Mr Chris Pearce MP
Member for Aston 

12 Jul 2004

Dear Mr Pearce

Thank you for your representation of 21 April 2004 to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon Danna Vale MP, on behalf of Dr John Carroll concerning the issue of the Australian Active Service Medal (AASM) 1945-75 with Clasp 'Vietnam' for HMA Ships Vampire and Quickmatch. As this matter falls within my portfolio responsibilities, your correspondence has been passed to me for response.

The principles that govern awards are longstanding and have been protected by a number of successive Governments. They were articulated comprehensively and put in place by the Committee of Inquiry into Defence and Defence Related Awards conducted in 1993/94 under the previous Government. Underpinning its deliberations, the Committee of Inquiry into Defence and Defence Related Awards identified a tenet of the Australian System of Honours and Awards, which also applied in its previous Imperial form, that medals be reserved for the recognition of service in military operations and other activities clearly and markedly more demanding and hazardous than normal. Defence duty such as training and day-to-day unit tasks may at times be onerous, but is normal peacetime service and not recognised by the award of a medal.

The AASM 1945-75 was instituted in 1998 to recognise members of the Australian Defence Force who rendered service in warlike operations during the period 1945-75. This included service during the Vietnam War. Australia's formal military involvement in the Vietnam campaign began on 31 July 1962. This campaign, which involved active combat duties and postings to Vietnam of 12 months, concluded with the signing of the Agreement to End the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (The Paris Agreement) on 27 January 1973.

As previously advised, the visits to Saigon in January 1962 on HMA Ships Vampire and Quickmatch, were clearly non-operational and, therefore, do not warrant the award of the AASM 1945-75 with Clasp 'Vietnam'. Service during this visit does qualify them for the Australian Service Medal 1945-75 with Clasp TESR'. Their circumstances have been thoroughly investigated by three comprehensive reviews and, under the circumstances, I am unable to be of further assistance to the members of these ships.

The Government has to ensure the appropriate balance is found between the desire to widely recognise service, and the counter-balancing need to ensure that medals are not so commonly issued as to devalue those awarded to people for gallant or other extraordinary service.

I trust this information clarifies the situation for Dr Carroll.

Yours sincerely

MAL BROUGH