Speaker 1: Jiaota.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast.
Speaker 3: Presented by the New Zealand Herald.
Speaker 2: One hundred and ten years ago tomorrow, soldiers from the
Speaker 2: Australian and New Zealand Army Corps landed at Gallipoli. About
Speaker 2: eighty seven hundred Australians and two thousand, seven hundred Kiwis
Speaker 2: would die over the eight month campaign that followed. Since then,
Speaker 2: the term Anzac has symbolized decades of mateship, and the
Speaker 2: day is observed now by a number of Pacific nations
Speaker 2: as well. The date serves as a time to remember
Speaker 2: those who served and died in all wars, conflict and
Speaker 2: peacekeeping operations. But until very recently how we defined the
Speaker 2: word veteran was quite narrow. Today on the front Page
Speaker 2: ends at Herald's senior reporter, David Fisher is with us
Speaker 2: todake us through the latest changes in this realm and
Speaker 2: how our defense focus is changing. So, David, there's been
Speaker 2: a lot of discussion in recent weeks about the term veteran,
Speaker 2: How is it defined until very recently and how is
Speaker 2: it going to be defined now?
Speaker 4: What are the main bones of contention among the New
Speaker 4: Zealand veteran community has been that definition of veteran. The
Speaker 4: difficulty in New Zealand has still has actually is that
Speaker 4: we have effectively a two tier system. That two tiers system,
Speaker 4: meaning that from nineteen seventy four and before, if you served,
Speaker 4: no matter how, you're considered a veteran and you can
Speaker 4: access support services through Veterans Affairs. After nineteen seventy four,
Speaker 4: you need what is called qualifying operational service. This is
Speaker 4: going to sound a little bizarre, a little perverse, kind
Speaker 4: of hard to get ahead, and that's one of the
Speaker 4: issues that the veteran community has with US. Qualified operational
Speaker 4: service is service which the Minister of Defense has signed
Speaker 4: a piece of paper to say, yes, this will qualify
Speaker 4: you as a veteran, and.
Speaker 1: It's riddled with inconsistencies.
Speaker 4: One good example, I think is that if you were
Speaker 4: in service and you were deployed to assist with the
Speaker 4: tsunami that Hippapa New Guinea in nineteen ninety eight, then
Speaker 4: you were.
Speaker 1: Eligible to be called a veteran.
Speaker 4: If you were in service and you were deployed to
Speaker 4: help with the tsunami and Togger in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 4: you're not a veteran simply because this sign wire doesn't
Speaker 4: exist at the bottom of the right piece of paper.
Speaker 4: So the change that we had recently was that Veterans
Speaker 4: Minister Chris Penk himself a veteran in Australia but not
Speaker 4: one in New Zealand, even though he served in both
Speaker 4: defense forces. He has said that there will be a
Speaker 4: change so that under certain conditions three years of service,
Speaker 4: for example, you can then be called a veteran. The
Speaker 4: issue with that for many in the veterans community is
Speaker 4: that it's nice that they've had that recognition, but you
Speaker 4: still need qualifying operational service to be able to access
Speaker 4: any of the veterans support services that exist. So it's
Speaker 4: very much a cosmetic change, a very overdue cosmetic change,
Speaker 4: but it doesn't really have any practical effect.
Speaker 2: Right, So the signature at the bottom of the right
Speaker 2: piece of paper still needs to exist.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 4: And this was the point that Willie a piata our
Speaker 4: sas Victoria crossholder made when he handed his Victoria cross
Speaker 4: over to Chris Pink and said, a veterans a veteran.
Speaker 1: That's what he's pushing for.
Speaker 4: That's what almost all in the veterans community are pushing
Speaker 4: for the RSA for example, that considers service to be
Speaker 4: the mark of a veteran that you need to have
Speaker 4: done that qualifying operational service. They will refer to people
Speaker 4: that have served as veterans. Veterans Affairs has not done
Speaker 4: that in the past. With this law change, they will.
Speaker 4: But unless you have qualifying operational service, you'll still not
Speaker 4: be able to access Veterans Support services.
Speaker 2: Right, So how significant is this change. It kind of
Speaker 2: seems to me like it's a bit we're halfway there.
Speaker 4: The change would be significant if it were to be
Speaker 4: a halfway step towards recognizing all those who have served
Speaker 4: as eligible for Veterans Affairs support. Without it's actually getting
Speaker 4: some traction. I don't want to say it's meaningless, because
Speaker 4: it's very meaningful to those who have served and have
Speaker 4: really contributed to our nation, to its national security, to
Speaker 4: disaster response within New Zealand and abroad. It's very meaningful
Speaker 4: to those people that they now feel recognized by the
Speaker 4: government that they had listed to serve, to protect, to
Speaker 4: act on behalf of where needed. They're now seen. So
Speaker 4: that's meaningful in that sense to them. In terms of
Speaker 4: practical assistance is it.
Speaker 5: We will be establishing a national day of Recognition for veterans.
Speaker 5: Working title might be Veterans' Service Recognition Day, but we're
Speaker 5: again open to the discussion publicly about what that might
Speaker 5: look like. And I do want to acknowledge particularly the
Speaker 5: RSA in this context was the RSA that first proposed
Speaker 5: the idea of a national Day of Recognition for veterans,
Speaker 5: and I do want to emphasize that NZACT Day will
Speaker 5: of course remain a hugely important date in our calendar.
Speaker 5: The twenty fifth of April is embedded in the New
Speaker 5: Zealand psyche, and we will continue to celebrate no less
Speaker 5: vigorously and in fact, perhaps even more meaningfully.
Speaker 2: I understand we're also going to get a new day
Speaker 2: to remember all veterans. Has that been a source of
Speaker 2: tension around ANZAC Day and its focus on the World Wars.
Speaker 4: I suppose there has been some frustration that, well, the
Speaker 4: first actually comes in two parts.
Speaker 1: Really.
Speaker 4: The first is that Antac Day, while a very important
Speaker 4: meaningful day for the veterans community and for all of
Speaker 4: New Zealand, is seen somewhat as a day on which
Speaker 4: recognition is given to veterans one day of the year
Speaker 4: and then you can just forget about it and move
Speaker 4: on to have an actual Veterans Day that recognizes those
Speaker 4: who served and the service that they contributed to the country.
Speaker 4: Is seen by some as a place that will further
Speaker 4: recognition of veterans across the community. Is seen by some
Speaker 4: as a day that would allow veterans to reflect on
Speaker 4: their own personal service and the service of those that
Speaker 4: they served with.
Speaker 1: But given the extraordinary.
Speaker 4: Range of things that need to happen in the veterans space,
Speaker 4: a Veterans Day wasn't very high on the list of
Speaker 4: things that need to be done for the veteran community.
Speaker 2: What else do veterans want to see changed? Because I
Speaker 2: saw recently you wrote about suicience and how there's no
Speaker 2: database to track these deaths.
Speaker 4: Data is a really important issue for the veterans community
Speaker 4: in that New Zealand has extremely poor or just non
Speaker 4: existent data when it comes to veterans. We don't actually
Speaker 4: know how many veterans we have. And I'm not talking
Speaker 4: about those that served in the Second World War or
Speaker 4: Career or Vietnam or other conflicts around that period, but
Speaker 4: in terms of contemporary veterans, those who have served over
Speaker 4: the last say three decades or.
Speaker 1: So, we don't know. And not only do we not know.
Speaker 4: How big that community is, which will have needs that
Speaker 4: should be served, need to be served. There's really important
Speaker 4: data sets within that group that should exist that don't exist.
Speaker 4: One of those is suicide data. There's no measure on
Speaker 4: how many veterans or how many people who have served
Speaker 4: have self harmed or in fact taken their life. Now,
Speaker 4: this was a gap in Australia which was closed a
Speaker 4: number of years back.
Speaker 1: When it was.
Speaker 4: Closed, the scale of suicide among that community, the scale
Speaker 4: of suffering that those who had served were subjected to
Speaker 4: mental health suffering was so extraordinary that it led to
Speaker 4: a Royal commission into veteran suicide that exploded so many
Speaker 4: different myths. It blew up issues that have been simmering
Speaker 4: just under the surface for so so many years, and
Speaker 4: it led to an inquiry that really pulled out some
Speaker 4: horrendously gut wrenching stories. It's hard to think that that
Speaker 4: similar situation doesn't exist in New Zealand, but we've got
Speaker 4: no idea.
Speaker 2: I know you've also covered for a while now issues
Speaker 2: with the Returned Services of Association.
Speaker 3: What's been happening there?
Speaker 1: The RSA is in a bit of a state. Really.
Speaker 4: It's been going through a restructuring process or refocusing process,
Speaker 4: I guess you could call it. And some of this
Speaker 4: has been brought on by leadership at the National Office
Speaker 4: of the RSA wanting all the very many district RSAs
Speaker 4: to think about why they exist, which is for veterans
Speaker 4: or that's the way that the National Office would like
Speaker 4: those different areas around the country to see it. And
Speaker 4: the other thing that has happened as well is that
Speaker 4: there's been changes to the Incorporated Societies Act. Mostsas are
Speaker 4: incorporate societies and the National Office has been driving a
Speaker 4: process to have clubs conform to the new law. There's
Speaker 4: quite a bit of upset around this to look at
Speaker 4: the drive that the National officers had around a focus
Speaker 4: on veterans. That there was those quite infamous words from
Speaker 4: Tarbuck Shelford.
Speaker 1: No more booze halls or pokey halls or something like that.
Speaker 4: Over the many many decades that we've had as a
Speaker 4: number of those have gone in different directions and become
Speaker 4: more like community associations or community clubs that operate under
Speaker 4: the banner of the RSA. Some of those will have
Speaker 4: extensive offerings through their clubs that bring in a huge
Speaker 4: amount of revenue but actually only a very small fraction
Speaker 4: of that which has put aside for veterans. And in
Speaker 4: some clubs you'll get the same amount put aside for
Speaker 4: veterans as we put aside for the local kids bushwalking
Speaker 4: club or the local knitting circle or the local keep
Speaker 4: the Town tidy crew, or whatever it might be. And
Speaker 4: so there's a real tension between the different clubs that
Speaker 4: we have around the country as to the purpose that
Speaker 4: they serve. Other clubs are very much directly focused on
Speaker 4: veterans welfare and they don't operate, say hospitality venues, which
Speaker 4: were seen for a long time as an answer to
Speaker 4: RSA woes. They pour their efforts, the energy they're fundraising
Speaker 4: into veteran support services, a far more narrower operation than
Speaker 4: say those that operates big community organizations or big community clubs.
Speaker 4: So there's a real culture war that's going on within
Speaker 4: the ARESA about why they exist, who's in charge. All
Speaker 4: the local rssays have always been their own independent bodies.
Speaker 4: The National Office of the RSA is exerting a direction
Speaker 4: which has left some of those previously independent clubs feeling
Speaker 4: as if they're being bossed around. That's quite an issue.
Speaker 4: The upshot being that when the new constitution was voted
Speaker 4: and for the RSA, this is the constitution that brings
Speaker 4: in a lot of change in how the National Office
Speaker 4: is going to operate and then triggers a flow on
Speaker 4: process toward the local clubs. And the recent vote just
Speaker 4: last weekend or weekend before last, I believe they've got
Speaker 4: about fifty three percent, just over fifty percent of clubs
Speaker 4: following them. There's quite concerning. It's not exactly a resounding
Speaker 4: law of approval for the direction that the National Office
Speaker 4: is taking people. And then within the wider ARISA network
Speaker 4: there's talks of clubs that will break off.
Speaker 1: Auckland District.
Speaker 4: ARESA has talked about wholesale leaving the national organization and
Speaker 4: just doing it, so there's a real mess there.
Speaker 6: I've been very clear that my primary focus is the
Speaker 6: economic performance of this country.
Speaker 1: However, there can be no.
Speaker 6: Prosperity without security and defense is one vital component of
Speaker 6: that picture. This government has set a high ambition for
Speaker 6: New Zealand's external engagement agendas. We are delivering a more
Speaker 6: energetic approach to international engagement and increase contributions to collective
Speaker 6: security efforts globally. We also have responsibility to resource and
Speaker 6: equip our defense force to ensure that we can continue
Speaker 6: to defend our national interests. This plan seeks to strengthen
Speaker 6: into operability with Australia and both our people and our assets,
Speaker 6: and that's why we're releasing a multi billion dollar plan
Speaker 6: for a modern, combat capable New Zealand Defense Force.
Speaker 2: We've also seen huge announcements around defense in recent weeks,
Speaker 2: twelve billion dollars over the next four years, which includes
Speaker 2: nine billion of new spending that'll take defense spending from
Speaker 2: one percent of GDP to about two You've spoken to
Speaker 2: the Front Page before about the underinvestment in our defense force,
Speaker 2: particularly when it comes to equipment and facilities.
Speaker 3: So is this investment good news? Overall?
Speaker 4: The twelve billion dollars that's been put forward to defense
Speaker 4: has been a long time coming, and our defense force
Speaker 4: seriously needed surge funding some time ago.
Speaker 3: Is it enough?
Speaker 4: Though it's a huge amount of money for a New
Speaker 4: Zealand budget, I'm astonished that it's at the scale that
Speaker 4: it's at. Whether it's enough in terms of New Zealand
Speaker 4: pulling its weight it gets there. The difficulty that I
Speaker 4: would think Defense will have is that much money over
Speaker 4: such a short period is kind of like heavy rain
Speaker 4: hitting droughtstruck land. All that water doesn't soak in, there's
Speaker 4: a risk of it running off the top. It's a
Speaker 4: huge amount of money that is being poured into an
Speaker 4: organization that has struggled with spending much smaller pools of
Speaker 4: money and getting real bang for buck out of that.
Speaker 4: There's also an awful lot of legacy issues that need
Speaker 4: to be dealt with the Defense Estate, for example, which
Speaker 4: I believe Minister Collins when she announced the money, had
Speaker 4: talked about a chunk of cash being set aside for
Speaker 4: that absolutely essential. We've got service people who and their
Speaker 4: families who are living in cold, drafty, mold ridden homes,
Speaker 4: Defense homes, and it's not good enough.
Speaker 1: It's not been good enough for a very very long time.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Do we know yet if it'll lead to any
Speaker 2: improvements in pay.
Speaker 4: We don't know that for certain, but it would have
Speaker 4: to lead to improvements and pay. One of the struggles
Speaker 4: that Defense has had is that for people who have
Speaker 4: the particular skills that Defense requires, they can go and
Speaker 4: earn a lot more money in the private sector and
Speaker 4: have the sort of opportunity that they would sign up
Speaker 4: to the military for to see the world, to go
Speaker 4: to have adventures and excitement and those sorts of things.
Speaker 4: I mean, for many people that serve the concept of
Speaker 4: services the thing that comes first, and there is a
Speaker 4: genuine and ongoing drive to pour their energies into serving
Speaker 4: New Zealand. But really hard to keep that motivation alive
Speaker 4: when people feel like they're being taken for granted. When
Speaker 4: you can jump from say, working the engine room of
Speaker 4: a Navy ship across to the private sector and earn
Speaker 4: considerably more money for doing so and actually spend your
Speaker 4: time at sea, it's hard to feel that service balances
Speaker 4: out those opportunities that you Your ambitions, your career dreams
Speaker 4: are being held hostage too.
Speaker 2: With all these changes coming David and more of a
Speaker 2: focus on defense, do you think that'll give more meaning
Speaker 2: to Anzac Day going forward. I know when Ossie growing up,
Speaker 2: there was a real discussion around Anzac Day being a
Speaker 2: public holiday. You've got work off, let's get on the
Speaker 2: booze from twelve pm. I think it was back home
Speaker 2: and that meaning of Anzac Day. How it's really lost
Speaker 2: on the younger generations.
Speaker 3: Do you reckon we'll ever get back.
Speaker 2: To a place where it is a day to commemorate
Speaker 2: those who've served.
Speaker 1: I believe it still is a day of commemoration.
Speaker 4: It has been a feature over the last decade or so,
Speaker 4: or a couple of decades to see younger crowds turning
Speaker 4: up at ANTIQ Day commemorations, which is a really heartening thing.
Speaker 4: It's not just antich Day though, those who serve do
Speaker 4: so three hundred.
Speaker 1: And sixty five days a year.
Speaker 4: That recognition of our military, I think will grow with
Speaker 4: the New Zealand society with the enormous amount of money
Speaker 4: that's been poured into it.
Speaker 1: But it will also it.
Speaker 4: Will need some effort to rebuild bonds that have been
Speaker 4: broken or become stretched or strained. Over the decades previous.
Speaker 4: We went through an odd separation I suppose, from civil
Speaker 4: society and military society over quite an extended period of time.
Speaker 4: Even things like referring to those that were deployed abroad
Speaker 4: as peacekeepers. For a very long time, it said that
Speaker 4: all New Zealand had for decades and decades was peacekeepers.
Speaker 4: Those people are war fighters. They train to go off
Speaker 4: and fight wars. That's part of the barrier I think
Speaker 4: that sits between general New Zealand society and our military component.
Speaker 4: We don't have the connections that we would have had
Speaker 4: in generations that have been closer at wartime around say Korea,
Speaker 4: World War two, even Vietnam to a degree, although civil
Speaker 4: society's engagement, it's, while very interested, somewhat different at the time.
Speaker 3: Thanks for joining us, David.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
Speaker 2: can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
Speaker 2: at enzedherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
Speaker 2: produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
Speaker 2: our sound engineer.
Speaker 3: I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2: Subscribe to The Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
Speaker 2: get your podcasts, and tune in on Monday for another
Speaker 2: look behind the headlines.