The Defence Honours and Awards System
Introduction.
This submission addresses critical concerns related to the experiences of Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) veterans with the honours and awards system during multiple war fighting campaigns since 1957. We outline the significant impact on morale, longer term mental health, the integrity of awards, changes in award criteria,
and potential areas for systemic improvement. In preparing this submission input has been sought from a wide range of SASR veterans across the nation with long service in peace and considerable operational experience in Vietnam, Somalia, Sinai, East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some have been nominated and have received decorations and honours, some have been nominated and not received awards, some have performed significant acts of gallantry and not been nominated, some have been nominators while others have reviewed nominations at the Unit, Task Force and Special Operations Command level. We have also considered the 2007 / 2008 internal Department of Defence document “Review of Defence Honours, Awards and Commendations Policies” and consulted the Directorate of Defence Honours and Awards to confirm the current processes.
Veteran Experiences with the Honours and Awards System.
Our experiences with the Honours and Awards System have been mixed. We note that there are two separate processes for Honours and Awards depending on whether they are given for excellence and conspicuous service in peace or distinguished service and gallantry on warlike operations. Both processes have their challenges and
faults. Peacetime service nominations are passed from the Unit (SASR) to Headquarters Special Operations Command, then to Army Headquarters (or in some instances Navy or Air Force Headquarters) before submission to the Directorate of Defence Honours and Awards.
For warlike operational service the nominations are passed from the Special Operations Task Force Headquarters to the deployed Joint Operations Headquarters then onto Headquarters Joint Operations Command (where Headquarters Special Operations Command have a representative on the Joint Operations Command Honours and Awards Board) before submission to the Directorate of Defence Honours and Awards. In both cases the directorate then consolidate the nominations and forward them to the Chief of Defence Force for approval and onforwarding through the Minister of Defence Personnel to the Governor General.
On occasions dedicated service and acts of bravery have been readily acknowledged, on other occasions significant actions have not been recognised or the nominations have been rejected at various levels from the Unit / Task Force Headquarters to Joint Task Force Headquarters, to Headquarters Special Operations Command, to Headquarters Joint Operations Command / Army Headquarters before even reaching the Directorate of Defence Honours and Awards. This is a long bureaucratic process which exposes the nominee to personal biases, diminution of award and the vagaries
of command and staff churn.
There have been recorded instances where individuals have not been recognised at the lowest levels due to indifference, jealousies and spite, others where nominations have simply disappeared into bottom drawers, others where the recommendation has been downgraded at higher levels for no apparent reason, and others where significant
acts of courage have not been recognised due to the poor quality of the submission – the writing skills of the nominator. All contribute to a flawed system that is viewed by many soldiers, NCOs and junior commanders as biased, unfair, unjust and skewed in favour of senior officers. A more transparent process for tracking nominations needs to be developed and all recorded recorded acts of gallantry from the start of the Afghanistan conflict need to be reviewed.
Read Full Submission Below
Comments