Formal Opposition to

Summary of Opposition

I submit this formal opposition to the Anzac Day Amendment Bill on the grounds that it introduces conceptual, cultural, and constitutional distortions to one of New Zealand’s most sacred national commemorations. While the stated intent is to clarify the scope of service honoured on Anzac Day, the proposed amendment expands the definition of military service in a manner that undermines historical specificity, weakens collective memory, and risks politicising a solemn day of remembrance. The Bill reframes Anzac Day from a reflection on past sacrifice to a speculative recognition of future war-making — a shift that is unwarranted, ideologically motivated, and procedurally opaque.

1. Dilution of Historical Meaning and Cultural Integrity

Clause: Section 2 replacement

The Bill replaces the current framing of Anzac Day as a day of remembrance for those who served — and died — in wars with a broad definition encompassing “warlike conflicts” that “may occur or recur.”

Issue: This redefinition dilutes the historical and cultural significance of Anzac Day, which is rooted in a specific moment: the 1915 Gallipoli campaign and its subsequent legacy through the First and Second World Wars.

The proposed language erases the temporal and moral clarity of Anzac Day and replaces it with a future-facing militarised vagueness, converting a day of solemn national memory into a catch-all endorsement of state-authorised military actions — past, present, and potential.

2. Expansion to Future and Hypothetical Conflicts

Clause: 2(2) – “...may occur or recur”

The Bill introduces an ambiguous and unprecedented concept: honouring those who may serve in future “warlike conflicts.”

Issue: Commemoration is a retrospective act. Embedding hypothetical future warfare into the language of remembrance undermines the reflective nature of Anzac Day and creates space for ideological reinterpretation.

Section 2(2) effectively allows Anzac Day to symbolically honour military actions that haven’t yet occurred. It risks normalising and pre-legitimising future conflicts under the emotional shield of Gallipoli, bypassing public debate and ethical scrutiny.

3. Vague and Politicisable Definition of “Warlike Conflict”

Clause: 2(2) – Definition of warlike conflict

The Bill defines “warlike conflict” to include any armed conflict that “has occurred, is occurring, or may occur or recur,” without limitation as to geographic location, legitimacy, or ethical justification.

Issue: This wording is overbroad, legally imprecise, and vulnerable to abuse. It could apply to foreign interventions, intelligence operations, or undeclared military campaigns — all without clear public mandate.

Such expansive framing risks politicising Anzac Day, entrenching a culture of militarism, and blurring the distinction between honourable defence and strategic aggression.

4. Lack of Public Consultation and Transparent Rationale

There is no evidence of widespread public demand, veteran consultation, or cultural consensus calling for such a foundational change to Anzac Day.

Issue: The Bill appears ideologically driven, not community led. Its introduction without meaningful engagement disrespects the intergenerational custodianship of Anzac Day by veterans, iwi, historians, educators, and civil society.

New Zealand already has mechanisms to honour modern service (e.g., Armed Forces Day). Anzac Day does not require expansion or redefinition.

5. Risk of Reframing National Identity through Legislative Stealth

This Bill is part of a broader political pattern: the quiet reengineering of public meaning through selective legal reform.

Issue: The subtle change in wording represents a deeper strategy to reshape national identity — from a country reflective of past sacrifice and peace to one aligned with speculative readiness and permanent militarisation.
This is consistent with the current government’s ideological playbook: curriculum revisionism, deregulatory lawmaking, and the repurposing of cultural symbols without public consent.

Anzac Day is not just military — it is moral, cultural, and constitutional. Tampering with its legal foundation without public mandate sets a dangerous precedent.

Conclusion

This Bill reflects a subtle but serious distortion of Anzac Day. It shifts a day of historical remembrance into an open-ended celebration of warlike engagements — past, present, and future — with dangerously vague thresholds and speculative justifications.

This is not a clarification. It is a rebranding of public memory, repurposing a sacred day for political flexibility and military endorsement.

Accordingly, I urge Parliament to reject the Bill in its entirety, or at a minimum, require the following amendments:

• Removal of all references to future or hypothetical conflicts;
• A clear limitation of commemorated service to conflicts already historically recognised under the Anzac tradition;
• Explicit exclusion of covert, undeclared, or non-defensive operations from the scope of “warlike conflict”;
• Mandatory public consultation and veteran engagement before altering national commemorations of this nature.

Anzac Day must remain rooted in reflection — not speculation. Its sanctity lies in its truth, not in its political utility.

Respectfully submitted,

Ukes Baha

Historian | Policy Analyst | Veteran Advocate

ukesbaha.com