Twice a year Government House issues a list of those awarded an honour within the Australian Honours system. The vast majority of those awarded are clearly worthy of recognition, but each time the list appears there is a level of contention.

Almost 30 years ago, Prime Minister Paul Keating appointed me, along with others including the late Ian Keirnan AO, to a panel tasked with the responsibility of reviewing the honours system. The report never saw the light of day. Soon after we completed the report, Keating lost the 1996 election. Vested interests, including those of a political nature, clearly did not want the report publicly addressed.

The review resulted from consultations across the continent and from every walk of life.

Some findings reflected sectional interest while others were common to every region and to most people. As I remember, the broadly based findings included:

• Being honoured rests entirely with the nomination process. Many worthy people are never nominated: this particularly applies to more isolated areas. It is assumed those with knowledge and contacts are more likely to be nominated; some may even seek nomination.
• Certain postcodes predominate. Some in the ACT have the highest per capita representation.
• Too many appear to be recognised because of the position they have held. It was felt an award should only be made for significant service beyond that which could reasonably be expected from the position held. Reaching a certain rank, or years of service, should not on its own be sufficient criteria for an award.
• Many did not support this recognition for achievement in sport unless, in addition, other criteria of service were considered.
• Power and authority is more likely to be recognised than attributes of extraordinary generosity, mercy, justice etc. Those who challenge inappropriate and sometimes criminal power or authority in their profession, or more widely in the community, are unlikely to be recognised despite courageously serving the common good. Some experience the opposite — retribution — despite serving the greater common good. It is also unlikely a human rights advocate will receive an award.
• A person of extraordinary compassion, e.g. a lifetime of fostering children, is worthy of the highest award.
• There are too many categories.

There are currently four levels of recognition. AC recognises a contribution considered to be of national or international significance. AO recognises a lesser contribution, but still of merit beyond their profession or region. AM recognises a contribution of significance emanating from the person’s sphere of interest or community. OAM is recognition of contribution to a sector of the local community.

There are also two divisions, civil and military.

Some of the recommendations that I remember:

• The military division should be terminated, with recognition being awarded on merit equally for all sections of society, including the military, within a common division. It was believed the armed services, along with the public service, the police force, ambulance service, fire service etc should be strongly encouraged to review and if necessary, extend and enhance appropriate ways in which they honour their personnel, not least, long service. Using the Australian Honours system in a separate division creates a different purpose and distorts the intention of equity and equality.
• Criteria for the awards should be more reflective of moral qualities judged to be the values of Australian citizenship.
• Four categories should be reduced to three, probably by removal of the OAM, which will lift the honour bestowed on countless volunteers, the backbone of every community, to a seemingly higher level.
• Government House must invest more in making the nomination process and criteria better known.

On countless occasions I have been asked to add my name to a nomination. In most cases, I have been honoured to do so, but not always. On rare occasions, I have made a nomination.

I do understand the contention created each time a list is published. It is perhaps unavoidable given the diversity of views held in the community. But in considering some of the findings and recommendations of the small group I was privileged to serve, some of these concerns may have been obviated.

There have been a few occasions when, having seen the list, I have thought to myself I would not want to have been listed in that company.

The honours system is important. It is generally treated, as it should, with great respect. It is, however, not respectful to seek public opinion on this or any other matter and then ignore it. Nor is it respectful not to seek public opinion in the first place.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.