The Claim
“Spent $1.3 million on medals for Border Force staff”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core claim is factually accurate. According to Sydney Morning Herald reporting from January 2016, the Department of Immigration signed a contract worth $1,320,000 over three years with Melbourne-based company Cash's Awards and Promotion Solutions for medals [1]. This equates to approximately $440,000 per year.
The tender documents confirmed this was an open tender process [1]. The contract was notably more expensive than the department's previous six-month medal contract with the Royal Australian Mint, which cost only $48,000 [1].
The claim about spending more than Defence is partially accurate but requires nuance. Immigration's $440,000/year contract exceeded the Department of Defence's direct medal spending of approximately $300,000 in 2015 (spread over eight contracts) [1]. However, the Defence Materiel Organisation also awarded two major medal contracts worth about half a million dollars shortly before being absorbed back into the department [1].
Comparative departmental medal spending in 2015 included [1]:
- Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General: ~$2.2 million (administers Australian Honours and Awards system)
- Department of Immigration: $440,000/year (three-year contract)
- Department of Industry, Innovation and Science: $136,000
- Australian Federal Police: $23,000
Missing Context
The awards program predated Border Force creation. The department stated that its awards "framework" was established before the creation of the Australian Border Force (ABF) and is comparable to other Commonwealth agencies [1]. The medals were not specifically created for the Border Force rebranding, though the costs came on top of millions spent on the ABF rebranding [1].
Standard departmental practice. The department explained that the awards aim to "build and recognise a robust culture of leadership, integrity, excellence, innovation, diversity and inclusiveness; and a culture that recognises commitment and achievement" [1]. Internal departmental awards were awarded across eight categories: Bravery, Conspicuous Conduct, Leadership, Excellence, Innovation, Work Health and Safety, Diversity, and Operations [1].
Operation Fortitude context. The medal controversy emerged in the wake of "Operation Fortitude" - a cancelled August 2015 Melbourne CBD policing operation that generated significant backlash after the ABF announced it would check people's visas [3]. The ABF commissioner later described the announcement as "clumsily worded" and "misconstrued" [3]. The Victorian Government criticised the ABF's "unfortunate" and "inappropriate" characterisation of the operation [3].
Source Credibility Assessment
Junkee.com (Original Source)
Junkee.com is an Australian youth-focused digital media outlet owned by Junkee Media (formerly The Sound Alliance). It targets a millennial audience with pop culture, news, and political commentary. While the specific article about Border Force medals appears factually accurate (it references SMH reporting), Junkee is primarily an entertainment and youth culture platform rather than a traditional news outlet. It does not have the same editorial standards and fact-checking rigor as established news organisations like the SMH, ABC, or The Australian.
Sydney Morning Herald (Primary Source)
The SMH is a mainstream, reputable Australian newspaper with established journalistic standards. The original reporting by Adam Gartrell (former industrial relations correspondent) provides the factual basis for this claim and is a more authoritative source than Junkee [1].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government Australia public service awards medals spending"
Finding: No direct equivalent of this specific medal spending controversy was found for the Rudd/Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013). However, departmental awards programs have been standard practice across Australian governments of all political persuasions.
Labor's response to the Coalition's medal spending
Labor's waste watch spokesman Pat Conroy explicitly criticised the medal spending, stating: "Not only are these medals costly but they demonstrate the government's intention to create a military style and culture within the Australian Border Force" [1]. Conroy connected the medals to the broader "quest to militarise" the portfolio [1].
Shadow Minister for Immigration Richard Marles had previously called on Immigration Minister Peter Dutton to explain the Operation Fortitude "shambles" [3].
Comparative context
The Governor-General's office spent $2.2 million on medals in 2015 - significantly more than Immigration's $440,000/year [1]. This suggests that while the Immigration spending was notable for exceeding Defence's direct spending, it was not exceptional in the broader context of government medal expenditure.
Balanced Perspective
The $1.3 million medal contract became controversial due to timing and context rather than the amount itself. Several factors contributed to the scrutiny:
Border Force militarisation concerns: The spending followed the creation of the Australian Border Force (July 2015), which merged the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service with the immigration department's detention and enforcement functions. The ABF adopted military-style uniforms and ranks, generating criticism about the "militarisation" of civilian agencies [1][3].
Operation Fortitude aftermath: The medal story broke months after the botched Operation Fortitude announcement, which had generated significant public backlash and damaged the ABF's credibility [3]. The medals were viewed by critics as part of a pattern of military-style posturing.
Rebranding costs: The medal spending came on top of millions already spent on Border Force rebranding [1], raising questions about cumulative costs of the portfolio restructuring.
However, the department's justification has merit:
- The awards framework predated the ABF creation [1]
- The contract was awarded through open tender [1]
- Departmental awards are standard practice across Commonwealth agencies
- The awards recognise legitimate categories (bravery, leadership, innovation, diversity, etc.) [1]
- At $440,000/year for a department with thousands of staff, the per-employee cost was relatively modest
Key context: This criticism was largely partisan, with Labor MPs explicitly connecting the medals to their broader critique of Border Force "militarisation." The timing - shortly after the Operation Fortitude controversy - made the government particularly vulnerable to such criticisms. The spending itself, while higher than some comparable departments, was not extraordinary in the context of overall government medal spending ($2.2M at Governor-General's office) [1].
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The claim is factually accurate - the Department of Immigration did sign a $1.32 million contract ($440,000/year) for medals over three years. However, the framing implies this was uniquely wasteful or specific to Border Force militarisation. The context shows:
- The awards program predated the Border Force creation
- The contract followed proper open tender processes
- While exceeding Defence's direct spending, it was modest compared to the Governor-General's office ($2.2M)
- The controversy was amplified by recent Operation Fortitude backlash and partisan criticism
- Departmental awards are standard practice across Australian governments
The claim omits that this was an existing awards program expanded through normal procurement, not a new creation specifically for Border Force.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim is factually accurate - the Department of Immigration did sign a $1.32 million contract ($440,000/year) for medals over three years. However, the framing implies this was uniquely wasteful or specific to Border Force militarisation. The context shows:
- The awards program predated the Border Force creation
- The contract followed proper open tender processes
- While exceeding Defence's direct spending, it was modest compared to the Governor-General's office ($2.2M)
- The controversy was amplified by recent Operation Fortitude backlash and partisan criticism
- Departmental awards are standard practice across Australian governments
The claim omits that this was an existing awards program expanded through normal procurement, not a new creation specifically for Border Force.
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.