Point of honour: eyebrows raised over for whom the gongs toll

David Tyler writes: If ever there was anything to give the lie to the myth that Australia is a classless society, it’s our honours and awards system (“Should we abolish Australia Day awards?“). The awards are carefully graded according to class, with the top gongs going to the pollies and judges, and people already well rewarded for their contributions. The ordinary folk who put in decades of work for the community without reward get the lowest-level medals. Show me the regular person who’s spent 30 years selflessly volunteering with an AC around their neck for their efforts and perhaps I’ll change my mind.

Peter Schulz writes: How much does it cost to run this clown show?

Damien Brown writes: Forget the politicisation of the awards — that’s a sideshow. The real reason they are a joke is because they are ostensibly intended to honour people for their service to the nation and its citizens. But practically every award (bar the community awards) are given to those who were simply doing their job and/or serving themselves.

Sure, service to the nation and/or its citizens occurs coincidentally with the conducting of many kinds of jobs and pursuits, such as being a politician, etc. But unless it can be readily demonstrated that someone has undertaken substantive sacrifice in order to perform that role, it is clear service to the nation was secondary and entirely optional.

By the by, the irony is not lost on me that the same conservative blowhards who rail incessantly about how kids these days in schools are mollycoddled and given ribbons and prizes for simply turning up… are the bastions of these awards which are metaphorically and literally nothing more than a little gold star for simply turning up.

Warren Nalty writes: We should do away with honours entirely. Those most deserving of recognition don’t seek it — they work for their community, charity, medical research, etc, irrespective of public acknowledgment. Save the money and government time. Let individual organisations recognise their own special people. Perhaps they could issue press releases or find other ways to praise the person publicly if they so wish.

Clay Frederick writes: The Australian honours system has degenerated into a travesty. Apart from the politicians, the mutual back-scratching system of nominations is rife in academia, business and the public service. Gongs for doing your job! 

These are the people who pick up the top-rated honours. The “little” people who actually do some good in the community are generally left with the lower-rated OAMs, the Medal of the Order of Australia. There is a great argument for recognising citizens who contribute to the community or achieve some degree of greatness in their chosen endeavours, above and beyond their everyday jobs. But when the system is devalued by the rorting that goes on, it fails — and needs to be cleaned out and restarted. 

Mick Webster writes: Just because awards have been given to people who didn’t deserve them in the past is no reason not to try to improve the system now. Junking them would solve nothing.

Robin Brown writes: Achievements and good works can deserve recognition because such recognition can encourage and inspire others. So if done right, awards can be a good thing. But they need to encourage and inspire all — regardless of advantage or privilege. So let’s change the judges. Ask 12 randomly selected — not handpicked — women and men to judge whether behaviour should be negatively rewarded. And then ask 12 randomly picked citizens to judge whether behaviour should be positively rewarded.

Geoff Brehaut writes: I think Australia’s honours system was only ever a pale facsimile of the British commonwealth honours system. It’s time to eschew these vestiges from a bygone era. The reward for good deeds is in the act itself. And anyway, it’s just too hard to sort the deserving from the chaff. 

If you’re pleased, peed off or piqued, tell us about it by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.