Lest we forget? Aside from Anzac Day, NZ has been slow to remember its military veterans
The Government will also establish a new national day of tribute for veterans. This falls somewhat short of a recommendation from the 2018 independent review of the Veterans' Support Act which stated the Government should accept it has a 'moral duty of care to veterans'.
But if adopted, this would create a missing ethical compass - all democracies should have to acknowledge responsibilities to those who risked everything in service of their country.
The same report also recommended better financial support for veterans, but so far the Government has been reluctant to review the adequacy of veterans' pensions.
None of this is particularly surprising, given NZ's history of sending people to fight and then rejecting their claims for recognition and compensation when the war is over.
Some of this may also come to light in the Waitangi Tribunal 's current Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry, with potentially strong evidence of discrimination against Māori service personnel in particular.
Sacrifice and compensation
When NZ gave out its first military pensions in 1866, only the victors of the NZ Wars received them. For Māori allies, equity was missing. Pro-Government Māori troops were eligible, but at a lower rate than Pākehā veterans.
It was only in 1903 that specialist facilities such as the Ranfurly war veterans' home in Auckland were created.
The initial treatments for those who suffered 'shell shock', especially in the World War I, were atrocious.
Their placement in mental institutions only ended after public outcry.
Some veterans of the NZ Wars were compensated by being granted confiscated Māori land. It wasn't until 1915 that a new system was formalised.
This provided farm settlement schemes and vocational training for World War I veterans. The balloted farmland was largely exclusionary as Māori veterans were assumed to have tribal land already available to them.
The rehabilitation of disabled service personnel dates back to the 1930s, before being formally legislated in 1941.
But the focus faded over the following decades, with the specific status of veterans blurring as they were lumped in with more generic welfare goals.
It took until 1964 for the Government to pay war pensions to those who served in Jayforce, the 12,000-strong NZ troops stationed in Japan as part of the postwar occupation from 1946 to 1948.
From atomic tests to Agent Orange
A decade later, more than 500 NZ navy personnel took part in Operation Grapple, the British hydrogen bomb tests near Kiribati in 1957–58.
Despite evidence of a variety of health problems – including cancer, premature death and deformities in children – it was not until 1990 that the Government extended coverage of benefits to veterans who had contracted some specific listed conditions.
It took another eight years before the Government broadened the evidence requirements and accepted service in Operation Grapple as an eligibility starting point for additional emergency pensions.
Last year, the United States declared a National Atomic Veterans' Day and made potentially significant compensation available. But neither NZ nor Britain even apologised for putting those personnel in harm's way so recklessly.
During the war in Vietnam, some of the 3,400 New Zealanders who served between 1963 and 1975 were exposed to 'Agent Orange', the notorious defoliant used by the US military.
Some of them and their children experienced related health problems and higher death rates. The Government did not accept there was a problem until 2006 and apologised in 2008.
Advertise with NZME.
Assistance and compensation were based on evidence of specific listed conditions. And although the list has expanded over time, the legal and medical burden of proving a link between exposure and an illness falls on the veteran.
This is the opposite of what should happen. If there is uncertainty about the medical condition of a veteran, such as a non-listed condition, it should be for the Crown to prove an illness or injury is not related to military service. This burden should not fall on the victim.
Lest we forget
Today, support for veterans remains limited. There is still a reluctance to systematically understand, study and respond to the long-term consequences of military service.
For many, service develops skills such as resilience, confidence and flexibility which are sought after in civilian life. For some, their experiences lead to lingering trauma and even self-harm or suicide.
While Britain and Australia can track the incidence of veteran self-harm, NZ lacks robust data. Beyond some early research, the prevalence of suicide in the veteran population is unknown.
Despite recommendations from the 2018 report that this data gap should be plugged, it means that when three self-inflicted deaths of veterans occurred within three weeks earlier this year, this couldn't be viewed within any overall pattern. This makes appropriate support and interventions harder to design.
This all points to the same problem. While we intone 'lest we forget' on April 25, a day later most of us are looking the other way.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
30 minutes ago
- Scoop
Climate Legal Action Necessary Response To Govt Inaction
Press Release – NZCTU We strongly support legal action to ensure that the Government is held to account for its legal obligations under the Climate Change Response Act, said NZCTU President Richard Wagstaff. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi welcomes the legal action taken against the Minister of Climate Change by a coalition of legal experts as an important step in ensuring that Aotearoa meets its climate action obligations. 'We strongly support legal action to ensure that the Government is held to account for its legal obligations under the Climate Change Response Act,' said NZCTU President Richard Wagstaff. 'The union movement is deeply concerned by the Emissions Reduction Plan 2026-2030, which contains no significant policies to reduce emissions and will fail to get New Zealand meaningfully closer to our 2050 net-zero commitment. 'The actions – or lack of them – by this Government on climate change are the actions of climate deniers, not responsible leaders. 'Workers and communities need real political leadership that combats global emissions and invests in creating a just transition for industries and workers. We need leadership that develops and upholds long term consensus, not more U-turns. 'Instead, we have a government that cancelled 35 climate policies without consulting the public first, as required by law. Robust public engagement is essential. 'Climate policy is yet another area where this Government is prioritising corporate interests over democratic accountability and the interests of working people. 'Evidence is clear that a near-total focus on tree planting through vast pine forests is not a sufficient response – we must reduce emissions at source. 'Alongside the weak emissions budget, in Budget 2025 we saw a total abdication of responsibility on climate change and ensuring a Just Transition for working people in an increasingly volatile world. 'The NZCTU supports bold climate action to reduce emissions, adapt to the changing climate, and transition to a zero emissions economy that provides full employment for workers,' said Wagstaff.
Scoop
30 minutes ago
- Scoop
ACT MP Welcomes Changes To Anti-Stalking Bill, Calls For Urgent Action On Newer Forms Of Abuse
Press Release – ACT New Zealand Patterns of abusive behaviour deserve to be recognised by the law, and these changes will help victims seek justice, ACT MP Laura McClure. ACT MP Laura McClure is welcoming changes made at select committee to strengthen the proposed anti-stalking law, but says more must be done to protect New Zealanders from modern forms of digital abuse, particularly sexually explicit deepfakes. 'I'm pleased to see the Government respond to public concern about stalking with more robust and practical legislation,' says McClure. 'Patterns of abusive behaviour deserve to be recognised by the law, and these changes will help victims seek justice. 'But we can't stop here. As technology evolves, so do the tools of harassment and abuse. Sexually explicit AI-generated deepfakes made without consent are a fast-growing threat, especially to young people and women. 'I have a members' bill in the ballot that would create a specific offence for the creation and distribution of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake content. This should be adopted as a Government Bill. 'Deepfakes are harming real people today, and the law is failing to keep up. 'The same commitment to protecting stalking victims should extend to those targeted by synthetic sexual abuse. We need clear, targeted laws so police can act, courts can prosecute, and victims can get justice.'
Scoop
30 minutes ago
- Scoop
Legal Experts Sue Climate Minister Over Glaring Holes In Emissions Plan
Press Release – Lawyers for Climate Action Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Governments plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act. A coalition of legal experts has launched major legal proceedings against the Minister of Climate Change, alleging that the Government's emissions reduction plan fails to fulfil basic requirements of the law. 'Under the Climate Change Response Act, the Government has to put in place a credible emissions reduction plan for Aotearoa that will meet our climate targets and set us up for success,' says Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc Executive Director Jessica Palairet. 'Yet, in the face of warnings from our Climate Change Commission that there are 'significant risks' around whether New Zealand will meet its climate targets, the plan misses the mark. It takes a high-risk, forestry-led approach to emissions reductions. Our law requires more.' Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Government's plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act. 'As it stands, the Government's emissions reduction plan will carry huge consequences for our country. We don't take this step lightly, but the plan needs to be challenged,' says Ms Palairet. Under the Climate Change Response Act, governments must set an emissions reduction plan every five years. These plans outline economy-wide policies and strategies for meeting corresponding emissions budgets – which are stepping stones towards achieving our 2050 net-zero target. In 2024, the Government published the second emissions reduction plan, which will be operative from 2026 – 2030. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI challenge decisions relating to both the first emissions reduction plan (2021-2025) and the second emissions reduction plan (2026-2030). ELI's director, research and legal, Dr Matt Hall says 'the Government cancelled 35 climate policies and actions which were part of the first emissions reduction plan – without consulting the public first, as required by law. It then put in place a second emissions reduction plan which is almost devoid of actions or policies for reducing emissions at their source.' The NGOs allege that the second emissions reduction plan is unlikely to ensure emissions stay within the budget, has an unrealistic approach to risk management, and assumes that 95% of the planned emissions reductions will occur by themselves without policies or strategies. Instead of focusing on reducing emissions at source, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts instead relied heavily on offsetting the country's emissions with forestry plantations. 'This was despite warnings from the Climate Change Commission that tree planting is no substitute for reducing emissions at source. It locks-in vast pine plantations for future generations, and runs up against our obligations under the Paris Agreement. The science is clear that forestry is important, but it's not a substitute for reducing our combustion of fossil fuels,' says Dr Hall. Dr Hall says the Minister was required to publish a sufficiently detailed plan that could assure the public New Zealand will meet its emissions budget. The Government's plan does not give confidence; in our view, it is neither credible nor capable of achieving the purpose, which is to reduce emissions'. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ's Jessica Palairet says, 'The Minister has made the pathway for achieving the third emissions budget incredibly difficult. Left unchallenged, it will be a huge burden for the future.' 'We believe it is necessary to take this case to protect the interests of the public now and in the future, and to test these important legal provisions for the first time.' The application for judicial review has been filed with the High Court and is awaiting a court date. Notes:
