I must live in a different world.

Every day all around the country there are ordinary
Australians doing extra-ordinary things. I've experienced
seeing this being in in our communities, schools, health-care,
to mention just a few.

The Order of Australia recognition is a great honour. It's not
something to be taken lightly. Any Australian can recommend
someone for the award. The Council of the Order of Australia
individually and collectively considers each nomination,
including the research that has been undertaken, the
original nomination form information and the comments of
referees.

The Council makes recommendations for approval directly
to the Governor-General.

The Office of the Governor-General of Australia tells us
that:

"The Council of the Order of Australia is an independent
body that consists of 19 members, the Chairperson,
8 representatives of each state and territory, 3 public
office holders (ex-officio) and seven community
representatives."

They've got quite a job to do - and I very much doubt if
all of them have a collective political agenda which they
all agree to follow both individually and collectively
together.

That would be rather odd

The claim that these awards are part of an effort to justify and normalise the suspension of democratic processes and the rule of law during the COVID-19 pandemic requires evidence, not just speculation.

The language throughout the piece is quite biased and emotive. Terms like "mediocre also-rans" and "hermit kingdom" reveal a strong bias against Andrews and McGowan, detracting from a rational discussion and making it hard to engage with the points on their merits.

The criticism of the COVID-19 measures taken by Andrews and McGowan lacks nuance. While the lockdowns in Victoria and Western Australia were controversial, they aimed to save lives and prevent healthcare systems from being overwhelmed. By focusing only on negative outcomes and not acknowledging the complexities of managing a pandemic, the article comes across as one-sided.

A selective use of data, for the claim that the lockdown in Victoria directly cost 800 lives due to a hotel quarantine mishap, presents an unbalanced view of the broader public health outcomes. Similarly, the implication that mRNA vaccines are dangerous based on adverse effects observed in Western Australia ignores the overwhelming evidence of their efficacy and safety from global studies.

Suggesting the awards are part of a campaign to elevate and protect those who allegedly caused the most damage during the pandemic reeks of paranoia and conspiratorial thinking. It's a narrative lacking substantiation, and feeds into broader distrust of public health authorities and democratic institutions. Without concrete evidence, such claims remain speculative and unconvincing.

Additionally, your argument contains several logical fallacies. Comparing the honours given to Andrews and McGowan to the historical aristocracy that Gough Whitlam sought to dismantle is misleading. The Australian honours system is meant to recognize contributions to society, not to create an elite class.

While the composition of the honours committee and its perceived bias are criticised, the article fails to provide specific examples of how this alleged bias influenced the decision to award honours to Andrews and McGowan. Without concrete evidence, the argument remains speculative.

A balanced critique would consider both positive and negative aspects of their leadership to provide a fair assessment.

At least Peter Dutton has broken the forty year 'cone of silence' on immigration that Hawke helped create.

Sadly the OA awards ironically seem to have turned against the monarchy.