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.
• At the time of writing, the Bill has not been referred to or reported on by any parliamentary committees.

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 and allow for changes to enabling regulations under Part 6 of the Defence Regulation 2016 to modify review arrangements by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal for defence awards, defence honours and foreign awards.

Establishment

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. 

The April 2010 Bills Digest provides details about the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010 and background information on inquiries into the Defence honours and awards system.

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 (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).

Currently, when conducting a review, the Tribunal may make recommendations to the Minister that it considers appropriate (paragraph 110VB(1)(b) in relation to review of defence honours and subsection 110VB(3) in relation to review of defence awards and foreign awards). Under the Bill, the Tribunal will not be able to make such recommendations in relation to a review of a defence award or foreign award (item 12), and 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 (item 10). In relation to the latter, the Explanatory Memorandum states:

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).

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 (the Bill’s 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 inquiries.  Specifically, 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 (proposed subsections 110V(2)-(9), at item 8 of the Bill).

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).

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’.

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 in order 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)).

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).

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 as follows:    

• 36 withdrawn by the applicant
• 73 withdrawn following Defence action
• 4 dismissed
• 284 decisions affirmed by the Tribunal
• 66 decisions set aside by the Tribunal.

15 applications resulted in recommendations to the Minister by the Tribunal under subsection 110VB(3).[1]

The 2023–24 annual report includes Graph 1, which illustrates the number of applications for review that the Tribunal received on a yearly basis. The Tribunal’s submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system (discussed below) advised that the majority review category was awards (347 applications), followed by honours (83 applications) then foreign awards (53 applications). Graph 2 shows inquiries conducted by the Tribunal each year.

Graph 1  Reviews per year from 2008 to 2024

Source: Australian Government, Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal: Annual Report: Financial Year 2023–24, (Canberra: 11 November 2024),16.

Graph 2  Inquiries per year from 2008 to 2023

Source: Australian Government, Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal: Annual Report: Financial Year 2023–24, (Canberra: 11 November 2024),18.

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.

Parliamentary review

In 2024 the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (SFADT) Committee commenced an inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system. The final report was tabled in Parliament in June 2025.

One of the Committee’s recommendations was:

… 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, 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).

Department of Defence submission

The Department of Defence submission to the Senate inquiry included a recommendation to amend the legislation:

… so that honours, operational, and service awards are only considered to be reviewable for a period of 20 years from when the service occurred or when the relevant operation ceased. This is to ensure the decision-making process and evidence is available. A living current or former serving member may seek at any time, a review for awards recognising length of service. Defence recommends that if a member is deceased, the members’ family, next of kin or administrator may apply for review until the member would have reached 100 years of age (p. 19).

Defence also recommended the removal of Imperial awards from the regulations and that foreign awards are only reviewable ‘where Defence has a formal authority to make decisions on eligibility’ (p. 19).

Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal submissions

The Tribunal noted in its supplementary submission to the SFADT Committee that it was unaware in advance of the detail of Defence’s submission, particularly the sections relating to proposed amendments to the Act in relation to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s submission stated:

In summary, the position of the Tribunal is that the principal Defence proposals:

• would abolish the current significant rights of appeal for the majority of those ADF members, veterans and families and others who currently seek external merits review of Defence decisions to refuse to recommend the issue of defence honours and awards
• would allow Defence to make such decisions immune from the discipline of external merits review, which the Tribunal considers would be unreasonable
• are put forward without any reasoned justification and, more importantly, the Tribunal cannot perceive how they could be justified
• involve counter-intuitive and significant non-sequiturs, and
• would represent poor public policy in the absence of open and substantive consultation with, and support from, key stakeholders in the ADF and veteran community.

Additionally, the Tribunal notes that the Defence submission contains a number of factual errors and omits to mention numerous matters of clear relevance to a proper consideration of the proposals it advances.

The Tribunal outlined its objections to Defence’s proposals in greater detail in its supplementary submission, which were also highlighted in the Committee’s final report.

---