RSA relaunch aims to modernise support for veterans, end internal disputes
In an interview with the Herald, the RSA rebellion was dismissed by Jones as driven by a small group of clubs disgruntled at being told what to do, which was to focus on supporting veterans rather than maintaining institutions that are struggling to survive.
The memorial wall outside RSA Tauranga. A relaunch of the national RSA office last night signalled a move towards the generation of contemporary veterans. Photo / Tom Eley
Jones, a former Chief of Defence, said a 'generational shift' was happening as the older generation of veterans, who deployed and returned in large contingents from recognised landmark wars, gave way to contemporary veterans whose service was often in smaller groups to lesser-known conflicts.
He said that needed to be recognised by modernising the RSA's administration and structure so it 'refocuses back support to veterans, not about the clubs or associations' that were developed to support earlier generations of war fighters.
Doing so, he said, would better reflect the needs of 'contemporary veterans rather than the needs of 100 years ago veterans'.
RSAs developed organically over years, initially during World War I, and mostly around large military units formed geographically. That meant those who returned home from service would return to the same areas, leading to clubs forming where significant numbers of veterans clustered.
Retired Lieutenant General Rhys Jones, pictured during his service, says it's time to modernise the RSA's administration and structure. Photo / Supplied
These days, and for decades, military units have reflected specific trades and specialities rather than where service people came from.
Contemporary veterans have also told the Herald the RSA's hospitality-focused offering doesn't appeal to a younger, active contingent in a generation less inclined to drinking.
Jones said the dwindling numbers of older veterans had led to some clubs closing and others struggling to meet operating costs, draining away 'assets they've gained over the last 100-plus years that have been donated by the public'.
Jones said there had been cases of clubs amalgamating and 'they've almost ignored that support to veterans [as] RSA assets have disappeared and gone into other parts of the community', with clubs broadening their appeal and membership.
He said a 'veteran support hub', as developed in some parts of the country, could be a better way of directly providing support to veterans who needed it.
The RSA modernisation also provided support for RSAs that faced financial or membership stress and needed to move away from hospitality, he said.
'The hospitality-based organisations still have a purpose. The whole aim of what we're trying to achieve is that there's a point of contact for veterans.
NZDF personnel supporting local communities after Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023. Jones says some younger veterans might not need help now but it was important to make sure it was available when they did. Photo/NZDF
'Some get that contact by joining clubs and have a place to go – others don't want to do that. And we need to have other ways for the contemporary veterans to maintain contact.'
Jones said some younger veterans might not need help now but it was important to make sure there was a structure in place that could support them when they did.
'It's making sure that the contemporary veterans know where to go for support so we can be there for members or non-members so long as they're veterans.'
Jones said while those who served often needed support for the physical toll of service, there was also the need to support the mental health of veterans. He said it was still a struggle to make people understand that psychological support was just as important.
Those involved in peacekeeping missions and disaster relief, along with war zones, were exposed to potentially damaging environments that most people would not experience and had lasting impacts.
Jones said the existing system to support veterans – Veterans Affairs for those who qualified for support and ACC for those who did not – had 'many holes and gaps' on which the RNZRSA advocated, including changes to the current legislation.
'I think we're still set up to recognise physical injury and the whole kind of process is more geared towards that rather than that holistic support we need going into the future.'
The RSA's collective focus has been marred by a turf war over the past two years that has resulted in a number of clubs preparing to break away.
The service of contemporary veterans is often in smaller groups than their predecessors. Photo / Supplied
Jones said those rebels were a 'quite small' but 'vocal minority'. He said the change to the constitution, often cited as the reason for the discontent, 'was not the reason for this rebellion'.
'It was more it was a bone to be chewed, that they could actually get some leverage on that.
'They're not wanting someone to actually look at what they're doing and say, 'actually you shouldn't be doing that, this is what you should be doing', and that's been going on for quite some time.
'It's about clubs and organisations having been run a particular way for so long and they are not really recognising the generational shift that's needed to go from veterans of the past to the veterans of the future.'
Jones said many clubs had brought in people who had not served, which had the benefit of expanding the skillset on which they could call.
He said those members 'really do add value' but there was a danger it 'dissipates that focus on veterans' and could potentially draw RSAs away from their core purpose.
Opposing clubs have taken heart from a legal opinion critical of the constitution process, which they say supports their view the national office changed the voting rules to get their changes through.
In contrast, the national office says the process followed was appropriate and needed to meet law changes to how incorporated societies operate.
Jones said he could not comment on the legal case brought by a group of rebel clubs challenging the constitution and the process by which it was changed.
Minister for Veterans Chris Penk said the RNZRSA was a 'valued partner in shaping Government policy for our veteran community' and he often sought the views of its national board.
While the RNZRSA operated independently, and advocated as such, Penk said he was working with it to 'improve recognition for veterans', including expanding the definition of a veteran through a new law.
Penk said the screening of the Back To Timor documentary was a great opportunity for those present to share memories and remember those who served, and where they served.
David Fisher is based in Northland and has worked as a journalist for more than 30 years, winning multiple journalism awards including being twice named Reporter of the Year and being selected as one of a small number of Wolfson Press Fellows to Wolfson College, Cambridge. He joined the Herald in 2004.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Techday NZ
5 hours ago
- Techday NZ
New Zealand's place in global cyber defence - From medieval knights to cybercriminals
During World War I, the British Expeditionary Force was the first military unit to cross the English Channel. This highly trained army featuring cavalry armed with lances, sabres, and rifles was the last reminder of medieval warfare. They were quickly brought low by machine guns, barbed wire and trenches. By the time the war ended, a mere 13 years after the invention of flight, the skies were filled with fighter planes. Conflict quickly reveals what works and what doesn't. In 2025, global instability has reshaped the battlefield once again. This time, it's digital. The rise of digital guerilla warfare We are witnessing a new kind of conflict: digital guerrilla war. This is where decentralised cybercriminal groups are being funded by shadowy nation states to carry out cyber-attacks. These hidden attackers "live off the land" by using legitimate tools to infiltrate systems and strike when least expected. Government entities are frequent targets, but private and listed companies are just as vulnerable. A major attack on them wouldn't just impact businesses, it could affect national stability and disrupt the economy. New Zealand, like the rest of the world, is locked in a cyber battle where threats can come from anywhere, at any time. Today, the front line is everywhere. This might sound excessive and overdramatic, but that's the reality all business leaders need to understand. A key concept in cyber security is that the investment to prevent harm should be in proportion to the needs of the business. But for many businesses, simple technology choices supported by people and processes are enough to mitigate most threats. But some organisations play integral roles in society and we can't afford for them not have the best security procedures in place. The Government must lead on critical infrastructure Critical infrastructure faces a much bigger threat. Last year, the United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), found proof that a state backed cyber security group, Volt Typhoon, had secretly infiltrated critical infrastructure providers across the Western world. Their goal? To cause disruption at a key moment. Another group, backed by the same nation-state, Salt Typhoon, has infiltrated nine major U.S. telecoms, accessing call data, text messages, and even recordings of prominent national leaders. New Zealanders have a right to know that our infrastructure is being protected, and that the government is investing in national cyber defence before disaster strikes. Cyber threats are no longer just a business problem; they're a national security issue. Is New Zealand doing enough to protect its critical infrastructure? Right now, the answer is no. We're at risk of falling behind. In late 2024, Australia passed sweeping cybersecurity legislation to harden national defences. The new laws require industries to uphold high security standards and give the government powers to intervene in the event of a serious breach. These reforms came in the wake of a string of devastating cyber incidents, including major data breaches at Medibank, Optus, and Latitude Finance in 2022 and 2023. The Latitude breach alone became the second largest in Australian history and the most damaging for citizens. It was also New Zealand's largest-ever data breach, exposing the personal information of 20% of our population. Australia has been put serious effort into building its cyber posture at a national level, with a vision of being a global leader in cybersecurity by 2030. In a world reliant on digital infrastructure, this will be a key competitive advantage. New Zealand has the chance to tell the same story, but only if we act soon. That's why we need the government to enact legislation that will protect our country and people. I appreciate developing legislation is not trivial, but the template has been created in Australia and it's in everyone's interest to reflect that over here. This will require some businesses to invest more to become compliant, but that's the point, that we all incur comparable costs to achieve a common standard. Cyber security is complex to understand. Humans evolved to recognise that a warrior charging at you is a threat, not a remote network of industrialised guerilla fighters with keyboards, backed by nations hiding their true intent. New Zealand must not wait until we're reacting to disaster. We need a nationally unified, proactive cyber defence to protect our people, businesses, and critical systems before it's too late.
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon tight-lipped amid speculation of foreign buyers ban change
The Herald understands no proposal has yet been put before Associate Finance Minister David Seymour, who has responsibility for the Overseas Investment Act . But it's unlikely changes to loosen the current ban would face resistance from Seymour, who has been critical of the measure . Luxon on Wednesday said there were 'ongoing conversations' and confirmed to the Herald that he was also working to make an announcement this year. He would not detail what threshold he would like set, but has previously suggested about $5 million, which would be an increase from National's 2023 policy of allowing foreigners to buy houses worth $2m and more and taxing that sale at 15%. 'We've got ongoing conversations as we work together in our coalition in the way that we do, and when we're ready to talk about it, we will,' Luxon said. 'When we come out with an answer, you will hear about it and we'll be very clear about it all. But for right here, right now, we've got ongoing conversations.' He said Peters' comments were a 'fair reflection of where things are at'. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was tight-lipped on Wednesday about policy to allow foreign investors to purchase residential property here. Photo / Mark Mitchell Peters on Wednesday afternoon said the 'Foreign Buyers Act is not changing'. The legislation amended in 2018 to classify residential houses as sensitive, and therefore not open to purchase from overseas people, is the Overseas Investment Act. NZ First said the rules would change for investors bringing millions to New Zealand's economy. 'They're investors, they're not buyers. You're not going to get a house key just by walking into the country in the way that other parties believed,' Peters said. 'If you're investing millions of dollars, seriously, we look at you having the right to back it up with the buying of a house in New Zealand at a certain cost. That cost is not $2m.' NZ First kiboshed National's foreign buyer's tax during the 2023 coalition negotiations and Peters repeated on Wednesday that it was 'fiscally never going to work'. The National-NZ First coalition agreement makes reference to the ban when it says: 'Tax relief will be progressed as set out in National's Tax Plan, but will not include a repeal of the foreign buyer's residential property ban, with income tax reductions coming into force from July 1, 2024.' NZ First leader Winston Peters says the rules will change for investors bringing millions to New Zealand's economy. Photo / Mark Mitchell Seymour told the Herald that if NZ First changed its historical position, 'there wouldn't be any complaints from me'. 'I'd be there with bells on, because I think allowing our friends around the world to come to our country, bring their money, and live here is generally – and there are exceptions – but generally, a win-win for New Zealand.' In an interview with the Herald this week, Peters denied his party was 'softening' its approach. 'The idea that for $2m you could come into this country and get a key and that's your investment was a nonsense,' Peters told the Herald. 'We said so before the election. We also debunked the costings for it, and were joined not long after that by economists who said that New Zealand First was right. 'We're saying if you're coming here with millions of dollars to invest in this country, then yes, you could buy a house, and we're setting the terms for that.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
NZ Herald
11 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Reserve Bank chairman Neil Quigley responds to allegations around Adrian Orr's resignation
When Newstalk ZB asked Quigley about the alleged 'Statement of Concerns' on Tuesday night, he said, 'I can't go into that'. When it asked Quigley about the swearing allegation, he responded, 'I can't comment on that. That's a matter of privacy that I don't think I should discuss.' On the day Orr resigned, Quigley refused to elaborate on what led to the surprise decision, hurriedly announced the day before the Reserve Bank hosted an international economics conference. Quigley said it was a 'personal decision' that Orr made. Then in June, the Reserve Bank issued a more detailed statement saying Orr resigned because he disagreed with the board over the amount of government funding the bank should pitch for. However, Reddell's source suggests there was an element of Orr being pushed to resign. When Newstalk ZB quizzed Quigley on Tuesday over his explanations for Orr's resignation, he made the point that Orr did not have to resign over the funding disagreement. 'There was nothing about that, that required Adrian to resign. He chose to make it a personal decision that he would resign at that point,' Quigley said. A Reserve Bank spokesman told the Herald the bank didn't plan to release any more information about Orr's resignation in addition to its June statement and accompanying documents released under the Official Information Act (OIA). 'The Reserve Bank believes that we have provided what information we can within our legal obligations, noting that the Ombudsman is investigating a complaint related to our handling of these information requests,' the spokesman said. Orr declined the Herald's request for comment. Willis prepped to answer questions about raised voices Reddell – who is often critical of the Reserve Bank – said, in his Croaking Cassandra blog post, he did not know the identity of his source and could not independently verify their claims. However, he believed the source's tone and the way their claims aligned with material in the public domain, gave them credibility. For example, it is known that Willis' press secretary warned her journalists might ask about Orr's conduct. A document released to the Herald under the OIA in April shows that on the morning of Orr's resignation, the press secretary jotted down several answers Willis could use in response to questions she might be asked be journalists. One question he suggested Willis might be asked was: 'Did you ever have disagreements with Adrian Orr?' The press secretary advised Willis to respond: 'I'm not going to discuss what happens in meetings that discuss confidential and sensitive matters.' He suggested a follow-up question could be: 'Did the Governor ever raise his voice with you?' Willis was advised to respond: 'As I've said, my relationship with Adrian Orr was professional. It's not appropriate for me to comment further on meetings that discussed sensitive and confidential matters.' When the Herald asked Willis on Tuesday whether Orr raised his voice with her during the meeting they had on February 24, she said, 'As I've said previously – not that I recall.' Put to her that she surely did remember what happened, Willis said Orr did not raise his voice with her. She distanced herself from the issue, saying it was an employment matter between Orr and the Reserve Bank board. The Herald has asked Treasury to comment on the allegation Orr lost his cool during the February 21 meeting. A copy of the meeting minutes has also been requested. Reserve Bank chairman Neil Quigley says he can't comment on allegations around what led to Adrian Orr's resignation. Photo / Mark Mitchell February 27 board meeting pivotal The Reserve Bank, in its official June explanation for Orr's resignation, said that by the time the board met on February 27, it was clear that it and Willis were willing to agree to a 'considerably lesser amount' of funding for the bank than Orr deemed necessary. 'This caused distress to Mr Orr and the impasse risked damaging necessary working relationships, and led to Mr Orr's personal decision that he had achieved all he could as Governor of the Reserve Bank and could not continue in that role with sufficiently less funding than he thought was viable for the organisation,' the Reserve Bank said. Secretary to the Treasury Iain Rennie texted Willis during the evening of February 27 to say he had spoken to Quigley. Details of the exchange were redacted, but Willis responded, 'Thanks for the update.' February 27 is also the day Reddell's source alleges Quigley sent Orr a 'Statement of Concerns'. The Reserve Bank said that following the board meeting, Orr and Quigley 'entered discussions, which led to Mr Orr's decision to resign. Both parties engaged senior counsel to negotiate an appropriate exit agreement.' Quigley involved in appointment of new Governor Orr hasn't spoken publicly about his resignation. His concerns over funding for the bank are detailed in an email, released under the OIA, which he sent board members on February 14. He noted the tension between submitting a funding proposal the Government wanted to hear, versus one that supported the bank's goals. 'The importance and clarity of operational independence for central banks is judged by global financial markets now and in the future. Not by any current Government,' Orr told the board. Since Orr's departure, the Reserve Bank has embarked on a major restructure that has involved several executives leaving and senior roles being cut. The board is in the process of finding someone it will recommend Willis appoints as Governor. In the meantime, Orr's former deputy, Christian Hawkesby, is acting Governor. When in Opposition, Willis was unhappy Quigley recommended Orr be reappointed Governor for a second term. However, last year, she reappointed Quigley chairman until June 2026. Jenée Tibshraeny is the Herald's Wellington business editor, based in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. She specialises in government and Reserve Bank policymaking, economics and banking.
