Editorial: 'Honours' hardly inspiring

It is unlikely that many were inspired by the New Year Honours awards. That is no reflection on the recipients, most of whom have been recognised for dedicated, valuable and selfless contributions. Rather, it reflects the diminished appeal of the system which supplanted the traditional honours. There has been only one advance since the New Zealand Order of Merit was introduced in 1996, and that is that deeds are being recognised more quickly.

Thus, Jeff Wilson and Bernice Mene have become members of the Order within months of ending their respective rugby and netball careers. In other respects, the sweeping away of a vestige of the past has created a problem where none formerly existed.

In considering why that might be, it is difficult to discount the fact that the present system confers no overt public recognition by way of titles. The first and second levels of the New Zealand Order of Merit - principal companion and distinguished companion - are supposedly the equivalent of a knighthood. But they have never been perceived that way since knight and damehoods were abolished in 2000. Recipients may get a brief moment in the New Year spotlight but are denied ongoing recognition. That, in turn, dilutes the force of the honours system.

There was never strong public pressure to end the time-honoured designations. Nor was a strong case ever put for the abolition of knighthoods. Helen Clark suggested that knights and dames were seen as outranking membership of the Order Of New Zealand, the country's highest order. If so, the logical response was to introduce a title denoting membership of that elite order, not abolish a system that was functional and widely favoured.

In reality, knighthoods went because they were anathema to those who associated them with the British class system. But that narrow view failed to recognise that in an egalitarian society merit warrants the most acclaim. In such a society, a knighthood recognises achievement and in no way confers an inherited or otherwise unearned social status on the individuals or their descendants.

It must be said, however, that the conferring of knighthoods had became in some instances indiscriminate and in others mundane. Some were knighted for merely carrying out, or serving time in, well-paid business, judicial or political positions.

Additionally, the cachet associated with the title was threatened by what sometimes resembled a twice-yearly deluge. But the sensible response to that surfeit would have been to award knighthoods with more caution and care, and with a greater premium on merit and achievement.

Having decided to destroy, rather than repair, the Government has driven the honours system up a dead-end street. There can be no doubt that being named a principal companion or distinguished companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit carries less prestige than a knighthood, whatever the supposed equivalence. And there can be no doubt that some people deserving the tangible acclaim of a title are being sold short.

There is only one solution. The Government must accept that society as a whole benefits when exceptional achievements are acclaimed loud and long. Sir Edmund Hillary, Sir Paul Reeves and Dame Kiri Te Kanawa are but a few of the honoured in whom we all take continued pride. They are proof that people appreciate and are keen to recognise achievements that stand apart from the ordinary.

The Government must, therefore, restore overt public recognition to the top two levels of the New Zealand Order of Merit, as knighthoods. A little more imagination in the selection of recipients would also help.

Then, the honours might recover their appeal and add their old lustre to the New Year.