While many will welcome reversion to an honours system recognising society's special contributors with the familiar titles of "Sir" and "Dame", it is less obvious the move has been thoroughly thought-out, let alone discussed in any meaningful fashion with either the country or the Parliament.
It has become clear since the system was changed and the titles abolished in 2000 by Helen Clark and the Labour-led government that the replacements have failed to excite the imagination and thus, arguably, have contributed to a de facto demotion in their social and cultural significance.
If people are going to be recognised for their good and public-spirited works, then it should be with a title or honour that has resonance.
Otherwise, such a system will inevitably drift into irrelevance and, some might say, this is precisely what is happening.
However, in the precitipitous announcement of the change, there is a danger of continuing another tradition - making mish-mash out of the complex business of public recognition and a titular awards system.
It also presupposes that a majority of citizens agree with the notion of such awards - which is, perhaps, non-controversial - but also that they wish to revert to a system that, symbolically at least, could be interpreted as looking backwards towards an era of empire and cultural genuflexion rather than forward to more independent and self-confident reflections of identity.
The latter is not so clear-cut.
In some respects, Prime Minister John Key is simply reversing a policy made unilaterally and unwisely by Miss Clark - equally without wide consultation.
But the issue is more complicated than this and a glance at the recent history is instructive.
In 1995, National Party leader and Prime Minister Jim Bolger ordered a review of the honours system.
Abolishing knighthoods was the main recommendation of Mr Bolger's Honours Advisory Committee.
And while he eventually fudged the issue, the finding was not seen as overwhelmingly controversial at the time.
In 1999, an opinion poll showed that about 54% of New Zealanders favoured abolition while 37% wanted retention.
In this respect, public opinion had begun to lean towards the status quo in Canada - which abolished knighthoods 60 or so years ago - and Australia which saw an end to them in 1983.
This was perhaps assisted by the perception that the honours system had become politicised over the previous two or three decades and thus compromised by fealty.
Likewise, the long-running "cash-for-honours" saga blighting the British system has done little to endorse its general reputation.
Mr Key and the National Party indicated during the election campaign that the honours system was likely to be reviewed but made no clear signal that knighthoods would once again become part of the social nomenclature.
On Sunday, he announced that the titles of Knight and Dame Grand Companion (GNZM) and Knight and Dame Companion (KNZM/DNZM) would return, with "approval for the reinstatement" by the Queen.
The changes will be finalised and come into effect in time for the Queen's Birthday Honours list, Mr Key said.
Eighty-five of this country's most distinguished citizens must now decide whether they will drop the title of Mr, Mrs or Miss and be known as Sir and Dame instead.
It places many - who may never have sought the honour in the first place - in an invidious postition.
If they say "yes" they might be regarded as self-important "big-noters"; if they say "no" they might be thought ungrateful, or exemplars of a sort of false pride.
It would surely have been preferable to canvass such people quietly as part of a larger process towards change - if it were thought necessary; or make for them the decision that has now been made for the rest of the country.
Some have already indicated a preference, saying that while the honour of being created Principal and Distinguished Companions of the Order of New Zealand was special at the time, the honour has proved fleeting because there is no comforting short-hand title to denote the status.
The question then arises as to why the titles of "Sir" and "Dame" could not be attached to these same awards, for these recipients have a valid point.
It is the point Mr Key makes when he says the move is about "celebrating success".
Few people have any difficulty with such a notion.
But whether celebrating success in 21st-century New Zealand requires a wholesale reversion to "Knight and Dame Companions", at the pleasure of the Queen, others may find debatable.
Mr Key and his Government obviously think so and, as is their prerogative, have made a decisive intervention.
Whether it stands the test of time only time itself will tell.
There is every possibility that a new government in three, six, nine or 12 years' time, will reverse the decision yet again - to the detriment of the entire honours system.
