The tribunal's membership is sprinkled with Admirals, Generals, Air Marshals and administrative-law heavyweights.

The 18-year-old Sheean was aboard HMAS Armidale during a Japanese aerial attack in the Timor Sea on December 1, 1942. Rather than abandon ship he took to a gun and shot at the Japanese aircraft, saving many lives. He went down with the ship.

There has never been an Australian naval VC. Sheean's actions on their face seem to merit one. Various people have taken up his case over the years, resulting in a 2013 Valour Inquiry which knocked it back. That decision was endorsed by the Gillard government. But that did not end the matter.

Sheean was from Tasmania, and his case was taken up by that state's Veterans' Affairs Minister, Guy Bennett, who asked the Chief of the Navy, Vice-Admiral Michael Noonan, to look at the case. He did - and rejected it, relying on the 2013 decision, so Bennett asked for a review of that decision by the tribunal.

Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie, who has a highly tuned antenna for causes that might resonate with the populace, also took up the cause.

On May 12, Lambie went for Defence Minister Linda Reynolds in question time. She asked: "Our question from Tasmania is this: 'what more could Teddy Sheean have possibly done to earn a Victoria Cross?'

"The government has had the Teddy Sheean report before the awards and honours tribunal since July 2019; we are nearly 12 months on. Your government has blocked every effort to get it released because, you say, you are preparing a response. How long does it take to say 'accept' or 'does not accept' on a document? What is the hold-up?"

Reynolds took the question on notice and came back with the answer the next day (unwittingly answering Lambie's query of "how long does it take?" - one day apparently). The government would reject the tribunal's recommendation, Reynolds said. That was before notifying the tribunal.

Unfortunately, in the words of the tribunal chair Mark Sullivan, she "misrepresented the statutory function of the tribunal ... and misstated the standing of a purportedly clear government policy that a retrospective award of the Victoria Cross for Australia will only be allowed in the case of compelling new evidence or manifest injustice."

"These two statements, in my view," he continued, "make your answer to the Senate misleading and in need of correction."

Equally unfortunate was the minister's failure to give full reasons for the decision. It seemed more like a quick attempt to shoo Lambie away. Decision-making in Australia has degenerated. No longer is it a deliberative process of issue-resolving, problem-solving, spending or revenue assessment and so on. Rather, everything seems to be measured against a pub test, a talkback radio test, or containment of crossbench fury.

Not only does every member of the government have to sing from the same page of the songbook and stick to the message, but the message must be a very short one. Senator Reynolds' first public mention of the government's VC decision was just 311 words.

It was perplexing. So I asked the Minister's office whether she had had any advice leading to the decision - and if I could get a copy. I learned that the Prime Minister's office was handling the matter. They gave a long and considered answer, setting out the source and nature of the advice received. It gives some very solid reasons for the rejection of the VC recommendation. The full answer is available at crispinhull.com.au.

Scott Morrison also hosed down the shock-jockery by explaining his position to Alan Jones. The pity is that the government did not do what good decision-makers should do in the first place: lay out the evidence, lay out the advice and cite at length the reasons for the decision. And do it promptly.

READ MORE:

Prompt attention in this case was imperative, given the Sheean family might have taken some solace from the tribunal's detailed public reasons - which included the fact it had accepted new evidence that showed the evidence provided to the British Admiralty in 1943 was inaccurate and had understated Sheean's actions, resulting in the British Admiralty recommending that he be posthumously awarded the Mention in despatches, and not the Victoria Cross.

Also, it is a pity that the government first made its decision not to accept the VC recommendation in an answer to a question in the Senate - a hose-down-the-crossbench exercise. It should have done it in a more formal way and released all the details of its decision-making process.

If it had done so, people would not have jumped on the "VC for Sheean" bandwagon so readily. More importantly, if governments were freer with the information that led to their decisions, more people would see how difficult decision-making is - and would have greater sympathy for politicians who have to make those decisions. Short choreographied songsheets, on the other hand, invite suspicion.

One of the silliest precepts behind some of the vast array of exemptions for disclosure in the Freedom of Information Act is the idea that publication could jeopardise cabinet and other governmental processes. To the contrary, the sure knowledge that a public servant's (or these days a consultant's) advice to a minister or the cabinet might very soon be public would be a virtual guarantee that the advice would not be tainted by secretive, irrelevant factors.

In this instance, I am persuaded by historian Les Carlyon's view (included in the PM's response) that VCs awarded by a political process years after the event would create a two-tier award - a VC with an asterisk. That's also the view of Emeritus Professor Peter Dennis of the Australian Defence Force Academy, who said that retrospectivity "would invite far more abuses than it would redress".

That said, however, despite the belated, more expansive response by Morrison, one might still be excused for thinking that some remnant, imperialist, forelock-tugging attitude haunts this decision. We should not question the British Admiralty. We should respect the wishes of the Queen's father, George VI, who said in 1949 that a line should be drawn under World War II awards and honours.

That seems like a sound idea. But if so, it should be one Australians should make - and in this case, the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal specifically did not do so.