Chapter 3Broader improvements to the Defence honours and awards system
3.1The establishment of a tribunal to consider unsuccessful Defence honours and awards nominations is a unique feature of the Australian system and provides an additional level of accountability and assurance that decisions are reasonably and fairly made, and systemic issues can be appropriately examined.
3.2Evidence to the inquiry showed support for and confidence in the work of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal (DHAAT). Overwhelmingly, inquiry participants valued the independent nature of the tribunal, its impartiality and its considered approach when handling review applications.
3.3As noted in previous chapters, Australia’s Defence honours and awards system is relatively youthful and continues to evolve. It is only with use of the system that improvements can be identified and subsequently implemented. Inquiry participants identified the following key areas of improvement:
the need for appropriate medallic recognition for those who are killed, wounded or injured as a result of their service;
the value of maintaining an impartial Defence honours and awards system and an independent tribunal; and
possible legislative amendments to address issues relating to DHAAT’s governance and jurisdiction.
3.4The chapter will examine these topics, before concluding with the committee’s views and recommendations.
Medallic recognition for those wounded or killed
3.5While new awards have been added to recognise the operational service of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in different regions and countries, the committee heard from some witnesses that medallic recognition for ADF members and veterans who were killed or wounded in, or as a result of, their service was lacking and that emblematic recognition to these individuals and their families should be introduced.
DHAAT’s inquiry
3.6The question of appropriate tangible recognition of the sacrifice made by current and former ADF members and their families was examined by DHAAT in 2021 and reported in 2022. The inquiry received 260 submissions and held over 70 public hearings.
3.7The report, titled Recognising their service, found that several countries recognise death, wounding or injury in service with the issuing of medals or other tangible items. For example, Canada commemorates sacrifice with a package of memorial medals, New Zealand established the Memorial Cross, the United Kingdom introduced an emblem and a memorial scroll, and the United States of America created the Purple Heart.
3.8The inquiry concluded that Australia does not have, but should introduce, emblematic recognition for those who were wounded, injured or died in, or as a result of, service. It made the following three key recommendations:
(1)the institution of four new forms of medallic and emblematic recognition, including a Memorial Clasp, a Gratitude Clasp, a Memorial Star, and a Gratitude Star;
(2)the new forms of recognition to be accompanied by a scroll, issued under the authority of the Governor-General, to commemorate the sacrifice of the member, veteran or the family, as applicable; and
(3)the proposed new forms of recognition be available retrospectively, to recognise death, serious wounding, serious injury or serious disease that is or was brought about in or as a result of service after 2 September 1945.
3.9DHAAT advised the committee that no government decision has yet been made on the recommendations arising from its inquiry.
Support for new forms of emblematic recognition
3.10In its submission, DHAAT reiterated the conclusions of its 2021 inquiry and noted that ‘as the system currently stands, honours and awards recognise the fact of service, but not the potentially devastating impact that service can have on ADF members and veterans and their families.’
3.11Inquiry participants largely agreed that new forms of medallic and emblematic recognition should be provided to ADF personnel, veterans and their families who were wounded, injured or killed in or as a result of their service, with some calling on the government to implement the recommendations made in DHAAT’s inquiry.
3.12Ms Renee Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of the Families of Veterans Guild (the Guild) and wife of a veteran critically injured during the Afghanistan conflict, expressed concern with the lack of recognition for the sacrifices of ADF members and veterans:
I don't think this system and the way it is operating actually recognises sacrifice in a way that it ought to, in a way that it should and in a way that it does in other countries. When it comes to veterans serving in war, they are doing incredible things, so we don't even have to worry about it, and in a lot of cases we don't even know. The lack of that recognition in our system means that there is no conversation starter, there is no purple heart, for instance, on someone's chest on Anzac Day that causes the conversation, 'Hey, tell me about your service.' Australians get to exist and live in this beautiful country and have no idea what is given and what continues to be given for that.
3.13At the committee’s public hearing, Mr Stephen Skehill, Chair of DHAAT, elaborated on the importance of tangible recognition for ADF members, and commented that the current system does not accurately represent the kinds of sacrifice undertaken by ADF members:
Medals tell a story. People in service can look at someone's chest and know where they've been and what they've done. They read them like a book. But what those medals don't tell is what sacrifice the individual's made to render that service. They don't tell you whether that person, the owner of those medals, was killed, injured or permanently incapacitated, or whether the medals are being held by a widow or a widower.
3.14The Guild, a community and advocacy group of war widows and families of veterans, noted it had conducted a small consultation of veterans and their families in 2021 in response to DHAAT’s inquiry and concluded that:
The views of the veteran community and the Australian public were clear – they wanted to see this recognition afforded.
3.15In the words of some of the Guild’s consultation respondents:
All those who served deserve every ounce of recognition, even the wounded.
…
I have witnessed, first hand acts of extraordinary courage, seen wounded soldiers continue to perform with professionalism, courage and dedication not be recognised for their actions, while senior officers who never were involved in anything warlike, apart from command from afar are, nearly by virtue of their position, are bestowed awards. Our wounded and fallen should receive recognition of their sacrifice and dedication.
…
When any family loses a member in service, recognition should be given to their grief and that they have given up a son or daughter in service of the nation.
3.16Whilst agreeing that ADF members, veterans and their families should be appropriately recognised for their sacrifice, the committee received differing views on the types of ‘wounds’ that should qualify for emblematic recognition.
3.17The Australian Special Air Service Association (ASASA) recommended that medallic recognition for those physically wounded or killed should only be given to those ‘killed or wounded while on a declared operation’ and that it should not be awarded for ‘physical, mental or emotional illnesses which present post operational service after return to Australia’.
3.18Mr Martin Blandy, a member of the Australian Special Forces Alliance (ASFA) similarly commented that any future awards in this space should only be awarded to substantive physical injuries, not just ‘paper cuts’.
3.19In contrast, Retired Major General Greg Melick, National President of RSL Australia argued that consideration should be given to the inclusion of ‘mental wounds’ when recognising the sacrifice of ADF members:
I'll put some rhetorical questions to you. If you have a soldier, like in World War I, who is buried by an artillery blast, is dug out and has no injuries but carries horrific mental scars for the rest of his life, has he not suffered as much as, if not more than, somebody who's received a flesh wound? Why should you distinguish between physical wounds and mental wounds.
3.20When asked to comment on whether the Department of Defence (Defence) was considering providing recognition for people who were wounded in action, Deputy Chief of Personnel Rear Admiral Richard Boulton advised that he understood this to be ‘under consideration by the government at the moment.’
3.21RearAdmiral Boulton went on to state:
We understand the hurt and the emotions that are out there when one of our people is killed, injured or suffers damage as a result of their service. We all feel that. We all have colleagues that have been hurt in the service.
Maintaining an impartial and independent system
3.22Submitters and witnesses expressed support for the unique review function provided by DHAAT and particularly noted the tribunal’s independence and impartiality.
3.23For example, Mr Andrew White, a former Special Air Service Regiment member, stated:
They do a fantastic job ... They're impartial and they go by fact; they're not emotional. It's done its job.
3.24Similarly, Rear Admiral Boulton acknowledged DHAAT’s independence:
The tribunal is the only one of its kind that exists across the Commonwealth countries that affords military members, veterans and their families the opportunity for independent review of Defence military awards. We appreciate the work of the tribunal.
Separation of the Directorate of Honours and Awards from Defence
3.25The committee heard conflicting views on whether the Directorate of Honours and Awards (the directorate), which resides within Defence and is administered by Defence officials, should be administered by a body separate to Defence.
3.26Some witnesses argued that having the administration of the directorate within Defence creates the potential for conflicts of interests to arise.
3.27For example, Mr White expressed that there are inherent conflicts of interest by having the directorate within Defence:
Personally, I would like to see the honours and awards directorate taken away from Defence, as a separate institution. At the moment, you've got awards being put in, for generals, to their subordinates. They're not going to turn them down. The honours and awards directorate can't turn them down, because they answer to the generals. Like the Canadian system and the British system, it needs to be separate.
3.28ASFA, a not-for-profit member organisation representing the interests of current and former military special forces personnel, argued that ‘Defence simply cannot be trusted with managing the system, and it must be taken away from them completely.’
3.29Conversely, Mr Rick Moor, ASASA’s outgoing National Vice Chairman, commented that the directorate should remain within Defence. Mr Moor explained that this would enable the system to stay on the Defence protected network and allow for a central portal for recording nominations.
3.30The committee sought clarification regarding who would be best placed to administer the system. Mr Jonathon Beesley DSM, a former commanding officer in the Special Air Service Regiment, suggested that it should be administered by a team that has a combination of officials with defence experience and individuals external to the system.
3.31ASFA went further and recommended that the directorate within Defence be disbanded, and its funding and staff be allocated to DHAAT. ASFA suggested an expansion of DHAAT’s powers so that all nominations and recommendations for all military honours and awards, other than service or campaign awards, be considered and approved by DHAAT.
3.32However, Mr Skehill explained that this would result in a substantial conflict of interest for DHAAT:
… if you put that function in the tribunal, we've got the capability, we've got the expertise, but what happens when we decide that someone doesn't qualify? We would have a massive conflict of interest.
3.33DHAAT expressed the view that the identification and nomination of ADF members for medallic recognition is a key duty of Defence leadership, and that this function should not be taken away from Defence. DHAAT acknowledged the concerns on this matter, but stated that moving the directorate out of Defence would not resolve the issues. DHAAT also observed that having a central unit within Defence provides an avenue to monitor for anomalies and inconsistencies within the system.
Board composition
3.34Some witnesses raised concerns regarding DHAAT’s board composition, specifically in relation to the number of members with Defence backgrounds.
3.35The Defence Act 1903 (Defence Act) provides that DHAAT consists of the Chair, and a minimum of six and a maximum of ten members who are appointed by the Minister on a part-time basis for a maximum period of three years. Currently, the tribunal has its statutory maximum of 10 members and the Chair.
3.36RSL NSW outlined that the current composition of DHAAT members comprises seven former Defence personnel, and that the current board composition has raised concerns from its members about perceived conflicts of interest arising.
3.37At the committee’s public hearing in Canberra, Mr Dan Fortune, a former Special Air Service Regiment member, concurred that the composition of DHAAT’s board should be examined. Mr Fortune stated:
I believe the composition of that team needs to be looked at: who is making the review decisions, what are their competencies and what are their skills?
3.38Mr David McCann, Deputy Chair of RSL NSW, acknowledged that the presence of former ADF personnel is required due to the technical nature of the decisions and contextual requirements, but explained that lay members ‘… can look at these historical applications through fresh eyes’. However, RSL NSW reiterated that the composition of the board continues to cause concern about impartiality, transparency and bias.
3.39RSL NSW recommended that consideration be given to introducing an additional member to DHAAT who is not affiliated with Defence to mitigate any perceptions of bias.
3.40The committee sought clarification from DHAAT regarding the composition of the board. The Chair, Mr Skehill, explained the following:
We have two lay members. I'm one. I've got no service background. The act says I can't have previously performed continuous full-time defence service. The other is a former magistrate who has no defence service.
If we were to have more [lay members], under the current act [Defence Act 1903] we'd have to get rid of someone else. We try very hard to get a multidisciplinary mix of people, with senior defence experience and less senior defence experience, more public administration and military history, and I think we've got a pretty good balance.
Possible legislative amendments
3.41The committee received evidence on proposed legislative amendments to improve the operation of DHAAT and more broadly the Defence honours and awards system.
3.42However, a number of recommendations put forward by Defence were strongly opposed by DHAAT, including introducing a 20-year limit from the date the service was rendered on review applications, and limiting who can apply for a review. These issues, as well as other potential improvements to the current legislation are discussed below.
DHAAT application timeframes
3.43According to DHAAT, arguably one of the most contentious jurisdictional issues is how far back in time Defence and DHAAT should be asked to consider applications.
3.44Currently, any person may apply to Defence for any Defence honour or award in respect to any service by a current or former ADF member. However, DHAAT’s review function is limited to unsuccessful decisions made by Defence where the service in question was rendered on or after the commencement of the Second World War on 3 September 1939. Decisions made by Defence in relation to recognition of ADF service prior to this date are ineligible for independent merits review.
3.45Defence recommended that DHAAT’s review function be limited to a period of 20-years from when the relevant service was rendered:
Defence recommends that legislative amendments are progressed 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.
3.46Defence noted that sourcing appropriate evidence to enable contemporary decisions for historical cases is often difficult as records are often unavailable, unable to be located or simply do not exist, or the original decision-makers are no longer alive. Defence explained that this timeframe would ensure that evidence was available to allow for a more accurate decision-making process.
3.47DHAAT echoed Defence’s experience with obtaining and corroborating reliable evidence when reviewing historical cases, and noted that its 2017 Inquiry intorecognition for Far East Prisoners of War who were killed while escaping or following recapture, recommended that a limitation period be introduced. In 2020, DHAAT’s former Chair wrote to the then Minister for Defence Personnel suggesting that the Defence Act be amended to preclude, after an appropriate transitional period, applications for review of decisions relating to defence honours and foreign awards for service prior to 1975, which coincides with the introduction of the Australian honours and awards system.
3.48However, in relation to Defence’s proposal to introduce a 20-year limit for DHAAT reviews, DHAAT expressed its strong opposition to and significant concern for this proposal.
3.49In discussing the impact of several of Defence’s proposals, DHAAT explained that the effect would render invalid 95 per cent of applications decided by DHAAT between 2020 and 2023, and if implemented would:
… abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans and families and others to seek external and independent merits review of Defence decisions refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award.
3.50DHAAT emphasised that the 20-year limitation would mean that rights of review would be abolished for ADF service such as that in Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor and the earlier years of the Afghanistan campaign.
Who may apply for a DHAAT review?
3.51Currently, any person may apply at any time to the Directorate of Honours and Awards in Defence for medallic recognition for any service by any person in the ADF. Similarly, there are no restrictions on who can apply to seek a review of a decision made in response to that application.
3.52DHAAT advised that applications to DHAAT are generally made by an ADF member or veteran, but that this is not always the case. DHAAT explained that it also receives applications from the following groups of people:
… applications are also made by other parties such as family members, fellow veterans (not always witnesses or those in the veteran’s chain of command), or even people with no familial or other link to the veteran, such as historians, authors or keenly interested readers or researchers.
3.53DHAAT acknowledged that the unrestricted nature of DHAAT applications is different from other merits review tribunals. Nevertheless, DHAAT did not consider it necessary to amend these rules given the lack of evidence that the rules are being abused.
3.54In contrast, Defence recommended three changes to the standing rules:
that a person not be able to self-nominate for an honour and a refusal to consider a self-nomination not be a reviewable decision;
applications to DHAAT to review a decision by Defence are only accepted if it is submitted by someone who is or was more senior in the chain of command, or who witnessed the relevant action; and
in relation to a review, the initiator of the review may be required to provide the consent of the ADF member or veteran being considered for an honour, or an immediate family member of the nominated individual.
3.55In response to Defence’s recommendations, DHAAT made the following observation:
There is no evidence that this apparently very liberal standing rule has been abused by persons with no real connection to ADF service or ADF personnel, or by other persons making gratuitous applications to the Tribunal.
Indeed, applications for review by persons with no clear connection to an ADF member may produce very desirable outcomes…
Nevertheless, Defence proposes to totally abolish the current rights of ADF members, veterans and their families (and almost all others) to appeal against a refusal of a defence honour.
3.56DHAAT summarised Defence’s recommendations to be ‘unjust, counter-intuitive and perverse’.
Other areas of proposed legislative change
3.57Whilst not commented on by most submitters and witnesses, DHAAT recommended the following legislative changes:
Introducing an objectives clause – DHAAT highlighted that currently there is no statement in the provisions of the Defence Act that sets out the objectives of DHAAT and suggested that a section, similar to section 9 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, could be included in Part VIIIC of the Defence Act.
Introducing additional powers – DHAAT noted that the Defence Act is limited in its mechanisms for allowing DHAAT to deal effectively with applications that fall outside the norm – for example, it contains no specific provisions for the conduct of directions hearings or for dealing with applications that have not been properly made. DHAAT recommended legislative amendments to broaden the powers of the tribunal and the Chair to deal with particular types of applications made to it.
Cancelled awards – DHAAT highlighted that currently no provision exists for a decision to cancel a Defence honour or award to be directly reviewed by DHAAT. DHAAT suggested changes to provide notification to the affected individual of a proposed revocation and for that individual to be provided a right of review at the tribunal.
Foreign awards – DHAAT observed that the current arrangements in respect of foreign awards are vaguely structured, and recommended that Defence decisions in respect of foreign awards should only be reviewable by DHAAT where a foreign government has delegated a decision-making power to Defence to confer such awards. This view was also shared by Defence.
Committee view
3.58Australia’s Defence honours and awards system is unique in its opportunity for individuals to seek independent merits-based review of unsuccessful nominations for a Defence honour and award. According to Defence, DHAAT is the only tribunal of its kind of the 56 Commonwealth member countries. The committee acknowledges the work of DHAAT and considers this independence an integral aspect in maintaining accountability and trust within the Defence honours and awards system.
New forms of medallic recognition
3.59It is clear to the committee that currently medallic recognition only depicts an ADF member or veteran’s service and omits the consequences they or their family have sacrificed as a result of their service.
3.60On balance, the committee is persuaded by the evidence from DHAAT and other submitters on the need to introduce a form of recognition within the Defence honours and awards system that adequately expresses the gratitude of the nation for the sacrifice that an ADF member or veteran has made through their service, or that their family has endured as a result.
3.61The question of whether tangible recognition should be provided to current and former ADF members and their families who were wounded, injured or killed as a result of service is not new. The committee acknowledges the comprehensive and well-consulted inquiry conducted by DHAAT and lends its support to the recommendations made in DHAAT’s report, Recognising their sacrifice.
3.62The committee acknowledges that the type of injuries that should be captured within the term ‘wounded’ is a complex and sensitive issue which will require due consideration, but considers that this complexity should not be used as a barrier to delay recognition for these individuals any longer.
3.63The committee recommends that the Australian Government considers how to implement the recommendations from the 2021 Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal inquiry report ‘Recognising their sacrifice’ to create new forms of medallic and emblematic recognition for current and former Australian Defence Force members and their families who are injured, wounded or killed in, or as a result of, their service.
Maintaining an impartial and independent system
3.64The committee acknowledges the importance of DHAAT’s role in providing ADF members, veterans and others the opportunity to seek independent reviews of unsuccessful honours and awards nominations. The committee considers the independent nature of DHAAT to be a key factor in preserving confidence in the Defence honours and awards system.
3.65The committee notes the concerns raised by inquiry participants regarding the composition of DHAAT’s board and the calls by some witnesses to move the Directorate of Honours and Awards from Defence. However, the committee is of the view that the recommendations made in chapter 2 of this report, if implemented, will go some way to restoring trust in the system.
3.66In relation to application timeframes and who is eligible to make an application to DHAAT, the committee notes the stark difference in views between Defence and DHAAT, and considers it vital that both parties work together to review any possible legislative amendments. The committee urges that any legislative amendments must ensure that DHAAT’s operational independence is not diminished.
3.67The committee recommends 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.
Concluding remarks
3.68The committee notes that on average 17000 applications for Defence honours and awards are received each year, plus an additional 8500 from nominal rolls. In comparison, only about 25 to 30 applications for review are lodged with DHAAT every year. Since 2008, DHAAT has received 485 applications for review, affirmed approximately 60 per cent of decisions and set aside nearly 15per cent of decisions.
3.69It is an inherent aspect of Defence honours and awards that not all service can receive medallic recognition. Also, that persons seeking a review of a decision will not always agree or be satisfied with the outcome of a decision or review. Based purely on the figures, it appears that, broadly speaking, the Defence honours and awards system is working as was intended.
3.70Notwithstanding, the committee notes that the issues raised during the course of this inquiry — particularly in relation to the opaqueness and lack of traceability in the nominations process, the time taken to progress through the Defence honours and awards system, the confusion around the Distinguished Service Decoration criteria, the integrity of awards for senior officers, and the lack of recognition for wounded, injured or killed current and former ADF members and their families — are of concern and need to be addressed.
3.71The committee wishes to thank all who participated in the inquiry, specifically those with personal experience within the ADF and the Defence honours and awards system. These personal experiences provided invaluable information to the committee and contributed to the committee’s understanding of the issues raised during the inquiry.
3.72The committee also acknowledges the submissions received from individuals detailing their unhappiness with their personal applications for recognition. While the committee recognises the distress this process may have caused, it notes that they fall outside the scope of this inquiry. The committee is not in a position to investigate or seek to resolve individual matters, and this report examines the Defence honours and awards system more broadly.
3.73The committee commends the ADF personnel and veterans who were driven to submit by a desire to improve the operation of Defence honours and awards for their peers or future members, despite their personal grievances or dissatisfaction with the system. The fact that many submitters sought to advocate for a fairer system, or express concern at the perceived oversight of a colleague’s achievements, was indicative of an enduring sense of mateship and camaraderie.
3.74The committee wishes to acknowledge and express gratitude for the service of all ADF personnel and veterans, and emphasise that all service is held in the highest regard by the committee and the broader Australian community.
Senator Dave Sharma
Chair
Liberal Senator for New South Wales