Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Waitangi Day Honours

The government has used the opportunity of Waitangi Day to honour four people with additional membership in the Order of New Zealand. I'm not actually that interested in who they are or the merits of their appointment (which someone will no doubt want to argue over) - but rather the symbolism involved. And on that front, I think it is a marvellous move, and one I hope to see repeated and expanded on. After all, isn't it so much more appropriate that we honour New Zealanders on our day, rather than the (nominal) birthday of a far-off Englishwoman?

Hopefully we'll see Waitangi Day honours become a permanant fixture, and another mark of our independence from Britain.


Hear, hear!

I always thought it was strange we brought our honours system 'home', and yet kept awarding them on the token celebration of our absentee Head of state's birthday.

Posted by Lewis Holden : 2/06/2007 01:00:00 PM

Actually they are not being done for Waitangi Day but for the 20th anniversary of the founding of the ONZ.

I'd have honours twice a year - once on Waitangi Day (6 Feb) and once on New Zealand Day (26 Sep).

Posted by David Farrar : 2/06/2007 02:46:00 PM

The Stuff story says something about New Zealand's priorities - most is about the rugby player, with two lines each for the GG and the writer and one for the judge (who created the ACC system).

Posted by Paul : 2/06/2007 03:33:00 PM

Hmmn, if you don't care who the honours went to, or for what, why do you care WHEN they're awarded?

Sounds like Sir Humphrey insisting to Bernard that even though he (S.H.) didn't go to the opera, it was important to know it was THERE...


Posted by Anonymous : 2/07/2007 01:01:00 AM

it actually says a lot about nz priorities that lochore is the first sportsman to be recognised. The powers to be actually think that jonathan hunt is still a greater new zealander than peter snell

Lochore has made a extremely significant contribution off the rugby field.

Posted by Anonymous : 2/07/2007 09:35:00 AM

What a crap piece of writing that article that you linked to was - I thought that it was downright rude really. If all four of them are equally worthy of the honour, then why does Lochore get 80% of the article with the others being relegated to one sentence each (or half a sentence in the case of Sir Owen Woodhouse - I don't know who he is, but I sure would have liked to have read why he got the commendation).

Posted by Anonymous : 2/15/2007 02:17:00 AM