General Updates

FESR/ANZUK OIA

By Neal Catley

I am a New Zealand military war veteran with Qualifying Operational Service. My commentary below is not for the benefit of myself. It is, however, in support of the men and women who served many years ago under the banner of the Far East Strategic Reserve [FESR] and the Australian, New Zealand and United Kingdom Forces [ANZUK].

It is generally accepted that PATIENCE is a wonderful attribute.  And, it’s generally taken to mean that one can remain calm, even when one has been waiting forever or dealing with something extraordinarily, painstakingly slow.  PATIENCE, however, does not mean that its shelf life is endless.

It is common knowledge that many of our colleagues are disillusioned with the government ANZUK/FESR current affairs/progress with good reason.  It would not be unkind to say that a few of the government bureaucrats who are responsible for making ex NZ military personnel ANZUK/FESR award determinations are hardly fit to make or, indeed, take decisions on the rewards due to those who put their very lives on the line and have waited so
long for recognition.  And, full well knowing that others in the commonwealth allied band-of-brothers-and- sisters have long worn the rewards of the same service given by New Zealanders, who all these years gone are still having to shout and beg from the sidelines for crumbs to lame-duck personnel, who belong to the group classified as; “there is none so deaf as those that don’t want to hear.”

It’s now time to heal the ANZUK/FESR wounds of yesteryear and to put this right with grace and dignity. I trust it will happen and soon.

You will recall that your Association requested further information under the Official Information Act (OIA) of the Minister of Defence surrounding a number of terms being constantly utilised by the NZDF and Veteran Affairs. The term with which I am sure you are most familiar with is ‘Routine Qualifying Service’ which has been assigned to service prior to 1 April 1974. The OIA request was passed to the Chief of Defence Force and his answer is forwarded below. The questions raised under the OIA are in Red below.


I refer to your email of 15 April 2021 to the Office of the Minister of Defence (OMD)  requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), information relating to veteran’s entitlements under New Zealand legislation. As a result, this response does not address any assessments which may have occurred relating to the subject of medallic recognition.  

As per the email you received from the OMD on 19 April 2021, your request was transferred  to the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) for a response, as the questions you asked relate  to the NZDF’s areas of responsibility and the information requested is more likely to be held  by the NZDF.  

What are or were the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) criteria used to define Routine  Qualifying Service (RQS) and Risk Analysis (RA) prior to 1974?  

“Qualifying Routine Service” (QRS) was a new term introduced in the Veterans’ Support Act  2014 (VSA), which came into force on 7 December 2014. Section 8(2) of the VSA defines the  term as: “service in the armed forces before 1 April1974 that is not qualifying operational  service”  

Section 8(2) ofthe VSA defines the term “Qualifying Operational Service” (QOS) as: 

(a) service on any deployment treated as a war or emergency for the purposes of the War  Pensions Act 1954; or  

(b) service on any deployment declared to be operational service under section 9″  

Section 9 of the VSA sets out the process for determining whether a deployment meets the criteria of QOS. This includes a consideration of the threats posed to deployed personnel. A  copy of this section be found on www.legislation.govt.nz.  

The War Pensions Act 1954 (WPA) covered injuries, illness and death arising from all service  prior to 1 April1974. Section 19 of the Act makes a distinction between ‘general service’ in  New Zealand and overseas, and service in a war or emergency. Special presumptive  provisions apply when assessing claims relating to service in a war or emergency.  

Prior to the establishment of Veterans’ Affairs in 1999, the WPA was administered by the  Ministry of Social Development and prior to that, the Department of Social Welfare. There was no risk analysis applied to determining what general service was covered. All general service was covered prior to 1 April 1974. 

What NZDF deployments prior to 1974 met the RQS and RA criteria?  

The Veteran’s Affairs website, www.veteransaffairs. mil.nz/ eligibility/qualifying-service/  provides a list of deployments prior to 1 April1974 which come within the QOS definition,  for the purposes of the VSA. Deployments prior to 1 April1974 which are not listed, come  within the definition of QRS, for the purposes of the VSA.  

When was the decision-making process using those criteria completed and by whom?  Where and by which department or agency is the relevant assessment or report held?  

There was no risk analysis applied to determining what routine service was covered. All routine service was covered prior to 1 April 1974, therefore this part of your request is refused under section 18(e) of the OIA, as the information requested does not exist.  

When (using the RA criteria) did the NZDF carry out its assessment of deployments to Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom {ANZUK) Force and Far East Strategic Reserve  (FESR)?  

When was that assessment completed and where, and by which department or agency is the  relevant documentation held?  

If the relevant assessment, report or other documentation is held by a department or agency  for which you are responsible, a copy is requested  

As previously advised no risk analysis has been made of general/routine service. All general/routine service was covered under the WPA prior to 1 April 1974 and continues to be covered under the VSA. Accordingly, this part of your request is refused under section 18(e) of the OIA, as the information requested does not exist.  

The Far Eastern Strategic Reserve (FESR) and the Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom  (ANZUK) force were not deployments, as they did not have a set location or a start and  finish date. Three deployments within this period of time have been specifically recognised  as emergency service under the WPA. These were the Malayan Emergency from  

18/06/1948 to 31/07/1960, the Indonesian Confrontation (Singapore, Malay Peninsula,  Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore Strait, Malacca Strait from 17/08/1964 to 11/08/1966 and  Borneo from 01/02/1964 to 11/08/1966) and the Thai/Malay Border from 31/07/1960 to  30/06/1964. The VSA accepted all service already under the WPA.  

You have the right, under section 28(3) of the OIA, to ask an Ombudsman to review this  response to your request.  

Yours sincerely  

Signed AJ Woods
Air Commodore
Chief of Staff HQNZDF

3 thoughts on “FESR/ANZUK OIA

  • John Harawene

    I served at Butterworth airforce base at the top of Malaysia with Victor Company of 1RNZIR Based at Dieppe Barracks in Singapore in November 1972. My OC was Geoff Monks and CSM Danny Wilson our role was to patrol the perimeter of the Australian Airforce base due to Communist Terrorist activity in the past. During my month TOD and after about a week there were about 4 – 6 mortar bombs fired at the northern end of the Airfield our Company was placed on full alert, after about 2 hrs we were stood down. Normal patrols continued without further incidents or contacts.

  • It seems to me, HQNZDF’s reply is just another ‘moss gathering’ slow speed to absolutely NOWHERE carousel. Surely, fairness and transparency is what democracy’s about and when people play games with information one has to actually have a hard look at the modus operandi of that institution.

    Readers would’ve noted that the third to last paragraph of HQNZDF’s letter is NOT correct. The letter states that, “the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve [FESR] and the Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom [ANZUK] force were not deployments, as they did not have a set location or a start and finish date.” The well rehearsed phrase, “being unashamedly economical with the truth,” has a familiar bone-tired ring about it. Go figure.

  • An opinion on the vulnerable journey of the RNZNCA Official Information Act [OIA] request. [Ref A].
    References:
    A. RNZNCA OIA request of 15 April 2021.
    B. NZDF OIA 2021-4079 of 18 May 2021.
    Those of our members who have taken the time to write an OIA request will be able to affirm that such an exercise is more often than not is just a WOMBAT. {*} To be fair there have been some exceptions to the norm, albeit, rare.
    As one can see at Ref B the OIA reply by design does not provide any useful information. Added to that, I’m reliably informed this is the standard modus operandi, especially, where an action addressee could be exposed or embarrassed. Also, to obfuscate, diffuse and evade as much as possible or, just refuse to release the requested detail.
    To deaden the pain, the interim recommended cure is to ‘Spice the Mainbrace’ twice daily.
    {*} WOMBAT: Waste of Money Brains and Time.
    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    SNIPPET
    FESR/ANZUK Matters.
    The commentary below is from RNZNCA Webmaster, Frank who is presently enjoying his business holiday in Australia.
    The Australian government has recently declassified bundles of their TOP SECRET Cabinet Documents/Minutes/Papers, entitled: ‘Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee,’ which have been released to the National Archives of Australia at ACT Canberra. Some of Documents/Minutes/Papers discuss ‘Malaya/Singapore matters including the then SEA current operational levels and beyond 1970.’ It is assumed HQ NZDF has sighted all of these declassified files. Fascinating!

Comments are closed.