included inquiring into ‘the operation of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, including any potential improvements’. The SFADT Committee’s final report was tabled in Parliament in June 2025 and included a recommendation:

… that the Australian Government instructs the Department of Defence to work alongside the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal to undertake a review of Part VIIIC of the Defence Act 1903 to improve the tribunal’s review and inquiry functions, while ensuring that the tribunal’s operational independence is maintained (Recommendation 6).

The report highlighted the Tribunal’s opposition to Defence’s proposed legislative reforms relating to the Tribunal’s operation and the Defence honours and awards system more broadly, particularly around the proposed eligibility criteria for applicants and time limitations, noting:

… a number of recommendations put forward by Defence were strongly opposed by [the Tribunal], including introducing a 20-year limit from the date the service was rendered on review applications, and limiting who can apply for a review (p. 48).

Regardless of the opposition by the Tribunal to Defence’s proposed legislative reforms, the Bill contains many of the proposals stated in Defence’s submission to the SFADT in September 2024 (submission no. 8).

The government response to this inquiry was published in September 2025, agreeing to Recommendation 6 (noted above) noting also that the Bill had already been introduced to Parliament on 28 August 2025.

Inquiry into the Bill

The Senate referred the Bill to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on 4 September 2025 to consider the provisions of the Bill. Submissions closed on 1 October 2025 and the Committee is due to report by 30 October 2025.

The Committee published 63 submissions with the vast majority strongly opposing the Bill. In particular, many submitters were opposed to the proposed 20-year time limit for making an application for review and changes to eligibility criteria on who can apply for a decision to be reviewed.

The Tribunal’s submission to this inquiry (submission no. 2) explicitly disagrees with the Minister’s second reading speech statement that the Tribunal had been ‘consulted throughout the development of the Bill’ and ‘its input has been invaluable in shaping the legislation, which seeks to largely achieve the same aims as the tribunal’s recommendations’. The Tribunal’s submission emphasised that it:

… does not agree with that statement, particularly the suggestion that the Bill seeks to largely achieve the same aims as the tribunal's recommendations. The Tribunal argued strongly against the key provisions of the Bill (p. 3).

While the Tribunal stressed that it does not oppose all measures proposed in the Bill, it cannot support the Bill because the proposed changes, in summary, would:

• Abolish the current right of ADF members, veterans and their supporters to seek independent Tribunal merits review of their eligibility for gallantry, distinguished and conspicuous service honours – review of adverse Defence decisions would only be able to be sought by a more senior person in the chain of command or an eye witness;
• Altogether disallow the Tribunal from considering honours or campaign awards for ADF service in the Second World War, Korea, the Malayan Emergency, Confrontation, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Gulf War, Somalia, Rwanda, and (on the Tribunal’s legal analysis) some but not other service in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan;
• Abolish the current right of some family members (such as cousins, nieces or nephews) to apply for review of a decision refusing a defence award for their relative;
• Abolish the current right of a veteran or supporter to apply for review of a decision to refuse to reissue a cancelled honour or award;
• Preclude large numbers of applications to the Tribunal where recipients of Defence decisions have been advised of their right of appeal but have not been advised of any time limit on appealing to the Tribunal;
• Allow further limitations on the current rights to Tribunal review, such as by excluding other periods of service, by Regulations rather than by amendment of the Act by the Parliament; and
• Allow other Regulations to be made to further limit the operation of the Tribunal (pp. 3–4).

The Chair of the Tribunal, Stephen Skehill, raised concerns with the Committee at the public hearing on 16 October 2025 describing Defence’s submission as ‘deeply flawed’ and containing ‘errors of fact and errors of law, and, perhaps more importantly, it is grossly misleading because of both what it says and, more particularly, what it fails to say’ (p. 2).

Mr Skehill stated the only beneficiary of the Bill would be the Department of Defence as it would work to the ‘detriment of every ADF member and veteran, their families and their supporters, because their present rights to seek merit review of adverse Defence decisions would be either totally abolished or very significantly curtailed’ (p. 2).

During the public hearing, Committee members expressed scepticism about why the Bill had been introduced to the Parliament given the broad opposition to the proposed changes (pp. 7–8, 31).

Defence officials informed the Committee that the proposed amendments contained in the Bill would help Defence ‘maintain the integrity of the system by putting in some boundaries’. Other factors considered by Defence in drafting the Bill included comparisons with Commonwealth countries that have much shorter review periods, the cessation of issuing imperial awards in October 1992, and the impact on reconsideration of award decisions of the imposition of quotas on the number of honours that could be awarded (as was the case with the Vietnam War) (Committee Hansard, pp. 29–36).

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the Bill and tabled its comments in Report no. 5 of 2025 on 2 October 2025, noting the proposed amendments seek to restrict the Tribunal’s ability to review length of service awards. This would affect persons over 100 years of age or a deceased person who would have been more than 100 years old at the time the application was made. The Committee stated:  

The committee notes that while the statement of compatibility identifies that the right to non-discrimination is engaged in relation to this measure, it does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that such a limit on the right to non-discrimination [on the basis of age] would be permissible.

…

The statement of compatibility does not identify the pressing or substantial need to prevent reviews of decisions on the basis of age and the stated objective appears to be primarily directed towards administrative convenience. The statement of compatibility also does not demonstrate how the stated objective would be achieved by limiting reviews of length of service awards on the basis of age. In terms of proportionality, the measure does not appear to be clearly circumscribed, as it permits a lesser age to be prescribed by future regulations thereby potentially broadening the discriminatory effect of the measure; nor does the measure appear to be flexible in its application. The committee therefore considers that this measure may not be compatible with the right to equality and non-discrimination and, despite the potentially limited practical impact of the measure on individuals, draws this concern to the attention of the minister and the Parliament. [emphasis added] (p. 5).

Policy position of non-government parties and independents

Opposition

In his Second Reading speech on the Bill on 3 September 2025, former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Defence Personnel, Darren Chester, moved amendments to the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. The amendments did not pass the House of Representatives. The proposed amendments are discussed under the Key issues and provisions section below.

Independents

In a Second Reading speech on the Bill, Allegra Spender stated that she would not support the Bill in its current form as it ‘does not have the support of the veterans community’ but supports the Opposition’s proposed amendments. Ms Spender advised that one of the biggest concerns with the Bill is ‘the proposed time limit on tribunal reviews’, noting:

Under this bill, once an honour or award application has been rejected, no appeal to the independent tribunal would be possible if the relevant operation occurred 20 or more years ago. This threshold effectively excludes recognition for veterans of conflict in Vietnam, Korea and Timor; some of the early Afghanistan conflict; and parts of the Iraq deployment, removing appeal avenues for the majority of tribunal applicants who have been heard between 2020 and 2023 and the majority of applicants who are current veterans in our community.

Dr Helen Haines raised concerns about the lack of consultation in the development of the Bill, the impact of the 20-year limit on reviews, the narrowing of criteria for who can apply for a review and the 6-month deadline to seek a review ‘knowing full well that many veterans are never even told that they have that right’. Dr Haines supports the Opposition’s proposed amendments to the Bill while also seeking to understand the purpose of the Government Bill given the ‘tribunal, as I said, has not asked for these reforms. And, certainly, the veterans and their advocacy groups have not asked for reform’.

Key issues and provisions

Powers and functions

The Tribunal was set up under section 110U of the Act as an independent statutory body with privileges and immunities of the Crown.

The Tribunal has 2 main functions that are set out in section 110UA:

• to conduct reviews into reviewable decisions relating to defence honours, defence awards and foreign awards (a list of completed reviews from 2014 to 2025 is available on the Tribunal’s website)
• inquire into matters involving eligibility for honours or awards (a list of completed inquiries is available on the Tribunal’s website).

The Bill does not amend the inquiry function set out in section 110W of the Act, which allows the Minister to direct the Tribunal to hold an inquiry.

Section 110VB deals with review of decisions by the Tribunal and subsection 110VB(1) relates to defence honours.

Currently, under paragraph 110VB(1)(b), when conducting a review of a decision in relation to defence honours, the Tribunal may make any recommendations to the Minister that it considers appropriate. Item 10 repeals and replaces paragraph 110VB(1)(b) with the effect that the Tribunal will be able to make recommendations arising from review of a defence honour only in relation to whether the reviewable decision is consistent with the eligibility criteria for the honour.

The Explanatory Memorandum explains this amendment stating:

The intent is to clarify that the Tribunal cannot make recommendations about matters that are not strictly related to the eligibility criteria of the relevant defence honour, including nature of service, or the reason for a person’s discharge. These matters are generally extrinsic to decisions regarding defence honours and are not appropriate for recommendation by the Tribunal. It is not the intent that the Tribunal would be able to make recommendations as to whether the nature of service was correctly established; rather the Tribunal would be expected to adopt the same nature of service categorisation that was applied when making the reviewable decision (p.19).

Subsections 110VB(2)-(4) deal with Tribunal decisions relating to defence awards and foreign awards.

Currently the Tribunal may affirm the decision, or set the decision aside and either substitute a new decision or refer the matter to another decision-maker. Item 11 amends this provision so that the Tribunal will continue to be able to affirm or set aside and make another decision but will no longer be able to refer the matter to another decision-maker.

Subsection 110VB(3) relates to recommendations the Tribunal may make to the Minister with regards to defence awards and foreign awards. Item 12 repeals this provision with the effect that the Tribunal will no longer be able to make recommendations to the Minister in relation to a review of a defence award or foreign award.

At present, anyone may make an application ‘to Defence for any defence honour or award to be issued in respect of any service by an Australian Defence Force (ADF) member. Any unsuccessful applicant can then apply at any time to the Tribunal for review of a decision’ where Defence refused to recommend the ADF member concerned receive a Defence honour or award (Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2).

The Bill proposes to redefine the parameters of the Tribunal’s powers and functions around what constitutes a reviewable decision and the conduct of reviews. Specifically, Item 8 which inserts proposed subsections 110V(2)-(9), provides additional rules and definitions of what is or is not a reviewable decision of defence honours, operational service awards, length of service awards and foreign awards.

Other requirements for reviewable decisions

In addition to the new requirements concerning applicants and the timeframe for review applications, the Bill also sets out additional requirements that decisions must meet to be reviewable by the Tribunal. 

A decision to refuse to recommend a person or group of persons for a defence honour, an operational service award or a foreign award would not be reviewable if:

• it relates to a particular operation that has an end date that was more than 20 years (or a shorter period prescribed in the regulations) before the application for the honour or award was made or
• it does not relate to a particular operation or relates to a particular operation that does not have an end date, where all of the eligible service to which the decision relates was rendered more than 20 years (or a shorter period prescribed in the regulations) before the application was made (proposed subsections 110V(2)-(5) and (7)-(8)).

The Opposition’s proposed amendments to the Bill seek to remove proposed subsections 110V(2)–(5) and (7)–(8) of the Act (at item 8 of the Bill). In debate on the Bill in the House of Representatives, Mr Chester stated:

In relation to Defence's proposal to introduce a 20-year time limit for tribunal reviews, the tribunal actually expressed its strong opposition to and significant concerns for that proposal. The tribunal went on to explain that it would render invalid 95 per cent of applications decided by the tribunal between 2020 and 2023 and said in its submission:

… if implemented, would be to abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans and families and others to seek external and independent merits review of Defence decisions refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award.

This is the crux of the coalition's opposition to the bill before the House today. 

A decision regarding a length of service award would not be reviewable by the Tribunal where:

• the affected person is 100 years of age or more (or lesser age otherwise specified in the regulations) at the time of the application for the length of service award or
• if the affected person is deceased, they would have reached over 100 years of age (or lesser age otherwise specified in the regulations) at the time of application (proposed subsection 110V(6)).

In addition, a refusal decision in relation to a defence honour, defence award or foreign award is not reviewable if the award had previously been given to a person and then cancelled (proposed subsection 110V(9)). The Explanatory Memorandum advises:

A decision to cancel a defence honour, defence award, or foreign award is currently not reviewable under the Defence Act. However, a subsequent application relating to a previous cancellation decision is considered a reviewable decision. The intent of this amendment is to correct this anomalous situation, by ensuring that a decision regarding a previously cancelled defence honour, defence award or foreign award is not a reviewable decision. A cancellation decision is given high levels of scrutiny, often relates to serious misconduct and is generally made by the Crown or their representative. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for such decisions to be reviewable by the Tribunal (p. 14).

The Opposition’s proposed amendments to the Bill include proposed section 110VAAA, which requires the decision maker of a reviewable decision to notify any affected person of eligibility to make a review application to the Tribunal and timeframes for such applications (discussed below).

Applicants

The Bill proposes restrictions around who can apply to the Tribunal for a review. Proposed section 110VA (at item 9 of the Bill) seeks to reduce the number of applicants with no direct or related ties to the matter in which an honour or award was refused by Defence.

Under the proposed amendments, a person would only be able to seek a review from the Tribunal for a refusal to grant a defence honour if:

• the person made the application (or was one of a group of people who made the application) that was refused by Defence
•  the person is or was:
  • more senior than the person who would receive the defence honour (the affected person) in the chain of command and/or
  • a serving member or former member of the Australian military who witnessed the action to which the decision relates and
• the affected person or their immediate family member agrees to making a review application (proposed section 110VA(1)). (Immediate family member is defined in proposed subsection 110VA(4)).

Similarly, a person would only be able to apply for a review from the Tribunal for a refusal to grant a defence award or foreign award if:

• the person made the application (or was one of a group of people who made the application) that was refused by Defence
• the person is the affected person, an immediate family member of the affected person or the executor, administrator, trustee of the estate or personal representative of a deceased affected person (proposed subsection 110VA(2) for defence awards and proposed subsection 110VA(3) for foreign awards).

The Opposition’s proposed amendments to the Bill would remove proposed section 110VA in its entirety. This would result in current section110VA remaining in the Act, meaning that a person who makes an application for a reviewable decision in relation to the grant of a defence honour, defence award or foreign award can make an application to the Tribunal if the original application is refused.  

Time limits

The Bill proposes a time limit on applications for review. Specifically, an applicant must seek a review by the Tribunal of a reviewable decision within 6 months after the day the reviewable decision was made (proposed paragraph 110VAA(a), at item 9 of the Bill). 

For applications outside this time limit, the Bill gives the Tribunal discretionary power to allow a longer period to apply for a review if it is satisfied on ‘reasonable grounds that exceptional circumstances exist’ (proposed paragraph 110VAA(b)).

Currently there is no time limit for an application to the Tribunal for review. Section 110VC of the Act allows the Tribunal Chair to dismiss review applications if they consider there are more suitable review options, the matter has already been sufficiently reviewed, or the ‘application is frivolous or vexatious’.

The Opposition’s proposed amendments to the Bill propose an alternative section 110VAA. This provision would provide that the 6-month time limit for making an application to the Tribunal for review runs from the date of notification rather than from the date the decision was made, and that the Tribunal may accept an application for review after the 6-month time limit has expired, in exceptional circumstances.

Under the Opposition’s proposed amendments, if an affected person is not notified of a decision under proposed section 110VAAA (proposed by the Opposition’s amendments and discussed above) the Tribunal can accept an application for review of a reviewable decision at any time (proposed subsection 110VAA(2) in the Opposition’s amendments).

Reporting

Proposed section 110YJ will require the Tribunal to provide an annual report to the Minister and require the Minister to table those annual reports in Parliament.

At present, although not legislatively required to do so, the Tribunal prepares annual reports and publishes them on its website. The most recent is the 2023–24 annual report. This report states that since 2008 there have been 479 applications lodged with the Tribunal, of those 465 have been finalised. Fifteen applications resulted in recommendations to the Minister by the Tribunal under subsection 110VB(3).[1]

The Tribunal's submission to the SFADT Committee inquiry into the Bill provided updated figures noting that from 2008 to 30 September 2025 the Tribunal received ‘527 properly-made applications for review’ of which 508 had been finalised (p. 40). Around one-third of applicants have received favourable outcomes in response to their application to the Tribunal. To date, the Tribunal has finalised:

• 40 cases that were withdrawn by the applicant (8%)
• 94 cases that were withdrawn following Defence action (18%—the Tribunal noted that in recent years there had been an increase in the number of cases revisited by Defence and a decision made to recommend an honour or award)
• 5 cases that were dismissed by the Tribunal (less than 1%)
• 71 cases that were set aside by the Tribunal (14%)
• 301 cases were finalised as the decision under review had been affirmed (59%).

Graph 1 illustrates the number of applications for review that the Tribunal received on a yearly basis.

Graph 1  Reviews per year from 2008 to 2025

Source: Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, Submission to Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Inquiry into the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, [Submission no. 2], 30 September 2025, 41.

Regulations

Section 110Z of the Act provides that, without limiting section 124 (which sets out the general regulation-making power), regulations may make provision in relation to: fees payable in relation to applications to the Tribunal; prohibiting the disclosure of information obtained by the Tribunal or a member; and proof of decisions or orders of the Tribunal.

Item 17 of the Bill repeals and remakes section 110Z so the regulations may provide for or in relation to the review of reviewable decisions or inquiries conducted by the Tribunal (proposed subsection 110Z(1)). Without limiting that power, proposed subsection 110Z(2) sets out a list of issues that the regulations may deal with. In addition to the matters listed in the current provision (set out above), the issues include:

• the operation of the Tribunal
• the conduct of reviews or inquiries
• the kinds of evidence that may be taken into account in a review
• Tribunal procedures and
• correction of errors in Tribunal documents.

Reflecting section 110UB, proposed subsection 110Z(3) provides that the regulations must not direct the Tribunal or its members in the performance of their functions or powers. Proposed subsection 110Z(4) requires the Minister to consult with the Chair of the Tribunal before regulations are made that will affect the practice, procedure or operations of the Tribunal.

The current regulations dealing with defence honours and awards are set out in Part 6 of the Defence Regulation 2016 and an excerpt is also available from the Tribunal’s website. Part 6 sets out the honours and awards within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.