Guidelines and Procedures for Award of Honorary Degrees

1.      Categories of Honorary Degree

In order to be nominated for an Honorary Degree, a prima facie case must be made that the nominee has made an outstanding contribution in one or more of the following categories:

(i)  intellectual achievement in any field of endeavour;

(ii)  community service;

(iii)  service to the University.

2.     Guidelines

(i)	The categories of community service and service to the University must contain some measure of intellectual achievement as well. Service per se is not a sufficient justification for the award of an Honorary Degree. No person currently employed by or serving the University through membership of a major committee is eligible for an Honorary Degree.
(ii)	There shall be no discrimination, either against or in favour of a nominee on the grounds of age, sex, religion or race.
(iii)	Notwithstanding (ii) above, the award of an Honorary Degree to a non-Australian living overseas will be rare. People from overseas will be considered only if they have acquired a truly international reputation. A very strong case would be needed to award an honorary degree to anyone who would need to be brought from overseas or interstate at University expense.
(iv)	Honorary Degrees will be awarded only to those candidates who are worthy of honour in their own right. No award will be made in the expectation that the University will gain material or political advantage. Honorary degrees are awarded to those who have given service to the University, rather than to reflect hopes of future service.
(v)	Parliamentarians and paid political office-holders shall not be nominated for an Honorary Degree while holding office. Only those who have been out of the political arena for a sufficient period of time to be isolated from current political life will be considered.
(vi)	Persons active in business who have made an outstanding personal contribution to either technology or community service will be considered for an Honorary Degree. However, acquisition of wealth is not by itself a sufficient reason for nomination for the honour.
(vii)	A major donation to the University shall not by itself be sufficient grounds for the award of an Honorary Degree.
(viii)	All things being equal, those with links to the University or its activities will be preferred to those without. The Committee gives less weighting to individuals who are unlikely to have any future association with the University. However, being worthy of honour is the over-riding consideration.

The number of Honorary Degrees awarded each year shall not normally exceed one per degree ceremony, and may be less than this.

4.     Method of Nomination

(i)	Nominations may come from the Schools, the Senate, Convocation, the Guild or the Honorary Awards and Ceremonial Committee, and the latter shall have the responsibility for ensuring that it receives nominations from each group. All staff and Senators shall be emailed an invitation to submit nominations. This email shall include information on the criteria for awarding honorary degrees.
(ii)	Nominations shall close with the Secretary of the Honorary Awards and Ceremonial Committee on 30 September of each year.
(iii)	Each person nominating someone for an honorary degree is required to provide an A4 sheet of information containing biographical details and the main arguments for proposing that person (addressing the selection criteria), using the standard template available from the secretary of the Committee.
(iv)	Nominations should be accompanied by sufficient supporting documentation to make a strong case. If the supporting documentation is not at least equivalent to an extract from Who's Who, the nomination will not be considered.
(v)	All nominations shall be treated confidentially by the nominating group and the Honorary Awards and Ceremonial Committee.

5.       Selection of Honorary Graduates

Some method of assessment which is, as far as possible, objective is required to determine whether any person nominated is of sufficient calibre to be awarded an Honorary Degree. This same method of assessment should also allow the best candidates to be selected from a group of more than two if all of the group are of sufficient calibre.

The best approach would seem to be to ask the following questions of each nomination. While some of these questions might not be applicable to each candidate, it is expected that those who are awarded Honorary Degrees would score well in most areas.

(i)	How significant is the contribution? Would others in the same position have made it?
(ii)	Is there evidence of a sustained contribution?
(iii)	How lasting is the contribution already made likely to be?
(iv)	Of what value is the contribution to the community?
(v)	Would experts in the field be happy with the nomination? (In order to determine the answer to this question, the Committee reserves the right to seek confidential advice from experts outside the Committee.)
(vi)	How well is the nominated person known to the University community? What links do they have with University activities?
(vii)	What special contributions have been made to the University by the nominated person?
(viii)	Is there a balance of Honorary Graduands between categories and discipline areas etc?
(ix)	Has the nominee received a similar honour or honours already? If so, then other things being equal a person who has not been so honoured shall be preferred.

6.     A Rolling List of Prospective Graduands

If there are more deserving people nominated for Honorary Degrees than can be honoured in any one year, it would seem worthwhile to establish a rolling list in order of merit which can be reviewed from year to year. The arguments in favour of such a rolling list are:

(i)  people who are worthy of an Honorary Degree one year are also likely to be worthy the next and should be reconsidered;

(ii)  it will provide continuity to a Committee whose membership changes from year to year and so expedite the Committee's business, and

(iii)  t will reduce the need for ad hoc nominations.

The Committee should not be bound by the list since nominations of other people better qualified than those on the list may arise from time to time. Nevertheless, it should be an important working document of the Committee.

7.     Review Process

The Guidelines and Procedures should be reviewed every three years and modified where necessary in the light of experience.

---