Should children be allowed to take part in the Anzac Day march?
Echo Issue Outline 1997 / 27: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
`No one was going to stop me from marching in honour of my grandfather'
Karren Simpson, 20 year-old from Wentworthville
They died in your arms ... How can children - or for that matter, anyone who wasn't there, understand this?'
Christopher Bantick, freelance writer
On March 18, 1997, New South Wales and Victorian Returned Soldiers League (RSL) officials announced that they would enforce the ban on anyone except ex-service men and women marching on Anzac Day.
This announcement was publicly supported by the Victorian president of the RSL, Bruce Ruxton, numbers of other returned soldiers and some commentators.
However, other ex-servicemen and many of their families were critical of the ban.
Background
Anzac Day was originally established as a means of honouring Australian soldiers who had died in war. The day is a public holiday and is traditionally marked by a dawn service, a march through the streets of returned service men and women and a wreath-laying ceremony at shrines of remembrance.
The term ANZAC derives from the title Australian and New Zealand Army Corps and refers to those combined Australian and New Zealand forces who fought on behalf of Britain in World War I. Their first major military encounter was at Gallipoli against the Turks and alongside the British Empire Army.
April 25, 1915, was the day the ANZACs landed on the beaches of Gallipoli and this has become the day on which Australia honours its war dead.
There are a number of Internet sites supplying background information on the Gallipoli campaignand
the origin of Anzac Day.
RSL Victorian president, Bruce Ruxton, has claimed that the ban on anyone other than ex-service men and women taking part in the march has been in place in Melbourne and Sydney for more than a decade.
Despite the ban, however, many ex-service men and women have allowed their relatives to march with them or in their place and the numbers participating have grown to the point where they are now as large as they were in the 1950s. The current controversy has centred around an attempt to have ex-service men and women abide by the ruling.
Brigadier Keith Rossi, the chief marshal for the march, has noted that the RSL council and the veterans in their navy, army and air force unit associations had voted every year to uphold the rule.
The rule banning children and grandchildren was included in the assembly plan for Anzac Day which was sent to more than 50,000 RSL members in Victoria this year. A reminder of the ruling was also sent to RSL members in New South Wales.
Despite the ban, RSL officials have said that they will not attempt to have children who do take part removed from marches. They are relying on all ex-service men and women to abide by the ruling. (Having non-service people removed from the march was unsuccessfully attempted in 1989.)
Arguments against children being allowed to take part in the Anzac Day march
One of the main arguments offered against children and young people being allowed to take part in Anzac Day marches is that it is not appropriate for them to do so.
According to this line of argument, the day is primarily an opportunity for those Australians who have experienced war first-hand to draw together and remember their fellow soldiers who died in battle.
It has been claimed that the experience of war is not one that can be understood by those who have not been in a military conflict.
Freelance writer, Christopher Bantick, has claimed that opposition to children marching is ` based on nothing more than a reverent sense of what is meant by mateship. They died in your arms and marched with you. How can children - or for that matter, anyone who wasn't there, understand this?'
Those who hold this view argue that it is not fitting that children and other young people should take part in the march. They maintain that it is an occasion on which those who fought gather to recall past battles and to pay tribute to mates who died in them.
This is the position put by Brigadier Keith Rossi, the march's chief marshal, when explaining why children should not take part.
Brigadier Rossi stated that the main aim of the event was to reunite veterans in their wartime units and march to the Shrine of Remembrance to honour dead comrades.
Brigadier Rossi claimed, ` ... some units feel so strongly about it, that in past marches, they've asked a march marshal to go and get a policeman to ask someone to take their children out of the march.'
It has also been argued that allowing children and young people to take part trivialises the event. This position was paraphrased in The Australian's editorial of March 21, 1997, which stated that `the participation of children detracts from the solemnity of the occasion'.
A similar view was put by Abraham Austin, 72, from the 2/4th Commandos, who stated, `It's our day, for the men, not a picnic day for the kids.'
It has further been argued that to allow children and others to take part in the march distorts its nature and converts it into another public gathering.
Christopher Bantick has argued that Anzac Day is being converted into a mere family outing and day of national consciousness-raising, where people express some sense of Australian identity.
`Anzac Day has become the occasion where the public turns out for collective warm fuzzies about whatever being an Australian means.' According to those who would prevent non-soldiers marching, this change in emphasis means the day ceases to be an occasion where Australia honours its war dead.
It has also been maintained that allowing young people to march does not increase their knowledge of history nor their understanding of what is being commemorated.
Christopher Bantick has noted that recent surveys have shown that Australian school children know very little of their country's past. Mr Bantick claims that taking part in the march will do nothing to increase children's knowledge of Australia wartime history.
Mr Bantick has stated, `To march does undeniably offer children a sense of participating, but in what? A mardi gras of remembrance?'
It has also been claimed that for practical reasons relatives should not be allowed to participate as their presence greatly increases the length of time taken to complete the march. This, it has been claimed, unnecessarily disrupts city traffic and other activities scheduled for the afternoon of Anzac Day. It has also been suggested that the longer march puts an additional strain on elderly and frail ex-service men and women.
Mr Bruce Ruxton has claimed, `The service at the Shrine encroaches well into the afternoon when the football and races are on. If everyone took a kid to the march, it would go for seven hours.'
Arguments in favour of children being allowed to take part in the Anzac Day march
One of the main reasons offered for children and young people being able to take part in the march is that they will be able to ensure that the march continues in future years.
According to this line of argument, as the veterans of the various wars Australia has fought in grow older, become frail and die, the march may cease to take place if there is not a tradition of young people also participating.
This position has been put by Rowena Hutson, 13, from the 1st Malvern Scouts who was one of four scouts who carried the banner for the 2nd 4th AGH.
`I think that kids should be able to experience marching with their grandparents or other relatives now and in the future they will be able to represent their families.'
The same view has also been expressed by some ex-soldiers. John Jones, from the 2/4th Commandos has` stated, `I think it's great that they [children and young people] march ... There are fewer and fewer of us, which means if you bring in the young ones they'll carry one the spirit of Anzac.'
Though Victoria's Governor, Sir James Gobbo, made no direct comment as to whether children should march, in hisAnzac Day speech he did refer to the fact that young people were helping to keep the Anzac spirit alive.
Sir James Gobbo noted, `For a time it was thought that as our veterans began to age, their story might fade into the mists of time and not touch the mass of new generations. There is plenty of evidence that this is not the case. In fact adult grandchildren of veterans are showing a more intense interest in the Anzac story than did their parents.'
Another major argument is that taking part in the march allows young people to mark their respect for and gratitude to those who fought.
Karren Simpson, a 20-year-old from Wentworthville, near Parramatta, in New South Wales, took part in the march this year wearing the medals of her grandfather, who died four years ago.
Ms Simpson stated, `No one was going to stop me from marching in honour of my grandfather.'
It has also been claimed that many ex-service men want to have their children or grandchildren with them when they march.
Libby Fordham, a 27-year-old woman from Kew, in Victoria, took part in the march with her grandfather. She claimed that it was her grandfather who made her decision to take part `easy'. She went on to say, `After marching with him, he embraced me and thanked me for being there with him on this special day.'
Some RSL branches have indicated that they do not support the ban. Mr Darren Molloy has claimed that his RSL branch wrote a letter to the Anzac Day committee, objecting to the ban on children taking part.
It has also been argued that participating in the march encourages an awareness of Australia's wartime history among those who take part.
This position has been put by World War II veteran, Brigadier "Ding" Bell, who led the march in Melbourne.
Brigadier Bell noted, with regard to younger people joining in the march, `I feel people my age have got to do something to remind people - they know so little about past events.'
According to this line of argument, taking part in the march has an educative function, helping a younger generation learn a little about this aspect of their country's history.
It has also been claimed that the nature of Anzac Day has changed. Those who hold this view argue that the day is no longer primarily about returned soldiers gathering together to recall fallen comrades.
It has been argued that as Australia's returned soldiers have aged and many died Anzac Day has become a much broader national day of remembrance.
This view has also been put by Brigadier Bell, who has argued, ` ... now that the people are ageing and the more vivid memories and more tragic memories of the people of the war have faded, it's time for a broader concept.'
The Australian, in its editorial of March 21, 1997, argued a similar position, claiming, `The day will change in its emphasis as generations pass and the national mood and circumstances alter, as does any other great ceremonial event.'
Those who hold this view argue that as the day becomes less focused on the experience of returned soldiers and becomes a ceremonial occasion for all Australians, then it is appropriate that the young relatives of returned soldiers take part.
Finally, it has been claimed that the attitude of the RSL is inconsistent. On the one hand it has given permission for the word `Anzac' to be used to promote an Australian-New Zealand Super League game in Sydney on the afternoon of Anzac Day. (The Super League has donated $20,000 toward the setting up of a Kokoda memorial.) On the other hand the RSL has said it is inappropriate for children to take part in the march.
Some critics have argued that the RSL has undermined the Anzac tradition by `selling' the name Anzac and that the inclusion of young people in the march would be more in keeping with the Anzac spirit.
Jock Webb, writing to the Sydney Morning Herald suggested, `Presumably, if the children of the returned men paid the RSL enough they could march.'
Further implications
One immediate consequence of the current difference of opinion among returned soldiers as to whether their younger relatives should be able to march may be that a separate division will be included in Anzac Day marches. This group would be composed of the relatives of veterans.
Adelaide already has a special next-of-kin group marching with its own banner.
It has been noted that the ban on relatives taking part in the march is not likely to be permanent. Bruce Ruxton has suggested that within five years the RSL is likely to have altered its position on the composition of the Anzac Day march and that views on the significance of the day are likely to alter.
Mr Ruxton has said that the average age of ex-service men from World War II is now 76 and has predicted that `By the turn of the century there will be a rethink about Anzac Day altogether.'
This seems to be an acknowledgement that as increasing numbers of veterans die or are too frail to be able to march, then the nature of the commemoration may have to change as non-soldiers are encouraged to take part.
Already, an exception to the ban has been made with regard to World War I veterans who have been able to have relatives march with them for some time. Children carrying banners or playing in bands are also allowed to march.
Critics of the ban are concerned that while it is in place enthusiasm for the march among the general community may be dampened so that when non-service people have to be called upon to keep the march alive, they will be less willing to take part.
Sources
The Age
18/3/97 page 1 news item by Caroline Milburn, `Children warned off Anzac march'
19/3/97 page 3 news item by Caroline Milburn, `Children may return in the future, says Ruxton'
19/3/97 page 3 news item by Belinda parsons, `Veterans denounce march ban fearing death of their legacy'
19/3/97 page 14 editorial, `Passing on the torch'
25/4/97 page 3 news item by Belinda Parsons, `Veterans march to different RSL beat'
26/4/97 page 5 news item by Belinda Parsons, `Veterans defy ban and let children march'
26/4/97 page 24 letter to the editor from Libby Fordham, `In step with tradition'
The Australian
19/3/97 page 2 news item by John Ellicott and Stuart Honeysett, `Anzac relatives ruled out of step'
20/3/97 page 11 comment by Christopher Bantick, `Only those who served should march"
21/3/97 page 10 editorial, `Suffer the little children to march'
The Herald Sun
19/3/97 page 18 editorial, `Handing on the torch'
20/3/97 page 18 editorial, `Their own banner'
26/4/97 page 5 news item by Lesley Hetherington, `Parade child ban "ridiculous"'
26/4/97 page 5 news item, `Call to keep torch burning'
The Sydney Morning Herald
19/3/97 page 3 news item, `Children may go on Anzac march: Ruxton'
17/4/97 page 1 news item by Jodie Brough, `Superdeal: how the slouch hat was sold'
22/4/97 page 16 letters by Davis, Webb and Bradshaw, `Anzac anger unabated'
26/4/97 page 6 news item by Richard Macey, `Young take to the streets in a proud tribute to their forefathers'
Internet
There are a number of useful sites supplying information on the Gallipoli campaign and Anzac Day. See a number of the relevant FOCUS MULTIMEDIA pages. For example, Anniversaries of Anzac Day at http://www.focusmm.com.au/anzac_03.htm and The Spirit of Anzac at http://www.focusmm.com.au/~focus/anzac_02.htm
See also the text of the Anzac Day speech given by the Victorian Governor, Sir James Gobbo, at http://www.governor.vic.gov.au/speeches/gspech1.htm