Dame Jenny Shipley critical of Queen's Birthday Honours

There is a gender imbalance in the awards system. I think that is clearly evident. The question is why? At the moment the way the honours system is set up it is very hard to discover the answer to that question and then remedy anything that needs to be remedied. It is a closed shop. There is no scrutiny. Who is being nominated?  Who is doing the nominations? What part of New Zealand do the nominations come from. Is there a gender, regional, age or ethnic bias? What criteria is used to decide between people working in different arenas. Basically what are the stats? and is bias and prejudice affecting the outcome - given that such tendencies are often unseen and unintended but knowing that it is also sometimes very deliberate.
One thing we do know is that the system is overtly gendered. The titles are different according to gender. Men become Knights. Women become Dames. The wife of a Knight is given the title lady. The husband of a Dame or the gay partner of a Knight gets nothing.  The system is tied to one particular set of values (the Monarchy and patriarchy) and this has to have some effect on who bothers nominating and who accepts the awards. 
There will be a range of factors causing this bias of course but when the whole system is legally structured in a way that discriminates according to gender then I think we can say it is flawed at its very foundations.
Jenny Shipley has rejected the notion that women do less in the community or achieve less than men. The lecturer Ruth Irwin touched on how women's work is valued when she asserted that "women are expected to work and not get any
accolade or achievements or recognition or pay,”  Why you think six times more men were made companions? Just as importantly, how do we find out why it happens?

Thanks Mike. I think the honours system, like the flag, or the national anthems are all issues that are separate from the republic issue. We can change these things (or adopt new or additional ones in the case of the anthems) at any time, irrespective of whether we become a republic. I don't think becoming a republic will make it easier to change the honours system (the same processes of public consultation will be needed) but it will affect the values that guide that change and I think a review of the honours system is inevitable once we are a republic. Some republicans argue there should be no honours system at all. I think some sort of awards system is a good tradition and I think the majority of people in New Zealand probably agree.
My point really is why wait? The system is very obviously gendered and in need of an overhaul . At the very least it should be bought in line with prevailing laws on discrimination.
With regard to your theory about women taking time out from their careers as a possible reason why the honours system favours men? Well that is one argument that like many can only be tested with some oversight and analysis. My initial thoughts are, can it account for six times as many men being made companions?  Are there six times as many male judges, six times as many local body politicians? or world class sporting heroes? Also think about your assumption that the awards are for career/vocational work and that community work or parenting are not really what the awards are about. Could be said that assumption in itself reflects the received male bias in the world. Who deserves an award more? Roger Kerr, Business Round table leader and friend of rich and powerful men or the unsung elderly woman in some small town who has raised 50 foster children and given them all a loving home and a second chance in life? Why does a person like Roger seem to automatically get a big award? The point being what is the criteria for these awards? What is the ideology that structures them?
 

Yes you are probably right. The priority is  a republic and the honours system will no doubt be reviewed as part of that change or following it. However that still leaves the obvious discrimination involved in giving honours to the partners of heterosexual men only. It would be simple enough to just end that right now. Why should the partner of any person be awarded? 
With regard to Roger Kerr he is just an example and I am not offering any opinion on his merits. He was made a Companion of the New Zealand order of Merit in the recent list.  It is possible however that friendship with powerful people help a person get priority treatment and that those with power award individuals who are similar to them (as a natural tendency to place value on what we also value) Sir Bob Jones has admitted he bought his knighthood. That he offered a donation as long as he got an honour.
That is my point. That without transparency we will never know either way what is happening.
You have suggested that strength of convictions and commitment in the face of criticism (among other things like working for the greater good ) is a reason to get an honour?  Is that what the Prime Minister thinks? Again what is the overall criteria?  Surely a humble life dedicated to giving children a loving home despite the struggle and hardship and the lack of any financial or social reward would satisfy this criteria?  
 

With regards to Sir Bob Jones (an ardent republican) I don't think anyone is particularly surprised by the news that someone favoured by the either the Labour or National Party should be a priority for a knighthood. That is unfortunately what can happen with the present honours system.
Prince Charles has the world record for Knighthoods. As far as I know he has three. I wonder what he did to be awarded so many?
Discussing the honours system and suggesting some changes is, I think, an inescapable part of the republic debate as they are given out in the name of the Monarch and include a Queen's Service Award. They still reflect many of the values and traditions of the British Empire and the Monarchy (in the nomenclature and design of the medals and sashes, in the ceremonial way the awards are handed out and in the unnecessary secrecy that surround them).
In a republic they would most probably be handed out and be one of the responsibilities of an elected Head of State.
The Republican Movement want to know more about the awards but cannot find out so naturally we then have to first campaign for more transparency. Only by doing that can raise awareness around how much the awards are tainted by Monarchist values. We are basically shining a light on part of our political system that needs attention. We are not really saying anything other than the system needs to be more transparent and that it would better reflect the diversity and values of the full range of New Zealanders if we removed the influence of the Monarchy.
With regards your last point, we can't find out who has been nominated. That is the problem. We can't find out where the nominations are coming from so we are unable to find out whether some people are being knocked back or whether there are some groups not participating  in the awards. We don't know how engaged people are or how people feel about the awards.  How many people turn down the awards because they don't want to be associated with royalty? I'd be interested to know.