Australian Greens' dissenting report

1.1The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 (the Bill) seeks to make significant changes to the review arrangements of defence honours and awards by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

1.2The major changes of concern include introducing an absolute 20-year time limit for defence honours to be reviewable by the Tribunal and a separate 6-month appeals period for challenging decisions made by the Department of Defence in regard to defence honours and awards. The Bill would also remove the rights of extended family members and experts to appeal decisions made.

1.3The made it very clear in its submission that it does not support this bill, stating:

The Bill in its present form would work to the very significant disadvantage of [Australian Defence Force] members and veterans, their families and other supporters by abolishing existing rights of independent merits review in the Tribunal and would thereby detract from the integrity of the defence honours and awards system.[1]

1.4This position was reflected in almost every other submission, with submitters raising serious concerns with the Bill and noting the lack of consultation.

1.5A significant portion of the criticism centred on the 20-year review limit and how this new rule would restrict veterans from applying to the Tribunal for a large number of past conflicts. Legacy Australia addressed this in its submission, stating:

This amendment would deny families the right of appeal for any award made more than 20 years after the completion of the relevant operation. That affects awards relating to the Second World War, Korea, the Malayan Emergency, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Gulf War, Somalia, Rwanda, some of the earlier operations in Timor Leste, Afghanistan and Iraq, and other humanitarian, peacekeeping and border protection claims thus denying the families natural justice.[2]

1.6Even though the introduction of a time limit was often rejected out of hand by stakeholders, some, like the TPI Federation of Australia, noted that if there was a cut-off, a minimum of 100 years would be more appropriate.[3]

1.7Stakeholders also criticised the 6-month time limit for reviewing decisions. As Mrs Shannon Hennessy, Chief Executive Officer of the Veterans Emergency Services and Police Industry Institute of Australia (VESPIIA), made clear at the public hearing:

Honours are an emotional thing; I think we can all agree on that. When we start to put that pressure of timelines—what if we do find grandpa's secret box of documents in the cupboard 20 years from now, that time limit's run out and we can't recognise the work that was done? How devastating is that going to be for the family, that they finally found it and now it's gone? We would certainly argue against those time limits.[4]

1.8The proposed restrictions on who can apply for an appeal also raised concerns. While restricting appeals to ‘immediate family’ is an effort to prevent people with no connection to the person in question from applying, it would have much further-reaching negative implications. As VESPIIA wrote in its submission:

… [This] approach locks out important contributors. Many historic recognition cases have been uncovered by historians, extended relatives, or advocates, particularly where no immediate family survives. Restricting eligibility risks silencing valid claims and entrenching inequity.[5]

1.9It is also important to note that this is the first piece of major new legislation brought before this Parliament impacting veterans. For it not to address any of the recommendations in the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide is concerning. As Mr Ian Lindgren, the immediate Past Chairperson and Adviser to the Board, Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans' Association, explained in the hearing:

If we look at the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, some of the key personnel-related issues were that we were to stop taking anything but a trauma-informed practice to veterans. And yet, if we look at this bill and at the previous bill, which I mentioned a few moments ago, these things have just turned up.[6]

1.10The Greens do not support this Bill.

1.11We advise the Australian Government to withdraw this Bill as a statement of good faith with the veterans community.

1.12To the extent there are issues with the operation of the Tribunal or difficulties in assessing applications for conflicts that are many decades past, we urge the government to engage in genuine, rigorous and ongoing consultation with the veterans community on these issues before progressing any legislative changes.

Senator David Shoebridge

Greens Senator for New South Wales

Footnotes

[1]Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, Submission 2, p. 33.

[2]Legacy Australia, Submission 16, p. 2.

[3]TPI Federation of Australia, Submission 17, p. 1.

[4]Shannon Hennessy, Chief Executive Officer, Veterans Emergency Services and Police Industry Institute of Australia (VESPIIA), Proof Committee Hansard, 16 October 2025, p. 25.

[5]VESPIIA, Submission 12, p. 4.

[6]Mr Ian Lindgren, immediate Past Chairperson and Adviser to the Board, Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans' Association, Proof Committee Hansard, 16 October 2025, p. 22.