Since the inception of New Zealand’s regular forces in the aftermath of World War Two members of the Defence Force have been deployed to many corners of the earth in furtherance of New Zealand’s state-making priorities. These deployments have involved them in both active service and peace support operations. Significantly, these are deployments where New Zealand’s international reputation would be jeopardised if the Defence Force performed poorly. That they have not done so in more than 70 years has unquestionably enhanced New Zealand’s international standing.
Since the era of mass mobilisation of the two world wars New Zealand has lost 149 of its military. Since first being deployed overseas for the Boer War, however, 30,000 men and women have died in the defence of this country. If we were to lie them head to foot their bodies would extend north of Paraparaumu down State Highway 1 to somewhere along Customhouse Quay. Most importantly, the military is the only occupation that requires its uniformed members to lay down their lives in the normal execution of their duties. No other calling demands that of its members.
In addition to the dangers that members of the Defence Force face are the constraints of service life that require its members to deploy for lengthy periods away from their families, often at short notice. Posting to remote areas with little opportunity for spousal employment is not uncommon as is family disruption and the negative impact on children through the need to change schools that such postings necessitate, including an inability to establish roots and networks in a civilian community, one to which they must eventually return. Because of this many today deploy to places like Waiouru without their families adding further to the burdens and problems that such absences create. While on families my infant son’s death was attributed to the toxic environment in which we operated in Vietnam. And tragically, he wasn’t the only one.
Uniformed members are also on call 24 hours a day seven days a week for the duration of their engagement. Moreover, all service personnel must swear an oath to the Head of State and are thereby subject to the non-trivial regulations of the military justice system.
Because of this reality the Defence Force has traditionally been recognised by the society it serves with the award of honours that reflect the responsibility individual uniformed members are charged with in preparing for and in achieving operational success and where any failure has the potential to undermine the State’s good international standing.
In 1995 the Prime Minister established a committee presided over by Philip Burdon to examine the relevance of the extant Imperial honours system to modern New Zealand. Most notably, it failed to appoint any member from the military or the veteran community that could enlighten its members on the demands of military life, both operational and non-operational. Traditionally, New Zealand had followed the practices of our cultural kin in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. However, as will be seen, in order to deliver a ‘simpler system’ the replacement military honours system diverges significantly from them by removing its military distinction despite the recommendation of the then Chief of Defence Force, Lieutenant General Anthony Leonard Birks, CB, OBE. The reason they did this, and I quote:
“… given the likelihood of continuous NZ involvement in peace keeping operations, where the line between combatant and non-combatant operations is blurred, our preference would be that soldiers and civilians alike who give distinguished or meritorious service – we see little distinction between the two words – should be recognised from within the same New Zealand Order of Merit.”
In stark contrast to the unfounded confidence of the Burdon report, since 1996 14 servicemen and one servicewoman have lost their lives, 13 whilst peacekeeping. The Burdon Committee’s misconceptions about military service and operational life have impacted unfairly on the New Zealand Defence Force in the award of state honours as I will explain. Moreover, that the committee would believe that the military’s future would only involve peacekeeping is risible as the current international situation confronting the free world in the Northern Hemisphere starkly demonstrates, not to mention the history of all mankind.
Because members of our Defence Force are ineligible for the award of the King’s Service Medal, in 2007 the Distinguished Service Decoration (DSD) was introduced to provide the State with the option of awarding the military a level 6 award, this 11 years after the New Zealand honours system was introduced and yet another oversight of the Burden committee. At level 6 the DSD and the KSM are the most junior of the royal honours and like the KSM the DSD is supposedly only to be given for local or regional recognition.
In just one example, and there are many more I could quote, in 2020 an officer of one star rank was awarded a DSD after completing a 12 month tour with the United Nations Mission in South Sudan as its Chief of Staff. Notably, by February 2020 the mission had been responsible for establishing a transitional Government of National Unity. It was also required to protect civilians, create the conditions conducive to the delivery of humanitarian assistance, support the implementation of the revitalized agreement and the peace process, and to monitor and investigate human rights. As the Chief of Staff this officer had a major role in the execution of this mission. It should also be noted that the threat level for the mission was significant. Clearly for the Defence Force the DSD was not only inappropriate for this mission but is now far too often the default honour regardless of whether military service is rendered, locally, regionally, nationally or internationally. Moreover, since the introduction of the DSD there has been a sharp reduction in level 2-5 awards.
The United Kingdom, Australia and Canada have distinctive military awards and all have a military division within their state honours. A comparison of each in the latest Royal Honours awards is illuminating:
United Kingdom:
· Military strength - 180,000
· Awards - 130 recipients
· Ratio - 1:1,385
Canada
· Military Strength – 86,000
· Awards – 104
· Ratio – 1: 826
Australia
· Military Strength – 90,000
· Awards – 100
· Ratio – 1:900
New Zealand
· Military strength – 15,400
· Awards – 1
· Ratio – 1:15,400
When I was awarded a Royal Honour in the New Year’s Honours list, nearly 37 years ago, and at a time when there were no operational deployments, the ratio was 1:1,692.
By any measure, through a lack of understanding and by ignoring the NZDF’s primary recommendation, the Burdon Committee failed to accommodate the unique calling of the Defence Force in its recommendations. The Committee’s ignorance and self-imposed drive for simplicity has undermined the reasons for having an honours system in the first place: that is to appropriately honour all members of society deserving of recognition. Moreover, its presumption that the NZDF’s future lay solely in peace support operations was shown to be an optimistic fallacy with the NZSAS involved in combat operations just a few short years after the awards were introduced. In addition, those who decide on the appropriate honour are also failing in their duty to ensure individual performance in the national and international arenas are being appropriately recognised. If members of the Defence Force are inadequately recognised – as has been the case now for many years – the honours system is not only not fulfilling its purpose but is wholly disrespectful to those who risk their lives and families for this country.
Surely our military are no less deserving than our politicians, netball coaches, rugby players, and cultural dignitaries. Unlike them though, they risk their lives and families while serving the country.
A government that sincerely values its military would re-establish the military division and institute 3 levels of the Defence Service Decoration at levels 4, 5 and 6.
Then on Remembrance Day when a politician quotes Binion’s famous lines “At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them” they can do so with real sincerity.
Bob Davies, who retired from the Army after 31 years as a Sergeant Major, also worked with the NZSIS and Maritime New Zealand as a Security Adviser.
No comments:
Post a Comment