A Senate committee has recommended an official apology and other forms of recognition for Australian Defence Force personnel harmed by historical anti-LGBTIQA+ policies, but has stopped short of supporting financial compensation.
The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee examined the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, which was introduced in response to recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.
The bill was referred to the committee on 14 May, with its report released on 31 July 2026. It includes measures allowing historical service convictions to be extinguished where conduct would no longer constitute an offence under Australian law.
The committee also considered the experiences of LGBTIQA+ personnel subjected to discriminatory military policies because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
For decades, service members faced intrusive investigations, criminal convictions, administrative discharges, forced resignations, revoked security clearances and other actions that damaged their careers, finances and mental health.
Although the committee called for “restorative outcomes”, its report made one recommendation containing three additional measures — none involving financial redress.
Records, certificates and an apology
The first measure would allow affected personnel or veterans to ask the Department of Defence to annotate their official records.
The annotation would acknowledge that an action or outcome arose wholly or partly from circumstances connected to the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, where the conduct would not breach current Australian law or Australian Defence Force policy.
Because the process would occur only “on request by an affected person”, veterans would be responsible for approaching Defence and seeking the amendment themselves.
The second proposed measure would see Defence offer a “Certificate of Honourable Service” to personnel and veterans affected by historical discriminatory policies.
The third calls on the Australian Government to issue a formal apology acknowledging the harm experienced by LGBTIQA+ people during their military service.
Advocates have welcomed the proposed recognition but argue that records, certificates and an apology cannot compensate people for lost careers, wages, retirement benefits or the long-term consequences of discrimination.
Advocates point to international precedents
Just.Equal Australia spokesperson Rodney Croome said comparable redress schemes demonstrated that financial recognition was both possible and justified.
“Comparable countries like the UK and Canada provide financial redress for service personnel unjustly discharged because of their sexual orientation and gender identity,” Croome said.
“Tasmania provides financial redress for those who were convicted under the state’s former laws against homosexuality and cross-dressing. The Australian Government must follow these precedents and provide full justice to mistreated LGBTIQA+ service personnel.
“A certificate and an apology cannot make up for loss of career, loss of income, and the long-term pain of discrimination and humiliation.”
The United Kingdom launched a £75 million financial recognition scheme for veterans who experienced dismissal, discharge or mistreatment under its former ban on LGBT military service.
Canada’s settlement over the historical “LGBT Purge” provided funding for individual compensation, legal and administrative costs, and recognition and memorial projects.
Tasmania has also established Australia’s first state-based LGBTIQ+ financial redress scheme. People affected by its former laws against homosexuality and cross-dressing may receive payments ranging from A$15,000 for a charge to A$75,000 where a person was fined or imprisoned.
Croome and other advocates argue that similar compensation should be offered to former ADF members whose employment, income and wellbeing were damaged by official discrimination.
The committee’s proposals remain recommendations rather than confirmed government policy. The Government must decide whether to accept them and whether any amendments will be made to the legislation.
The bill remains before the Senate and must complete the parliamentary process before receiving Royal Assent and becoming law.
