Chapter 2Transparency and integrity
2.1Defence honours and awards occupy a significant place in the culture of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), with a direct impact on morale, recruitment and retention.
2.2Given this, it is imperative that Australia’s Defence honours and awards system operates, and is seen to be operating, with the utmost levels of transparency and integrity.
2.3In the course of their service to the nation, ADF personnel are required to make sacrifices, often at great cost to themselves and their families. As a result, the importance of recognition of service should not be underestimated, and Defence honours and awards are a key component of how this recognition can be achieved.
2.4While the value that a member places on honours and awards will vary from individual to individual, evidence to the committee indicated that Defence honours and awards are extremely significant to many ADF personnel and their families. Additionally, the broader ADF culture and identity also places a high value on honours and awards. Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard that Defence honours and awards represent honour, respect and recognition, and can be a vital part of telling the story of a member’s service.
2.5When the system functions well, Defence honours and awards provide valuable recognition, instil a sense of pride, validation and achievement in members, and facilitate high morale and a strong, cohesive ADF.
2.6However, when the system does not operate as intended, it can create resentment or apathy, erode morale, and ultimately contribute to poor outcomes in productivity, retention and recruitment.
2.7Evidence to the inquiry uncovered several concerns regarding the current operation of the Defence honours and awards system. The committee observed levels of dissatisfaction and mistrust with the system from some in the ADF community.
2.8In particular, submitters raised concerns with:
the lack of support and time taken to progress through the Defence honours and awards system;
the opaqueness and lack of traceability in the nominations process;
confusion around the Distinguished Service Decoration criteria, including the change in wording to ‘warlike operations’; and
the proliferation of awards for senior officers, with corresponding doubts about the integrity of these awards.
2.9This chapter will first explore the critical importance of an effective and trusted Defence honours and awards system, not only for individual personnel, but also for the ADF more broadly. It will look at the concept of recognising service and set out how core ADF outcomes such as morale, retention and recruitment are adversely impacted when the system is not seen to be operating with integrity.
2.10It will then examine each of the abovementioned concerns in turn, before concluding with the committee’s views and recommendations.
Recognising service and achievement
2.11Reward and recognition foster a cohesive, productive working environment, benefiting both employer and employee. The feeling of being valued and receiving appropriate recognition of commitment and effort are critical to job satisfaction and positive employee outcomes in any workplace. Arguably, this dynamic is heightened in the ADF due to the distinctive characteristics of the employment.
2.12A career with the ADF is unique in both the nature and depth of service required, as well as the wide-ranging, long-lasting impacts that can follow, not only for the serving member, but also for their family. For some individuals, to serve in the ADF is all-encompassing and a key part of their identity, and to serve their country is to become part of a bigger story and tradition.
2.13For example, Rear Admiral Richard Boulton, Deputy Chief of Personnel at the Department of Defence (Defence), expressed what medallic recognition means:
The symbols we wear on our uniforms are a visual record of service, achievement and recognition. These symbols inevitably become part of an individual's identity.
2.14Defence honours and awards are one of several ways in which the ADF provides recognition for the service required by its members, with other methods including promotion, pay and conditions, and training and job opportunities.
2.15However, Defence honours and awards are distinct, not only due to their visibility, but also because of the emotional pull and well-known tradition of medallic recognition in military culture and storytelling.
2.16Members of the ADF are required to make sacrifices in the course of their service, often at great cost to their physical and mental health, as well as their family relationships. For many personnel, honours and awards go some way to recognising their service and making these sacrifices feel worthwhile. Indeed, for some individuals, medallic recognition is one of the most important markers of recognition for their service.
2.17For example, Mr Dan Fortune DSC and Bar, a Special Air Service Regiment veteran with experience of the honours and awards system, expressed to the committee what Defence awards and honours represent to some ADF members:
They're symbols. This covered cloth embodies a whole range of values and intense actions around valour and distinguished leadership that permeate the DNA of the Australian soldier.
2.18Although medallic recognition is a form of tangible recognition for ADF members, Mr Jonathon Beesley DSM, a former commanding officer of a Special Operations Task Group, submitted that medals also provide some recipients with a way to share their history and sacrifice in the ADF:
It's the emotional and psychological reward that motivates them to endure those hardships and risk their lives. Arguably that's what drives people to serve, drives recruiting and drives young people to sign up for a life that we have committed to. A soldier's medals tell a story about their service and their sacrifice.
2.19The Families of Veterans Guild (the Guild), a community group of war widows and families of veterans, highlighted the importance of awards and honours for the veteran community:
Honours and awards specifically in the veteran community play an important role in morale, mental health and wellbeing of veterans and their families. Honours and awards are intended to inspire others, bring people together in celebration of achievement and create a legacy. Honours and awards provide tangible recognition of service and sacrifice which otherwise goes unnoticed by everyday Australians.
2.20The Guild further expressed that Defence awards and honours recognition is not exclusively about appreciation or acclaim for ADF personnel. It facilitates the identification of individuals with like experiences and can be a powerful and positive influence in the veteran community.
Morale, recruitment and retention
2.21In light of these unique factors, a number of submitters to the inquiry emphasised the impact that Defence honours and awards have on ADF morale, recruitment and retention.
2.22In any workplace, employees desire to feel valued, respected and recognised for their contributions. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal (DHAAT) observed that this is no different for ADF members, and that in a defence context, awards and honours play a significant role in ADF members feeling appropriately recognised for their service and sacrifice.
2.23Mrs Ruth Rogers, who submitted from her perspective as an advocate for veterans with a professional background in psychology, told the committee that medallic recognition plays a considerable role in maintaining morale by recognising individual and collective achievements. She also stated that the honours and awards system plays a critical role in reinforcing positive behaviours by fostering pride in ADF service.
2.24Mrs Rogers commented that, in order for the honours and awards system to maintain morale, it must be considered fair and reflect the sacrifices made by all members. She detailed:
When personnel perceive that the system is unjust, it leads to frustration, cynicism and a breakdown of trust between different ranks. The system needs to be fair, transparent and based on merit to ensure that all service members feel valued, regardless of their rank or role.
2.25In terms of morale, the Australian Special Air Service Association (ASASA) observed that many Special Air Service Regiment veterans feel aggrieved that their ‘long, dedicated and often courageous service’ has not been adequately recognised. ASASA observed that this lack of recognition went beyond failing morale and had lasting impacts on the mental health of some veterans.
2.26At a public hearing in Canberra, Mr Matthew Brennan, a former Army officer with 30 years service, explained how the lack of recognition is demoralising for ADF members, and can lead to significant doubt in relation to the honours and awards system:
Outstanding soldiers, like the man sitting next to me, ask: 'Were we worthy? Was it worth the sacrifice? Did our chain of command understand our operations? Did they trust us? … frustration, confusion, shame, self-doubt, anxiety and depression [are] intensified.
2.27In addition to having a direct effect on morale within the ADF, the committee heard that perceptions of the Defence honours and awards system also affect recruitment and retention.
2.28For example, DHAAT submitted that an effective honours and awards system can influence not only morale within the ADF but can increase family and public support for the ADF more broadly. DHAAT observed that increased morale could foster and promote recruitment and retention of ADF members.
2.29At the committee’s public hearing in Canberra, Mr Andrew MacNaughton, Director and Welfare Officer at the Australian Special Forces Alliance (ASFA), highlighted the impact lack of recognition can have on ADF recruitment:
This also then comes back down to that overarching issue of retention, recruitment and capability. We've lost skillsets because morale is non-existent in Defence.
2.30Mrs Rogers emphasised that recognition of personal sacrifice, especially in challenging environments, not only boosts individual spirits but also strengthens unit cohesion, professionalism, and loyalty to the ADF. She argued that a transparent awards system is an essential tool for maintaining high morale, motivation, and a strong sense of purpose among ADF personnel.
2.31The importance of the Defence honours and awards system was acknowledged by Defence. It recognised the direct correlation between honours and awards, morale and ADF retention:
Timely medallic recognition of service on domestic and international operations through the honours and awards system remains important and is a key factor in maintaining and strengthening morale and in our ADF retention efforts.
2.32Defence acknowledged that appropriate reward and recognition fosters a positive working environment and benefits both the organisation and its people by providing a return on an individual’s or team’s effort, dedication and work achievements. Additionally, it informed the committee that research indicated there was a strong correlation between an individual’s workplace morale and the recognition they receive.
2.33In 2022, Defence established a recruitment and retention team to identify ways to respond to the recruitment and retention challenges the organisation faces. The team consulted extensively with ADF personnel about their experience working for Defence. ADF members identified that visual recognition is important and that wearing their medals helped tell the story of their service and sacrifice. The team also reported that junior ADF members were seeking visual recognition that could be worn on a uniform.
2.34Defence identified that honours and awards, when administered in a timely and transparent capacity, are ‘an essential component’ of the tools commanders could use maintain and improve morale in their units. It noted, however, that if administered in a haphazard way or with apparent lack of consideration, honours and awards could have the opposite impact and greatly reduce the morale of a unit.
Progressing through the Defence honours and awards system
2.35The committee received evidence on the experience of individuals progressing through the Defence honours and awards system.
2.36Defence informed the committee that the experiences of ADF personnel who engage with the Defence honours and awards system will be unique to their individual and personal circumstances and therefore ‘no two experiences will be the same’. It further emphasised that the ‘… personal value placed on honours and awards is also individual in nature and can influence one's perception of the system’. It noted that the honours and awards system, by its very nature, will ‘always be emotive as some ADF personnel will consider they are more deserving whereas others will not actively seek personal recognition’.
2.37Notwithstanding these points, evidence to the committee indicated there were some commonalities in the experience of engaging with the Defence honours and awards system. For example, some submitters expressed concern with the lengthy period of time it took to progress through the system or the complexity of the tasks required to nominate.
2.38A serving member of the ADF observed that the length of time taken to process and proceed nominations was too lengthy and often delayed timely recognition. They provided insight based on their experience within the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF):
It takes no less than twelve months from the ADF’s call for nominations to the receipt of the award by the honouree – and that is if all goes perfectly within the process. The usual scenario is that on the first attempt, the nomination will likely get bounced out of contention to proceed for a very insignificant reason. This will require revision of the original nomination, and then resubmission at future half-yearly calls for nominations. Eighteen months to two years is very common to get worthy candidates recognised.
2.39Mr Richard Barry OAM, a veteran with personal experience of the honours and awards system, pointed out that many applicants have no experience or support when progressing through the system and the ‘process can be rather daunting to say the least’. Mr Barry further pointed out that ADF members or veterans could also face difficulties when trying to make applications for review to DHAAT. He explained:
Most veterans are like myself who have absolutely no experience in constructing submissions to DHAAT to adequately and succinctly present their case. These veterans can’t afford an advocate or a military lawyer and very often their only experience in the ADF was being an infantry soldier who endured combat in a foreign country.
2.40RSL NSW raised concerns that sometimes seeking a review of the honours and awards to which they may be entitled carries ‘significant psychosocial risk’ to current and former ADF members.
2.41In regard to mental health risks, DHAAT observed that the Directorate of Honours and Awards at Defence has a limited outward-facing customer interface, and that queries from individuals which might relate to especially sensitive material or require the serving member or veteran to revisit past trauma, are ‘funnelled’ through the broader Defence call centre. It advised that its understanding was that this call centre is not staffed by subject matter experts, and that not all staff are trained in trauma-informed care. DHAAT suggested that Defence could take steps to improve its public interface in this regard to avoid any unnecessary exacerbation of any mental health issues an applicant may be experiencing.
DHAAT’s observations
2.42DHAAT pointed out that, when considering the experience of individuals in their dealings with the Defence honours and awards system, it is important to consider that the necessary decision-making varies greatly in complexity. Consequently, the potential for dissatisfaction with the outcome also varies.
2.43DHAAT noted that, by definition, all who apply to it for review of Defence decisions are dissatisfied with their experience of the Defence honours and awards system up to that point. It also noted that, despite a very large number of Defence decisions, only about 25 to 30 applications for review by DHAAT are lodged every year, and that as a result, the experience with Defence of those applicants who engage with DHAAT cannot be viewed as representative of all who engage with the system as a whole.
2.44DHAAT advised that in its experience, applicants for review, having been subject to a refusal from Defence, occasionally expressed frustration in navigating the processes of the Defence honours and awards system. DHAAT noted that the level of frustration expressed by an applicant increased in line with the complexity of the decision-making process relevant to the honour or award being sought.
2.45However, DHAAT emphasised that while it might often disagree with Defence interpretations and arguments relating to certain aspects of the eligibility criteria, it has ‘no cause whatsover’ to believe that Defence, either on a corporate or individual levels, acts other than in good faith when administering honours and awards.
Defence’s observations
2.46Defence acknowledged that the complexity of the system often resulted in recognition for commendable service not being achieved within a suitable timeframe.
2.47Defence submitted that it is aware that some ADF personnel, whether nominator, recipient or observer, harbour frustration with the honours and awards system in regard to the process, timelines, medal policy, eligibility requirements and/or an individual medal assessment outcome.
2.48Defence also informed the committee that in order for honours nominations to be thoroughly considered and progressed through the various levels of approval, there is a substantial period of time between an initial submission of an honours nomination and the date on which an award is announced in an honours list. Defence advised that ‘a call for nominations for an honours list will be issued approximately 12 months before the list is due to be announced.’
2.49In relation to awards, Defence submitted that the wait time for an online application to be assessed is approximately 15 weeks for operational and service awards, and 16 weeks for veterans and families.
Lack of transparency and traceability within the nomination process
2.50The committee heard specific concerns regarding the opaqueness and lack of traceability within the honours nomination process. Submitters argued that the lack of transparency could leave individuals discouraged and confused about the outcome of the nomination.
2.51At the committee’s public hearing, Mr Rick Moor, a veteran and outgoing National Vice Chairman of the ASASA, emphasised his concerns around the lack of transparency in the honours and awards process, describing the process as opaque.
2.52Mr David McCann, Deputy Chair of RSL NSW, asserted the importance of a transparent system and its role in recognising the sacrifice of ADF members:
The men and women of our Navy, Army and Air Force deserve the respect of every Australian for the unique sacrifices they make in the service of their nation. They also deserve a Defence Force honours and awards system that is consistent, fair and transparent when determining how that service is recognised.
2.53Rifle Company Butterworth Review Group, an advocacy group that represents veterans deployed to protect the Butterworth airbase in Malaysia during 1970 to 1989, expressed its view that the current Defence honours and awards system lacks transparency.
2.54The Guild stated that Australians value fairness and respect honours that are well-earned. It further stated that when fairness appears missing because of a lack of transparency in the system, the honour or award is devalued.
2.55Defence informed the committee that recognising and nominating individuals for formal acknowledgement through the Defence honours and awards system is a key responsibility at all levels of ADF command. Nominations for honours can be initiated by any member of the ADF; however, the process is conducted through the nominated individual’s chain of command. Once the nomination has progressed through the chain of command, it is reviewed by the Honours Board.
2.56The process for nominations is to be completed confidentially. Defence stated that this is an inherent part of the process as the nominee may be considered for a different award type or level by the Honours Board.
2.57Rear Admiral Boulton highlighted the reasoning behind the confidential nature of the nomination process:
The confidentiality is there to protect the confidences of the decision-making. It's there to protect the feelings of the people who might or might not be awarded a defence honour or award. It's no different to the way that it's managed under the Australian honours system. In fact, in some ways we have more checks and balances in place through our internal mechanisms.
2.58Defence stated that currently the nominating chain of command is informed when a nomination is not progressed or considered for a different level of award. It also stated that the Honours Board provides advice to the nominating chain of command on how to strengthen a nomination, or whether to consider an alternative level or type of recognition.
2.59However, some inquiry participants submitted a different experience when navigating the nomination process. For example, a submitter who is a member of the ADF noted the lack of transparency experienced during the honours and awards nomination process:
I as the original nominator will not be informed of the reason why my nomination has been rejected or failed to proceed. Nor will I have any visibility or traceability of where in this convoluted process my nomination is. Nor will there be any accountability of a responsible officer on why the nomination was rejected or who authorised the rejection.
2.60Retired Major General Greg Melick, National Director of RSL Australia, submitted his experience with the nomination process and highlighted the lack of consultation with the original nominator:
I'm very much against the decision of an original recommender being overturned without it being referred back to them to answer the concerns of the people looking at it. I've had experiences where, as a brigade commander, I've put up people for various levels of award and the orders have been completely reversed without any consultation back to me.
2.61ASASA brought to the committee’s attention its concerns regarding the nominations process, which centred around the lengthy approval process and the ability for those in a chain of command to downgrade or change a nomination:
We question how it can be that where a senior officer commanding troops during combat operations makes a recommendation for a gallantry award which is supported by a superior in the chain of command … an officer further up the approval process especially those in the safety of Australia, some of whom have no combat experience, have the authority to downgrade the recommendation or not approve it? It is unconscionable that an officer far removed from the scene of the action can override the recommendation of two senior officers who are intimately aware of the act of gallantry for which an award has been recommended. This undermines the authority and calls into question the judgement of those making the recommendation without any valid reason for doing so.
2.62Ms Renee Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of the Guild and wife to a veteran critically injured during the Afghanistan conflict, expressed concern regarding conflicts of interest within the nomination process and stated that there should be a declaration process for those in the chain of command involved in the nomination:
The part that needs to come out of the chain of command is the ability to stop a nomination progressing, the ability to downgrade it, the ability to be involved in the assessment of it, somehow, because it is an objective, because these people serve together … All of these people go through training together and they form a cohort and they're all friends outside. For them to be able to step in, that's a conflict of interest. It absolutely needs to be declared. It cannot happen and has to have other people oversighting it.
2.63Mr Andrew MacNaughton, Director and Welfare Officer at ASFA, highlighted the lack of transparency and feedback in the nomination process, stating that there were ‘… instances where the first time the nominator is aware that their nomination has been successful is when the recipient starts wearing the medal.’
2.64Defence reported that departmental guidance advises that when a nomination is raised and pushed up the chain of command and proceeds to the Honours Board, if the board has any feedback, it should go back to the nominating officer so necessary corrections can be made. However, Rear Admiral Boulton stated:
‘… I couldn't say that the system has always worked in that way. I would say that we are working hard to constantly improve the system’.
2.65Nominations progress through the chain of command before reaching the Honours Board for consideration. When a nomination progresses through the chain of command it can be edited, and the Honours Board only reviews the nomination in its final form. Mr Andrew White, a former Special Air Service Regiment member, asserted that because the Honours Board is unaware of the original nomination, the process is flawed as it denies the Honours Board the ‘opportunity to assess them based on unaltered facts provided by those with firsthand knowledge’. Mr White provided an example from his own personal experience of being nominated for a Medal of Gallantry to illustrate this point.
Box 2.1: Case study provided by Mr Andrew White My experience with the honours and awards system began on Friday 13 August 2010, when our five-man SASR patrol was ambushed in Shah Wali Kot, Kandahar province. Under intense fire from multiple insurgent positions at close range, Trooper Jason Brown was struck by multiple rounds and fell in the killing area. After neutralising the enemy machine gun, we fought our way into the killing area to recover Jason amid heavy fire. While the remainder of the patrol engaged two dug-in positions, I administered first aid to Jason. Tragically, his injuries were severe and proved fatal. I do not claim to have acted gallantly, distinguishably or conspicuously that day. Like everyone on the team I was fighting for my life and Jason's. However, my actions along with others were recognised, and our squadron commander nominated me for the Medal for Gallantry. The precedent for awarding the Medal for Gallantry for actions that closely mirrored those for which I was nominated in Afghanistan is well established. Lance Corporal C, Corporal Holder, Private Cox and Trooper B all received the MG for providing medical assistance in hazardous circumstances. Notably, Trooper B's nomination, originally for stark gallantry, was downgraded and took a decade to be awarded. During my MG nomination, consistent with the 2008 review's finding regarding the nomination process being restricted to senior members, the task group commanding officer, an officer from another regiment, now a general—with a Member of the Order of Australia, Distinguished Service Cross, Conspicuous Service Cross and Distinguished Service Medal—replaced my squadron commander as nominator, altered the submission and downgraded the MG nomination to a Commendation for Gallantry. By inserting himself as a nominator this officer, whom I didn't know and wouldn't meet for another eight years, excluded the SASR chain of command from any communications with honours and awards, preventing them from clarifying details or seeking review if the nomination was unsuccessful or downgraded, as policy permits. This is one of two MG nominations for SASR soldiers that he denied on that rotation. Despite service headquarters' criticism of the paucity of nominations for enlisted ranks in the 2008 review, of the eight nominations submitted for our squadron, three were denied, two were downgraded and only three remained unchanged. Fourteen months after the action and midway through my next deployment to Afghanistan I was told I had been nominated for an award. By that time the nomination had been altered a second time, this time at or above the Commander Joint Task Force 633 general rank. It was switched from the gallantry stream to the distinguished service stream without consulting the nominating officer or witnesses who had described my actions as gallantry in action in hazardous circumstances. Ultimately the award I received, the Commendation for Distinguished Service level 4 award, was downgraded more than a dozen places below the original Medal for Gallantry nomination, a level 2 award. In what can only be described as deliberate manipulation and blatant maladministration, critical text essential to the gallantry nomination was removed or significantly altered more than 20 times. Among these changes was the removal of 11 key phrases including 'outstanding gallantry', 'hazardous circumstances' and 'complete disregard for his own safety'. These alterations were intentionally crafted to ensure the original MG nomination didn't reach honours and awards in its true form. The changes, along with a drastically altered tone, severely undermined the nomination's impact and were clearly designed to force it to conform with criteria for commendation for distinguished service. |
2.66The committee sought information from Defence to ascertain the usual process for nominations and whether the altering of nominations by those in the chain of command was a regular occurrence. Rear Admiral Boulton submitted that:
… normally the officer who raises a nomination will sign the nomination and send it up to an approving officer, and the approving officer will sign it. There is possibility that nominations could be changed as they go higher in the system.
2.67Defence admitted that currently there appears to be no notice to the Honours Board when somebody in the chain of command edits the nomination, and acknowledged that that there was room to improve traceability:
Rear Adm. Boulton:When a significant change like that is made, we would desire the board to pass that feedback back down the chain to the nominating officer.
Senator FAWCETT:But how does the board become aware of it if it's done by somebody in the chain of command?
Rear Adm. Boulton:The board won't, and that's why I agree with you that it might not be a bad idea to have that traceability within the nomination system. We're open to discussing that.
2.68The Guild proposed that increased transparency within the award nominations and decision-making processes would provide greater objective confidence in the system.
2.69ASFA recommended the nomination process be made completely transparent by introducing an online system that:
… enable[s] an original nominator to check the progress of their nomination and whether it is opposed or is to be downgraded, with full reasons to be recorded against that entry so that there is accountability against it.
2.70ASASA recommended that if an award or honour submission is rejected, the reasons why should be noted and passed back to all through the chain of command. ASASA further recommended that nominations should be processed through a secure online portal:
We'd like Defence to develop a single online confidential register and submission portal for all nominations. Once lodged, the submission cannot be removed. It remains as a permanent record but can be commented on, further investigated and reclassified as it progresses up the chain of command. We would also like to see that submission be actioned within four months and the nominator be notified of the status of the recommendation. If it is rejected, the reasons for the rejection should be published on the portal.
2.71Similarly, Mr White proposed that nominations should be processed through a computer program and be unable to be altered at all. Mr White argued that a system that only allows for the chain of command to add comments would provide the board with all the information and commentary required to appropriately review the award.
Distinguished Service Decoration criteria
2.72The committee received evidence on matters relating to the Distinguished Service Decoration criteria. In particular, there appeared to be confusion surrounding the definition of certain terms used in the criteria and unhappiness from some submitters about the criteria in use and the purpose of the award.
2.73Defence advised that the Distinguished Service Decorations evolved in order to provide recognition of service in the contemporary operational context. In January 1991, the Sovereign approved the institution of seven operational awards for service in action and on warlike operations. These comprised the Victoria Cross for Australia, the Australian Gallantry Decorations and the Distinguished Service Decorations.
2.74The Distinguished Service Cross (DSC), the Distinguished Service Medal (DSM) and the Commendation for Distinguished Service were established for the purpose of recognising members of the ADF and certain other persons for:
distinguished command and leadership in action (for the DSC); or
distinguished leadership in action (for the DSM); or
distinguished performance of duties in warlike operations (for the commendation).
2.75Between 1999 and 2003, the ADF became engaged in a succession of armed conflicts in East Timor, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Consequently, Defence reported an increase in the number of operational awards issued to ADF members, included the Distinguished Service Decorations.
2.76As a result of the increased tempo of operations, Defence stated that concerns were raised about the use of Distinguished Service Decorations in the context of the ‘in action’ criterion, and a gap was identified between the Distinguished Service Decorations awarded for warlike service 'in action' and the Conspicuous Service Decorations awarded for service in non-warlike situations.
2.77A review into the Distinguished Service Decorations resulted in the understanding that these decorations ‘… do not reflect the reality of the range of circumstances that may occur in the operational environment’. The then Special Minister of State agreed there was a gap in the honours system for the recognition of outstanding performance and achievement of ADF members who, although in warlike situations, were not 'in action'. He considered the best solution to address this was to amend the Regulations for the Distinguished Service Decorations.
2.78As a result, the Distinguished Service Decorations Regulations were amended on 13December 2011 to omit ‘in action’ and insert ‘in warlike operations’ in respect of awards of the DSC and the DSM. The terms ‘in action’ and ‘in warlike operations’ were not defined in the Regulations.
2.79The committee also sought to clarify whether individuals deployed alongside ADF members, for example Australian Secret Intelligence Service employees or Defence attachés, can be considered for recognition under the Defence honours and awards system.
2.80Despite not providing an exact answer to the committee’s line of questioning, as an example Defence stated that Defence attachés are not eligible for operational service awards as they are not force assigned specifically to conduct operational duties; however, it noted that they are ‘eligible for consideration for recognition in the broader suite of awards or honours’, including awards in the Defence Commendation Scheme, or ‘honours where an individual demonstrates significant personal contributions in their role’.
2.81This response appears to be inconsistent with the purpose and eligibility criteria set out in the Letters Patent and Regulations relating to the Distinguished Service Decorations and the Conspicuous Service Decorations.
2.82The Letters Patent for both decoration types make clear that the decorations are for the purpose of according to recognition to members of the Defence Force and ‘certain other persons’.
2.83In particular, point five in the Distinguished Service Decorations Regulations and in the Australian Conspicuous Service Regulations contains identical wording and sets out that the persons to whom a decoration may be awarded are:
(a)A member of the Defence Force; and
(b)Other persons determined by the Minister for the purposes of this regulation.
2.84Given Defence’s evidence to the committee, it appears that despite the clarity in both Letters Patent and Regulations, in practice these decorations are not being awarded to individuals deployed alongside ADF members who fall into the ‘other persons’ category. If this is the case, the committee considers that the relevant Defence protocols should be amended to reflect the true intent of the Letters Patent and Regulations and allow for the actions of these individuals to be appropriately recognised.
Reactions to the change in terminology
2.85The committee heard that there has been confusion around the definition of the two terms since the amendment, as well as the purpose of the award. Submitters expressed differing views about the appropriateness of the change.
2.86DHAAT confirmed that the terms ‘in action’ and ’in warlike operations’ are not defined in the Distinguished Service Decorations Regulations. It noted that the Defence Honours and Awards Manual (DHAM) only defines the term ‘in action’ in reference to the Australian Gallantry Decorations, and that in reference to Distinguished Service Decorations, the DHAM defines ‘in warlike operations’ to be ‘those operations declared by the Governor-General to be warlike’. It commented that in its work it had previously found these definitions to be ‘largely unhelpful’.
2.87ASASA expressed concern that the shift from recognising acts ‘in action’ to ‘in warlike operations’ has diluted the prestige of the Distinguished Service Decorations by lowering the threshold for the award. ASASA stated that this change has ‘… undermine[d] the original intent and value of these awards’.
2.88ASASA highlighted that a mechanism is already in place within the honours and awards system to recognise significant command contributions both in peace and ‘in warlike operations’ in the Miliary Division of the Order of Australia. Consequently, ASASA expressed a view that the Letters Patent for the DSC and DSM need to be reviewed and returned to the threshold of ‘in action’ not ‘in warlike operations’.
2.89ASASA recommended that the criteria for the Distinguished Service Decorations be reviewed and revised to emphasise extraordinary leadership and contributions in combat over routine command responsibilities.
2.90ASASA stated this could be achieved by amending the Letters Patent for both from ‘in warlike operations’ to ‘leadership in action’ with ‘leadership in action’ defined as ‘to be in control while physically present or in close proximity during a specific action or series of actions involving direct conflict with an adversary’.
2.91Similarly, other submitters recommended that the original Distinguished Service Decorations Regulations be reinstated – that is, ‘warlike operations’ in the Regulations relating to the DSC and DSM be deleted and replaced with ‘in action’.
2.92Mr Jonathon Beesley DSM, a former commanding officer of the Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) Special Operations Task Group (SOTG), provided his opinion on the need to review the way that Distinguished Service Decorations were awarded, with a renewed focus on ‘proximity’. He stated:
I am confident the performance of senior officers in the ADF on operations is worthy of recognition, but, with the way that the distinguished service decorations are currently articulated, that is not necessarily the fit for that service. We should consider proximity as part of the criteria for awarding of distinguished service decorations. I talk about proximity in terms of command, leadership and accountability. Within command, I talk about proximity to responsibility, the legal authority and the accountability that that commander has. You can apply proximity to that. For example, there's an element of proximity to someone who looks a soldier in the eye and tells him, 'You are going to run to the sound of guns,' compared to somebody who is coordinating a broader response or broader defence contribution in another location.
2.93RSL Australia disagreed that the change to ‘warlike operations’ weakened the Distinguished Service Decorations. RSL Australia National President, Retired Major General Greg Melick, expressed:
Our position is this: it's not inappropriate for an award such as the DSC, which took over from the [Distinguished Service Order], to be awarded to somebody not actually engaged in combat but serving in warlike conditions. We don't suggest that's an aberration. We think it's an appropriate amendment.
2.94He further highlighted that the change to ‘warlike operations’ is consistent with historical awards:
The Distinguished Service Order is a classic example in World War I and World War II. It was awarded either for under-fire or combat operations or for distinguished service. You had parallels. You could go into a warlike zone and get an Order of the British Empire or a Distinguished Service Order, which could be for either under-combat or not-under-combat conditions. The change in the conditions aligns with what historically used to happen before. In other words, if you were a distinguished leader in a warlike situation but not actually involved in combat, there's no reason why you shouldn't be eligible for such an award.
2.95The Australian War Memorial (War Memorial) observed that the DSC appeared to be experiencing criticism based on a lack of certainty regarding its purpose.
2.96It noted that following the amendments to the Distinguished Service Decorations criteria, confusion has arisen regarding their differentiation from the Conspicuous Service Cross, (CSC) and Conspicuous Service Medal (CSM). It stated that the Conspicuous Service Decorations were explicitly created to reward performance in non-warlike situations, while Distinguished Service Decorations originally recognised command and leadership ‘in action’or in warlike operations.
2.97The War Memorial expressed that it is unclear whether the DSC is to be granted for excellence in the planning and conduct of operations, or for gallantry in the execution of those operations, or both. It also observed:
Those who have engaged in face-to-face combat with their nation’s enemies are justifiably inclined to believe that their experience, and the risk of death or injury that comes with it, should place them (and any medallic recognition they receive) in a separate category from any other.
2.98The War Memorial submitted that it seems reasonable to address this issue by ensuring that there is a clear distinction between combatant gallantry and distinguished leadership awards. Furthermore, the War Memorial submitted that the DSC appears to have been intended to award leadership, and if so, this intent should be better publicised and defined.
2.99At the committee’s public hearing, Mr Nick Fletcher, Head of Military Heraldry and Technology at the War Memorial, emphasised that the Australian Defence honours and awards system is ‘comparatively youthful’ and will evolve with time. He noted that the recent period of increased conflict was the first since Vietnam and served to highlight gaps within the system. He explained:
[The system] can only evolve through being used. That's what we are seeing play out, effectively, or we're not seeing play out, as the director has said, because so little, in terms of citations and information on what is being awarded and why it is being awarded, is filtering through to the general public or even to the Australian War Memorial. It's very difficult for people to judge what an award has been granted for or what the standard is which must be reached to receive that award. It’s not a matter of fault of anybody’s; it's a matter of an immature system which is slowly coming to maturity.
Integrity of awards to senior officers
2.100Connected to the concerns about the criteria and purpose of the Distinguished Service Decorations, the committee also heard concerns about the integrity of awards to senior officers. Some submitters asserted that there was a view amongst some in the ADF community that Defence honours and awards were disproportionately and inappropriately handed out to senior officers.
2.101For example, the Guild reported that some ADF community members expressed the view that the Defence honours and awards system was a self-perpetuating cycle of senior officers awarding other senior officers medals, honours and awards for ‘doing what they are paid to do’ at the expense of ‘extraordinary acts or exemplary service’ by non-commissioned officers or other ranks.
2.102Mr White argued there is currently a ‘deep inequity’ in the system which was skewed towards senior officers. He emphasised the importance of Defence honours and awards being awarded based on merit, not rank.
2.103ASASA asserted that the current iteration of the Defence honours and awards system is flawed and viewed by many soldiers, non-commissioned officers and junior commanders as ‘biased, unfair, unjust and skewed in favour of senior officers.’
2.104Mr Moor, outgoing National Vice Chairman of ASASA elaborated:
We are also concerned about the imbalance between awards to senior officers and to the junior commanders and soldiers involved in the front-line fighting. This is twofold in that it encompasses both the failure to better recognise performance of those doing the fighting and a distortion of the criteria for distinguished service awards.
2.105Mrs Rogers, an advocate for veterans, highlighted to the committee that when personnel, particularly those ‘at the coalface’ who face the most direct and immediate threats, see their superiors receiving honours for non-operational tasks (such as administrative or ‘home-office’ duties), it can lead to feelings of frustration, disillusionment and resentment. She explained how the perceived abuse of the system by senior officers negatively impacts on the trust that ADF members have in their senior leadership.
2.106Mrs Rogers argued that if senior officers use their position to nominate each other for honours and awards without regard to merit, it leads to a number of detrimental effects on morale, trust and forced cohesion. She explained:
If senior officers are regularly nominating each other for awards, particularly for roles that don’t involve direct combat or challenging deployments, it can create an environment where honours are seen as a tool for personal gain rather than for genuine recognition of service. This can erode trust among lower ranks, as they may feel that the system is rigged in favour of those at the top, rather than being based on merit.
2.107Mrs Rogers proposed that to improve the current system it was imperative that the awards process be fair, transparent and foster a culture of inclusivity. She stated that Defence should ensure that the criteria for awards are clearly defined and communicated across all ranks, with a particular focus on ensuring that the contributions of those in high-risk or operational roles are properly acknowledged.
2.108Defence advised that, historically and in practice, senior officers are considered those holding the rank of O6 and above. When an officer reaches the rank of O6 they are no longer a member of their specialisation, but rather a member of the General Staff, and are expected to lead and contribute more broadly to the Defence Enterprise. An O6 officer is equivalent to a Captain in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), a Colonel in the Army, and a Group Captain in the RAAF.
2.109As a specific example, Defence advised that officers of the ranks O6 and above during the Afghanistan conflict were in senior command roles, including the Commander Afghanistan Task Group, the Commander and Deputy Commander and the Chief of Staff of JTF633. It explained that, although officers of the rank of O5 were deployed in command roles in Afghanistan, Defence does not consider this rank as a senior officer. An O5 officer is equivalent to a Commander in the RAN, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army and a Wing Commander in the RAAF.
2.110Defence pointed out senior officers were more likely to be recognised through the Distinguished Service Decorations, appointments in the Order of Australia (Military Division) and Conspicuous Service Decorations. It explained that this was a reflection of the nature of the leadership roles undertaken on operations, given the breadth of responsibility and accountability associated with senior levels of command.
2.111Defence also advised that broadly speaking, junior officers and enlisted ranks were more likely to be awarded a Commendation for Distinguished Service or a gallantry decoration for acts of gallant or heroic behaviour in warlike situations. It stated that this reflected the nature of those roles, including that they are more often exposed to warfighting operations and therefore appropriately recognised with gallantry decorations.
2.112Defence highlighted the importance of integrity within the Defence awards and honours nomination process not only for senior officers, but for all ranks:
Upholding the integrity of the nominations process is essential, not just for awards bestowed upon senior officers, but to every individual who is nominated and considered for recognition at a Defence Honours Board.
Afghanistan conflict
2.113In setting out their concerns with the integrity of awards and honours given to senior officers, some submitters focused on the awards and honours given to senior officers during the Afghanistan conflict.
2.114For example, ASASA asserted that the DSC was awarded to the most senior officers in command positions in Afghanistan and was seen as a recognition of expected duties, rather than truly distinguished or exceptional command and leadership. It argued that this practice had further eroded confidence in the integrity of the system and increased cynicism and feelings of injustice and resentment amongst its members.
2.115However, despite these criticisms, ASASA stated that it saw no merit in retrospectively taking away awards and honours from anyone. It commented:
To remove awards retrospectively would create a public outcry and would risk further debasing faith in the awards system. The focus must be on the future.
2.116In an alternative view, ASFA expressed a wish that every officer who it alleged had been ‘unlawfully awarded’ a DSC or DSM should write to the Minister for Defence and invite the Minister to recommend the Governor-General revoke their awards. ASFA also asserted that there should be an investigation of all awards of the DSC and DSM since 1993.
2.117In response to concerns about the integrity of awards given during the Afghanistan conflict, Defence highlighted the following key points:
More than 39 000 ADF personnel served in support of Afghanistan over the 20-year history of Australia's engagement in the region;
519 senior officers were deployed, which represented 1.3 per cent of ADF personnel; and
569 honours were awarded; of which 121 awards (21 per cent) of honours were awarded to senior officers.
2.118Additionally, Defence emphasised that no senior officers received gallantry decorations, but rather were recognised through the Distinguished Service Decorations, appointments in the Order of Australia (Military Division) and Conspicuous Service Decorations.
2.119At a public hearing, Rear Admiral Boulton elaborated on the breakdown of Defence awards and honours awarded during the Afghanistan conflict to senior and junior officers:
If I go to the Victoria Cross, four out of four Victoria crosses were given to corporals or privates—a hundred per cent. If I turn to the Star of Gallantry, six of six stars of gallantry were awarded to sergeants and privates. If I go on to the Medal of Gallantry, 35 were awarded; none of those were awarded to an officer above the rank of major. If I turn to the distinguished service awards, there is no evidence that more awards have been given to senior officers. In fact, I'm looking at the totals here, and 33 out of the 58 DSCs awarded—that's 56 per cent—were to people below the rank of senior officer.
2.120DHAAT advised the committee that it had received a small number of approaches from veterans wishing it to undertake an examination of the legitimacy of the Distinguished Service Decorations awarded to some senior officers in command positions for service prior to the amendment of the Distinguished Service Regulations in 2012. It emphasised that such an exercise did not fall within the scope of the tribunal’s review power as it did not relate to a refusal to recommend a person, or group of persons for the honours concerned. However, it noted that it would be open to the Minister to direct it to inquire into the issue and make recommendations to the Government.
2.121DHAAT concluded, however:
In the absence of such a referral, and the significant body of research and work that it would undoubtedly entail, the Tribunal is not able to make any comment on the legitimacy of the awards raised in those approaches, or the processes or the quality of decision-making that led to their issue.
End of war list
2.122In relation to the matter of ensuring the integrity of Defence honours and awards, the committee heard some evidence relating to the merits of an ‘end of war’ list for recent and future conflicts, similar to one produced at the end of the Vietnam War, to ensure that all deserving ADF members received appropriate recognition.
2.123In 1996, the Howard Government set up an interdepartmental committee to consider awards that were recommended at the highest level during the Vietnam War but were subsequently downgraded or removed. An end of war list was created, and awards for the Vietnam War were made retrospectively from the Australian Defence honours and awards system.
2.124As DHAAT explained:
The Official Secretary to the Governor-General sought advice from Buckingham Palace as to whether awards for service in Vietnam, as recommended by the IDC [interdepartmental committee], could be made under the Imperial system. Following advice from Her Majesty’s Private Secretary, the Governor-General in turn advised the Prime Minister, who decided that awards for the Vietnam end of war list would be made retrospectively from the Australian honours and awards system.
2.125Personal testimony from an SASR Patrol Commander veteran contained in the ASASA submission argued that there was a need for the creation of end of war lists for more recent Australian campaigns. It stated:
In many cases deserving soldiers miss out altogether. Once key people leave service, the original commanders move on, documents and records go into archive or are lost, it is near impossible to revisit the lack of an award for a deserving soldier. Post Vietnam war, they had an ‘End of War list,’ which had names of deserving soldiers who missed out on awards at the time due to quotas etc. Then years later these Vietnam vets finally received medals from the modern honours system.
2.126The testimony set out how the veteran believed an end of war list would ensure that all deserving individuals were appropriately recognised in cases where unofficial medal ‘quotas’ were enforced:
There was no ‘End of War list’ for the more recent Australian campaigns, as they claim there were no quotas and there were none nominated who missed out due to a quota. My experience was that there certainly were unofficial or undeclared medal quotas. If six soldiers displayed equally distinguished gallantry in a particular engagement, they would not give all six of them MGs [Medals for Gallantry]. One or two would get one and the rest would miss out. In my own case, when efforts were made by senior retired officer to try and redress the issue, he was told by a senior officer in Canberra, that with the award of a VC [Victoria Cross] to one of my team members, it was felt that sufficient medallic recognition had been awarded for that engagement. To my mind that is just like a quota. (i.e. “we are not saying you didn’t do a great job, and would be deserving of recognition, but with VC etc we feel we have awarded enough gongs for that battle”).
2.127ASASA recommended that end of war lists be re-introduced for all future conflicts and campaigns undertaken by the ADF. Additionally, ASASA recommended that in regard to the Afghanistan conflict, all operational nominations and other recorded and/or witnessed accounts of significant gallantry that were not nominated should be compiled and reviewed as an end of war list for award and honour consideration.
2.128Evidence from DHAAT on the Defence honours and awards nomination process more broadly observed that the internal Defence nomination process is ‘not one that carries any assurance’ that all ADF personnel who deserve medallic recognition will actually be recognised. For example, DHAAT reflected that it is aware of cases in which:
nominations have been wrongly down-graded;
nominations for comparable service have not been put forward because of a commander self-imposing an informal ‘quota’;
one nomination has been put forward in preference to another for comparable service only because the text of the former was thought to ‘read better’;
a commander has reportedly refused to nominate anyone in their command no matter how superlative their service on the basis that, no matter how well they perform, they are ‘just doing their job’; and
exemplary service has simply not been drawn to the attention of potential nominators.
Committee view
2.129The Defence honours and awards system provides a valued form of tangible and public recognition for notable acts of bravery, gallantry and service.
2.130A system that is fair, transparent and merit-based, and is seen as such, is an important tool of Defence morale, and supports organisational goals such as staff recruitment, retention and productivity.
2.131Conversely, a system that is seen to be deficient in these attributes can impede morale, hurt organisational goals, and lead to considerable personal distress and frustration for service members and their families.
2.132The committee heard clear evidence that at least some members of the ADF community have lost faith in the integrity and administration of the Defence honours and awards system.
2.133The committee considers it important that the government take steps to improve confidence and integrity in the operation of the Defence honours and awards system.
Transparency and traceability within the nomination process
2.134Given the significant impact that Defence honours and awards can have on ADF morale, the committee considers it imperative that Australia’s Defence honours and awards system operates, and is seen to be operating, with high levels of integrity and transparency.
2.135The committee was surprised to learn that edits are often made to the text of an original nomination as it progresses through the chain of command and to the Honours Board, without these edits necessarily being disclosed or discussed with the original nominator. As a result, the Honours Board may only see a version of the nomination which is substantially different to that originally proposed. The opacity around this process is unacceptable and undermines confidence in the system.
2.136The committee considers it necessary to preserve the original wording and intent of a nomination. Accompanying text that may provide additional context or offer alternative viewpoints or judgement as the nomination proceeds through the chain of command is and should remain a part of this process, but such text should sit alongside the original nomination, and the authorship should be clear and disclosed.
2.137Though it is natural and normal for some level of confidentiality to accompany the process, it would improve confidence if some semi-regular updates were provided to the original nominator and nominating chain of command on the content, status and outcome of a nomination.
2.138The committee recommends that the Australian Government take steps to increase the transparency of the Defence honours and awards nomination process, particularly by preserving the text of original recommendations and ensuring subsequent commentary and qualifying statements sit alongside this original text, with authorship disclosed, such that the full documented history is visible to the Honours Board.
2.139The committee recommends that the Australian Government give consideration to formalising the provision of updates at relevant milestones in the nomination process. These updates should be provided to the original nominator and nominating chain of command on the content, status and outcome of a nomination.
Confusion surrounding the Distinguished Service Decorations
2.140Australia’s Defence honours and awards system is relatively youthful and is developing and maturing through use, with some categories of honours and awards not yet well defined or necessarily understood.
2.141The committee acknowledges the concerns raised by inquiry participants in regard to the changes to the Distinguished Service Decorations criteria, and in particular the replacement of the phrase ‘in action’ with ‘in warlike operations’ in 2011 and how this has been interpreted in practice. The committee recognises that this change has caused confusion and considers it important for Defence to provide clarification of terminology, so that the eligibility criteria is clear.
2.142The committee recommends that the Australian Government provide guidance on the specific criteria for Defence honours and awards and make this guidance publicly available. In particular, the committee recommends that clarity be publicly provided on the definition of the terms ‘in action’ and ‘in warlike operations’ in relation to Distinguished Service Decorations, so the eligibility is clear.
End of war list
2.143The committee acknowledges that honours and awards quotas have been abolished and understands that in theory, the removal of such quotas means an end of war list is not required. However, given the observations from submitters and witnesses, including DHAAT that appear to indicate that the internal Defence honours and awards nomination process may not always ensure that worthy individuals are recognised, the committee believes there is merit in the re-introduction of end of war lists.
2.144The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the establishment of an end of war list to review the Defence honours and awards nominations for conflicts since the Vietnam War, and for future conflicts.