Editorial: Honour titles still have a place in NZ

Opinion

They may sound quaintly English nowadays, and no sizeable Commonwealth country outside of Britain uses them any more, but knighthoods still have a place in New Zealand. The previous Government did away with them without a clear mandate to do so and its decision always rankled with a large section of the community. In their eight years' absence, equivalent non-titled honours have not caught the public imagination. The loss was noticed every Queen's Birthday and New Year.

National's reinstatement of the titles appears to be broadly popular, so much so that it is a wonder the party did not declare its intentions loudly before the election. The Prime Minister says he did mention publicly that a return to titles would be "looked at" by a National Government, a phrase normally taken to mean little is likely to change. But clearly at least some in the party felt strongly about it. Sunday's announcement, while sudden, already has royal approval, which would have been sought months ago.

While popular, the reinstatement of titles places recipients of the non-titled equivalents in an awkward position. They have been given the option of taking the title and need to make their preference known by the end of June. The right to be formally addressed as Sir or Dame may have a place in New Zealand after all, but we like to think our honoured citizens are models of modesty about it.

The New Zealand style has been to accept the title as an incidental byproduct of recognition of rare achievement or, too often, mere occupational status. Now we are going to see how human they are. Few folk would turn down a title if it was offered to them. Among the few are a couple of former Prime Ministers, David Lange and Jim Bolger, who said little about their reasons.

Names in the reckoning for the next honours lists are likely to include some who were in or close to the previous Government, notably Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, and may feel unable to accept the titles they abolished. Yet they deserve them, as do Jenny Shipley and one or two others in the Government Labour displaced. Modesty does not lie in refusing a title the nation wants to bestow. The better gesture, for anyone temperamentally averse to airs and graces, is to accept the honour in the spirit with which it is offered, and wear it as little as they wish.

One of the benefits of titled honours is that they are less likely to be awarded lightly. Certainly the recent equivalents appear to have been handed out more freely. Some of the recipients might bear that possibility in mind when they consider their option now.

Even titled honours were awarded too lightly in the past. It would be good if the Government went much further than simply reinstating them. They should not be automatically bestowed on judges, corporate leaders, public service heads and others whose work has not been conspicuously above the ordinary for one in their well-paid position. That applies to politicians too.

In fact, the whole system should be taken out of politicians' hands. The honours are awarded in the Queen's name and there seems no reason that her representative, the Governor-General, could not appoint a panel to sift nominations and recommend a list of worthy recipients. So long as it was one function for which the office did not have to act on ministers' advice, the system would be relieved of suspicion that it might be used for political rewards.

New Zealand may yet be the last old colony to preserve England's ancient titles but that would be the weakest reason to dispense with them. They are an element of the colonial heritage that Maori have embraced as much as anyone. Titles are back and should remain for the duration.