The 2024 call for entries made no mention of limiting the award to new authors.
Beazley said that his view was canvassed during the process, and he made clear he believed the prize should be reserved for emerging authors only.
When asked if the subject matter of Masters’ book had influenced the decision, Beazley said: “Absolutely not.”
“We have no objection to any of the material, our objection is to the originality of the author – that’s all,” Beazley said.
“All I know is, the fact is that the council likes to have these things abided by.”
In 2023, Justice Anthony Besanko found that, to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, Roberts-Smith was complicit in the murder of four unarmed civilians while serving in Afghanistan, as well as bullying and threatening colleagues.
Loading
The head of the internal judging panel and the memorial’s head of history, Karl James, argued in favour of giving the award to Masters, as did Denise Carlyon, according to emails reported by The Guardian.
Masters, who has previously published several books, said over the weekend: “It’s just so sad that they take this bloody stupid attitude.
“Soldiers are the last people who want lies to be told about what actually happens in conflict.”
In an opinion piece for this masthead, Masters wrote that the judging “criteria were adjusted to eliminate established authors like me”.
“How is that an Aussie fair go, to change the rules at half-time?” he wrote.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.
