Who influenced this process, ask readers returning serve on Court's divisive award

Four days from Australia Day, news broke that tennis champion turned Pentecostal minister Margaret Court – who has publicly expressed strong views opposing LGBTQ+ rights

– was to be elevated from Officer of the Order of Australia (AO), awarded in 2007, to Companion of the Order of Australia (AC), the nation’s highest honour. Several other awards recipients, including veteran journalist Kerry O’Brien and GP Clara Tuck Meng Soo, announced they would reject or hand back their medals in protest. Politicians including federal Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese and Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews were also critical of the decision. Prime Minister Scott Morrison declined to comment on Court’s medal, but did say the honours system was a ‘‘completely independent process’’.

Members of the Council for the Order of Australia later told senior reporter Chip Le Grand that the decision to elevate Court to AC was about addressing gender disparity – namely that the nation’s greatest women’s tennis player deserved the same level of recognition as its greatest men’s player, Rod Laver – and that a backlash had been expected.

Awarding the honour to Court and the system through which Australia Day honours are bestowed generated some heated comments and debate from our readers.

Mandelbrot: ‘‘What a stupidly insensitive decision to make, especially as she has already been awarded two Australian honours for tennis. Addressing gender imbalance is a noble thing, but please don’t do it in such a way that other under-represented population segments are harmed.’’

Rex: ‘‘There’s painful irony in a divisive person getting an award under the auspices of closing a diversity gap.’’

To which Push against the Zeitgeist replied: ‘‘You can’t have it both ways Rex. Diversity includes people and their views that, according to the narrative of the day, are considered divisive.’’

Disillusioned: ‘‘I’d rather have a gender gap thanks.’’

Purpssss: ‘‘Strange, the awards committee didn’t seem to want to address the gender disparity evident in any other field of endeavour where the AC has been awarded in the past. Politics, law, the arts, community service, medicine, science all have gender disparity in AC awards but the only area the committee chose to address is tennis!’’

Thryn believes the awards ‘‘have been irrevocably damaged. It’s a shame for those that truly deserved them. They clearly have an agenda that is disconnected from our direction.’’

To which Oz replied: ‘‘Have they? Have they really been irrevocably damaged, just because you don’t like the views of one of the recipients?’’

Allan wants answers: ‘‘So, an admission of official intervention in a process we are told by the PM is independent? What we all suspected. I would like to know who nominated Court and who were the three referees? Who influenced this process?’’

Senior reporter Chip Le Grand offers some insights into the system.

‘‘The nomination and assessment process is protracted and opaque. It usually takes between 18 months and two years between a nomination and the bestowing of an award,’’ he says.

‘‘Members of the Council for the Order of Australia, the group responsible for bestowing Australia Day awards, are bound by tight confidentiality provisions and its workings are shielded from Freedom of Information laws.

‘‘This means we are unlikely to ever know who nominated Margaret Court and why. This is done to protect the reputation of nominees.’’

Darcy: ‘‘The granting of awards on Australia Day is broken and has become divisive and controversial like the day itself. No wonder some recipients have handed back their medals.’’

Le Grand points out: ‘‘It could be argued that the system is operating as designed. The council works along federated lines. All the states and territory governments are directly represented on the council and, through the ex officio representatives, the Prime Minister can and does wield influence over its decisions.

‘‘The council has an independent chair and should be non-partisan but it was never intended to be apolitical.’’

Stig7 has a proposal: ‘‘The Canadian system limits the numbers in their equivalent civilian order to 165 living persons, meaning that very few positions come vacant each year. There should be a similar limit on the AC, which would make the awarding committee think very hard about who is truly worthy, as well making it more likely that the awardees enjoy the support of the majority of the population. A controversial appointment like this diminishes the status of the award.’’

Immanuel Can: ‘‘I LOVE your idea.’’ But Al Pacino came out in support of Court’s upgrade: ‘‘People who criticise Margaret Court should realise that they too should not enforce their views on others. She totally deserves the award.’’

As did Logic: ‘‘I totally agree that Margaret Court deserves an AC for her tennis achievements. Collapsing her tennis achievements with her personal views on other side issues was not the reason that she got the award.’’

To which Riverjunction responded: ‘‘[Court] continues to be critical of gay and transgender tennis players. She may have been a top player but her attacks on other tennis players have embarrassed and damaged the sport of tennis. Would you support an award to a top player in any sport if their career (and post-career) had been characterised by repeated public racial attacks on other players?’’

Not Dead Yet asked: ‘‘How many tennis match titles has Margaret Court won since 2007 [when she was made an AO]???’’ to which CecilyC responded with some historical context. ‘‘How many did Evonne Goolagong win between 1982, when she received the AO, and 2018 when she received the AC? Upgrades are a reasonably common part of the honours system, eg. cricketer Bob Simpson got an AM in 1978 and an AO in 2007 and tennis player Frank Sedgman got an AM in 1979 and an AO in 2019.’’

Ed, meanwhile, sympathised with the council: ‘‘In today’s world, the Council for the Order of Australia can’t win. They’re always going to offend some group or other with their selections. And so to try and appease one section of the community they end up offending another. So many people out there looking for reasons to be outraged.’’

Online readers of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age made 41,531 comments on 449 stories in the past week.