Hon Michael McCormack, MP,
Assistant Minister for Defence,
100 Yambil Street
Griffith, NSW, 2680
Dear Minister:
I have been contacted by a number of veterans' complaining about the continuing inconsistencies of the decision making process for Defence medallic recognition by the Defence Honours, Awards and Appeals Tribunal (DHAAT). In particular, the Australian Peacekeeper & Peacemaker Veterans’ Association (APPVA) has provided me with a copy of their submission into theInquiry into the Refused, Withheld and Forfeited [RWF] Awards from 1939 to the present day.
I have read the Terms of Reference (TOR), for this Inquiry and there is a clear ambiguity between the TOR and the unwritten, apparent “intent” of the Inquiry, initiated by the Minister at the time, Mr Darren Chester, MP. The problem arises from the fact that TOR did not mention that the RWF Inquiry was for former Australian Defence Force [ADF] members who were denied their awards due to disciplinary reasons.
The TOR was;
“Specifically, the Tribunal is to:
• Identify the legal provisions applicable to the refusal to issue entitlements to, withholding and forfeiture of such defence honours and awards;
• Investigate the approaches adopted over time by the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Department of Defence in respect of the refusal to issue entitlements to, withholding and forfeiture of such defence honours and awards;
• determine whether those approaches were consistent with the legal provisions; and
• present to Government any recommendations that the Tribunal considers appropriate to correct any injustices arising from any improper refusal to issue an entitlement to, withholding and forfeiture of such defence honours and awards.
The DHAAT report stated that 162 submissions were made of which, 129 were rejected. The reason for the rejected submissions, including the one written by the APPVA was, "rather than focusing on the development of policies relating to the withholding and forfeiture of medals, the public saw the announcement of the Inquiry as an opportunity to bring to the Tribunal all manner of refusals and denials for a range of medallic recognition that were not directly relevant to the TOR for this Inquiry." It would appear to me if that many ESO have not been given a more definitive TOR, rather than addressing the matter, the DHAAT appears to be blaming the ESO for an apparent opportunism.
I have also been informed that in September 2014, a meeting was held in Canberra with Professor Rose, the immediate past Chairman of DHAAT, with a delegation of three members of the APPVA, plus one who attended via teleconference. Also in attendance was the DHAAT Secretariat, Ms Bermingham. I understand that three of the delegates attest that Professor Rose stated that he would consider the APPVA Submission into the RWF Inquiry as Parts 2 and 3 of the submission directly addressed the TOR.
Following Mr Sullivan being appointed as the DHAAT Chair in late 2014, it is apparent that he was misinformed regarding the reconsideration of the APPVA submission. Following the publication of the RWF Inquiry Report, the APPVA questioned via email why none of the issues raised within their submission were addressed. Ms Bermingham who, kept noting that most of the submissions did meet the “unwritten intent”, always wrote the responses provided.
I have read an email sent by Mr David Vinen, Research Officer of the APPVA to Ms Bermingham regarding the problems of the rejection of the APPVA submission into the RWF Inquiry. I did not find any issues with the matter raised. It was not vindictive, but succinct in its wording.
It would appear that Ms Bermingham has forgotten to advise Mr Sullivan of the outcomes of that APPVA meeting in Canberra, early September 2014 and given Mr Sullivan a differing version, which is at odds to what I have been advised.
A letter was recently sent to Mr Allan Thomas, JP, the Past President of the APPVA, by Mr Mark Sullivan, the Chairman of the DHAAT. Mr Sullivan made a number of accusations including that the APPVA sent a vindictive email to Ms Mary Bermingham and that many ESO did not understand the TOR. In addition, the letter stated that the APPVA was trying to chase medals, which had previously been denied.
I have also had my Office swamped with complaints that young veterans are not being equally recognised in comparison to those who served before them (pre 14 February 1975), and that simple, logical and consistent medallic recognition that has been afforded to a range of Inquiries for veterans is not afforded the same consideration for a range of veterans who have served Australia post 1975. Some of these Inquiries, which have denied recognition for younger veterans are:
1.The recognition of ADF Members who served on Peacekeeping Operations from 14 September 1947 onward;
2.The recognition of ADF Members who served in Somalia from 1992-1995;
3.The recognition of ADF Members who served in Papua & New Guinea from 14 September 1975 onward;
4.The recognition of ADF Members who served with the Commonwealth Monitoring Force - Rhodesia, December 1979 to March 1980;
5.The recognition of ADF members who served on Counter Terrorism and Special Recovery Operations since 1979; a group of Commando Signallers from 126th Commando Signal Squadron placed a submission in July 2009, which was not considered nor addressed by the Tribunal. An application was made in 2010, which was rejected in 2011. The Group submitted an Appeal to the DHAAT on 28 June 2013; and they are still battling with Defence to be recognised - surely 7 years is long enough for Defence to sort this matter?; and
6.The recognition of ADF members who served in the South Pacific Peacekeeping Force October 1994.
Simply put, none of these DHAAT Inquiries adequately addressed the many submissions that were lodged. It appears that there is a subjective selection made by the DHAAT Inquiry Panel, in consultation with Defence. The matter of the DHAAT being a Legislated“Independent body” has also been and is questioned. Many veterans are totally devastated that they are not being adequately recognised for their service, in comparison to older veterans and some of the precedents that have been made to a number of pre & post 1975 Inquiries, do not appear consistent to the excuses of medallic policy along with the retention of the integrity of the Defence Honours & Awards System provided to these deserving young veterans.
It would be appreciated if this matter is not given the standard regurgitation of Defence Medallic Policy. The Policy has been compromised on many occasions by the Government, Defence and theDHAAT in their recommendations, which have been accepted by the Chief of the Defence Force and the Defence Minister responsible.
The matters at hand in this letter is to review these Inquiries to ensure that the Rule of Law has been applied, particularly Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, the Right to be Heard and the right for the applicants or ESO to engage in complex dialogue over these matters, with the precedents placed into consideration. Not subject veterans to the Federal Court to appeal the matter on a point of law. It cheapens their service with such adversarial approaches by the Government.
I believe that the APPVA has made a number of outstanding submissions that hold significant logic and merit to convince any Tribunal that the cases they have presented should be resolved in favour of the veterans' being represented and the veterans who also self-represent.
I urge that you give this matter serious consideration for a full review regarding the independence and integrity of the DHAAT. A Senate Inquiry Committee or referral to the Australian Law Reform Commission regarding the matters mentioned to ensure fairness and correct legal procedure is applied regarding what I have brought to your attention.
Yours Sincerely,
Senator Jacqui Lambie.