Oh dear, the "Honours" list

is causing controversy again. 

Who gets a gong on the list is not supposed to be known until the actual day - which will be Tuesday. That has not stopped someone "leaking" information. 

Presumably they did it because they disagree with a decision. It has certainly been controversial - and probably will continue to be. A former tennis star has been awarded the highest possible honour under the system. This is despite her "views" on things like "same sex marriage" and "LGBTQIA"community.

It matters not that this woman has done an enormous amount for the tennis world. She is being ridiculed for being a pastor in a "fundamentalist" church, running an outreach program from it for people in need and holding views with which others do not agree. 

And, of course, we get these same people saying "the Prime Minister supports this because he belongs to a fundamentalist church" and "the Prime Minister should not have allowed this to happen". The fact that the PM has nothing whatsoever to do with these awards is ignored by those who wish to make their point. (They are made by a committee which reviews nominations from anyone who cares to make one. The committee is responsible to the Governor-General.)

My own view is that we should stop awarding honours of this nature to people for their sporting prowess. If they do something remarkable outside that field then they can be considered in the same way as anyone else. We should also stop awarding honours to the rich and powerful for simply being rich and powerful. Again, if they do something remarkable outside that field then they should be able to be considered in the same way as anyone else.

I know people who deserve recognition who will never get it. They simply get on with the job. There's a man who has given up between fifteen and twenty hours a week for the last thirty or so years to work with former prisoners. He tutors them in literacy skills in the belief that, if they have those skills, they are less likely to return to a life of crime. Yes, it does work up to a point. He's had many disappointments along the way but he keeps at it. He's never going to get a "gong" for what he does. He doesn't belong to a formal organisation. 

There's a woman I know who has, through her church, taken in many refugees over the years. They stay long enough for her to help them sort out accommodation and other basics. The cost to her has been enormous and, at 84, she is growing tired. How nice it would be to reward her efforts but it isn't going to happen. Her church won't support her nomination for an award because "it isn't our policy to do that sort of thing".  

We should not be giving additional rewards to people for simply doing their jobs but for people like this who are doing something extra.  I am sure the Committee which makes the awards would like more nominations like that but making a nomination is a lot of work. There will be someone on the list on Tuesday. I was peripherally involved in making the nomination and I know how much work went into finding referees, talking to them and getting them to agree to being part of the process. It must be much easier when someone is already a public figure and their achievements are obvious to all.

We could just abolish the system altogether but that's unlikely. People do need recognition sometimes, something a little more than a brief, "thanks".

Changing the way the honours are awarded might be a good start.