Transparency, but not at privacy's expense

The Sunday Star-Times tried and failed to find out the names and overall numbers of New Zealanders who had turned down honours. About a year or so ago the Republican Movement tried to get the figures for those who had turned down honours, with similar difficulty. We did in the end get a rough figure of 10% of those offered honours rejecting them, but that was over the lifetime of the New Zealand honours system since it was established in 1996. To quote myself:

"The secrecy in terms of who's turned down what is ridiculous," said Lewis Holden, the chairman of the New Zealand Republican Movement.

"We fear there's a lot of politics going on behind the scenes as to who actually gets an honour. If it's really about honouring New Zealanders then it should be transparent."

I also said that the Republican Movement accepts individuals have an absolute right to privacy, and that should come first. However, withholding the numbers rejecting honours is ridiculous - they're basic statistics that the public should know about. The letter from the acting Clerk of the Executive Council is the typical parade of excuses for withholding the information - including the confidentiality of advice to the Sovereign.