Medal of the Order of Australia must recognise good works not money and power

This week’s OAM announcement shows our sexist society recognises the work of men more than twice as often as it recognises the work of women, a frustrating statistic in these so-called enlightened times.

Convicted sex offender Rolf Harris was stripped of his Order of Australia medal after being found guilty of abusing children. Picture: John Stillwell - WPA Pool/Getty Images

DON Burke has one.

Rolf Harris was stripped of his, as was former Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid, Labor minister Ian Macdonald, businessman and yachting enthusiast Alan Bond, federal court judge Marcus Einfeld, renowned concert pianist Leslie Howard, HIH director Rodney Adler, gold medal winning Paralympian Daniel Bell, former Australian Wheat Board chairman Clinton Condon and, frankly, a list too long to publish here.

Perhaps fearing public backlash, Steve Vizard and Richard Pratt gave theirs back.

Of course I’m talking about the coveted and controversial government granted community award the OAM or Medal of the Order of Australia — an honour bestowed upon hundreds of Australians each Australia Day and Queen’s Birthday public holiday to recognise “outstanding members of the community” who “define … and reinforce community standards”.

Yet despite the award’s lofty ambitions, as the above roll call shows, not all recipients meet even the most basic standards let along high ones.

Steve Vizard handed back his OAM in 2008 after being fined and banned from being a company director for 10 years in 2005.

Many, having received an OAM, are later found to be engaged in legendary criminal activity.

Harris was convicted of child sex offences; Bond, Adler and Condon of corporate fraud; Obeid and Macdonald of misconduct in public office; Einfeld of perjury and perverting the course of justice; Bell of burglary; and Howard of causing grievous bodily harm.

Former television comedian Vizard and Visa cardboard king Pratt were caught, respectively, insider trading and colluding with rivals on price fixing. Both ended up resigning their OAMs. It’s more difficult to find examples of women being stripped of their OAMs — a fact that reflects the fact far fewer women receive the awards and those who do, almost without exception, are law-abiding.

But too few women receive these awards.

Of this week’s OAM award recipients, 34 per cent of nominees were women — a new high given women traditionally make up less than 30 per cent of all nominees.

Apparently this is not because the council handing out the awards favours men over women but because our sexist society recognises the work of men more than twice as often as it recognises the work of women, a frustrating statistic in these so-called enlightened times.

Since former Labor prime minister Gough Whitlam established the awards in 1975 they have been mired in controversy.

Corrupt former MP Eddie Obeid had his award ripped away from him in 2014. Picture: Adam Taylor

The criteria for them remains shrouded in mystery with the council presiding over them refusing to reveal how nominations are processed.

In 2012 the Federal Court rejected an application to release the policy guidelines and criteria after finding it fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

What we do know is that letters are written — supposedly in confidence — to nominate potential recipients who go above and beyond what might considered reasonable to encourage national aspirations and ideals.

A spokeswoman for the Australian Honours and Awards Secretariat office told this column every nomination for the award is investigated by the honours council. This “investigation” might just entail a phone call to the author of the nomination letter, but every nomination is considered on its merit we were told.

Disgraced former Federal Court judge Marcus Einfeld’s OAM...gone.

The spokeswoman refuted rumours any nominee receiving multiple nominations would find themselves placed on a short list — something some sceptics claim has led to the awards being “fixed” by well organised and powerful individuals lobbying on behalf of business associates and mates.

A letter of nomination from a former prime minister or famous media advocate would not guarantee an award, the spokeswoman said, refuting persistent whispers that one controversial recipient in last weekend’s Queen’s Birthday awards owed their award to powerful friends lobbying on their behalf.

This year 1090 Australians were nominated for an OAM in the Queen’s Birthday list. Of them, 778 will receive awards.

The vast majority of these will be worthy. Sadly some will not.

As long as the letters “OAM” are highly prized on business cards and seen as advantageous for individuals seeking to procure cashed-up business clients and lucrative partnerships, the awards will be a magnet to unscrupulous types who rate the dollar over the Australian community values the awards seek to celebrate.

Were the awards to recognise only good deeds and works — not money and power — it would be easier to distinguish shameless greedy opportunism from selfless acts. To do so, to safeguard the list against future exploitation, millionaires such as Harris, Obeid, Macdonald, Bond, Adler, Pratt and Vizard, would need to be ineligible.

A list for the good folk of the nation — surely that’s what Whitlam had in mind from the outset.