On April 25th, 110 years ago, soldiers from the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps landed at Gallipoli.
About 8,700 Australians and 2,700 Kiwis would die over the eight-month campaign that followed.
Since then, the term Anzac has symbolised decades of mateship – and the day is observed now by a number of Pacific nations as well.
The date serves as a time to remember those who served and died in all wars, conflicts, and peacekeeping operations – but until very recently, how we defined veteran was quite narrow.
Today on The Front Page, NZ Herald senior reporter, David Fisher, is with us to take us through the latest changes in this realm – and how our defence focus is changing.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
Jiaota.
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast.
Presented by the New Zealand Herald.
One hundred and ten years ago tomorrow, soldiers from the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps landed at Gallipoli. About eighty seven hundred Australians and two thousand, seven hundred Kiwis would die over the eight month campaign that followed. Since then, the term Anzac has symbolized decades of mateship, and the day is observed now by a number of Pacific nations as well. The date serves as a time to remember those who served and died in all wars, conflict and peacekeeping operations. But until very recently how we defined the word veteran was quite narrow. Today on the front Page ends at Herald's senior reporter, David Fisher is with us todake us through the latest changes in this realm and how our defense focus is changing. So, David, there's been a lot of discussion in recent weeks about the term veteran, How is it defined until very recently and how is it going to be defined now?
What are the main bones of contention among the New Zealand veteran community has been that definition of veteran. The difficulty in New Zealand has still has actually is that we have effectively a two tier system. That two tiers system, meaning that from nineteen seventy four and before, if you served, no matter how, you're considered a veteran and you can access support services through Veterans Affairs. After nineteen seventy four, you need what is called qualifying operational service. This is going to sound a little bizarre, a little perverse, kind of hard to get ahead, and that's one of the issues that the veteran community has with US. Qualified operational service is service which the Minister of Defense has signed a piece of paper to say, yes, this will qualify you as a veteran, and.
It's riddled with inconsistencies.
One good example, I think is that if you were in service and you were deployed to assist with the tsunami that Hippapa New Guinea in nineteen ninety eight, then you were.
Eligible to be called a veteran.
If you were in service and you were deployed to help with the tsunami and Togger in twenty twenty two, you're not a veteran simply because this sign wire doesn't exist at the bottom of the right piece of paper. So the change that we had recently was that Veterans Minister Chris Penk himself a veteran in Australia but not one in New Zealand, even though he served in both defense forces. He has said that there will be a change so that under certain conditions three years of service, for example, you can then be called a veteran. The issue with that for many in the veterans community is that it's nice that they've had that recognition, but you still need qualifying operational service to be able to access any of the veterans support services that exist. So it's very much a cosmetic change, a very overdue cosmetic change, but it doesn't really have any practical effect.
Right, So the signature at the bottom of the right piece of paper still needs to exist.
Yes, that's right.
And this was the point that Willie a piata our sas Victoria crossholder made when he handed his Victoria cross over to Chris Pink and said, a veterans a veteran.
That's what he's pushing for.
That's what almost all in the veterans community are pushing for the RSA for example, that considers service to be the mark of a veteran that you need to have done that qualifying operational service. They will refer to people that have served as veterans. Veterans Affairs has not done that in the past. With this law change, they will. But unless you have qualifying operational service, you'll still not be able to access Veterans Support services.
Right, So how significant is this change. It kind of seems to me like it's a bit we're halfway there.
The change would be significant if it were to be a halfway step towards recognizing all those who have served as eligible for Veterans Affairs support. Without it's actually getting some traction. I don't want to say it's meaningless, because it's very meaningful to those who have served and have really contributed to our nation, to its national security, to disaster response within New Zealand and abroad. It's very meaningful to those people that they now feel recognized by the government that they had listed to serve, to protect, to act on behalf of where needed. They're now seen. So that's meaningful in that sense to them. In terms of practical assistance is it.
We will be establishing a national day of Recognition for veterans. Working title might be Veterans' Service Recognition Day, but we're again open to the discussion publicly about what that might look like. And I do want to acknowledge particularly the RSA in this context was the RSA that first proposed the idea of a national Day of Recognition for veterans, and I do want to emphasize that NZACT Day will of course remain a hugely important date in our calendar. The twenty fifth of April is embedded in the New Zealand psyche, and we will continue to celebrate no less vigorously and in fact, perhaps even more meaningfully.
I understand we're also going to get a new day to remember all veterans. Has that been a source of tension around ANZAC Day and its focus on the World Wars.
I suppose there has been some frustration that, well, the first actually comes in two parts.
Really.
The first is that Antac Day, while a very important meaningful day for the veterans community and for all of New Zealand, is seen somewhat as a day on which recognition is given to veterans one day of the year and then you can just forget about it and move on to have an actual Veterans Day that recognizes those who served and the service that they contributed to the country. Is seen by some as a place that will further recognition of veterans across the community. Is seen by some as a day that would allow veterans to reflect on their own personal service and the service of those that they served with.
But given the extraordinary.
Range of things that need to happen in the veterans space, a Veterans Day wasn't very high on the list of things that need to be done for the veteran community.
What else do veterans want to see changed? Because I saw recently you wrote about suicience and how there's no database to track these deaths.
Data is a really important issue for the veterans community in that New Zealand has extremely poor or just non existent data when it comes to veterans. We don't actually know how many veterans we have. And I'm not talking about those that served in the Second World War or Career or Vietnam or other conflicts around that period, but in terms of contemporary veterans, those who have served over the last say three decades or.
So, we don't know. And not only do we not know.
How big that community is, which will have needs that should be served, need to be served. There's really important data sets within that group that should exist that don't exist. One of those is suicide data. There's no measure on how many veterans or how many people who have served have self harmed or in fact taken their life. Now, this was a gap in Australia which was closed a number of years back.
When it was.
Closed, the scale of suicide among that community, the scale of suffering that those who had served were subjected to mental health suffering was so extraordinary that it led to a Royal commission into veteran suicide that exploded so many different myths. It blew up issues that have been simmering just under the surface for so so many years, and it led to an inquiry that really pulled out some horrendously gut wrenching stories. It's hard to think that that similar situation doesn't exist in New Zealand, but we've got no idea.
I know you've also covered for a while now issues with the Returned Services of Association.
What's been happening there?
The RSA is in a bit of a state. Really.
It's been going through a restructuring process or refocusing process, I guess you could call it. And some of this has been brought on by leadership at the National Office of the RSA wanting all the very many district RSAs to think about why they exist, which is for veterans or that's the way that the National Office would like those different areas around the country to see it. And the other thing that has happened as well is that there's been changes to the Incorporated Societies Act. Mostsas are incorporate societies and the National Office has been driving a process to have clubs conform to the new law. There's quite a bit of upset around this to look at the drive that the National officers had around a focus on veterans. That there was those quite infamous words from Tarbuck Shelford.
No more booze halls or pokey halls or something like that.
Over the many many decades that we've had as a number of those have gone in different directions and become more like community associations or community clubs that operate under the banner of the RSA. Some of those will have extensive offerings through their clubs that bring in a huge amount of revenue but actually only a very small fraction of that which has put aside for veterans. And in some clubs you'll get the same amount put aside for veterans as we put aside for the local kids bushwalking club or the local knitting circle or the local keep the Town tidy crew, or whatever it might be. And so there's a real tension between the different clubs that we have around the country as to the purpose that they serve. Other clubs are very much directly focused on veterans welfare and they don't operate, say hospitality venues, which were seen for a long time as an answer to RSA woes. They pour their efforts, the energy they're fundraising into veteran support services, a far more narrower operation than say those that operates big community organizations or big community clubs. So there's a real culture war that's going on within the ARESA about why they exist, who's in charge. All the local rssays have always been their own independent bodies. The National Office of the RSA is exerting a direction which has left some of those previously independent clubs feeling as if they're being bossed around. That's quite an issue. The upshot being that when the new constitution was voted and for the RSA, this is the constitution that brings in a lot of change in how the National Office is going to operate and then triggers a flow on process toward the local clubs. And the recent vote just last weekend or weekend before last, I believe they've got about fifty three percent, just over fifty percent of clubs following them. There's quite concerning. It's not exactly a resounding law of approval for the direction that the National Office is taking people. And then within the wider ARISA network there's talks of clubs that will break off.
Auckland District.
ARESA has talked about wholesale leaving the national organization and just doing it, so there's a real mess there.
I've been very clear that my primary focus is the economic performance of this country.
However, there can be no.
Prosperity without security and defense is one vital component of that picture. This government has set a high ambition for New Zealand's external engagement agendas. We are delivering a more energetic approach to international engagement and increase contributions to collective security efforts globally. We also have responsibility to resource and equip our defense force to ensure that we can continue to defend our national interests. This plan seeks to strengthen into operability with Australia and both our people and our assets, and that's why we're releasing a multi billion dollar plan for a modern, combat capable New Zealand Defense Force.
We've also seen huge announcements around defense in recent weeks, twelve billion dollars over the next four years, which includes nine billion of new spending that'll take defense spending from one percent of GDP to about two You've spoken to the Front Page before about the underinvestment in our defense force, particularly when it comes to equipment and facilities.
So is this investment good news? Overall?
The twelve billion dollars that's been put forward to defense has been a long time coming, and our defense force seriously needed surge funding some time ago.
Is it enough?
Though it's a huge amount of money for a New Zealand budget, I'm astonished that it's at the scale that it's at. Whether it's enough in terms of New Zealand pulling its weight it gets there. The difficulty that I would think Defense will have is that much money over such a short period is kind of like heavy rain hitting droughtstruck land. All that water doesn't soak in, there's a risk of it running off the top. It's a huge amount of money that is being poured into an organization that has struggled with spending much smaller pools of money and getting real bang for buck out of that. There's also an awful lot of legacy issues that need to be dealt with the Defense Estate, for example, which I believe Minister Collins when she announced the money, had talked about a chunk of cash being set aside for that absolutely essential. We've got service people who and their families who are living in cold, drafty, mold ridden homes, Defense homes, and it's not good enough.
It's not been good enough for a very very long time.
Yeah. Do we know yet if it'll lead to any improvements in pay.
We don't know that for certain, but it would have to lead to improvements and pay. One of the struggles that Defense has had is that for people who have the particular skills that Defense requires, they can go and earn a lot more money in the private sector and have the sort of opportunity that they would sign up to the military for to see the world, to go to have adventures and excitement and those sorts of things. I mean, for many people that serve the concept of services the thing that comes first, and there is a genuine and ongoing drive to pour their energies into serving New Zealand. But really hard to keep that motivation alive when people feel like they're being taken for granted. When you can jump from say, working the engine room of a Navy ship across to the private sector and earn considerably more money for doing so and actually spend your time at sea, it's hard to feel that service balances out those opportunities that you Your ambitions, your career dreams are being held hostage too.
With all these changes coming David and more of a focus on defense, do you think that'll give more meaning to Anzac Day going forward. I know when Ossie growing up, there was a real discussion around Anzac Day being a public holiday. You've got work off, let's get on the booze from twelve pm. I think it was back home and that meaning of Anzac Day. How it's really lost on the younger generations.
Do you reckon we'll ever get back.
To a place where it is a day to commemorate those who've served.
I believe it still is a day of commemoration.
It has been a feature over the last decade or so, or a couple of decades to see younger crowds turning up at ANTIQ Day commemorations, which is a really heartening thing. It's not just antich Day though, those who serve do so three hundred.
And sixty five days a year.
That recognition of our military, I think will grow with the New Zealand society with the enormous amount of money that's been poured into it.
But it will also it.
Will need some effort to rebuild bonds that have been broken or become stretched or strained. Over the decades previous. We went through an odd separation I suppose, from civil society and military society over quite an extended period of time. Even things like referring to those that were deployed abroad as peacekeepers. For a very long time, it said that all New Zealand had for decades and decades was peacekeepers. Those people are war fighters. They train to go off and fight wars. That's part of the barrier I think that sits between general New Zealand society and our military component. We don't have the connections that we would have had in generations that have been closer at wartime around say Korea, World War two, even Vietnam to a degree, although civil society's engagement, it's, while very interested, somewhat different at the time.
Thanks for joining us, David.
Thank you.
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzedherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also our sound engineer.
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Subscribe to The Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in on Monday for another look behind the headlines.