Chapter 1Introduction and background
Introduction
1.1The Australian honours and awards system provides tangible recognition for acts of gallantry and bravery, or distinguished, meritorious or noteworthy service. It acknowledges commitment and contribution to Australia from an individual or group. Defence honours and awards are nested within this system.
1.2Receiving a Defence award or honour provides recognition of an Australian Defence Force (ADF) member or veteran’s sacrifice and achievements, serving as a reminder that their contributions are valued not only by their immediate peers, but also by the broader Defence community and Australian society.
1.3While the significance a member places on honours and awards will vary from individual to individual, evidence to the committee’s inquiry highlighted the importance of Defence honours and awards to many ADF personnel, veterans and their families. Because of this, the Defence honours and awards system has an integral role to play in fostering strong morale within the ADF.
1.4When the system operates as intended, Defence honours and awards are a valuable tool to provide recognition of service, sacrifice and extraordinary achievement. However, when the system does not function well, it can erode morale and lead to dissatisfaction and distrust within Defence communities. The recommendations in this report are aimed at increasing transparency, improving integrity, and maintaining an impartial Defence honours and awards system that enjoys the confidence and support of the broader Defence community.
Referral of the inquiry
1.5On 3 July 2024, the Senate referred an inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 28 November 2024.
1.6On 19 September 2024, the Senate agreed to extend the reporting date to 28February 2025. On 13 February 2025, the Senate agreed to further extend the reporting date to 17 April 2025. On 17 April, the committee presented a progress report and extended the reporting date to 12 June 2025. On 12 June 2025, the committee presented a second progress report and extended the reporting date to 19 June 2025.
1.7The inquiry’s terms of reference are as follows:
The integrity and efficacy of the Defence honours and awards system, with particular reference to:
(a)experiences of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel progressing through the honours and awards system;
(b)the effect of awards and honours on maintaining morale within the ADF;
(c)assurance of the integrity of awards to senior officers for conduct in the Afghanistan conflict;
(d)the effect of changes in criteria for some honours and awards from ‘in action’ to ‘in warlike operations’;
(e)the operation of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, including any potential improvements;
(f)any potential improvements to the Defence honours and awards system; and
(g)any related matters.
Conduct of the inquiry
1.8Details of the inquiry were made available on the committee’s website. Thecommittee also contacted a number of organisations and individuals inviting written submissions by 30 August 2024.
1.9The committee published 88 submissions, as listed at Appendix 1. Thecommittee held two public hearings in Canberra and by videoconference on 7February 2025 and 12 March 2025. A list of witnesses who gave evidence at the public hearings is available at Appendix 2.
1.10The public submissions, answers to questions taken on notice and tabled documents received by the committee, and the Hansard transcripts are available on the committee’s website.
1.11References to the Committee Hansard in footnotes refer to the proof transcript. Page numbers may vary between the proof and official transcripts.
Acknowledgements
1.12The committee thanks all individuals and organisations who engaged with the inquiry. In particular, the committee would like to acknowledge the contributions of those individuals who shared their personal stories and experiences, many of them painful. The committee recognises their desire to improve the system not only for themselves, but for their colleagues and veteran communities.
1.13The committee also acknowledges the submissions received from individuals expressing unhappiness with their individual cases. While the committee recognises the distress this process may have caused, it notes that individual cases fall outside the scope of this inquiry. The committee is not in the position to investigate or seek to resolve individual matters and this report examines the Defence honours and awards system more broadly.
Structure of the report
1.14This report contains three chapters. This chapter contains information about the referral and conduct of the inquiry. It also provides an overview of the Defence honours and awards system, including system administration, and the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal (DHAAT).
1.15Chapter 2 canvasses the key issues raised by submitters and witnesses in relation to the transparency and integrity of Australia's Defence honours and awards system.
1.16Chapter 3 examines broader areas for improvement for the Defence honours and awards system, including DHAAT.
Australia's Defence honours and awards system
1.17Defence honours and awards recognise various kinds of service. Defence honours can be granted for gallantry, and for distinguished or conspicuous service. Defence awards can be granted to recognise the length of service, or campaign or operational service.
1.18There are three distinct categories of honours and awards:
Service awards recognise commitment and length of service in the ADF.
Operational and campaign awards recognise individual service during military campaigns or on operations.
Honours and decorations recognise achievement, dedication, courage and tenacity for individuals and unit recognition of groups of ADF personnel.
1.19The Department of Defence (Defence) highlighted the long-standing history of medallic recognition for service in the military, with traditions stemming from the United Kingdom’s Imperial system. The Imperial system was applied across many Commonwealth countries, including Australia, but was administered independently by each country.
1.20Members of the ADF have received honours and awards under two systems: the Imperial system, and later the Australian system.
1.21The Imperial system was used exclusively in Australia until 1975, when the government introduced the Australian system. Both were operated in parallel until 1992, when it was announced that Australia would no longer make recommendations for Imperial awards. As a result, all Imperial honours and awards made to Australians since 1992 are regarded as foreign awards.
1.22Currently, there is no overarching Act in Australia that governs the administration of honours and awards. Each medal within the system has an associated legislative instrument which defines and determines the qualifying criteria for each individual medal and associated devices such as bars and clasps.
1.23Defence noted that the only Australian legislation that deals specifically with awards and honours is the Defence Act 1903 (Defence Act), which establishes DHAAT, and prescribes certain offences, including the improper use of service decorations.
1.24DHAAT advised that, while governed by legislation, Defence honours and awards are not created by Parliament. Rather, they are established by the Sovereign by Royal Warrant and accompanying regulations, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
1.25The Sovereign establishes Australian Defence honours and awards through a Letters Patent exercising the royal prerogative. The Letters Patent approved by the Sovereign institutes the medal and ordains that the medal is governed by accompanying regulations.
1.26DHAAT emphasised that, while there are warrants and regulations that govern eligibility criteria, Defence honours and awards are not entitlements. Instead, they are issued in exercise of the executive discretion and, even where the eligibility criteria are met, may be withheld if there is adequate reason.
System administration
1.27As set out above, the Australian honours and awards system recognises citizens, including military members, for their excellence, achievement or meritorious service and contributions to Australian society.
1.28Responsibility for administering the Australian honours and awards system is shared by:
the Australian Honours and Awards secretariat at Government House;
the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C); and
Defence.
1.29The Australian Honours and Awards secretariat and PM&C provide administrative support for non-defence specific awards, including but not limited to the Order of Australia, the Civilian Service Medal, and the Commonwealth Public Service Medal.
1.30The Order of Australia includes a General Division for civilians and a Military Division for members of the ADF. Appointments and awards in the Military Division are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister for Defence.
1.31Defence issues campaign and service medals for ADF personnel for service from World War One to the current day.
1.32Defence is responsible for recommending, rather than approving, ADF personnel for the National Emergency Medal, the Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal, and any honours in the twice-yearly honours lists announced on Australia Day and The King’s Birthday.
1.33Defence noted that in addition to awards and honours, the department administers an internal commendation scheme that commends service and actions worthy of recognition that do not meet the threshold for medallic recognition.
Application and nomination process
1.34Recognising and nominating individuals for formal acknowledgement through the Defence honours and awards system is a key responsibility at all levels of ADF command. Defence honours, awards and commendations are open to all ADF personnel regardless of rank, gender or position. The eligibility for specific operational and service awards is determined by the criteria established through medal instruments.
1.35Defence highlighted that decisions to recognise ADF members of any rank for their gallantry or distinguished or conspicuous service are discretionary, and considered within the operational and strategic context in which the individual's service occurred.
1.36The Defence honours and awards system allows for honours and awards to be issued by the Governor-General or a delegate of the Governor-General:
as a result of an automated process, such as a trigger in the ADF personnel database which recognises that a permanent serving member has reached a particular milestone for length of service;
after an application to the Directorate of Honours and Awards within the Department of Defence by anyone, including, but not limited to an ADF member or a veteran;
following a DHAAT merits-based review, which can be sought by anyone who has made an unsuccessful application or nomination; or
in response to an internal nomination within the ADF.
1.37Each year Defence recognises significant and meritorious achievements by ADF personnel with announcements in the Australia Day and the King’s Birthday Honours lists. Defence noted that nominations for honours can be initiated by any member of the ADF; however, the process is usually conducted through the nominated individual’s chain of command.
1.38There are levels of review and clearance required before nominations are progressed to the Governor-General for consideration and approval. This includes:
all nominations are reviewed by an Honours Board; and
each nomination is considered on its own merit, where the action or service of the individual is considered against the relevant medal instruments.
1.39During the Honours Board’s consideration process, a different award type or level may be considered, and consequently the nomination process is completed confidentially to allow this consideration to occur. A nominated individual is only informed of the process when Government House makes contact to confirm their acceptance of the honour.
1.40All successful honours nominations, of all ranks, are endorsed by the Chief of Joint Operations (operational service), the Service Chiefs or Chief of Joint Capabilities (for non-operational service), endorsed by the Chief of the Defence Force, recommended by the Minister with responsibility for the administration of Defence honours and awards, and approved by the Governor-General. The Governor-General, on the advice of the Minister, approves the awarding of medals, honours and decorations in the Australian honours and awards system.
The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal
1.41DHAAT was established on an administrative basis in 2008, and in 2011 the current iteration of DHAAT was established through legislation as an independent statutory body.
1.42Part VIIIC of the Defence Act establishes DHAAT and confers on it two core functions:
(a)to review Defence decisions against recommending an ADF member or veteran for a Defence honour or a defence award; and
(b)when directed to do so by the Minister, to inquire into and report to the Minister on matters related to Defence honours and awards.
1.43Defence highlighted that DHAAT is the only tribunal of its kind instituted across the 56 Commonwealth member countries. Other Commonwealth countries either apply to an internal administrative review process or establish inquiries when required.
1.44DHAAT’s review function is similar to other tribunals such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Veterans’ Review Board. However, DHAAT pointed out that its inquiry function is unique, with DHAAT able to examine a wide range of matters related to Defence honours and awards.
Merits review process
1.45Any person can make an application to the Directorate of Honours and Awards within Defence to seek medallic recognition for any service by any person in the ADF.
1.46The committee sought clarification regarding who can bring a claim before DHAAT, and Mr Stephen Skehill, Chair of DHAAT explained that:
Anybody, so long as they were an applicant to Defence for an honour or award, and anybody can apply to Defence for an honour or an award.
1.47As outlined above, DHAAT conducts merits-based reviews of decisions by Defence refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a Defence honour or award. These reviews are conducted as follows:
(a)on receipt of an application for review, DHAAT checks that the application meets the requirements set out in the Defence Act to ensure it has jurisdiction to proceed;
(b)once jurisdiction is confirmed, DHAAT writes to the applicant formally accepting the application and providing them with additional detail of how their application will be dealt with from then, and suggestions about how they can prepare for the hearing;
(c)subsequently, DHAAT provides a copy of the application to Defence, and seeks a report addressing the reasons for its initial decision and providing all relevant documentation;
(d)the Defence report, and any information received or researched is considered by DHAAT and a hearing date is set;
(e)the hearing provides an opportunity for the applicant to personally discuss the circumstances of their service with DHAAT and Defence, and for DHAAT to ask the applicant and Defence any questions it may have after having read through all the documents and research material; and
(f)after the hearing, DHAAT prepares a written decision and detailed statement of reasons which is provided to the applicant, to Defence and, if appropriate, to the Minister. The decision is also published publicly to DHAAT’s website.
1.48If the applicant is seeking a Defence award, DHAAT has the power to affirm Defence’s decision, or to set it aside and replace it with a new decision. If DHAAT’s decision is to set aside the original decision, Defence is then responsible for implementing that decision.
1.49At the committee’s public hearing, Mr Skehill explained that DHAAT does not have the power to grant the award:
… we can set aside the Defence decision and substitute for it a recommendation that the award be given, and the Governor-General or a delegate gets that recommendation and acts on it.
1.50Alternatively, if the applicant is seeking a defence honour, DHAAT is required to make a recommendation to the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Defence Personnel regarding the outcome of the review. This could be to affirm Defence’s decision, or to set it aside and replace it with a new decision, which might include recommending the issue of a Defence honour. It is then at the discretion of the Minister to decide whether or not to accept DHAAT’s recommendation.
1.51Mr Skehill asserted that it is DHAAT’s responsibility to hold a fair hearing for applicants, and to provide detailed and meaningful reasons for whatever eventual decision DHAAT reaches. Mr Skehill explained that this responsibility is important when reviewing applicants:
These matters can be sensitive and challenging. The subject matter can be highly nuanced and require careful expert analysis, and the veteran may be suffering from a mental health or other service-related medical condition which makes the handling of these cases all the more sensitive.
1.52DHAAT noted that Defence processes approximately 17 000 applications on average each year (with a further 8500 names assessed from nominal rolls). Despite very large numbers of departmental decisions, only about 25 to 30 applications for review by DHAAT are lodged every year.
1.53DHAAT reported that since 2008, there have been 485 applications for review. DHAAT further reported that of these applications, there was a proportionally higher number of applications for defence awards compared to defence honours (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1Applications for review-by-review category
Source: Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, Submission 1, p. 38.
1.54Of these 485 applications, DHAAT reported that approximately 60 per cent of reviews resulted in DHAAT affirming Defence’s decision, and approximately 15 per cent resulted in DHAAT setting aside Defence’s decision (Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.2DHAAT review outcomes since 2008
Source: Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, Submission 1, p. 39.
1.55DHAAT noted that its decisions are reviewable in the Federal Court of Australia on a question of law.