Abstract
The Australian honours system, established in 1975 to recognise outstanding service and contributions to the nation, has increasingly faced criticism for its perceived political bias and lack of transparency. This paper critiques the system by examining the cases of four controversial recipients: Scott Morrison, George Pell, Peta Credlin and Peter Garrisson. Through these examples, the analysis reveals systemic flaws that undermine the credibility of the honours system, suggesting that it has devolved into a tool of political patronage. The paper concludes by proposing pathways for reform to restore integrity and public trust in the Order of Australia.
Introduction
The Australian honours system serves as a national framework for recognising individuals who have made significant contributions to society. Administered through the Governor-General’s office and the Council of the Order of Australia, the system comprises four tiers: Companion (AC), Officer (AO), Member (AM) and Medal (OAM). While the stated aim is to celebrate merit across various fields, the system has come under scrutiny for allegedly rewarding political allies and controversial figures, leading to a perceived erosion of its legitimacy.
This paper critically examines the cases of Scott Morrison, George Pell, Peta Credlin and Peter Garrisson to illustrate how the honours system has become entangled in political patronage. By analysing the controversies surrounding these recipients, the paper argues that the Order of Australia has deviated from its foundational ideals, thereby devaluing genuine public service and undermining public trust. Furthermore, it addresses specific allegations of human rights failures in the case of Peter Garrisson, highlighting the system’s shortcomings in scrutinising recipients’ conduct, especially concerning marginalised communities such as Indigenous Australians.
The Honours System: Structure and Ideals
The Order of Australia was created to replace imperial honours with an Australian framework that recognises individuals for their contributions to the nation or humanity. The nomination process is open to the public and the Council of the Order, which comprises 19 members, assesses candidates before making recommendations to the Governor-General. The four tiers of awards reflect varying degrees of impact, from the Companion (AC) for eminent service to the Medal (OAM) for noteworthy service.
Despite its noble intentions, the system faces growing scepticism. Critics, including economist Nicholas Gruen, argue that the honours system favours “seniority, power, privilege and patronage” over genuine altruism (Gruen, cited in Wikipedia, 2025). High-profile controversies, such as the reintroduction of knighthoods by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the award to Prince Philip, have further fuelled public discontent, with polls indicating significant disapproval (ReachTEL, 2014). The selection of politically connected or divisive figures, often lacking transparent justification, has led to accusations that the system rewards “cronies” rather than recognising universal merit. The cases of Morrison, Pell, Credlin and Garrisson exemplify these tensions, revealing a system that priorities institutional roles and political alignments over ethical conduct and public trust.
Scott Morrison: A Controversial Companion (AC)
Scott Morrison, who served as Prime Minister from 2018 to 2022, is set to receive the Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in the 2025 King’s Birthday Honours for his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic and contributions to national security (Pedestrian, 2025). However, this decision has sparked widespread outrage, with critics labelling him “Australia’s worst prime minister” and decrying the award as a mockery of the system’s purpose (Crikey, 2025).
Morrison’s tenure was marred by significant controversies that raise questions about his suitability for such an honour. The Robodebt scheme, an automated welfare debt recovery program, wrongfully targeted vulnerable Australians, leading to severe financial distress and tragically, suicides. The scheme was later deemed unlawful and Morrison’s government faced intense criticism for its lack of accountability (Royal Commission, 2023). Additionally, his response to the 2019–2020 bushfires was contentious, as he vacationed in Hawaii while communities suffered, earning him the moniker “Scotty from Marketing” for his perceived focus on optics rather than leadership. Most notably, his secret appointment to multiple ministerial portfolios in 2022 led to parliamentary censure for undermining responsible government (House of Representatives, 2022). These actions paint a picture of a leader whose legacy is characterised by negligence, dishonesty and self-interest – hardly qualities befitting an AC recipient.
Supporters argue that Morrison’s economic management during COVID-19, including the JobKeeper program and his role in securing the AUKUS pact justify the honour. Yet, these achievements are overshadowed by his administration’s failures, including delays in vaccine rollouts and inadequate support for frontline workers. Public sentiment, reflected in social media posts labelling the award a “rort” and Morrison a “chronic liar,” underscores a disconnect between the Council’s decision and community expectations. The automatic elevation of former prime ministers to high honours, regardless of their records, suggests a system more concerned with precedent than merit, further devaluing the AC for those who have made selfless contributions.
George Pell: A Tainted Companion (AC)
Cardinal George Pell, appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 2005 for his service to the Catholic Church, education and social justice, exemplifies another case where controversy overshadows recognition. Pell’s honour was conferred for his leadership within the Church and his role in public debates on ethical issues. However, his association with the Church’s handling of child sexual abuse scandals, culminating in his 2018 conviction for abusing two choirboys, casts a long shadow over his legacy. Although the High Court quashed the convictions in 2020 due to insufficient evidence, the 2025 National Redress Scheme found it “reasonably likely” that Pell abused children in the 1970s, using a lower standard of proof (The Guardian, 2023).
Pell’s retention of the AC despite these allegations has been a flashpoint for critics who argue that the honours system fails to uphold moral standards. The Melbourne Response, a Church initiative Pell spearheaded, was criticised for prioritising institutional reputation over victims’ welfare, offering capped compensation and silencing survivors (Royal Commission, 2017). Even after his acquittal, public petitions demanding the revocation of his honour gathered tens of thousands of signatures, reflecting a consensus that Pell’s conduct fell short of the “luminary” status expected of an AC recipient. Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison himself noted in 2019 that Pell would likely lose the honour if his appeal failed, yet the Governor-General’s decision to retain it post-acquittal suggests a reluctance to act on public sentiment in the absence of a final conviction.
The Pell case highlights the system’s rigidity in addressing ethical controversies. While there are mechanisms to revoke awards, as seen with Rolf Harris’s AO in 2015, these are rarely applied unless criminal guilt is established. This legalistic approach ignores broader questions of moral suitability, allowing divisive figures to retain prestigious titles, further eroding public trust. Pell’s AC, juxtaposed with his controversial legacy, exemplifies how the system can reward institutional power over community values.
Peta Credlin: An Officer (AO) of Questionable Merit
Peta Credlin, appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) in 2021 for her service to parliament, politics and policy development, is another recipient whose honour has drawn scrutiny. As Chief of Staff to Tony Abbott during his tenure as Opposition Leader and Prime Minister (2013–2015), Credlin wielded significant influence, shaping policy and electoral strategy. Her subsequent role as a Sky News host and political commentator has made her a prominent, yet polarising, figure in Australian media.
Critics question what Credlin did to warrant the AO, a level reserved for distinguished service of a high degree. Her tenure as Abbott’s Chief of Staff was marked by internal Liberal Party tensions, with Credlin often blamed for micromanaging and alienating colleagues, contributing to Abbott’s ousting in 2015. As a commentator, she has been criticised for inflammatory rhetoric, including false claims in 2020 about South Sudanese Australians spreading COVID-19 and defamatory statements about former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, for which she issued apologies (The Guardian, 2021). Her advocacy for conservative “culture wars” has further polarised audiences, raising doubts about whether her contributions unify or divide the nation.
Supporters argue that Credlin’s strategic acumen helped secure Abbott’s 2013 election victory and her legal background and advisory roles with senators like Kay Patterson and Richard Alston demonstrate a career of political service. However, these achievements are arguably routine for a political staffer, not exceptional enough for an AO. The perception that Credlin’s award reflects political favouritism – rewarding a conservative ally – aligns with broader criticisms of the system’s tendency to honour establishment figures. Her AO, like Morrison’s AC, underscores the system’s susceptibility to rewarding partisan loyalty over transformative public service, diminishing the honour’s prestige.
Peter Garrisson: A Member (AM) Amid Human Rights Allegations
Peter Garrisson AM SC, the ACT Solicitor-General since 2011, was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for his contributions to the legal profession and public administration in the ACT, particularly his work on the Human Rights Act 2004. As a senior legal advisor to the ACT Government and former Government Solicitor, Garrisson has managed complex legal matters, including commercial transactions, constitutional law and public law, earning recognition for his expertise and leadership.
However, Garrisson’s honour has been called into question by allegations of complicity in human rights abuses against an Indigenous family in the ACT. Critics, including the @blakandblack X account, claim that Garrisson has been “actively engaged in stripping away the human rights of certain Indigenous individuals” due to personal dislike, failing to uphold the equality and fairness mandated by his role (X, 2022). These abuses are described as multiple and systemic, occurring over the period Garrisson has served as Solicitor-General or Government Solicitor. The Human Rights Act 2004, which Garrisson helped implement, guarantees protections like equality before the law, yet these allegations suggest a failure to apply these principles to Indigenous residents.
While specific evidence of these claims is not publicly detailed in available sources, they resonate with broader concerns about systemic racism in Australian institutions. The Justice Reform Initiative, supported by Indigenous leaders like Pat Turner AM, highlights ongoing issues of discriminatory treatment in justice systems, including in the ACT (Justice Reform Initiative, 2023). If true, Garrisson’s alleged actions would directly contradict the human rights contributions for which he was honoured, raising serious questions about his eligibility for the AM. The honours system’s failure to investigate such allegations before granting awards underscores a critical flaw: the prioritisation of formal achievements over ethical conduct.
Garrisson’s defenders might argue that his role as Solicitor-General involves advising the government, not directly intervening in individual cases and that systemic issues may lie beyond his control. However, as a senior legal officer, he bears responsibility for ensuring the ACT’s legal framework upholds human rights, particularly for marginalised groups. The absence of public scrutiny or accountability for these allegations, coupled with his AM, exemplifies how the system can reward institutional roles without addressing their real-world impact. This case, more than any other, highlights the honours system’s disconnect from the communities it claims to serve, particularly Indigenous Australians.
Systemic Flaws: Political Patronage and Lack of Accountability
The cases of Morrison, Pell, Credlin and Garrisson reveal systemic flaws in the Australian honours system that undermine its credibility. First, the system’s susceptibility to political patronage is evident in the selection of politically connected figures like Morrison and Credlin, whose awards appear to reward party loyalty rather than exceptional service. The Council of the Order, often comprising establishment figures, is perceived as an “elite” body that prioritises insiders, as noted in social media posts describing it as a “parasitic” institution (X, 2025). The lack of transparency in the selection process – decisions are made behind closed doors with minimal public rationale – further fuels accusations of bias.
Second, the system’s vetting process fails to adequately scrutinise recipients’ conduct, particularly in cases of ethical or legal controversy. Pell’s retention of the AC despite ongoing allegations and Garrisson’s AM amid claims of human rights failures illustrate a reluctance to address public concerns unless criminal convictions are upheld. This legalistic approach ignores broader questions of moral suitability, allowing divisive figures to retain or receive honours that clash with community values. The revocation of awards, while possible, is rare and inconsistently applied, as seen in the contrast between Rolf Harris’s stripped AO and Pell’s retained AC.
Third, the system’s focus on institutional roles – prime ministers, church leaders, political staffers and public servants – often overshadows grassroots contributions. The Governor-General has acknowledged the need for greater diversity in nominations, yet awards continue to favour elites over community heroes (Governor-General, 2024). This imbalance devalues the honours for those who dedicate their lives to selfless service, such as volunteers, educators, or advocates for marginalised groups.
Finally, the system’s failure to engage with marginalised communities, particularly Indigenous Australians, is a glaring oversight. Garrisson’s case, with allegations of human rights abuses against an Indigenous family, underscores how the system can honour individuals whose actions may harm the very communities the honours are meant to uplift. The lack of mechanisms to investigate such claims before or after awards are granted reveals a blind spot that perpetuates systemic inequities.
The Devaluation of Genuine Public Service
The cumulative effect of these flaws is the devaluation of the Order of Australia, making it an “embarrassment” for those who genuinely deserve recognition. Recipients like the late Tim Fischer, a politician, diplomat and humanitarian, appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in 2005 acknowledging his roles in not only politics, but also in aid development and bridging the divide in community and cultural acceptance. Such is the character of one who exemplifies the kind of selfless service the system should celebrate. Fischer’s role in breaking down the barriers of xenophobia – he even advocated for the Palestinians – he befriended Christians and Muslims alike. Yet, his AC, is overshadowed by awards to Morrison, Pell, Credlin and Garrisson, whose controversies dominate public discourse.
The honours system’s credibility hinges on its ability to reflect Australia’s values – fairness, equality and service. When awards are perceived as rewards for political cronies or institutional power, they alienate the public and diminish the sacrifices of true heroes. The system’s failure to address allegations of misconduct, particularly in Garrisson’s case, further erodes trust, suggesting that even serious claims of harm to Indigenous communities are secondary to formal achievements.
Pathways for Reform
To restore the honours system’s integrity, several reforms are necessary. First, greater transparency in the selection process is essential. Publishing detailed rationales for each award, as practiced in some international honours systems, would allow the public to understand and scrutinise decisions. Second, the vetting process must incorporate community feedback and investigate allegations of misconduct, even if they fall short of criminal convictions. This would ensure recipients align with the system’s ethical standards, particularly in cases like Garrisson’s where human rights are at stake.
Third, the Council of the Order should be diversified to include representatives from underrepresented groups, including Indigenous Australians, to ensure nominations reflect the nation’s diversity. Fourth, the revocation process should be strengthened, allowing for the review of honours in cases of significant public controversy, as seen with Pell. Finally, the system should prioritise grassroots contributions over institutional roles, amplifying the stories of community heroes like Fischer to inspire public trust.
Conclusion
The Australian honours system, intended to celebrate the nation’s best, has become a lightning rod for criticism due to its perceived political bias and failure to uphold ethical standards. The awards to Scott Morrison, George Pell, Peta Credlin and Peter Garrisson exemplify these shortcomings, rewarding controversial figures whose contributions are overshadowed by scandal, division, or allegations of harm. Morrison’s AC ignores his legacy of negligence, Pell’s retained AC dismisses public outrage, Credlin’s AO elevates partisan loyalty and Garrisson’s AM glosses over serious claims of human rights failures against Indigenous Australians. These cases reveal a system that prioritises power and patronage over genuine public service, devaluing the honours for those who truly embody Australia’s values.
The allegations against Garrisson, if substantiated, are particularly damning, as they suggest the honours system has failed to scrutinise a recipient whose actions contradict the human rights principles he was awarded for upholding. To regain public trust, the system must embrace transparency, accountability and diversity, ensuring that awards reflect the nation’s highest aspirations rather than its political machinations. Until then, the Order of Australia will remain a tarnished symbol, an embarrassment to those who dedicate their lives to selfless service.
References
• Crikey. (2025). Scott Morrison is getting Australia’s highest honour.
• The Guardian. (2021). Peta Credlin appointed an officer of the Order of Australia.
• The Guardian. (2023). Cardinal George Pell, Australia’s most powerful Catholic.
• Pedestrian. (2025). Scott Morrison is receiving Australia’s highest honour.
• The Conversation. (2022). There have always been arguments about who gets what.
• Wikipedia. (2025). Australian honours and awards system.
• X. (2022). Post by @blakandblack.
• ACT Government Solicitor. (2025). Our Leadership Team.
• Obituaries Australia. (2023). Timothy Andrew (Tim) Fischer (1946–2019).
• Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. (2023). Final Report.
• House of Representatives. (2022). Censure Motion against Scott Morrison.
• Justice Reform Initiative. (2023). Systemic Issues in Indigenous Justice.
