April 23, 2025 • 18 mins
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
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Jiaota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Presented by the New Zealand Herald.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
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
(00:37):
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
(00:59):
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?
Speaker 4 (01:21):
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
(01:43):
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
(02:05):
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.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
It's riddled with inconsistencies.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
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.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Eligible to be called a veteran.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
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
(02:51):
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
(03:12):
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.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Right, So the signature at the bottom of the right
piece of paper still needs to exist.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
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.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
That's what he's pushing for.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
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.
(04:07):
But unless you have qualifying operational service, you'll still not
be able to access Veterans Support services.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Right, So how significant is this change. It kind of
seems to me like it's a bit we're halfway there.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
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
(04:38):
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
(05:00):
practical assistance is it.
Speaker 5 (05:05):
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,
(05:28):
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.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
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.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
I suppose there has been some frustration that, well, the
first actually comes in two parts.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Really.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
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
(06:23):
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.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
But given the extraordinary.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
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.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
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
(07:25):
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.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
So, we don't know. And not only do we not know.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
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,
(08:01):
this was a gap in Australia which was closed a
number of years back.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
When it was.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
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
(08:29):
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.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I know you've also covered for a while now issues
with the Returned Services of Association.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
What's been happening there?
Speaker 1 (09:02):
The RSA is in a bit of a state. Really.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
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
(09:28):
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
(09:51):
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.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
No more booze halls or pokey halls or something like that.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
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
(10:26):
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
(10:48):
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
(11:09):
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
(11:31):
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
(11:52):
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.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Auckland District.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
ARESA has talked about wholesale leaving the national organization and
just doing it, so there's a real mess there.
Speaker 6 (12:24):
I've been very clear that my primary focus is the
economic performance of this country.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
However, there can be no.
Speaker 6 (12:29):
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
(12:50):
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.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
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,
(13:27):
particularly when it comes to equipment and facilities.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
So is this investment good news? Overall?
Speaker 4 (13:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Is it enough?
Speaker 4 (13:44):
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
(14:05):
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
(14:26):
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.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
It's not been good enough for a very very long time.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Yeah. Do we know yet if it'll lead to any
improvements in pay.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
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
(15:14):
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
(15:37):
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
(16:03):
are being held hostage too.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
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
(16:26):
on the younger generations.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
Do you reckon we'll ever get back.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
To a place where it is a day to commemorate
those who've served.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
I believe it still is a day of commemoration.
Speaker 4 (16:36):
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.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
And sixty five days a year.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
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.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
But it will also it.
Speaker 4 (17:07):
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
(17:29):
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
(17:50):
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.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Thanks for joining us, David.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
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.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Subscribe to The Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in on Monday for another
look behind the headlines.
Jiaota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Presented by the New Zealand Herald.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
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
(00:37):
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
(00:59):
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?
Speaker 4 (01:21):
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
(01:43):
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
(02:05):
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.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
It's riddled with inconsistencies.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
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.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Eligible to be called a veteran.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
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
(02:51):
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
(03:12):
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.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Right, So the signature at the bottom of the right
piece of paper still needs to exist.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
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.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
That's what he's pushing for.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
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.
(04:07):
But unless you have qualifying operational service, you'll still not
be able to access Veterans Support services.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Right, So how significant is this change. It kind of
seems to me like it's a bit we're halfway there.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
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
(04:38):
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
(05:00):
practical assistance is it.
Speaker 5 (05:05):
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,
(05:28):
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.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
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.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
I suppose there has been some frustration that, well, the
first actually comes in two parts.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Really.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
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
(06:23):
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.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
But given the extraordinary.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
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.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
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
(07:25):
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.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
So, we don't know. And not only do we not know.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
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,
(08:01):
this was a gap in Australia which was closed a
number of years back.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
When it was.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
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
(08:29):
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.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I know you've also covered for a while now issues
with the Returned Services of Association.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
What's been happening there?
Speaker 1 (09:02):
The RSA is in a bit of a state. Really.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
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
(09:28):
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
(09:51):
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.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
No more booze halls or pokey halls or something like that.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
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
(10:26):
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
(10:48):
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
(11:09):
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
(11:31):
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
(11:52):
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.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Auckland District.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
ARESA has talked about wholesale leaving the national organization and
just doing it, so there's a real mess there.
Speaker 6 (12:24):
I've been very clear that my primary focus is the
economic performance of this country.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
However, there can be no.
Speaker 6 (12:29):
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
(12:50):
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.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
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,
(13:27):
particularly when it comes to equipment and facilities.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
So is this investment good news? Overall?
Speaker 4 (13:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Is it enough?
Speaker 4 (13:44):
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
(14:05):
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
(14:26):
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.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
It's not been good enough for a very very long time.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Yeah. Do we know yet if it'll lead to any
improvements in pay.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
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
(15:14):
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
(15:37):
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
(16:03):
are being held hostage too.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
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
(16:26):
on the younger generations.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
Do you reckon we'll ever get back.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
To a place where it is a day to commemorate
those who've served.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
I believe it still is a day of commemoration.
Speaker 4 (16:36):
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.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
And sixty five days a year.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
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.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
But it will also it.
Speaker 4 (17:07):
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
(17:29):
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
(17:50):
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.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Thanks for joining us, David.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
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.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Subscribe to The Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in on Monday for another
look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.