And by “misdeeds” I mean oral rape of a minor (George Pell, who was given a glowing reference by former prime minister John Howard, comforted by former PM Tony Abbott and defended by News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt), and an invitation from an abuser, among other things, to lick ejaculant from his penis (former St Kevin's College teacher Peter Kehoe, defended by Bolt and fellow News Corp columnist Gerard Henderson). It sounds very crass when you spell it all out like that, doesn’t it? Bolt has since apologised, but not before doubling down on his original comments. Arndt, a "sex therapist" who has long failed to correct the misapprehension that she is a clinical psychologist, was well ahead of this particular curve. Her avant-garde sex-crime minimisation dates back to 2017, when she did an interview with the convicted paedophile Nicolaas Bester, a teacher who sexually abused his 15-year-old student. He was also found with child porn on his computer, yet Arndt portrayed him as a hapless older man trapped in the web of a "sexually provocative" Lolita. Arndt suggested we might need to have a conversation with girls “about behaving sensibly and not exploiting their seductive power to ruin the lives of men”. Previously she defended a scoutmaster who sexually abused boys, writing that “apart from his aberrant sexual behaviour, the man appears to be a good bloke” and asserted that “minor abuse rarely has lasting consequences”. Could she punch any further down? Bettina Arndt. Credit:Joshua Morris

Yes, as it turns out: fresh from her appointment as a Member in the Order of Australia in the Australia Day honours list, Arndt felt compelled to defend the actions of Rowan Baxter, who doused his wife and three children in petrol in Brisbane the week before last, and burned them to death. Most people’s thoughts went straight to the victims who died in terror. Not Arndt’s. She congratulated Queensland police “for keeping an open mind” on whether Baxter might have been “driven too far”. “Note the misplaced outrage,” she tweeted. “How dare police deviate from the feminist script of seeking excuses ... and explanations when women stab their partners to death, or drive their children into dams but immediately judging a man in these circumstances as simply representing the evil violence that is in all men.” Loading Replay Replay video Play video Play video

This attitude is what every victim of domestic violence fears she will encounter if she manages to seek help. Arndt’s comments focused attention on her Australia Day honour, culminating in the past week in bipartisan support for a Labor Senate motion moving that “the values that underpin Ms Arndt’s views” on the Baxter family murders were “not consistent with her retaining her Order of Australia”. State and federal politicians from both sides have written to the Council for the Order of Australia urging it to reconsider the honour. Should Arndt be stripped of her AM? Why was she awarded it in the first place? Her recent remarks were no real surprise. Her attitudes and beliefs, played out over the decades she has courted publicity, have always been on open display. She began as an editor and writer. Somewhere along the way she devolved into a reactionary who makes a living decrying an alleged feminist conspiracy that is ruining the lives of men. She defends “men’s rights”, which to her means attacking women. She is not a clinical psychologist, yet in her many media appearances, including on Bolt’s television show, the tag on the screen describes her as one. Hannah Clarke, pictured with son Trey. Credit:Facebook Her honours citation was “for significant service to the community as a social commentator, and to gender equity through advocacy for men". Since when did “social commentary” of any sort, but particularly hers, constitute a service?

Why give her a higher gong than the quiet heroes of the OAM list, which is crowded with nurses, aged-care workers, farmers, community volunteers, interfaith clerics, doctors and conservationists? The honours process is executed on behalf of all Australians yet it is utterly opaque. The Order of Australia has four categories, starting at the top with an Companion of the Order (AC), then down in order of eminence to Officer of the Order (AO), Member of the Order (AM, which Arndt was appointed) and Medal of the Order (OAM). The Order of Australia Council, chaired by former Liberal politician Shane Stone, AC, meets twice a year to wade through nominations sent in by the public and prepared by the secretariat. (Stone is the former Country Liberal chief minister of the Northern Territory, and the citation for his own AC included “services to politics”.) Referees are contacted and interviewed, and nominees are not supposed to know who has nominated them. The council’s decisions do not have to be unanimous. Beyond that, the decision-making process is anyone’s guess. Stories abound of public relations consultancies preparing the nominations on behalf of their well-connected, rich clients. One prominent Sydney PR (who refuses such requests) told me they usually come in two forms – from companies wanting their executives nominated and individuals who want an honour but need it to look like someone else has nominated them.

Loading The council comprises community representatives and the secretaries of the governors of the states and territories. The community representatives are philanthropist Rupert Myer, former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, Professor Matthew Vadas, former clerk of the House of Representatives Bernard Wright, former WA Liberal politician Cheryl Edwardes, corporate consultant Gabrielle Trainor, and Amelia Hodge, CEO of the Australian Property Institute. Ex-officio members are Senator Mathias Cormann (who was not present when Arndt's honour was signed off), ADF chief Angus Campbell, and a public servant from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I tried to contact all the community representatives barring Wright (for whom I could not find a number) over the past week but received no responses other than from the office of Hodge, who was overseas. After putting questions about Arndt’s appointment, I received a statement from Stone that the council would consider the correspondence regarding Arndt’s honour “in a methodical way” and, once considerations were concluded, it would “inform the member of the outcome”. Loading “The council’s consideration of any individual matter is based on factual information and not by external pressure or lobbying,” Stone wrote. “Neither the Council or I will be providing a running commentary on our deliberations.”