{
  "entity_id": "B-002279",
  "folder": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
  "name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
  "type": "Statutory Body",
  "jurisdiction": "Commonwealth",
  "portfolio": "Defence",
  "website": "http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au",
  "data_status": "partial",
  "completeness": {
    "has_strategy_brief": false,
    "has_strategy_structured": true,
    "has_vision": false,
    "has_kpi_targets": false,
    "has_kpi_results": false,
    "has_strategy_overview": true,
    "has_legislation_text": true,
    "has_legislation_structured": false,
    "has_global_initiatives_text": false,
    "has_ideas": true,
    "has_artifacts": true,
    "n_ideas": 12,
    "n_legislation": 0,
    "n_artifacts": 5,
    "n_kpi_targets": 0,
    "n_kpi_results": 0,
    "n_outcomes": 0,
    "verified_own_data": true
  },
  "strategy_profile": {
    "status": "needs_review",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "summary": "",
    "official_site_url": "http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au",
    "source_documents": [],
    "purpose": null,
    "vision": null,
    "strategic_priorities": [],
    "values": [],
    "outcomes": [],
    "performance_measures": [],
    "document_alignment_terms": {
      "must_support": [],
      "watch_terms": [],
      "avoid_claiming_without_evidence": []
    },
    "review_note": "Structured strategy exists but is incomplete."
  },
  "strategy_brief_md": null,
  "strategy_overview_evidence_md": null,
  "internal_strategy_evidence_md": "# Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal - Strategy, Performance, and Operating Profile\n\n**Generated at**: 2026-05-09T22:12:59.852202+00:00\n**Entity ID**: B-002279\n**Entity type**: Statutory Body\n**Jurisdiction**: Commonwealth\n**Portfolio**: Defence\n**Website**: http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au\n\n> Draft generated from scraped source material. Treat this as an evidence pack for editorial review, not a final judgement.\n\n## Source Coverage\n\n| Source type | Count |\n|---|---:|\n| other-pdfs | 5 |\n| pages | 1 |\n\n## Executive Readout\n\n### Purpose\n\n- [Page 20]\nAccordingly, section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, provides statutory\njustification for departing from any stringent literal interpretation.\n“In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best\nachieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object\nis expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other\ninterpretation.”36\nFurthermore, where there is any ambiguity in the statutory definition of s110T(b),\nthen it should be construed beneficially toward the PTG, “so as to give the fullest\nrelief which the fair meaning of its language will allow”.37\n58.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- S64 dated 28 February 2002\n(the Determination)\n[…]\n1) that the following non-warlike operations in which members of the Australian\nDefence Force were engaged with elements of the Australian, New Zealand and\nUnited Kingdom (ANZUK) Forces; Australian Army Rifle Company\n(Butterworth); Five Power Defence Arrangement; and Australian Army Survey\nOperations in South East Asia during the following periods to be a declared\noperation for the purpose of the Regulations:\n(i) Defence Force activities on land in Malaysia during the period that commenced\non 14 February 1975 and ended on 31 December 1989…\nc) determine, under subregulation 4(2) of the Regulations, that the conditions for\naward of the Australian Service Medal with Clasp ‘SE ASIA’ (“the Medal”) for\nthe declared operation are:\n(i) the Medal may be awarded to a member of the Australian Defence Force who\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf)`\n- The Star of Gallantry, the Medal for Gallantry and the Commendation for\nGallantry were established as Gallantry Decorations by Letters Patent on 15 January\n1991 for the purpose of:\n‘according recognition to members of the Defence Force and certain other\npersons who perform acts of gallantry in action.’42\n71.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- 257-260\n(cid:120) Encounters with Russian Bear MPA and Iranian warship (1987), pg 330-\n331\n(cid:120) Intercept by Indonesian fighters (1987), pg 332\n(cid:120) Intercept by Indonesian F5Es (1990), pg 359-360\n(cid:120) Mission into the Spratly’s (1990), pg 361-362\nPage | 17\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)`\n\n### Role and Functions\n\n- He said at various points in his written submissions to the Tribunal and to\nDefence:\nSince 1979, Australia’s national counter terrorism arrangements have required PTGs\nand the ADF TAG to collectively maintain a 24/7 ‘Use of Force’ capability to\n‘prepare for’ and ‘respond to’ a terrorist incident.15\n…\n• … obligations exist by agreement in a series of formal and informal Commonwealth\nled IGAs with the states/territories;\n• the IGAs establish a series of successive Commonwealth national CT Committees,\nbeing ANZCTC, NCTC & SAC-PAV that PTGs worked under since 1979;\n• the CT Committees are permanently co-chaired, administered and funded by the\nCommonwealth;\n• the CT Committees establish national CT doctrine framework, strategy, plans,\nhandbooks, policy and procedure that detail how the ADF TAG, state/territory PTGs\nwill ‘prepare for’ and ‘respond to’ a terrorist incident; and\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- [pages 25,26,27]\n, necessarily varies according to the individual\ncircumstances of each action, and depending on many factors, including the\nlevel of threat, the person’s training, role and responsibility, the risk to the\nindividual and/or the group, and the consequences of undertaking, or not\nundertaking, the particular act.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf)`\n- [Page 17]\n‘Directing’ additional PTG support through intelligence updates, staff for hostage\nreception, outer cordons, shutdown of certain utilities or utilising PAGs to\nsupplement his tactical operation.… The TAG Commander who has accepted\nCommand responsibility for the ‘Use of Force’ can request PTG resources be\n‘Directed’ to meet the operational needs of the ADF … If the ADF TAG Commander\nrequested the PTG to re-direct some resources, then the PTG would consider/respond\nto that request.32\nOnce the ADF TAG have responsibility for the ‘Use of Force’, then the PTG don’t\njust pack up and go home, they are a resource available to the ADF TAG Commander\nand remain at a heightened level of operational readiness to respond to any requests\ndirected by the ADF TAG Commander, to assist him fulfill his Military operation.33\n…\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- Part III emphasises the important of ADF cooperating\nwith police and other relevant authorities in the States and Territories, and there is no\nprovision under this section of the Defence Act for ADF personnel to assume\ncommand and control responsibility for non-ADF personnel during counter terrorism\noperations.35\n35 Letter, Defence to the Tribunal, Application for Review, Mr DH&A/OUT/2025/033, pp.2-3.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- [Page 33]\neach action, and depends on many factors, including the level of threat, the person’s\ntraining, role and responsibility, the risk to the individual and/or the group, and the\nconsequences of undertaking, or not undertaking, the particular act.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- DATE\nMATTER\nHEARING LOCATION\n28 May 2026\nHulse and the Department of Defence - Conspicuous Service Medal\nRydges Hotel, Canberra, 10 am AEST\n21 May 2026\nSeccombe and the Department of Defence re: Rowell - Australian Defence Medal\nCanberra, 2pm AEST\nRECENT TRIBUNAL DECISIONS\nNot all applications to the Tribunal result in it holding a hearing or completing a written decision.\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n\n### Strategic Priorities\n\n- DATE\nMATTER\nHEARING LOCATION\n28 May 2026\nHulse and the Department of Defence - Conspicuous Service Medal\nRydges Hotel, Canberra, 10 am AEST\n21 May 2026\nSeccombe and the Department of Defence re: Rowell - Australian Defence Medal\nCanberra, 2pm AEST\nRECENT TRIBUNAL DECISIONS\nNot all applications to the Tribunal result in it holding a hearing or completing a written decision.\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n- [Page 20]\nAccordingly, section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, provides statutory\njustification for departing from any stringent literal interpretation.\n“In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best\nachieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object\nis expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other\ninterpretation.”36\nFurthermore, where there is any ambiguity in the statutory definition of s110T(b),\nthen it should be construed beneficially toward the PTG, “so as to give the fullest\nrelief which the fair meaning of its language will allow”.37\n58.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- S64 dated 28 February 2002\n(the Determination)\n[…]\n1) that the following non-warlike operations in which members of the Australian\nDefence Force were engaged with elements of the Australian, New Zealand and\nUnited Kingdom (ANZUK) Forces; Australian Army Rifle Company\n(Butterworth); Five Power Defence Arrangement; and Australian Army Survey\nOperations in South East Asia during the following periods to be a declared\noperation for the purpose of the Regulations:\n(i) Defence Force activities on land in Malaysia during the period that commenced\non 14 February 1975 and ended on 31 December 1989…\nc) determine, under subregulation 4(2) of the Regulations, that the conditions for\naward of the Australian Service Medal with Clasp ‘SE ASIA’ (“the Medal”) for\nthe declared operation are:\n(i) the Medal may be awarded to a member of the Australian Defence Force who\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf)`\n- [Page 17]\n‘Directing’ additional PTG support through intelligence updates, staff for hostage\nreception, outer cordons, shutdown of certain utilities or utilising PAGs to\nsupplement his tactical operation.… The TAG Commander who has accepted\nCommand responsibility for the ‘Use of Force’ can request PTG resources be\n‘Directed’ to meet the operational needs of the ADF … If the ADF TAG Commander\nrequested the PTG to re-direct some resources, then the PTG would consider/respond\nto that request.32\nOnce the ADF TAG have responsibility for the ‘Use of Force’, then the PTG don’t\njust pack up and go home, they are a resource available to the ADF TAG Commander\nand remain at a heightened level of operational readiness to respond to any requests\ndirected by the ADF TAG Commander, to assist him fulfill his Military operation.33\n…\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- [Page 6]\nTribunal does not seek to repeat all of the detail about the action on 13 May 1968 and\nthe recommendations or nominations for recognition made as a result, and refers the\nreader to the report of that earlier review (Hulse and the Department of Defence re\nJensen [2020] DHAAT 15).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- Miller and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 5\nCommendation for Distinguished Service\nCowled and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 4\nAustralian Service Medal with Clasp SE ASIA\nJensen and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 3\nVictoria Cross for Australia, Distinguished Service Cross\nA and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 2\nAustralian Operational Service Medal - Civilian\nLow and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 1\nAustralian Operational Service Medal - Indo Pacific\nAll Reports\n© Commonwealth of Australia\nCopyright\nPrivacy\nSupported by Digital Mavens\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n- [pages 1,2,3,4]\n[Page 1]\nand the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 2\n(7 March 2026)\nFile Number 2025/011\nRe Mr\nApplicant\nAnd The Department of Defence\nRespondent\nTribunal Mr Stephen Skehill (Presiding Member)\nMajor General Mark Kelly AO DSC (Retd)\nCommodore Vicki McConachie CSC RAN (Retd)\nHearing Date 24 November 2025\nAttendances Mr\nApplicant\nMr\nFor the Applicant\nMs Allison Augustine, Director Honours and Awards\nDefence\nFor the Respondent\nMs Catherine Morris,\nAssistant Director, Defence Honours and Awards Policy\nDefence\nFor the Respondent\nProtected Identity Witness A\nFor the Respondent\nDECISION\nOn 7 March 2026 the Tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision\nof the Department of Defence of 17 December 2024 to refuse to recommend that members of\nAustralian Police Tactical Groups be awarded the Australian Operational Service Medal\n(Civilian).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- Mr provided detailed submissions on 4 July, 5 October, 15 October,\n26 November, and 1 and 2 December 2025, in which he claimed that PTG service was ‘eligible\nservice’.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- 1 Report, Inquiry into recognition of Australian Defence Force Service for Special Air Service Counter Terrorist and\nSpecial Recovery Duties, Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal, Canberra, 22 December 2009, p.4\n2 Ibid, p.10.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- On 24 March 2011 the then Governor-General issued a declaration and determination\nunder the Australian Service Medal Regulations 1988 that service of 60 days in a TAG (or in\nthe Recovery Force) after 31 August 1979 qualified for the Australian Service Medal with\nClasp Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery.5\n19.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n\n## KPIs, Targets, and Where They Are At\n\n- DATE\nMATTER\nHEARING LOCATION\n28 May 2026\nHulse and the Department of Defence - Conspicuous Service Medal\nRydges Hotel, Canberra, 10 am AEST\n21 May 2026\nSeccombe and the Department of Defence re: Rowell - Australian Defence Medal\nCanberra, 2pm AEST\nRECENT TRIBUNAL DECISIONS\nNot all applications to the Tribunal result in it holding a hearing or completing a written decision.\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n- [Page 6]\nTribunal does not seek to repeat all of the detail about the action on 13 May 1968 and\nthe recommendations or nominations for recognition made as a result, and refers the\nreader to the report of that earlier review (Hulse and the Department of Defence re\nJensen [2020] DHAAT 15).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- As a result, the Tribunal concluded that it could not recommend to the Minister\nthat Lieutenant Colonel Jensen should be awarded the Distinguished Service Cross\nwhich he sought for his service during the whole of his tour of Vietnam in 1968 and\n1969 (other than that on 13 May 1968, in recognition of which he has already been\nawarded the Medal of Gallantry).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- [Page 20]\nAccordingly, section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, provides statutory\njustification for departing from any stringent literal interpretation.\n“In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best\nachieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object\nis expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other\ninterpretation.”36\nFurthermore, where there is any ambiguity in the statutory definition of s110T(b),\nthen it should be construed beneficially toward the PTG, “so as to give the fullest\nrelief which the fair meaning of its language will allow”.37\n58.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- S64 dated 28 February 2002\n(the Determination)\n[…]\n1) that the following non-warlike operations in which members of the Australian\nDefence Force were engaged with elements of the Australian, New Zealand and\nUnited Kingdom (ANZUK) Forces; Australian Army Rifle Company\n(Butterworth); Five Power Defence Arrangement; and Australian Army Survey\nOperations in South East Asia during the following periods to be a declared\noperation for the purpose of the Regulations:\n(i) Defence Force activities on land in Malaysia during the period that commenced\non 14 February 1975 and ended on 31 December 1989…\nc) determine, under subregulation 4(2) of the Regulations, that the conditions for\naward of the Australian Service Medal with Clasp ‘SE ASIA’ (“the Medal”) for\nthe declared operation are:\n(i) the Medal may be awarded to a member of the Australian Defence Force who\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf)`\n- As a result, all TAG members have been awarded the Australian Service Medal or, after\n1 November 2020, the AOSM with Clasps Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery after the\napplicable qualifying period of service in recognition of their TAG membership without any\nrequirement for having been deployed in response to any particular incident warranting such\ndeployment.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- [Page 17]\n‘Directing’ additional PTG support through intelligence updates, staff for hostage\nreception, outer cordons, shutdown of certain utilities or utilising PAGs to\nsupplement his tactical operation.… The TAG Commander who has accepted\nCommand responsibility for the ‘Use of Force’ can request PTG resources be\n‘Directed’ to meet the operational needs of the ADF … If the ADF TAG Commander\nrequested the PTG to re-direct some resources, then the PTG would consider/respond\nto that request.32\nOnce the ADF TAG have responsibility for the ‘Use of Force’, then the PTG don’t\njust pack up and go home, they are a resource available to the ADF TAG Commander\nand remain at a heightened level of operational readiness to respond to any requests\ndirected by the ADF TAG Commander, to assist him fulfill his Military operation.33\n…\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- For example, a random audit of 10 individuals who received the Bronze\nStar Medal with ‘V’ device (fourth highest US military decoration for valour)\nrevealed that nine had received no Imperial Honour or Award and one had\nreceived a Mention In Despatches.28\nThere is no policy or precedent to indicate that the receiving of a foreign honour\nor award will automatically result in the consideration of or the awarding of an\nImperial Honour or Award.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf)`\n- Miller and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 5\nCommendation for Distinguished Service\nCowled and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 4\nAustralian Service Medal with Clasp SE ASIA\nJensen and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 3\nVictoria Cross for Australia, Distinguished Service Cross\nA and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 2\nAustralian Operational Service Medal - Civilian\nLow and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 1\nAustralian Operational Service Medal - Indo Pacific\nAll Reports\n© Commonwealth of Australia\nCopyright\nPrivacy\nSupported by Digital Mavens\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n- [pages 1,2,3,4]\n[Page 1]\nand the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 2\n(7 March 2026)\nFile Number 2025/011\nRe Mr\nApplicant\nAnd The Department of Defence\nRespondent\nTribunal Mr Stephen Skehill (Presiding Member)\nMajor General Mark Kelly AO DSC (Retd)\nCommodore Vicki McConachie CSC RAN (Retd)\nHearing Date 24 November 2025\nAttendances Mr\nApplicant\nMr\nFor the Applicant\nMs Allison Augustine, Director Honours and Awards\nDefence\nFor the Respondent\nMs Catherine Morris,\nAssistant Director, Defence Honours and Awards Policy\nDefence\nFor the Respondent\nProtected Identity Witness A\nFor the Respondent\nDECISION\nOn 7 March 2026 the Tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision\nof the Department of Defence of 17 December 2024 to refuse to recommend that members of\nAustralian Police Tactical Groups be awarded the Australian Operational Service Medal\n(Civilian).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- Mr provided detailed submissions on 4 July, 5 October, 15 October,\n26 November, and 1 and 2 December 2025, in which he claimed that PTG service was ‘eligible\nservice’.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- The TAG was formed in 1980 to deal\nwith siege-hostage situations as a result of terrorist action.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- 1 Report, Inquiry into recognition of Australian Defence Force Service for Special Air Service Counter Terrorist and\nSpecial Recovery Duties, Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal, Canberra, 22 December 2009, p.4\n2 Ibid, p.10.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- On 24 March 2011 the then Governor-General issued a declaration and determination\nunder the Australian Service Medal Regulations 1988 that service of 60 days in a TAG (or in\nthe Recovery Force) after 31 August 1979 qualified for the Australian Service Medal with\nClasp Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery.5\n19.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n\n## Key Metrics\n\n- [Page 17]\n‘Directing’ additional PTG support through intelligence updates, staff for hostage\nreception, outer cordons, shutdown of certain utilities or utilising PAGs to\nsupplement his tactical operation.… The TAG Commander who has accepted\nCommand responsibility for the ‘Use of Force’ can request PTG resources be\n‘Directed’ to meet the operational needs of the ADF … If the ADF TAG Commander\nrequested the PTG to re-direct some resources, then the PTG would consider/respond\nto that request.32\nOnce the ADF TAG have responsibility for the ‘Use of Force’, then the PTG don’t\njust pack up and go home, they are a resource available to the ADF TAG Commander\nand remain at a heightened level of operational readiness to respond to any requests\ndirected by the ADF TAG Commander, to assist him fulfill his Military operation.33\n…\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- He said at various points in his written submissions to the Tribunal and to\nDefence:\nSince 1979, Australia’s national counter terrorism arrangements have required PTGs\nand the ADF TAG to collectively maintain a 24/7 ‘Use of Force’ capability to\n‘prepare for’ and ‘respond to’ a terrorist incident.15\n…\n• … obligations exist by agreement in a series of formal and informal Commonwealth\nled IGAs with the states/territories;\n• the IGAs establish a series of successive Commonwealth national CT Committees,\nbeing ANZCTC, NCTC & SAC-PAV that PTGs worked under since 1979;\n• the CT Committees are permanently co-chaired, administered and funded by the\nCommonwealth;\n• the CT Committees establish national CT doctrine framework, strategy, plans,\nhandbooks, policy and procedure that detail how the ADF TAG, state/territory PTGs\nwill ‘prepare for’ and ‘respond to’ a terrorist incident; and\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- Wing Commander Low also queried Defence’s statement that the scope of\nOperation GATEWAY had changed in 2005, and quoted information from a table in the 2004-\n05 Defence Annual Report, which stated:\nOperation Gateway continued to be conducted at a reduced rate of effort due to assets\nbeing assigned to Operations Relex II and Catalyst/Slipper, and the P-3 Orion\nmaritime patrol aircraft upgrade program.24\n28.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)`\n- DATE\nMATTER\nHEARING LOCATION\n28 May 2026\nHulse and the Department of Defence - Conspicuous Service Medal\nRydges Hotel, Canberra, 10 am AEST\n21 May 2026\nSeccombe and the Department of Defence re: Rowell - Australian Defence Medal\nCanberra, 2pm AEST\nRECENT TRIBUNAL DECISIONS\nNot all applications to the Tribunal result in it holding a hearing or completing a written decision.\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n- [Page 20]\nAccordingly, section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, provides statutory\njustification for departing from any stringent literal interpretation.\n“In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best\nachieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object\nis expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other\ninterpretation.”36\nFurthermore, where there is any ambiguity in the statutory definition of s110T(b),\nthen it should be construed beneficially toward the PTG, “so as to give the fullest\nrelief which the fair meaning of its language will allow”.37\n58.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- S64 dated 28 February 2002\n(the Determination)\n[…]\n1) that the following non-warlike operations in which members of the Australian\nDefence Force were engaged with elements of the Australian, New Zealand and\nUnited Kingdom (ANZUK) Forces; Australian Army Rifle Company\n(Butterworth); Five Power Defence Arrangement; and Australian Army Survey\nOperations in South East Asia during the following periods to be a declared\noperation for the purpose of the Regulations:\n(i) Defence Force activities on land in Malaysia during the period that commenced\non 14 February 1975 and ended on 31 December 1989…\nc) determine, under subregulation 4(2) of the Regulations, that the conditions for\naward of the Australian Service Medal with Clasp ‘SE ASIA’ (“the Medal”) for\nthe declared operation are:\n(i) the Medal may be awarded to a member of the Australian Defence Force who\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf)`\n- Recommendation 2: To be eligible for a medal, recipients should:\n• Have served in the online TAG for a minimum of 60 days continuous.\n• Have been a member of the TAG, which comprises a Special Operations\nCommand and Control Element, signalers, intelligence staff and other\nspecialists.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- As a Major he had a number\nof staff, regimental and instructional appointments before promotion to Lieutenant\nColonel on 21 July 1980.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- [Page 6]\nTribunal does not seek to repeat all of the detail about the action on 13 May 1968 and\nthe recommendations or nominations for recognition made as a result, and refers the\nreader to the report of that earlier review (Hulse and the Department of Defence re\nJensen [2020] DHAAT 15).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- Miller and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 5\nCommendation for Distinguished Service\nCowled and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 4\nAustralian Service Medal with Clasp SE ASIA\nJensen and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 3\nVictoria Cross for Australia, Distinguished Service Cross\nA and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 2\nAustralian Operational Service Medal - Civilian\nLow and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 1\nAustralian Operational Service Medal - Indo Pacific\nAll Reports\n© Commonwealth of Australia\nCopyright\nPrivacy\nSupported by Digital Mavens\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n\n## Key Achievements\n\n- He said at various points in his written submissions to the Tribunal and to\nDefence:\nSince 1979, Australia’s national counter terrorism arrangements have required PTGs\nand the ADF TAG to collectively maintain a 24/7 ‘Use of Force’ capability to\n‘prepare for’ and ‘respond to’ a terrorist incident.15\n…\n• … obligations exist by agreement in a series of formal and informal Commonwealth\nled IGAs with the states/territories;\n• the IGAs establish a series of successive Commonwealth national CT Committees,\nbeing ANZCTC, NCTC & SAC-PAV that PTGs worked under since 1979;\n• the CT Committees are permanently co-chaired, administered and funded by the\nCommonwealth;\n• the CT Committees establish national CT doctrine framework, strategy, plans,\nhandbooks, policy and procedure that detail how the ADF TAG, state/territory PTGs\nwill ‘prepare for’ and ‘respond to’ a terrorist incident; and\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- DATE\nMATTER\nHEARING LOCATION\n28 May 2026\nHulse and the Department of Defence - Conspicuous Service Medal\nRydges Hotel, Canberra, 10 am AEST\n21 May 2026\nSeccombe and the Department of Defence re: Rowell - Australian Defence Medal\nCanberra, 2pm AEST\nRECENT TRIBUNAL DECISIONS\nNot all applications to the Tribunal result in it holding a hearing or completing a written decision.\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n- [Page 20]\nAccordingly, section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, provides statutory\njustification for departing from any stringent literal interpretation.\n“In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best\nachieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object\nis expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other\ninterpretation.”36\nFurthermore, where there is any ambiguity in the statutory definition of s110T(b),\nthen it should be construed beneficially toward the PTG, “so as to give the fullest\nrelief which the fair meaning of its language will allow”.37\n58.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- S64 dated 28 February 2002\n(the Determination)\n[…]\n1) that the following non-warlike operations in which members of the Australian\nDefence Force were engaged with elements of the Australian, New Zealand and\nUnited Kingdom (ANZUK) Forces; Australian Army Rifle Company\n(Butterworth); Five Power Defence Arrangement; and Australian Army Survey\nOperations in South East Asia during the following periods to be a declared\noperation for the purpose of the Regulations:\n(i) Defence Force activities on land in Malaysia during the period that commenced\non 14 February 1975 and ended on 31 December 1989…\nc) determine, under subregulation 4(2) of the Regulations, that the conditions for\naward of the Australian Service Medal with Clasp ‘SE ASIA’ (“the Medal”) for\nthe declared operation are:\n(i) the Medal may be awarded to a member of the Australian Defence Force who\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf)`\n- [Page 17]\n‘Directing’ additional PTG support through intelligence updates, staff for hostage\nreception, outer cordons, shutdown of certain utilities or utilising PAGs to\nsupplement his tactical operation.… The TAG Commander who has accepted\nCommand responsibility for the ‘Use of Force’ can request PTG resources be\n‘Directed’ to meet the operational needs of the ADF … If the ADF TAG Commander\nrequested the PTG to re-direct some resources, then the PTG would consider/respond\nto that request.32\nOnce the ADF TAG have responsibility for the ‘Use of Force’, then the PTG don’t\njust pack up and go home, they are a resource available to the ADF TAG Commander\nand remain at a heightened level of operational readiness to respond to any requests\ndirected by the ADF TAG Commander, to assist him fulfill his Military operation.33\n…\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- [Page 6]\nTribunal does not seek to repeat all of the detail about the action on 13 May 1968 and\nthe recommendations or nominations for recognition made as a result, and refers the\nreader to the report of that earlier review (Hulse and the Department of Defence re\nJensen [2020] DHAAT 15).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- In reaching that conclusion, however, the Tribunal wished to stress that in no\nway should its decision be regarded as reflecting adversely in any way on either his\nremarkable achievements on 13 May 1968 or his admirable performance of duties\nduring the balance of his tour of Vietnam in 1968 and 1969.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- Commencing in 1980 and continuing through to\ntoday has seen many ADF members contribute to this successful operation.6\nInquiry into Recognition for Service Undertaken with Operation GATEWAY completed by\nthe Tribunal in 2012\n12.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)`\n- Miller and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 5\nCommendation for Distinguished Service\nCowled and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 4\nAustralian Service Medal with Clasp SE ASIA\nJensen and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 3\nVictoria Cross for Australia, Distinguished Service Cross\nA and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 2\nAustralian Operational Service Medal - Civilian\nLow and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 1\nAustralian Operational Service Medal - Indo Pacific\nAll Reports\n© Commonwealth of Australia\nCopyright\nPrivacy\nSupported by Digital Mavens\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n- [pages 1,2,3,4]\n[Page 1]\nand the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 2\n(7 March 2026)\nFile Number 2025/011\nRe Mr\nApplicant\nAnd The Department of Defence\nRespondent\nTribunal Mr Stephen Skehill (Presiding Member)\nMajor General Mark Kelly AO DSC (Retd)\nCommodore Vicki McConachie CSC RAN (Retd)\nHearing Date 24 November 2025\nAttendances Mr\nApplicant\nMr\nFor the Applicant\nMs Allison Augustine, Director Honours and Awards\nDefence\nFor the Respondent\nMs Catherine Morris,\nAssistant Director, Defence Honours and Awards Policy\nDefence\nFor the Respondent\nProtected Identity Witness A\nFor the Respondent\nDECISION\nOn 7 March 2026 the Tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision\nof the Department of Defence of 17 December 2024 to refuse to recommend that members of\nAustralian Police Tactical Groups be awarded the Australian Operational Service Medal\n(Civilian).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- Mr provided detailed submissions on 4 July, 5 October, 15 October,\n26 November, and 1 and 2 December 2025, in which he claimed that PTG service was ‘eligible\nservice’.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- 1 Report, Inquiry into recognition of Australian Defence Force Service for Special Air Service Counter Terrorist and\nSpecial Recovery Duties, Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal, Canberra, 22 December 2009, p.4\n2 Ibid, p.10.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n\n## Key Issues, Risks, and Recommendations\n\n- [Page 2]\nDECISION\nOn 5 January 2026, the Tribunal decided:\n(a) to affirm the decision that Wing Commander Low not be recommended for\nthe Australian Operational Service Medal – Indo-Pacific for his service on\nOperation GATEWAY prior to 1 July 2005; and\n(b) to recommend to the Minister that he should:\na. provide to Defence a clear definition of the term ‘hazardous service’ to\nguide all further consideration of matters arising under the\nAustralian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012;\nb. direct Defence to develop a transparent and consistently applied\nevidentiary framework for assessment by reference to that definition of\nhazardous service, including required evidence and methodology;\nc. direct Defence to conduct a comprehensive historical assessment of\nOperation GATEWAY’s hazard environment from 1981 to the present in\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)`\n- [Page 30]\n(cid:71)(cid:12) on receipt of that advice, consider whether he should recommend to the(cid:3)\nGovernor-General that any specified service on Operation GATEWAY should be(cid:3)\ndeclared under the Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012;\n(cid:72)(cid:12) in the interests of protecting the integrity of the defence honours and awards\nsystem(cid:3) through consistent decision-making, pending resolution of steps a. to d.\nabove, either(cid:3)recommend to the Governor-General that the present declaration\nof Operation(cid:3) GATEWAY under the Australian Operational Service Medal\nRegulation 2012 be(cid:3)revoked or, alternatively, direct Defence to suspend consideration\nof further applications(cid:3)for issue of the Australian Operational Service Medal – Indo-\nPacific for service on(cid:3) Operation GATEWAY; and\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)`\n- [Page 6]\nTribunal does not seek to repeat all of the detail about the action on 13 May 1968 and\nthe recommendations or nominations for recognition made as a result, and refers the\nreader to the report of that earlier review (Hulse and the Department of Defence re\nJensen [2020] DHAAT 15).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- After a detailed consideration of the submissions made to the Tribunal and of issues\narising from them, the Tribunal recommended that:\nRecommendation 1: Service in an online Tactical Assault Group (TAG) since its\ninception in 1980 (as well as service in the Interim TAG in 1979) should be\nrecognised by the award of the Australian Service Medal with a new clasp, to be\nentitled Clasp ‘CT/SR’.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- The Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012 (the AOSM Regulation)\nas amended states:\n3 Declared operation\n(1) The Governor-General may declare, in writing, on the recommendation\nof the Minister, that an operation is a declared operation.\n(2) In making a recommendation to the Governor-General, the Minister\nmust have regard to the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Force.\n(3) The Governor-General must not make a declaration about an operation\nunless:\n(a) The operation is, or was, carried out in conditions that are, or\nwere, hazardous; and\n(b) The operation is not an operation for which recognition for an\naward (other than an award under this regulation) already exists; and\n(c) The operation meets the conditions (if any) determined, in\nwriting, by the Governor-General.\n…\n(4) A declaration under this section must include the following matters:\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n- In his current application to the Tribunal, Lieutenant Colonel Jensen effectively\nasks the Tribunal to vary its 2020 decision in two respects - by recommending that he\nbe awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia, rather than the Medal for Gallantry, for his\nactions on 13 May 1968, and by adding a separate recommendation that he be awarded\nthe Distinguished Service Cross for his service throughout his tour of duty in Vietnam\n38 See Hulse and the Department of Defence re: Hughes, Johnson and Walker [2021] DHAAT 4\n39 Ibid.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- The updated Regulation states:\n3 Declared operation\n(1) The Governor-General may declare, in writing, on the recommendation of the\nMinister, that an operation is a declared operation.\n(2) In making a recommendation to the Governor-General, the Minister must\nhave regard to the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Force.\n(3) The Governor-General must not make a declaration about an operation\nunless:\n(a) The operation is, or was, carried out in conditions that are,\nor were, hazardous; and\n(b) The operation is not an operation for which recognition for\nan award (other than an award under this regulation)\nalready exists; and\n(c) The operation meets the conditions (if any) determined, in\nwriting, by the Governor-General.\n(3A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Chief of the Defence Force may\ndeclare, in writing, on the recommendation of the Commander Joint Operations, that a\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)`\n- 4 Eligible service\n(1) The Governor-General may declare, in writing, on the recommendation\nof the Minister, that service is:\n(a) Eligible service; or\n(b) Eligible service that is an additional period of qualifying\nservice for the purposes of paragraph 6(2) (c).\n(2) In making a recommendation to the Governor-General, the Minister must\nhave regard to the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Force.\n(3) The Governor-General must not make a declaration about service under\nsubsection (1) unless the eligible service is given as part of, and with the period of, a\ndeclared operation.\n(3A) Eligible service declared under subsection (1) must meet the conditions (if\nany) determined, in writing, by the Governor-General.\n(4) Without limiting subsection (1), the Chief of the Defence Force may\ndeclare, in writing, on the recommendation of the Commander Joint Operations, that\nservice is:\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)`\n- Ragsdale Jr, 1st Lt, Infantry Senior Advisor 1sr Bn, 51st\nRegiment14\nMACTN-QNSS 23 Jan 66 1st Ind\nSubject: Recommendation for Award\nSenior Advisor,51st Infantry Regiment, Advisory Team 1, MACV, APO US\nForces 96337\nTo: Senior Advisor, Quang Nam Special Sector, Advisory Team 1, MACV, APO\nUS Forces 96337\n1.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf)`\n- Jopling, Major, Infantry Senior Advisor\nMACTN-QNSS 23 Jan 66 2nd Ind\nSubject: Recommendation for Award\nSenior Advisor, Quang Nam Special Sector, Advisory Team 1, MACV, APO\nUS Forces 96337\nTO: Commander, I Corps Advisory Group, Advisory Team 1, MACV APO\nUS Forces 96337\n1.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf)`\n- 3d Ind 23 Jan 66\nSubject: Recommendation for Award\nHeadquarters, I Corps Advisory Group, Advisory Team 1, APO US Forces\n96337\nTo: COMUSMACV, Attn: MACAG-PA, APO US Forces 96243\nRecommend approval.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf)`\n- On 16 September 2024, Defence informed Mr Miller in written correspondence\nthat it would not be recommending a posthumous honour from either the Gallantry or\nDistinguished Service Decorations suites of honours for Warrant Officer Miller’s service\nfrom 19 May 1965 to 16 October 1965.17 It said that, at the time of Warrant Officer\nMiller’s service, policy relevant to foreign awards stated that recommendations for a US\naward should be referred to Australian authorities for consideration of an equivalent\nAustralian award (which at the time, would have been an Imperial award).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf)`\n- DATE\nMATTER\nHEARING LOCATION\n28 May 2026\nHulse and the Department of Defence - Conspicuous Service Medal\nRydges Hotel, Canberra, 10 am AEST\n21 May 2026\nSeccombe and the Department of Defence re: Rowell - Australian Defence Medal\nCanberra, 2pm AEST\nRECENT TRIBUNAL DECISIONS\nNot all applications to the Tribunal result in it holding a hearing or completing a written decision.\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n- [Page 20]\nAccordingly, section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, provides statutory\njustification for departing from any stringent literal interpretation.\n“In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best\nachieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object\nis expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other\ninterpretation.”36\nFurthermore, where there is any ambiguity in the statutory definition of s110T(b),\nthen it should be construed beneficially toward the PTG, “so as to give the fullest\nrelief which the fair meaning of its language will allow”.37\n58.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n\n## Corporate Values and Operating Culture\n\n- [Page 2]\nDECISION\nOn 5 January 2026, the Tribunal decided:\n(a) to affirm the decision that Wing Commander Low not be recommended for\nthe Australian Operational Service Medal – Indo-Pacific for his service on\nOperation GATEWAY prior to 1 July 2005; and\n(b) to recommend to the Minister that he should:\na. provide to Defence a clear definition of the term ‘hazardous service’ to\nguide all further consideration of matters arising under the\nAustralian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012;\nb. direct Defence to develop a transparent and consistently applied\nevidentiary framework for assessment by reference to that definition of\nhazardous service, including required evidence and methodology;\nc. direct Defence to conduct a comprehensive historical assessment of\nOperation GATEWAY’s hazard environment from 1981 to the present in\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)`\n- [Page 30]\n(cid:71)(cid:12) on receipt of that advice, consider whether he should recommend to the(cid:3)\nGovernor-General that any specified service on Operation GATEWAY should be(cid:3)\ndeclared under the Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012;\n(cid:72)(cid:12) in the interests of protecting the integrity of the defence honours and awards\nsystem(cid:3) through consistent decision-making, pending resolution of steps a. to d.\nabove, either(cid:3)recommend to the Governor-General that the present declaration\nof Operation(cid:3) GATEWAY under the Australian Operational Service Medal\nRegulation 2012 be(cid:3)revoked or, alternatively, direct Defence to suspend consideration\nof further applications(cid:3)for issue of the Australian Operational Service Medal – Indo-\nPacific for service on(cid:3) Operation GATEWAY; and\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)`\n- DATE\nMATTER\nHEARING LOCATION\n28 May 2026\nHulse and the Department of Defence - Conspicuous Service Medal\nRydges Hotel, Canberra, 10 am AEST\n21 May 2026\nSeccombe and the Department of Defence re: Rowell - Australian Defence Medal\nCanberra, 2pm AEST\nRECENT TRIBUNAL DECISIONS\nNot all applications to the Tribunal result in it holding a hearing or completing a written decision.\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n- S64 dated 28 February 2002\n(the Determination)\n[…]\n1) that the following non-warlike operations in which members of the Australian\nDefence Force were engaged with elements of the Australian, New Zealand and\nUnited Kingdom (ANZUK) Forces; Australian Army Rifle Company\n(Butterworth); Five Power Defence Arrangement; and Australian Army Survey\nOperations in South East Asia during the following periods to be a declared\noperation for the purpose of the Regulations:\n(i) Defence Force activities on land in Malaysia during the period that commenced\non 14 February 1975 and ended on 31 December 1989…\nc) determine, under subregulation 4(2) of the Regulations, that the conditions for\naward of the Australian Service Medal with Clasp ‘SE ASIA’ (“the Medal”) for\nthe declared operation are:\n(i) the Medal may be awarded to a member of the Australian Defence Force who\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf)`\n- [pages 47,48,49]\nwhen it involves undertaking\nsignificant additional duties over and above those reasonably expected\nof the individual’s rank or role, provided that all duties are undertaken\nsuccessfully, authoritatively or in a manner commanding great respect\nhaving regard to the degree by which they exceeded the usual\nexpectations of the individual’s rank or role;\nc) service may also be ‘distinguished’ notwithstanding that it involves\nonly performing the duties expected of the individual’s rank or role,\nprovided that such performance is clearly superior when compared to\nthe reasonable expectations of the usual performance of others of the\nsame rank, in the same or similar role/s or in similar circumstances:\ni. by significantly exceeding those reasonable expectations on a\nparticular occasion; or\nPage | 47\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)`\n- The OSM could not be\nawarded for Operation GATEWAY in the period before 1 January 1990 because\nrecognition for another award, the ASM with Clasp ‘SE ASIA’, already exists in\nrespect of service in this period.13\n17.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)`\n- Miller and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 5\nCommendation for Distinguished Service\nCowled and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 4\nAustralian Service Medal with Clasp SE ASIA\nJensen and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 3\nVictoria Cross for Australia, Distinguished Service Cross\nA and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 2\nAustralian Operational Service Medal - Civilian\nLow and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 1\nAustralian Operational Service Medal - Indo Pacific\nAll Reports\n© Commonwealth of Australia\nCopyright\nPrivacy\nSupported by Digital Mavens\n  Source: `pages/homepage.html (http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)`\n- [pages 1,2,3,4]\n[Page 1]\nand the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 2\n(7 March 2026)\nFile Number 2025/011\nRe Mr\nApplicant\nAnd The Department of Defence\nRespondent\nTribunal Mr Stephen Skehill (Presiding Member)\nMajor General Mark Kelly AO DSC (Retd)\nCommodore Vicki McConachie CSC RAN (Retd)\nHearing Date 24 November 2025\nAttendances Mr\nApplicant\nMr\nFor the Applicant\nMs Allison Augustine, Director Honours and Awards\nDefence\nFor the Respondent\nMs Catherine Morris,\nAssistant Director, Defence Honours and Awards Policy\nDefence\nFor the Respondent\nProtected Identity Witness A\nFor the Respondent\nDECISION\nOn 7 March 2026 the Tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision\nof the Department of Defence of 17 December 2024 to refuse to recommend that members of\nAustralian Police Tactical Groups be awarded the Australian Operational Service Medal\n(Civilian).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)`\n\n## Global Ideas and Case Study Inputs\n\n_No global-intelligence source text found yet. Run `CLAUDE/global-ideas-scraper.py <entity>` to populate case-study sources._\n\n## Source Artifacts Used\n\n- `pages/homepage.html` - pages - http://www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au\n- `other-pdfs/A.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf\n- `other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf\n- `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf\n- `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf\n- `other-pdfs/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf\n\n## Gaps To Fix\n\n- No corporate plan text source found.\n- No annual report text source found.\n- No global comparison/case-study sources found.",
  "legislation_md": "# Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal - Acts and Legislation Discovery\n\n**Generated at**: 2026-05-09T21:05:44.102405+00:00\n**Entity ID**: B-002279\n**Jurisdiction**: Commonwealth\n**Portfolio**: Defence\n\n> This is an evidence-based discovery list from scraped department material. A mention does not always mean the department administers the legislation; high-confidence and official register links should be reviewed.\n\n## Summary\n\n- Source files scanned: 6\n- Unique legislation references found: 18\n\n| Type | Count |\n|---|---:|\n| Act | 6 |\n| Determination | 1 |\n| Instrument | 6 |\n| Regulation | 5 |\n\n## Legislation References\n\n### Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012\n\n**Type**: Regulation\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 29\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Australian+Operational+Service+Medal+Regulation+2012\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- the Letters Patent on 6 June 2012 were updated in 2015 as notified in Commonwealth of\nAustralia Gazette G00827 dated 1 June 2015.10 The regulations were further updated in 2019,\nnotified in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette G00629 dated 5 August 2020. 11\n23. The Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012 (the AOSM Regulation)\nas amended states:\n3 Declared operation\n(1) The Governor-General may declare, in writing, on the recommendation\nof the Minister, that an operation is a declared operation.\n(2) In making a recommendation to the Governor-General, the Minis\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- or a description of the\noperation; and\n(b) the area in which the operation occurs or occurred; and\n(c) either:\n(i) the dates or period during which the operation occurred\nor\n(ii) if the operation is continuing – the date on which the\noperation commenced.\n…\n9 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette S67, Letters Patent\nand Regulations, 6 June 2012.\n10 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012, Amendment 2015, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette\nG00827, 1 June 2015.\n11 Australian Operational Service Medal Regula\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- g which the operation occurred\nor\n(ii) if the operation is continuing – the date on which the\noperation commenced.\n…\n9 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette S67, Letters Patent\nand Regulations, 6 June 2012.\n10 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012, Amendment 2015, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette\nG00827, 1 June 2015.\n11 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulations 2012 Amendment to Letters Patent 2020, Commonwealth of\nAustralia Gazette G00629, 5 August 2020.\n8\n\n[page 9]\n7 Civilians – award of the\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- riod on an operation declared for the purposes of that award. There\nis no operation currently declared under the AOSM Regulation that is applicable to PTG\nservice. Moreover, to be eligible for the AOSM (Civilian), a PTG member would also need to\nbe either:\n12 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012 Commonwealth of Australia Gazette G00827 1 June\n2015.\n13 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulations – Amendments 2015, 30 April 2015.\n14 Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012, Determination by the\nChief of the D\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- do-Pacific for his service on\nOperation GATEWAY prior to 1 July 2005; and\n(b) to recommend to the Minister that he should:\na. provide to Defence a clear definition of the term ‘hazardous service’ to\nguide all further consideration of matters arising under the\nAustralian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012;\nb. direct Defence to develop a transparent and consistently applied\nevidentiary framework for assessment by reference to that definition of\nhazardous service, including required evidence and methodology;\nc. direct Defence to conduct a comprehensive historica\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Australian Operational Service Medal (Indo-Pacific) Instrument 2024\n\n**Type**: Instrument\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 4\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Australian+Operational+Service+Medal+%28Indo-Pacific%29+Instrument+2024\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- une 2015\nAustralian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012 Amendment to Letters Patent 2020,\nCommonwealth of Australia Gazette G00629, dated 5 August 2020\nCommonwealth of Australia Gazette G00051 dated 31 January 2025, Australian Operational\nService Medal (Indo-Pacific) Instrument 2024, dated 12 January 2025\nPage | 4\n\n[page 4]\nIntroduction\n1. The Applicant, Wing Commander Christopher Low (Retd), seeks review of a decision\ndated 13 February 2025 of the Department of Defence to refuse to recommend him for the\nAustralian Operational Service Me\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n- ional Service Medal – Indo-Pacific\n21. The eligibility criteria for awarding the Australian Operational Service Medal –\nIndo-Pacific are contained in the Governor-General’s declaration dated 12 January 2025 set out\nin the Australian Operational Service Medal (Indo-Pacific) Instrument 2024, published in the\nCommonwealth of Australia Gazette G00051 dated 31 January 2025.19\n22. The criteria in the Instrument relevant to Wing Commander Low’s application are as\nfollows:\n5 Declared Operation\nFor subsection 3(1) of the Regulations, for the Australian\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n- n\n(2) If an ADF member or an allied foreign Defence Force member gave service\nof a kind mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) of this section, but did not satisfy\n19 Commonwealth of Australia Gazette G00051 dated 31 January 2025, Australian Operational Service Medal\n(Indo-Pacific) Instrument 2024, dated 12 January 2025\nPage | 10\n\n[page 10]\nparagraph (1)(b) of this section because the member died or was evacuated\ndue to service-related injury, illness or disability, the service is taken to\nhave occurred for 30 days during the deployment.\nWing Commander\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n- n and at the hearing, in essence, Wing Commander Low\nchallenged the Defence decision to refuse to recommend him for the Australian Operational\nService Medal – Indo-Pacific on a number of bases.\n48. First, he said that the Australian Operational Service Medal (Indo-Pacific) Instrument\n2024 was invalid because it did not specify the correct date of commencement for\nOperation GATEWAY as required by Regulation 3(4)(c)(ii) of the Australian Operational\nService Medal Regulation 2012. That provision requires that, for a continuing operation, the\nGove\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Defence Force Discipline Act 1982\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 4\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Defence+Force+Discipline+Act+1982\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- Operational Service Medal Regulation –\nAmendments 2015 dated 30 April 2015 as a person who:\n(a) is employed or contracted by the Commonwealth to support, in a civilian capacity,\nthe operations of a Defence Force deployed force; and\n(b) is:\n(i) subject to the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982; or\n(ii) included in a class of persons determined, in writing, by the Chief of the Defence\nForce for the purposes of this definition.13\n25. A class of persons is specified in the Determination by the Chief of the Defence Force\ndated 24 November 2015, made un\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- ployed by the Commonwealth to support the operations of the Australian\nDefence Force deployed force in a civilian capacity; and\n(ii) Deployed under the Department of Defence or the Department of Foreign Affairs\nand Trade portfolios and were not subject to the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982.\n(b) An individual classed as a class of person by this determination must also satisfy\nthe other requirements of the Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation in\norder to qualify for the award of the medal and/or Clasp.14\n26. The instruments that confe\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- ralian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012, Determination by the\nChief of the Defence Force.\n9\n\n[page 10]\nemployed or contracted by the Commonwealth to support, in a civilian capacity, the\noperations of a Defence Force deployed force; and subject to the Defence Force\nDiscipline Act 1982\nor\nemployed by the Commonwealth to support the operations of the Australian\nDefence Force deployed force in a civilian capacity; and deployed under the\nDepartment of Defence or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolios\nand were not subject to the\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- or\nemployed by the Commonwealth to support the operations of the Australian\nDefence Force deployed force in a civilian capacity; and deployed under the\nDepartment of Defence or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolios\nand were not subject to the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982.\n27. If the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the application for review\nlodged by Mr the fact that there is currently no relevant declared operation would mean\nthat the Tribunal would be obliged to affirm the Defence decision refusing to r\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n### LEGISLATION Defence Act 1903\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 4\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=LEGISLATION+Defence+Act+1903\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- ralian Police Tactical Groups be awarded the Australian Operational Service Medal\n(Civilian).\n\n[page 2]\nCATCHWORDS\nJURISDICTION – Australian Operational Service Medal (Civilian) - Civilian Service –\nPolice Tactical Groups (PTG) – eligible service – definition\nLEGISLATION\nDefence Act 1903 – Section 110V, Section 110T\n\n[page 3]\nIntroduction\n1. In 2024 Mr applied to the Department of Defence (Defence)\nseeking the award of the Australian Operational Service Medal (Civilian) (the AOSM\n(Civilian)) for members of Australian Police Tactical Groups (P\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- alian Service Medal with Clasp SE Asia for his service with Rifle Company\nButterworth, from 31 January 1996 until 1 May 1996.\n\n[page 2]\nCATCHWORDS\nDEFENCE AWARD – Australian Service Medal – SE Asia - Rifle Company\nButterworth – Service outside qualifying date\nLEGISLATION\nDefence Act 1903 – Part VIIIC – Sections 110T, 110V(1), 110VB(2), 110VB(6)\nDefence Regulation 2016, Regulation 36\nCommonwealth of Australia Gazette S64, Declaration and Determination under the\nAustralian Service Medal Regulations, Australian Service Medal with Clasp ‘SE ASIA’\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pages.jsonl`\n- from them.\nPage | 3\n\n[page 3]\nCATCHWORDS\nDEFENCE AWARD – Australian Operational Service Medal – Indo-Pacific – eligibility\ncriteria – declared operation – Operation GATEWAY – Governor-General Declaration\n– date of commencement of operation – hazardous service\nLEGISLATION\nDefence Act 1903 – Part VIIIC – Sections 110T, 110V(1), 110VB(2), 110VB(6)\nDefence Regulation 2016, Regulation 36\nAustralian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012, Commonwealth of Australia\nGazette S67, Letter Patent and Regulation, dated 6 June 2012\nAustralian Operationa\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n- S\nDEFENCE HONOUR – Australian Gallantry Decorations – Australian Distinguished\nService Decorations - Vietnam War – 1965 - Australian Army Training Team Vietnam\n- whether evidence available to consider recognition – US Bronze Star with V Device\nalready awarded\nLEGISLATION\nDefence Act 1903 – Part VIIIC – Sections 110T, 110V(1), 110VB(1),\n110VB(6)\nDefence Regulation 2016 - Section 35\nAustralian Gallantry Decorations\nCommonwealth of Australia Gazette S25, of 4 February 1991, Gallantry Decorations\nRegulations, Letters Patent and Regulations.\nCommo\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pages.jsonl`\n\n### AOSM (Indo-Pacific) Instrument 2024\n\n**Type**: Instrument\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 3\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=AOSM+%28Indo-Pacific%29+Instrument+2024\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- on unless:\n(a) the operation is, or was, carried out in conditions that are hazardous.\nThe governor-general declared Operation GATEWAY under the Regulation;\ntherefore, Operation GATEWAY is or was carried out in conditions that are\nhazardous.\nI argue the AOSM (Indo-Pacific) Instrument 2024 is invalid, because the Operation\nGATEWAY commencement date as written, contravenes the AOSM Regulation 2012.\nOperation GATEWAY is a continuing operation. For a continuing operation, a\ndeclaration under the Regulation must state the date on which the operatio\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n- GATEWAY is a continuing operation. For a continuing operation, a\ndeclaration under the Regulation must state the date on which the operation\ncommenced. Operation GATEWAY commenced on 5 February 1981, vice (sic) the\nlisted 1 July 2005...\nTo validate the AOSM (Indo-Pacific) Instrument 2024, the correct date for the\ncommencement of Operation GATEWAY (5 February 1981) should be annotated and\nthe Instrument re-signed by the governor-general.21\n25. In his correspondence to the Directorate of Honours and Awards, Wing Commander Low\nreferred to the In\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n- , it would enable him and his fellow Royal Australian Air Force members who served\non Operation GATEWAY between 1995 and 2005 to qualify for the award. He said:\nIn accordance with the Regulation, I argue the commencement date of Operation\nGATEWAY in the AOSM (Indo-Pacific) Instrument 2024 should be amended to the\ncorrect date, which is 5 February 1981. I would have eligible service as defined in\n22 Ibid, emphasis added by applicant\n23 Application for review, Wing Commander Christopher Low, 13 February 2025\n24 Table 4.6, FY 2004-05 Defence Annu\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Australian Operational Service Medal Regulations 2012\n\n**Type**: Regulation\n**Confidence**: high\n**Mentions**: 3\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Australian+Operational+Service+Medal+Regulations+2012\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- n Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette S67, Letters Patent\nand Regulations, 6 June 2012.\n10 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012, Amendment 2015, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette\nG00827, 1 June 2015.\n11 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulations 2012 Amendment to Letters Patent 2020, Commonwealth of\nAustralia Gazette G00629, 5 August 2020.\n8\n\n[page 9]\n7 Civilians – award of the medal, standard civilian ribbon and clasp\nThe Governor General may, on the recommendation of the Chief of the\nDefence Force, awar\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- ) included in a class of persons determined, in writing, by the Chief of the Defence\nForce for the purposes of this definition.13\n25. A class of persons is specified in the Determination by the Chief of the Defence Force\ndated 24 November 2015, made under the Australian Operational Service Medal Regulations\n2012, as a person who is:\n(i) Employed by the Commonwealth to support the operations of the Australian\nDefence Force deployed force in a civilian capacity; and\n(ii) Deployed under the Department of Defence or the Department of Foreign Affairs\nand Trade portfolios\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n- nal Service Medal Regulation 2012, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette S67, Letters Patent\nand Regulations, dated 6 June 2012\n17 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012, Amendment 2015, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette\nG00827, dated 1 June 2015\n18 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulations 2012 Amendment to Letters Patent 2020,\nCommonwealth of Australia Gazette G00629, dated 5 August 2020\nPage | 8\n\n[page 8]\n(3D) The Chief of the Defence Force must not make a declaration about a\ncounter terrorism activity or a special recovery activity unless all of\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Additionally, Part IIIAAA of the Defence Act 1903\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: medium\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Additionally%2C+Part+IIIAAA+of+the+Defence+Act+1903\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- ’ – across human, technical and procedural matters – enables\nrelevant agencies to conduct operations effectively. However, interoperability is not a\ncommand status, and is only a series of processes, procedures, standards and training\nthat support an outcome.\nAdditionally, Part IIIAAA of the Defence Act 1903 enables the ADF to be called out,\nunder a call out order, to assist civilian authorities such as the police in response to\n‘domestic violence’ in the States and Territories, as well as to protect Commonwealth\ninterests.\nPart IIIAAA of the Defence Act is subst\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Part VIIIC of the Defence Act 1903\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: medium\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Part+VIIIC+of+the+Defence+Act+1903\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- would not recommend the\naward of that medal to Western Australian PTG members.\n3. On 22 April 2025, Mr lodged an application for review with the Tribunal\nseeking review of that Defence decision on behalf of Australian Police Tactical Groups.\n4. Division 3 of Part VIIIC of the Defence Act 1903 (the Defence Act) sets out the\nTribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of applications for review. Along with other parameters,\nsection 110V of the Defence Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision\nrefusing an application for a defence a\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n### South Vietnam LEGISLATION Defence Act 1903\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: medium\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=South+Vietnam+LEGISLATION+Defence+Act+1903\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- Cross.\nCATCHWORDS\nDEFENCE HONOUR – Victoria Cross for Australia - Distinguished Service\nDecorations – Distinguished Service Cross – Medal for Gallantry already awarded -\n1st Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment – Fire Support Base Coral – Mortar\nPlatoon - South Vietnam\nLEGISLATION\nDefence Act 1903 – ss 110T, 110V (1), 110VA, 110VB (1)\nDefence Regulation 2016 – Part 6, S35, Defence Honours,\nVictoria Cross for Australia\nCommonwealth of Australia Gazette S25 of 4 February 1991, Victoria Cross for\nAustralia, Letters Patent and Regulations dated 15 January\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Acts Interpretation Act 1901\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: low\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Acts+Interpretation+Act+1901\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- s, of course, not that the true signification of the\nprovision should be strained or exceeded, but that it should be construed so as\nto give the fullest relief which the fair meaning of its language will allow. \"\n19\n\n[page 20]\nAccordingly, section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, provides statutory\njustification for departing from any stringent literal interpretation.\n“In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best\nachieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object\nis expressly\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Australian Operational Service Medal (Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery) Instrument 2020\n\n**Type**: Instrument\n**Confidence**: low\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Australian+Operational+Service+Medal+%28Counter+Terrorism%2FSpecial+Recovery%29+Instrument+2020\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- claration and Determination under the Australian Service Medal Regulations, Commonwealth of Australia\nGazette S50, 30 March 2011.\n6 Australian Service Medal Regulations (Clasp ‘CT/SR’) Declaration and Determination 2020\n7 Australian Operational Service Medal (Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery) Instrument 2020, 3 September 2020\n8 Australian Operational Service Medal (Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery) Instrument 2023\n7\n\n[page 8]\nThe AOSM (Civilian)\n22. The AOSM was created by Letters Patent, dated 22 May 2012 and published in the\nCommonwealth of Australia Gazette\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Australian Operational Service Medal (Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery) Instrument 2023\n\n**Type**: Instrument\n**Confidence**: low\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Australian+Operational+Service+Medal+%28Counter+Terrorism%2FSpecial+Recovery%29+Instrument+2023\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- S50, 30 March 2011.\n6 Australian Service Medal Regulations (Clasp ‘CT/SR’) Declaration and Determination 2020\n7 Australian Operational Service Medal (Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery) Instrument 2020, 3 September 2020\n8 Australian Operational Service Medal (Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery) Instrument 2023\n7\n\n[page 8]\nThe AOSM (Civilian)\n22. The AOSM was created by Letters Patent, dated 22 May 2012 and published in the\nCommonwealth of Australia Gazette S67 of 6 June 2012.9 It was created to replace the\nAustralian Active Service Medal and the Australian Service\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Australian Operational Service Medal (Indo-Pacific) Instrument 2025\n\n**Type**: Instrument\n**Confidence**: low\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Australian+Operational+Service+Medal+%28Indo-Pacific%29+Instrument+2025\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- for the Australian\nOperational Service Medal – Indo Pacific.\n32. Defence confirmed previous advice to Wing Commander Low that his service on\nOperation GATEWAY was prior to the date of medallic entitlement as listed in the\nAustralian Operational Service Medal (Indo-Pacific) Instrument 2025.27\n33. Defence did not address in the report Wing Commander Low’s concerns regarding the\nstart date of 1 July 2005 for Operation GATEWAY as listed in the Instrument, advising that it\nhad previously addressed his concerns via email.28\nWing Commander Low’s comm\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Australian Service Medal Regulations 1988\n\n**Type**: Regulation\n**Confidence**: low\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Australian+Service+Medal+Regulations+1988\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- of this unique TAG capability to the present, those involved\nhave maintained a world-class capability ready for all situations in support of\nAustralia's interests.\n18. On 24 March 2011 the then Governor-General issued a declaration and determination\nunder the Australian Service Medal Regulations 1988 that service of 60 days in a TAG (or in\nthe Recovery Force) after 31 August 1979 qualified for the Australian Service Medal with\nClasp Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery.5\n19. Subsequently, some years after the introduction of the AOSM to replace both the\nAus\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n### CT/SR’) Declaration and Determination 2020\n\n**Type**: Determination\n**Confidence**: low\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=CT%2FSR%E2%80%99%29+Declaration+and+Determination+2020\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- yed in response to any particular incident warranting such\ndeployment.\n4 Ibid.\n5 Declaration and Determination under the Australian Service Medal Regulations, Commonwealth of Australia\nGazette S50, 30 March 2011.\n6 Australian Service Medal Regulations (Clasp ‘CT/SR’) Declaration and Determination 2020\n7 Australian Operational Service Medal (Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery) Instrument 2020, 3 September 2020\n8 Australian Operational Service Medal (Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery) Instrument 2023\n7\n\n[page 8]\nThe AOSM (Civilian)\n22. The AOSM was created\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012\n\n**Type**: Regulation\n**Confidence**: low\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Commonwealth+of+Australia%2C+Australian+Operational+Service+Medal+Regulation+2012\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- AOSM (Civilian), a PTG member would also need to\nbe either:\n12 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012 Commonwealth of Australia Gazette G00827 1 June\n2015.\n13 Australian Operational Service Medal Regulations – Amendments 2015, 30 April 2015.\n14 Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012, Determination by the\nChief of the Defence Force.\n9\n\n[page 10]\nemployed or contracted by the Commonwealth to support, in a civilian capacity, the\noperations of a Defence Force deployed force; and subject to the Defence Force\nDiscipline Act 1982\nor\nemployed by\n  Source: `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Indo Pacific Instrument 2024\n\n**Type**: Instrument\n**Confidence**: low\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Indo+Pacific+Instrument+2024\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- dal – Indo-Pacific in recognition of his service on\nOperation GATEWAY.\nDecision under review\n2. On 6 February 2025, Wing Commander Low wrote to the Directorate of Honours and\nAwards in Defence expressing concern that the Australian Operational Service Medal – Indo\nPacific Instrument 2024 incorrectly listed the commencement date for Operation GATEWAY as\n1 July 2005. Wing Commander Low said the correct commencement date for the Operation was\n5 February 1981. He said that the start date of 1 July 2005 specified in that Instrument was\nincorrect a\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n### Minister. The Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012\n\n**Type**: Regulation\n**Confidence**: low\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Minister.+The+Australian+Operational+Service+Medal+Regulation+2012\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- ther he agrees or doesn’t agree with it and makes the recommendation to the\nGovernor-General.\n91. However, in the view of the Tribunal, Defence did not provide ‘all the information’ to the\nMinister but rather failed to provide adequate or proper advice to the Minister. The Australian\nOperational Service Medal Regulation 2012 was made by the Prime Minister with the\nconcurrence of the Sovereign who created the Australian Operational Service Medal by Royal\nWarrant. As such, it is a matter for the Government to determine the meaning of terms used but\nPage | 28\n\n[page 28]\nnot defined\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl`\n\n## Files Scanned\n\n- `pages/homepage.html` (page)\n- `other-pdfs/A.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)",
  "global_initiatives_md": null,
  "strategy": {
    "reporting_period": "2024-25",
    "corporate_plan_period": "2025-26",
    "vision": null,
    "vision_source_page": null,
    "purposes": null,
    "purposes_source_page": null,
    "how_we_deliver": null,
    "how_we_deliver_source_page": null,
    "government_priorities": [],
    "outcomes": [],
    "values": [],
    "values_framework_name": null,
    "kpi_targets_2025_26": [],
    "kpi_results_2024_25": [],
    "_source_urls": {
      "annual_report_url": "",
      "corporate_plan_url": ""
    }
  },
  "ideas": [
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Citizen Services",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Plain-language service pages and proactive status updates",
      "idea": "Rewrite high-volume pages and letters into plain language, add status notifications, and measure contact reduction.",
      "quote": "4 Eligible service\n(1) The Governor-General may declare, in writing, on the recommendation\nof the Minister, that service is:\n(a) Eligible service; or\n(b) Eligible service that is an additional period of qualifying\nservice for the purposes of paragraph 6(2) (c).\n(2) In making a recommendation to the Governor-General, the Minister must\nhave regard to the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Force.\n(3) The Governor-General must not make a declaration about service under\nsubsection (1) unless the eligible service is given as part of, and with the period of, a\ndeclared operation.\n(3A) Eligible service declared under subsection (1) must meet the conditions (if\nany) determined, in writing, by the Governor-General.\n(4) Without limiting subsection (1), the Chief of the Defence Force may\ndeclare, in writing, on the recommendation of the Commander Joint Operations, that\nservice is:",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Citizens / service users",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Digital exclusion",
        "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Citizen Services",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Single front door for life-event based services",
      "idea": "Bundle services around life events so citizens can complete related steps across agencies in one journey.",
      "quote": "4 Eligible service\n(1) The Governor-General may declare, in writing, on the recommendation\nof the Minister, that service is:\n(a) Eligible service; or\n(b) Eligible service that is an additional period of qualifying\nservice for the purposes of paragraph 6(2) (c).\n(2) In making a recommendation to the Governor-General, the Minister must\nhave regard to the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Force.\n(3) The Governor-General must not make a declaration about service under\nsubsection (1) unless the eligible service is given as part of, and with the period of, a\ndeclared operation.\n(3A) Eligible service declared under subsection (1) must meet the conditions (if\nany) determined, in writing, by the Governor-General.\n(4) Without limiting subsection (1), the Chief of the Defence Force may\ndeclare, in writing, on the recommendation of the Commander Joint Operations, that\nservice is:",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Citizens / service users",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Digital exclusion",
        "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Regulation & Policy",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Regulatory burden scan for forms, guidance, and reporting",
      "idea": "Identify the top 10 highest-friction reporting obligations and simplify guidance, forms, or evidence requirements.",
      "quote": "S64 dated 28 February 2002\n(the Determination)\n[…]\n1) that the following non-warlike operations in which members of the Australian\nDefence Force were engaged with elements of the Australian, New Zealand and\nUnited Kingdom (ANZUK) Forces; Australian Army Rifle Company\n(Butterworth); Five Power Defence Arrangement; and Australian Army Survey\nOperations in South East Asia during the following periods to be a declared\noperation for the purpose of the Regulations:\n(i) Defence Force activities on land in Malaysia during the period that commenced\non 14 February 1975 and ended on 31 December 1989…\nc) determine, under subregulation 4(2) of the Regulations, that the conditions for\naward of the Australian Service Medal with Clasp ‘SE ASIA’ (“the Medal”) for\nthe declared operation are:\n(i) the Medal may be awarded to a member of the Australian Defence Force who",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Regulated entities / policy teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Regulation & Policy",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Adaptive regulation program with live feedback loops",
      "idea": "Create an adaptive regulation model using sandboxes, industry data, risk scoring, and regular rule updates.",
      "quote": "S64 dated 28 February 2002\n(the Determination)\n[…]\n1) that the following non-warlike operations in which members of the Australian\nDefence Force were engaged with elements of the Australian, New Zealand and\nUnited Kingdom (ANZUK) Forces; Australian Army Rifle Company\n(Butterworth); Five Power Defence Arrangement; and Australian Army Survey\nOperations in South East Asia during the following periods to be a declared\noperation for the purpose of the Regulations:\n(i) Defence Force activities on land in Malaysia during the period that commenced\non 14 February 1975 and ended on 31 December 1989…\nc) determine, under subregulation 4(2) of the Regulations, that the conditions for\naward of the Australian Service Medal with Clasp ‘SE ASIA’ (“the Medal”) for\nthe declared operation are:\n(i) the Medal may be awarded to a member of the Australian Defence Force who",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Regulated entities / policy teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Risk & Assurance",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Recommendation tracker for audits, reviews, and inquiries",
      "idea": "Publish a single internal tracker for audit/review recommendations, owners, due dates, and implementation evidence.",
      "quote": "The updated Regulation states:\n3 Declared operation\n(1) The Governor-General may declare, in writing, on the recommendation of the\nMinister, that an operation is a declared operation.\n(2) In making a recommendation to the Governor-General, the Minister must\nhave regard to the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Force.\n(3) The Governor-General must not make a declaration about an operation\nunless:\n(a) The operation is, or was, carried out in conditions that are,\nor were, hazardous; and\n(b) The operation is not an operation for which recognition for\nan award (other than an award under this regulation)\nalready exists; and\n(c) The operation meets the conditions (if any) determined, in\nwriting, by the Governor-General.\n(3A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Chief of the Defence Force may\ndeclare, in writing, on the recommendation of the Commander Joint Operations, that a",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / assurance teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Risk & Assurance",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Integrated assurance and lessons-learned system",
      "idea": "Create an assurance system that connects audit findings, risk registers, delivery reviews, and investment decisions.",
      "quote": "The updated Regulation states:\n3 Declared operation\n(1) The Governor-General may declare, in writing, on the recommendation of the\nMinister, that an operation is a declared operation.\n(2) In making a recommendation to the Governor-General, the Minister must\nhave regard to the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Force.\n(3) The Governor-General must not make a declaration about an operation\nunless:\n(a) The operation is, or was, carried out in conditions that are,\nor were, hazardous; and\n(b) The operation is not an operation for which recognition for\nan award (other than an award under this regulation)\nalready exists; and\n(c) The operation meets the conditions (if any) determined, in\nwriting, by the Governor-General.\n(3A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Chief of the Defence Force may\ndeclare, in writing, on the recommendation of the Commander Joint Operations, that a",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / assurance teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Staff Productivity",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Reusable briefing and summary assistant for internal documents",
      "idea": "Create controlled templates for summarising reports, submissions, minutes, and ministerial briefs.",
      "quote": "The Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012 (the AOSM Regulation)\nas amended states:\n3 Declared operation\n(1) The Governor-General may declare, in writing, on the recommendation\nof the Minister, that an operation is a declared operation.\n(2) In making a recommendation to the Governor-General, the Minister\nmust have regard to the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Force.\n(3) The Governor-General must not make a declaration about an operation\nunless:\n(a) The operation is, or was, carried out in conditions that are, or\nwere, hazardous; and\n(b) The operation is not an operation for which recognition for an\naward (other than an award under this regulation) already exists; and\n(c) The operation meets the conditions (if any) determined, in\nwriting, by the Governor-General.\n…\n(4) A declaration under this section must include the following matters:",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "APS staff / executives",
      "source": "other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Sensitive information leakage",
        "Inconsistent quality of generated drafts"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Staff Productivity",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Department-wide knowledge and briefing platform",
      "idea": "Build a secure knowledge platform that lets staff search, summarise, and cite approved departmental material.",
      "quote": "The Australian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012 (the AOSM Regulation)\nas amended states:\n3 Declared operation\n(1) The Governor-General may declare, in writing, on the recommendation\nof the Minister, that an operation is a declared operation.\n(2) In making a recommendation to the Governor-General, the Minister\nmust have regard to the recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Force.\n(3) The Governor-General must not make a declaration about an operation\nunless:\n(a) The operation is, or was, carried out in conditions that are, or\nwere, hazardous; and\n(b) The operation is not an operation for which recognition for an\naward (other than an award under this regulation) already exists; and\n(c) The operation meets the conditions (if any) determined, in\nwriting, by the Governor-General.\n…\n(4) A declaration under this section must include the following matters:",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "APS staff / executives",
      "source": "other-pdfs/A.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Sensitive information leakage",
        "Inconsistent quality of generated drafts"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Case Processing",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Triage queue for stuck or ageing cases",
      "idea": "Use existing case data to flag ageing, duplicate, incomplete, or high-risk cases for earlier intervention.",
      "quote": "[Page 2]\nDECISION\nOn 5 January 2026, the Tribunal decided:\n(a) to affirm the decision that Wing Commander Low not be recommended for\nthe Australian Operational Service Medal – Indo-Pacific for his service on\nOperation GATEWAY prior to 1 July 2005; and\n(b) to recommend to the Minister that he should:\na. provide to Defence a clear definition of the term ‘hazardous service’ to\nguide all further consideration of matters arising under the\nAustralian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012;\nb. direct Defence to develop a transparent and consistently applied\nevidentiary framework for assessment by reference to that definition of\nhazardous service, including required evidence and methodology;\nc. direct Defence to conduct a comprehensive historical assessment of\nOperation GATEWAY’s hazard environment from 1981 to the present in",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Applicants / case officers",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Case Processing",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "End-to-end case processing redesign",
      "idea": "Redesign the case pathway around risk-based triage, reusable evidence, and automated eligibility checks.",
      "quote": "[Page 2]\nDECISION\nOn 5 January 2026, the Tribunal decided:\n(a) to affirm the decision that Wing Commander Low not be recommended for\nthe Australian Operational Service Medal – Indo-Pacific for his service on\nOperation GATEWAY prior to 1 July 2005; and\n(b) to recommend to the Minister that he should:\na. provide to Defence a clear definition of the term ‘hazardous service’ to\nguide all further consideration of matters arising under the\nAustralian Operational Service Medal Regulation 2012;\nb. direct Defence to develop a transparent and consistently applied\nevidentiary framework for assessment by reference to that definition of\nhazardous service, including required evidence and methodology;\nc. direct Defence to conduct a comprehensive historical assessment of\nOperation GATEWAY’s hazard environment from 1981 to the present in",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Applicants / case officers",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Data & Performance",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "KPI evidence register with named owners",
      "idea": "Create a simple register mapping each KPI to source data, owner, frequency, target, and last result.",
      "quote": "In reaching that conclusion, however, the Tribunal wished to stress that in no\nway should its decision be regarded as reflecting adversely in any way on either his\nremarkable achievements on 13 May 1968 or his admirable performance of duties\nduring the balance of his tour of Vietnam in 1968 and 1969.",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / Parliament / public",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "category": "Data & Performance",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Outcome dashboard linking budget, delivery, and public impact",
      "idea": "Build a public-facing outcome dashboard showing spend, outputs, outcomes, and delivery confidence.",
      "quote": "In reaching that conclusion, however, the Tribunal wished to stress that in no\nway should its decision be regarded as reflecting adversely in any way on either his\nremarkable achievements on 13 May 1968 or his admirable performance of duties\nduring the balance of his tour of Vietnam in 1968 and 1969.",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / Parliament / public",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf (https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "legislation_administered": [],
  "artifacts": [
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": "2026",
      "url": "https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf",
      "file": "other-pdfs/Miller-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-5.pdf",
      "bytes": 410572,
      "link_text": "Miller and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 5"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": "2026",
      "url": "https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf",
      "file": "other-pdfs/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf",
      "bytes": 269838,
      "link_text": "Cowled and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 4"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": "2026",
      "url": "https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf",
      "file": "other-pdfs/Jensen-2026-DHAAT-3.pdf",
      "bytes": 435525,
      "link_text": "Jensen and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 3"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": "2026",
      "url": "https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/A.pdf",
      "file": "other-pdfs/A.pdf",
      "bytes": 321824,
      "link_text": "A and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 2"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": "2026",
      "url": "https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf",
      "file": "other-pdfs/Low-2026-DHAAT-1.pdf",
      "bytes": 431730,
      "link_text": "Low and the Department of Defence [2026] DHAAT 1"
    }
  ],
  "_meta": {
    "snapshot_built_at": "2026-05-13T11:02:45+00:00",
    "strategy_brief_meta": {
      "model": "nova-micro",
      "folder": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "annual_report": {
        "file": null,
        "url": "",
        "year": null
      },
      "corporate_plan": {
        "file": "other-pdfs\\Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.txt",
        "url": "https://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4.pdf",
        "year": "Cowled-and-the-Department-of-Defence-2026-DHAAT-4"
      },
      "usage": {
        "input_tokens": 7706,
        "output_tokens": 155,
        "total_tokens": 7861,
        "model": "nova-micro"
      },
      "cost_usd": 0.00029141000000000003,
      "elapsed_seconds": 1.28,
      "generated_at": "2026-05-13T05:15:58+00:00"
    },
    "ideas_manifest": {
      "entity_id": "B-002279",
      "entity_name": "Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal",
      "folder_name": "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal",
      "generated_at": "2026-05-09T23:05:26.282536+00:00",
      "idea_count": 12,
      "markdown": "ideas/Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal_ideas.md",
      "jsonl": "ideas/ideas.jsonl",
      "inputs": [
        "Defence-Honours-and-Awards-Appeals-Tribunal_strategy-overview.md",
        "strategy-evidence.json",
        "global-intelligence/source-manifest.json"
      ]
    },
    "global_intel_meta": null
  }
}