During times of war, the awarding of medals is based more on acts of gallantry with the highest honours going to those who acted with selfless disregard for their own safety and more often than not, saving lives while, in the process, sometimes forfeiting their own.
Both parallel systems
were designed to include those who would otherwise have never been acknowledged
for their service, let alone their gallantry under extreme pressure.
In their original
forms, both had an hierarchal structure where the most meritorious deeds were
recognised with the highest awards - the Military’s highest for bravery being
the Victoria Cross which is only awarded on very rare occasions and often
posthumously to those who made the supreme sacrifice.
On the other hand,
the Civilian awards were originally given to those who had made sacrifices of
their own in order to achieve the highest level of achievement - eg. the Sports
Knights and Dames like Sir Edmund Hillary, Sir Richard Hadlee, Dame Lisa
Carrington and Dame Valerie Adams.
However, apart from
the Sports section, the Civilian system has ceased to be one that awards it’s
citizens based solely on meritorious performance.
Unfortunately, it has
morphed into one where too often, the recipients of the highest honours are
those who just happen to share the political persuasion of the government of
the day.
It is time for an
overhaul and a return to a system that acknowledges only those who have served
the nation well under exceptional circumstances that required effort far beyond
the call of duty or in return for the above average salaries that went with
job.
It has become part of
the gravy train when we see long serving MP’s like Trevor Mallard and Jonathan
Hunt who were both dispatched to ambassador posts well away from the Parliament
where they had underperformed.
In my humble opinion,
the committee overseeing the Honours system in this country should be made up
of retired members of the Judiciary. It needs to be taken away from the
partisan oversight of Cabinet who wouldn’t recognise real community effort if
they fell over it.
Perhaps only then
will we start to see a lot less of the highest gongs going to “Captains of
Industry” who just happened to be major donors to political parties of their
choice and more recognition at the highest level of those who have unselfishly
dedicated their lives to benefitting those who are at the bottom of the heap.
If we did that, l
might be pleased to find my dear wife’s name amongst the recipients in the next
King’s Birthday honours list.
I reckon anyone who
has put up with me for 55 years deserves a medal.
Most people who know
us both would agree.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
12 comments:
Agree - but "retired members of the Judiciary"?
Yes, only because most of them have already got their life time achievement awards and are enjoying the benefits associated with enormous State funded Superannuation. As a consequence, they have nothing to lose by awarding those lesser mortals with honours based simply on merit. Would make a welcome change to the corrupt system that debases the original concept.
to ward honors twice a year is too often, there are not that many people worthy of an award in New Zealand, maybe the awards should be deferred for a couple of years, or make the announcement that this year there will be no Knighthoods or Damehoods awarded because there is no one worthy.
Not the current judiciary for sure. They should be removed from office for overt bias.
The value of these awards has been politicized and radically diminished. (Rather like a Harvard degree.....)
The problem these days is no matter what committee you pick to select the recipients, politics seems to have wriggled its way in. I'm referring to Left-wing, woke types who proliferate throughout our public service, academia, judiciary, and most NGO's and corporates.
The Honours system has always had an element of political payback associated with some of the awards. But in the last few years it's become ridiculous.
Awards for being a member of the highest number of in-vogue woke minority groups seems to be the criteria. Or a party member of the ruling group.
Awarding ex-MP's who had an atrocious record in parliament and cost the tax-payer large sums of money is the classic case in point.
If this continues the Honours List will become a joke at best and an irrelevance to most. And, like the Commonwealth Games, will fade away.
What fills me with doubt and dismay is the degradation of the moral tone. Is it or is it not a result of democracy? Is ours a “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” or a Kakistocracy, rather for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?
DeeM . Please consider our younger athletes , they deserve our support.
The Commonwealth Games in New Zealand reintroduced ONLY in EXISTING STADIA IN NEW ZEALAND ( my emphasis) without expensive opening and closing ceremonies would benefit NZ greater than the small cost involved of actually running the games .
It would give our nation a step up after a dismal period of poor governance .
"retired members of the Judiciary"?
The Judiciary have done as much, if not more damage to New Zealand in the last twenty years than any Government.
Now you want to reward them further?
No thanks.
Replace these awards with a public "thank you" to worthy people (with appropriate certificates for the living room wall) and move on.
To Basil walker - I am afraid that the former Premier of the State of Victoria, Australia - Daniel Andrews, has already seen to the demise of the Commonwealth Games - he "claimed funding"? Yet he "supposedly (re) paid funds to the Commonwealth Committee"? Even Queensland who sort to take up the "torch" - walked backwards as well.
It then became apparent that the esteemed Commonwealth Games Committee just did not "have the .....!", to look at alternative's, which spoke volumes for their collective inabilities.
I would agree with your approach, a sporting contest, of any/ all sports, held in various locations, without "ceremony'. But that would require a person "to stand up and say, right who will work with me, let's get the show on the road".
And then you would get "the wet dish cloth, who will ask - where is the money coming from"??
I saw that Barbara Dreaver got a New Year's Honour for .Pacific Storytelling'. As a journalist, she must be one of the most biaised reporters currently on TV. She never reports objectively on stories relating to the Pacific/Pacifika. She is more like a lobbyist always advocating for some overstayer to be able to remain in New Zealand or Pacifika being able to claim climate refugee status. She can't resist giving her pro-Pacifika opinion and never just provide a story that is facts only. Totally undeserved. She needs to confine herself to the story only.
It's a pathetic joke that Mallard who was probably the most biassed Speaker of the House we've ever had, and who acted childishly and irrationally towards the protesters at Parliament, should be given a knighthood. And then he gets a cushy post overseas to supplement his parliamentary superannuation.
Laurence
There's nothing "funny" about the outright thug, Mallard, even being called "Right Honourable". Anybody less honourable or less qualified for a knighthood would be hard to find.
Why he was annointed Speaker I will never understand. The lout made a total mockery of that position with his dog and baby-cuddling antics while in the Speaker's chair.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.