Canberra, March 1974
An Australian System of Awards
In December 1971 the ALP Federal Executive resolved that:
‘This Executive interprets the Platform to mean that no knighthoods, peerages, CBE’s, MBE’s or similar titles should be conferred. As from 2 January 1972, no recommendation for such honours should be made by any Labor Government. This is not to prevent other appropriate recognition being given to persons who have rendered exceptional service to the community or to mankind.’
- 2. Australian Government recommendations to The Queen are therefore now limited to bravery awards (but none with ‘British Empire’ connotations) and the Polar Medal for distinguished Antarctic service. British long service awards continue to be made (i) under delegation by the Service Chiefs to service personnel and (ii) on the recommendation of relevant Ministers to members of fire brigades and police forces.
- 3. There is a need to define our policy and practices more closely. The present position is unsatisfactory in that Australia remains partially involved in the British honours system—the Australian Government continues British bravery and long service awards and some of the States continue with all Imperial Awards. There are no means by which the Australian Government can give recognition to exceptional service.
- 4. Indications, including from Labor Premiers, are that action to establish an Australian system of Awards would find favour.
- 5. With the exception of Ireland, Switzerland and Sri Lanka, all countries throughout the world maintain their own system of awards to recognise gallantry and achievement in various spheres of community life, although Sweden has recently abolished its system of Royal honours, and is considering a system of state awards. The Canadian example has special relevance for us.
Canadian Case
6. Canada began to move away from the British honours system as far back as 1919 when it ceased making recommendations for British awards except for military service and acts of bravery. This situation continued (apart from a short break between 1930–35) until 1967 when provision was made, under the patronage of The Queen,
‘to fill the need for a distinctly Canadian system of honours and awards to be used as a means of recognising outstanding merit or gallantry or distinguished public service in all walks of life. In this way the Order, like a national flag and a national anthem, will become an important means of fostering national unity and pride of country by encouraging public service, furthering national ideals and by establishing the highest standards of merit and achievement. In conformity with its distinctly Canadian character, the Order includes no titles and confers no special privileges, hereditary or otherwise. Awards are made solely on the basis of merit.’
7. Mr Trudeau, speaking in the Canadian Parliament in May 1972, said ‘of those many ingredients which together are nationhood, one of the most important is the voluntary desire on the part of citizens to contribute to national life. A grateful nation should be willing to recognise and honour those persons whose contributions are truly outstanding.’
8. Canada’s system comprises:
(i) The Order of Canada , having three levels: Companion, Officer and Member;
(ii) The Order of Military Merit , having three levels: Commander, Officer and Member;
(iii) Three bravery decorations: Cross of Valour, Star of Courage and Medal of Bravery.
An Australian System
9. There are various possible approaches to establishing an Australian system. I think we would agree, as a general principle, that it should provide for recognition on the basis of personal attributes and merit rather than office or position. The system itself should be simple and easily comprehended and the number of awards made under it should be limited so as to be rare and thus carry great value in the eyes of the Australian community.
The system might be structured as follows:
(a) Awards for exceptional service taking the form of–
(i) an award akin to the Order of Canada—but for both civilians and uniformed personnel—to recognise exceptional service to the nation in the broadest sense and
(ii) special awards—possibly made annually—to recognise outstanding service or contribution by an Australian in a particular field of endeavour. Only one award would be made in each field and only where an exceptional standard generally of international repute had been achieved. (I envisage that fields such as science, the arts, sport, literature, education, medical research; public affairs would be designated)
In keeping with the principle that awards would be rare, I envisage no more than 50 of the foregoing in any one year. (Australia’s annual quota for distinguished service awards under the British system was 675 i.e. Federal and State, civil and military.)
(b) Awards to recognise bravery by civilian or uniformed persons in peace or war.
(c) Provisions for the acceptance and wearing of foreign awards by Australian citizens. (Canada has made provision for its citizens to accept foreign decorations (including ‘British’ awards) so long as no title is involved.)
These awards would be under the auspices of the Australian Government.
The advice of the Attorney-General needs to be obtained on the important constitutional issues which arise in respect of the role of State Governments in relation to the new system and indeed, to Honours generally.
Next Steps
If the foregoing approach commends itself generally to Cabinet I would proceed to develop a more detailed proposal incorporating any features which our discussion suggests. At this point I am merely seeking a decision in principle and if practicable, some announcement of our position.
1 Lionel Frost Bowen, Special Minister of State, 1973–75.
[NAA: A5034, SRI974/3013]