THE CIDA REPORT
Part 1 looked at the criteria agreed to in 1992 to assess eligibility for the award of the Australian Service Medal (ASM). It was introduced in 1989 to recognise non-warlike service. It is not issued for normal peacetime service, regardless of the associated hazards.
This part looks at the 1994 report of the Committee of Inquiry into Defence and Related Awards (CIDA). This inquiry led to the establishment in 1995 of the ASM 1945-1975. Its report is sometimes called the Gration Report after its chairman, General Peter Gration AC OBE. There were four other committee members, including Major General William (Digger) James AO MBE MC.
Its terms of reference were:
- Examine claims for recognition of categories of service;
- Identify any categories of service, including those which included non-Defence personnel in operational areas, which we considered should be recognised by an Australian award;
- Consider the appropriateness of extending the eligibility of existing awards for such purposes;
- Consider the need, if any, to introduce additional awards to recognise service in past defence-related activities of either warlike or non-warlike nature;
- Consider any other relevant matters in relation to defence-related awards; and
- Make appropriate recommendations.
It did not consider awards for bravery, meritorious or distinguished service or ‘entitlements under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act‘.
ASM 1945-1975
Consistent with its Terms of Reference CIDA recommended the establishment of the ASM 1945-1975 ‘to recognise service in a prescribed peacekeeping or non-warlike operation’ previously unrecognised. It may be of interest that it did not recommend an Australian Active Service Medal for the same period, believing that under normal circumstances service in a particular campaign should not attract more than one award (Principle 2) and that Imperial Awards approved by the Australian Government were in fact Australian Awards (Principle 7). Warlike service in the 1945-1975 period is recognised by General Service awards and specific campaign medals.
It recommended that the terms and conditions applying to the ASM 1945-1975 be similar to those applying to the then current ASM. Government accepted this recommendation. A comparison reveals slight, inconsequential differences in the regulations applying to both. Anyone interested can find the regulations for both awards on the Defence Honours and Awards website.
The regulations for the ASM 1945-1975 are quite clear:
- It can only be awarded to those who have served in connection with a declared non-warlike operation.
- The declaration of a non-warlike operation is made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of a Minister. ‘Minister’, according to the Regulations, ‘means a minister administering the Department of Defence’.
We will return to this point later in the series.
CIDA PRINCIPLES
To guide it deliberations CIDA established 10 principles which it believed represented the Australian values of fairness, equity, compassion and egalitarianism. It rejected, for example, the idea of linking specific awards to rank. This series will only reference those principles considered relevant to its objectives.
CLASP PNG
CIDA recommended that service in a number of areas be recognised with the award ASM 1945-1975, including service in PNG from the establishment of the Pacific Islands Regiment in 1951 till independence in September 1975. It recommended this service be recognised with the clasp PNG. Government later extended the period to the end of hostilities in 1945. This recommendation was guided by its principles 1 and 8.
PRINCIPLE 1 states: ‘Recognition of service by medals (other than medals for long service or special occasions such as a coronation) should only occur when that service has been rendered beyond the normal requirements of peacetime. Normal duties such as training or garrison duties should not be recognised by the award of a medal, even though they may be demanding, hazardous and uncomfortable, and may be in countries other than Australia. As a general rule, medals should be reserved for the recognition of service in military campaigns, peacekeeping or other military activities clearly and markedly more demanding than normal peacetime service’.
This principle reflects the 1992 agreement of Service Chiefs regarding eligibility for the ASM, as seen in Part 1.
The Committee (CIDA) found:
The training, nurturing and development roles assigned to Australian personnel serving in PNG in the context of assisting a nation towards independence were quite unlike the requirements of normal peacetime service: they were clearly and markedly more demanding.
CIDA also considered service post independence. It concluded this service failed to meet the ‘clearly and markedly more demanding than normal peacetime service’ criterion and therefore did not qualify for an award.
PRINCIPLE 8 states: ‘Recognising that its work requires reviewing past service through the eyes of 1994, the Committee believes an appropriate benchmark … is the terms and conditions that are currently attached to an award of the Australian Active Service and Australian Service Medals. Service rendered during this period which generally meets those terms and conditions should receive retrospective and comparable recognition.’
The Committee made it quite clear it assessed service previously unrecognised service in the years 1945-1975 against ‘the standards of measure’ used to assess eligibility for the AASM and ASM.
REVIEW BY SENIOR ARMY OFFICERS
To reiterate, two of the five member committee were army officers of star rank. General Gration (4 star) saw active service in the Malayan Emergency and Vietnam. In 1987 he became Chief of the Defence Force, retiring in 1993. As Chief of the Defence Force in the years leading up to the Inquiry he would certainly have been involved in helping form the 1993 Cabinet decision regarding warlike and non-warlike service, the agreement regarding eligibility for the ASM, and been fully conversant with current Defence policy.
Major General James (2 star) was awarded the Military Cross following action in Korea during which he was seriously wounded. He was to later resign from the army to study medicine, after which he re-enlisted. He again saw service in Vietnam as Commanding Officer of the 8th Field Ambulance and Senior Medical Officer of the First Australian Task Force at Nui Dat.
Both these senior officers had extensive military experience and would have been more than well qualified to assess previous service against the warlike and non-warlike service criteria based on the evidence presented to them.
KEY POINTS
- The ASM 1945-1975 was established to recognise service in connection with declared non-warlike operations. Its regulations are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the ASM.
- CIDA recommended recognition of service in different places in the 1945-1975 period be recognised as non-warlike by an appropriate clasp to the ASM 1945-1975.
- The five member Committee, chaired by the recently retired Chief of the Australian Defence Force and whose membership included another retired high ranking officer assessed prior service against the same criteria as currently applied to warlike and non-warlike service.
Part 3 will comment on ‘non-warlike’ service, its connection to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, and certain statements made by Defence and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs
SOURCES
Australian War Memorial, ‘Vale Major General “Digger” James, at https://www.awm.gov.au/media/releases/vale-major-general-digger-james/
Committee of Inquiry into Defence and Related Awards, 1994
Defence Honours and Awards and Commendations Policy Review, 8 February 2008.
Wikepedia, Peter Gration, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gration
