The Press FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1963. Observance Of Anzac Day

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30115, 26 April 1963, Page 12

The Press FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1963. Observance Of Anzac Day

Forty-eight years after the landing on Gallipoli and 17 years after the end of the Second World War is not too soon to consider how the significance of Anzac Day can best be maintained. The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) sensibly suggested at the A.I.F. Association’s breakfast yesterday that New Zealand might follow Australia’s example in this. In New Zealand, Anzac Day is traditionally a day of mourning, though it is not now generally observed as such. In Australia, the morning has the atmosphere of commemoration and the afternoon a holiday atmosphere. The Australian observance is the one more likely .to preserve public respect for what should be a solemn occasion.

Anzac Day has a double significance. It is now primarily a day of remembrance for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and some few civilians who suffered or died for their country and for what they and their country believed to be good causes. No man or woman could do more; and a national act of homage is due to their memory. Anzac Day also commemorates the emergence of the two southern Dominions, Australia and New Zealand, as nations in their own right, ready and able to stand up for their beliefs. In this sense it is more truly a national day than Waitangi Day is ever likely to become. As to the first meaning of Anzac Day, no-one with any feeling would want to tarnish the sad, proud memory it holds for so many; but is a perpetual day of mourning the only proper way of remembering our war losses, though they were, in truth, a national disaster? It could be argued, for instance, that nothing was more impressive than the two minutes’ silence that used suddenly to hush the noise and bustle of ordinary life on Armistice Day. A full morning, starting with that most appropriate of all ceremonies, the dawn service, should provide sufficient opportunity for sincere, dignified tribute to brave men and women.

As to the second aspect of Anzac Day, which may become the more important, we may regret that New Zealand had to reach nationhood on a bulletswept, foreign beach; but that New Zealand did so is not a matter for sorrow.

Many of those most directly concerned with the years of sacrifice—the survivors—like to spend the afternoon of Anzac Day in happy reunions; and no-one would dare to suggest that they are less mindful than other citizens of the gaps in their ranks. Theirs is a healthier attitude than that of those members of the Christchurch City Council who protested against the proposal to allow three cinema theatres to open on the evening of Anzac Day. The cinema performances would have provided entertainment principally for young persons, many of whom have no understanding of the sadness of the day for some of their elders. As Cr. H. P. Smith said, it could hardly be contended that Anzac Day is more sacred than Sunday; its national significance is secular rather than religious. The question of private profit, dragged in by Cr. N. G. Pickering, is irrelevant. If anyone provides a service, society expects him to be paid for it, as the projectionists, for instance, if they had been willing to work, would have been paid. Proprietors are entitled to the same privilege if they provide their facilities. The only question the City Council had to answer was whether it was proper for a public demand for modest entertainment to be met on Anzac Day. Like most of the councillors, “ The Press ” cannot see that to tolerate harmless pleasure for those with nothing better to do would cause unnecessary pain to those for whom Anzac Day is still a day of sorrow. On the other hand, we agree with Mr Shand that to attempt to perpetuate day-long mourning will eventually create such a national division as to destroy the double significance of the day.