Labor MP calls for Order of Australia to be stripped from undeserving dead recipients

Labor MP Graham Perrett says he may present a private member’s bill to allow Order of Australia honours to be stripped from deceased recipients. Photograph: Jono Searle/AAP

Labor MP Graham Perrett has condemned “unjust” rules that mean the Order of Australia cannot be stripped from dead recipients, even if they are found to have committed serious wrongdoing.

Perrett has taken up the cause of a constituent, Chris Stoker, who is a victim of child sexual abuse lobbying for the honour to be taken off Maxwell Howell, a deceased headteacher of Brisbane Grammar, who was found to have failed to investigate complaints against the school councillor.

The royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse found that Howell, who was headteacher from 1965 to 1989, was warned in 1981 that Kevin Lynch had abused a boy.

He was appointed as a member of the Order of Australia for services to education in 1986. Howell died in 2011 and denied any knowledge of abuse.

The royal commission said: “Dr Howell did not investigate the allegations and did not report the matter to the police or the board of trustees.

“In not doing so, he failed in his obligations to protect the safety and wellbeing of the students.”

Perrett said he did not think it was “a just outcome” that the award was “interred with someone not deserving of honour”. “I understand the legal logic – but it is not just,” he said.

Perrett said he would look at options including a private member’s bill to seek a rule change.

Stoker said that while the effects of child sexual abuse “can never be fully extinguished” he has taken up the cause of lobbying to remove Howell’s membership of the order to help “safeguard children”.

“If he had done his job when he was told years before I went to the school and suffered abuse, none of this would have happened,” Stoker said.

In a statement on Tuesday the Council for the Order of Australia said it “is not an investigative body and is unable to make a determination of guilt or innocence”.

“Had the council known of serious adverse findings at the time of considering a nomination, an appointment may not have been recommended to the governor-general,” it said.

Where recipients are still alive the council may decide “to commence proceedings for cancellation and termination” but “different circumstances apply” when they are no longer living.

It noted that after death “individuals cannot be afforded a right of reply as required by the terminations and cancellation ordinance”.

“The order of Australia is a living society of honour. As such, upon death, individuals are no longer members.

“The council acknowledges that the hurtful legacy of such awards cannot be taken away.”

Stoker said it was “horrifying” that in death un-meritorious recipients retained honours meant for “exceptional achievement and selfless acts”.

“It’s pretty disgusting they won’t remove his order,” he said. There is nothing to stop them from doing it.”

Stoker disputed the council’s interpretation of its rules, arguing it is open to the council to “terminate his appointment” and this is distinct from removing Howell from its membership.

Stoker noted that the governor general has the power to change the ordinances, as had been done during “childish fights” adding and then removing the new honours of knights and dames in 2015 during the Abbott government.

In June, Patrick Gorman, the assistant minister to the prime minister, wrote to Perrett noting that he had committed to Stoker to consider “this matter and any actions available, either through amendments to the constitution or outside the constitution”.

Asked if this is still the government’s position, a spokesperson for Gorman said: “I refer you to the Council for the Order of Australia statement published 27 February, 2024.”