Island Life: Good on ya, Paula
491 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 Newer→ Last
-
a sirtainty
Brilliant.
-
So honours titles are "consistent with the egalitarian character of New Zealand society and enlivens and enriches it." NZ Honours
Please don't get me wrong - I'm all for "say[ing] thanks and well done to those who have served and those who have achieved." -
All ANZ honours are still 'within the gift of the Monarch.' Until ANZ opts to drop the monarchy, there's no way I'd accept an honour, but I like the fact that there were those who chose not to accept an archaic
title- -
The ever-aspirational John Key says the honours are "a real celebration of success".
Isn't the line supposed to be that they recognise service to the community?
-
I suppose royal honours have always had a dual focus on service and achievement so that governments of both right and left could reward what they see as success.
Somewhat ridiculous when professional athletes and businesspeople get recognised for merely doing their jobs, rather than for contributing above and beyond that to their industry, profession or code. Recognise the volunteers, administrators, connectors and coaches by all means.
-
Isn't the line supposed to be that they recognise service to the community?
No. That's the Queen's Service Order.
The New Zealand Order of Merit (the one which comes with the Knighthoods at its upper levels) is:
"for those persons who in any field of endeavour, have rendered meritorious service to the Crown and nation or who have become distinguished by their eminence, talents, contributions or other merits."
Or, in short, the awards are a real celebration of success =)
-
I think you're overlooking the word "or" Graeme - it's achievement or service. As I say, two different ways of defining success.
-
I think you're overlooking the word "or" Graeme - it's achievement or service.
Sure, but not community service. Service to the Crown or Nation. Community Service is the QSO/QSM.
-
Again, depends on whether you believe that the nation and community are substantially similar in this context. Or at the other extreme you might believe like Thatcher that there is no such thing as society. And many positions between.
-
I guess failure might be either not trying, or doing the same thing again when it didn't work for you the first time.
-
Possibly for achieving skillfully audacious theft from public coffers.
-
or doing the same thing again when it didn't work for you the first time
Mind you when does that count as persistence?
-
Cooperating is not always a sign of success.
-
I tried to work out what Sir Michael Fay was knighted for.
Wikipedia also had very little to say about what three-term Labour MP Margaret Shields did for her soon-to-be Damehood.
-
And Jonathan Hunt tops the lot of them.
-
Isn't the line supposed to be that they recognise service to the community?
Indeed and thanks David. I've supported two honours. Both individuals are remarkable for their commitment to community development. One, a 68 year old man remains one of the most inspring individuals I know.
Sacha, I'm not sure what you're question about Jonathan is, long standing MPs are routinely honoured. I don't think it unfair or unwise. The life of an MP is entirely devoted to civic service (or should be)...
-
Oh bugger, now I've read the context for some of the discussion... nevermind. Sir/Dame, don't mean nothing to me that you declare your spot on the Queen's dance card... paid up member of the republicans... as you were.
-
Paul, while I have no problem with recognising the service of MPs, making such an undistinguished one a member of an extremely select order seems farcical to me.
I understand there are all sorts of reasons why people might choose to accept or reject a title. Sadly I'm confident that Mr Hunt's conscience was untroubled.
-
Er, Hunt was Speaker of the House; in the UK, that's pretty much an automatic peerage, even if you're the worst Speaker in hundreds of years. Speaker's an extremely distinguished position, and maybe ONZ was a bit over the top, but it wasn't hugely out of line.
-
Make him a Sir, but one of a group of only twenty living New Zealanders? Please.
-
Or are we saying Lockwood should be in with a grin the next time one of the existing Order members falls off the perch?
-
Make him a Sir, but one of a group of only twenty living New Zealanders? Please.
Well, it isn't that daft. Speaker is up with G-G, PM, Chief Justice. It's not undistinguished, which was your assertion. I do think it was a bit over the top, but it isn't much.
-
Sacha - for once I am going to disagree with you. Jonathan Hunt was one of those people who did an incredible lot of helping people behind the scenes, over many decades. He was also a very good lobbyist and networker for NZ internationally, particularly when HC in London. Just because the media have always targetted him, doesn't mean we should. Those large taxi bills were because he didn't drive and so saved the taxpayer the cost of personal vehicles.
Unless of course you have personal experience of some less than effectiveness from him.
-
Sacha, I see where you're coming from. I had a little to do with Jonathan so am perhaps more disposed to recognising his service than that of others. Jonathan's proudest achievement, I believe, was his involvement in amending adoption laws and, possibly not, being Speaker.
-
I should clarify that I meant Hunt's performance as Speaker seemed unworthy of that degree of recognition. Sure he gave long service as a local MP and Minister and as you say his involvement in adoption reform was notable.
Knight him by all means. Just don't give him an honour reserved for only twenty living New Zealanders at any time unless you can explain why he deserved that more than the other 4 million of us.
Be interesting to see who the public would have suggested - though possibly stacked with telly presenters and sports people. If asked today, possibly not so many All Blacks..
Post your response…
This topic is closed.