This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Defence & foreign affairs
The bill would amend the Defence Act 1903 rules for the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government., which reviews decisions about defence honours, defence awards and foreign awards.
The government introduced the bill to narrow and modernise the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. review function. The explanatory materials say the existing rules allowed review of decisions connected to service as far back as 3 September 1939 and did not limit who could seek review, which Defence and the TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. had identified as creating evidentiary problems where records, witnesses and commanders may no longer be available. The government said the changes would focus independent review on contemporary matters, while leaving ministerial inquiry referrals unchanged.
This bill sat inside a wider dispute about how Australia should correct past decisions on defence honours and awards. Government speakers emphasised evidence quality and contemporary review; opponents argued the proposal would close off recognition pathways for veterans, families and advocates. The dispute became practically decisive in the Senate, where the bill was referred to committee and later discharged rather than passed.
The main criticism was that the bill would narrow independent review rights for veterans and families, especially through the 20-year and six-month limits and the narrower rules about who could apply. Critics also said the bill had been rushed and inadequately consulted, while government speakers said the limits were needed to preserve evidence quality and focus the TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. on contemporary cases.
Matt Keogh MP introduced this bill. It was supported by Labor, Greens, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, Centre Alliance, some crossbench members; and did not pass.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
3 recorded votes before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
88 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
The bill would amend the Defence Act 1903 rules for the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government., which reviews decisions about defence honours, defence awards and foreign awards.
It would replace the open-ended historic review period with new limits: generally 20 years from the end of an operation or service for defence honours, operational service awards and foreign awards, and a 100-year age limit for length-of-service awards.
The bill would narrow who can ask the TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. to review a refusal. For defence honours, an applicant would need to have been more senior in the chain of command or an eyewitness to the relevant service, and would need consent from the affected person or their immediate family.
For defence awards and foreign awards, review applications would be limited to the affected person, an immediate family member, or, where the person has died, an executor, administrator, trustee or other personal representative.
It would set a six-month deadline to apply for Tribunal review after a reviewable decisionA Defence decision that can be taken to the Tribunal for review. This bill would have changed which decisions count and who can apply for review., while allowing the TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. to accept a later application where exceptional circumstances exist.
The bill would also clarify reviewable honours and awards definitions, stop review of refusal decisions after a previous cancellation, limit the TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. recommendations it can make in defence-honour reviews, require an annual Tribunal report, and allow regulations about Tribunal procedure and administration.
The bill passed the House after a 90-49 second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill. division and a defeated opposition amendment, but it did not become law. APH records its status as Not Proceeding after the Senate discharged it from the Notice Paper on 24 November 2025.
The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 (the Bill) amends the arrangements for review by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) of decisions relating to defence honours, defence awards and foreign awards, as set out in Part VIIIC of the Defence Act 1903.Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) explanatory memorandum
redefine the relevant time periods in relation to reviewable decisions as follows: for a decision relating to a defence honour, operational service award or foreign award - 20 years from the relevant operation ending or service being rendered; for a decision relating to a length of service award - where the person who was recommended for the award has not reached more than 100 years of ageDefence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) explanatory memorandum
A person (the applicant) may apply for a review of a reviewable decision that relates to a refusal to recommend a person (the affected person) for a defence honour if ... the applicant is or was more senior in the chain of command of the affected person ... the applicant is or was a member of the Defence Force who witnessed the eligible service to which the decision relates ... the affected person, or an immediate family member of the affected person, consentsDefence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) introduced bill text
one of the following applies: (i) the applicant is the affected person; (ii) the applicant is an immediate family member of the affected person; (iii) if the affected person is deceased--the applicant is the executor, administrator, trustee of the estate or other personal representative of the affected person.Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) introduced bill text
An application for review of a reviewable decision can only be made within: (a) 6 months after the day the reviewable decision is made; or (b) if the Tribunal is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that exceptional circumstances exist--such longer period as the Tribunal allows.Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) introduced bill text
provide that a decision regarding a previously cancelled defence honour, defence award or foreign award is not a reviewable decision; clarify the scope of recommendations that the Tribunal may make to the Minister in a review; require the Tribunal, each financial year, to prepare and give to the Minister a report on the operations of the Tribunal during the financial year to be tabled in Parliament; and enable regulations to be made in relation to administrative and operational matters affecting the Tribunal’s operation, reviews and inquiries.Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) explanatory memorandum
Second Reading ... AYES 90 ... NOES 49 ... Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. ... Senate ... Discharged from Notice Paper ... 24 Nov 2025House division records and APH bill page
Context
This bill sat inside a wider dispute about how Australia should correct past decisions on defence honours and awards. Government speakers emphasised evidence quality and contemporary review; opponents argued the proposal would close off recognition pathways for veterans, families and advocates. The dispute became practically decisive in the Senate, where the bill was referred to committee and later discharged rather than passed.
Tribunal established
Government speeches described the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. as an independent statutory body established in Australia in 2011 to review Defence honours and awards decisions.
Minister second reading speech ↗Earlier Senate inquiry reported
The collected Senate second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill. amendment referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee tabling a final report on the defence honours and awards system on 19 June 2025.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation proposed second reading amendment ↗Bill introduced in the House
The bill was introduced and second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill. was moved in the House of Representatives.
APH bill page timeline ↗Bill referred to Senate committee
The APH bill-page notes record referral to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, with a committee report recorded for 21 November 2025.
APH bill page notes ↗Bill abandoned in the Senate
The APH timeline records the bill as discharged from the Notice Paper. A collected Australian Financial Review extract says the bill was withdrawn after criticism from the Coalition, Greens and veterans affairs groups.
APH bill page timeline and collected AFR extract ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill. moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 90 to 49.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill. agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detailA House stage where the bill text and proposed amendments can be considered before the final House vote. debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill. moved
The APH bill page records that the bill was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on 4 September 2025, with a committee report due or recorded on 21 November 2025. The local corpus did not include the report text, so this page does not summarise the committee findings.
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe APH bill page notes that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the bill in Report 5 of 2025. The scoped local inputs only provide the bill-page note and the explanatory memorandum statement of compatibility, not a detailed committee analysis.
Considered by scrutiny committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill would narrow independent review rights for veterans and families, especially through the 20-year and six-month limits and the narrower rules about who could apply. Critics also said the bill had been rushed and inadequately consulted, while government speakers said the limits were needed to preserve evidence quality and focus the TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. on contemporary cases.
Government speakers disputed the criticism, saying the bill did not affect ministerial inquiry referrals, did not undermine Tribunal independence, and still allowed review of contemporary matters. The bill ultimately did not proceed.
Review rights and time limits
Opponents argued the bill would curtail independent merits review by imposing a 20-year limit for many honour and award matters, a six-month deadline after reviewable decisions, and narrower standing rules for who could apply.
Veterans and families consultation
Several speakers said veterans and representative groups had been blindsided or inadequately consulted before the bill moved through the House.
Independence and Defence influence
Critics argued the bill reflected Defence Department preferences and would weaken the TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. as an independent check on Defence honours and awards decisions.
Impact on historic recognition
Opponents warned that older cases, including recognition campaigns connected to past conflicts, could lose access to the TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. review pathway even where families or advocates later found new evidence or pursued recognition.
Further sources
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Passed 90 to 49. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Passed 90 to 49. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a procedural vote that helped move the House to a decision on the bill and amendments.
Defeated 50 to 87. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This preserved the government bill text before the House completed its stages.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Matt Keogh introduced the bill and supported it as a way to keep the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. focused on contemporary review matters where evidence and witnesses are more likely to be available, while leaving the TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. inquiry function unchanged.
Read in Hansard ↗Darren Chester opposed the bill and moved amendments to remove most of the proposed review limits and add a duty to notify affected people of review rights, arguing the bill would strip rights from ADF personnel, veterans and families.
Read in Hansard ↗Helen Haines opposed the bill in its current form, saying veterans in her electorate were blindsided, consultation appeared light, and the changes would reduce the ability of veterans, families and advocates to seek review.
Read in Hansard ↗Tim Ayres introduced the bill in the Senate by incorporating the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill. speech, presenting the same government case that the TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. review function should focus on contemporary evidence and clearer review rules.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 4 contributions · 3 support
“To assist the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in their review function, this bill amends the jurisdiction of the tribunal as set out in the Defence Act in a number of productive ways.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Matt Keogh, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Matt Keogh introduced the bill and supported it as a way to keep the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. focused on contemporary review matters where evidence and witnesses are more likely to be available, while leaving the TribunalAn independent statutory body that reviews certain Defence decisions about honours, awards and foreign awards, and can also conduct broader inquiries when referred by government. inquiry function unchanged.
“These amendments will maintain the independent review process but will focus the tribunal on reviewing contemporary matters where objective evidence and living witnesses can contribute to the review process, instead of historical matters.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Matt Keogh closed the House debate by defending the bill, saying the opposition was misconstruing it, that the bill did not remove ministerial inquiry referrals or Tribunal independence, and that the 20-year limit was tied to the end of relevant operations.
“The bill still leaves open all the avenues for a minister to refer to the tribunal an inquiry into any matter, regardless of the timing, that may relate to defence honours or awards. It doesn't in any way affect the independence of the tribunal.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“Designed to promote the efficient and effective use of tribunal resources, with a focus on reviewing decisions about contemporary actions, the amendments proposed by this bill are reasonable and appropriate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
7 speakers · 7 oppose
“Quite simply, the legislation before the House is stripping rights from Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 raises a number of questions around the priorities of this government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There is no need for this legislation. In fact, it completely contradicts the statements of the Prime Minister in 2020.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is not supported, this is a bad bill, and the coalition will oppose it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“They will have voted for a piece of legislation that will stop the future Richard Nordens from getting recognised, and that's not right.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We will not support measures that curtail an independent merits review, impose retrospective time bars, extinguish rights or confine applications to those least likely or least able to bring them forward.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Veterans, family members, advocates and historians should have the ability to seek review under the tribunal”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“These aren't minor or technical changes, they are significant. They significantly reduce the ability of veterans, their families and advocates to seek review for decisions made by Defence.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I need to recognise that, in its current form, I will not support this bill, because it does not have the support of the veterans community, and that is for good reason.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 90 to 49.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill. agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detailA House stage where the bill text and proposed amendments can be considered before the final House vote.
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the principle of a bill., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Discharged from Notice Paper
Discharged from Notice PaperA parliamentary step that removes the bill from the list of business before the chamber. For this bill, it meant the bill did not proceed in the Senate.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Referred to committee
The APH bill page records that the bill was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on 4 September 2025, with a committee report due or recorded on 21 November 2025. The local corpus did not include the report text, so this page does not summarise the committee findings.
Referred to Committee (4 Sept 2025): Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (21 Nov 2025)
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered by scrutiny committee
The APH bill page notes that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the bill in Report 5 of 2025. The scoped local inputs only provide the bill-page note and the explanatory memorandum statement of compatibility, not a detailed committee analysis.
Considered by scrutiny committee (2 Oct 2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 5 of 2025
APH bill page notes
