Press Release
Monarchist League of New Zealand
28th September 2003
As anticipated, the new Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill, currently being considered by Parliament, proposes abolishing Queen’s Counsel and the creation of a new statutory office of "Senior Counsel". The Hon Phil Goff, MP, Minister of Justice, in describing the Bill, said that the classes of people eligible to be appointed to the new position would be expanded from those currently eligible for appointment as Queen's Counsel, to include all litigators, not simply those at the separate Bar (so solicitors could become SCs). He also said that there would be greater transparency in the appointment process. Both of these changes would bring the office into line with current arrangements in the United Kingdom for QCs, and are relatively non-controversial.
However, no reason has been given for abolishing the office of QC and instituting a new (very similar) office. It might be argued that the name isn’t important, but if that were so, then why is it being changed, and any return to the old title prohibited? It would appear to be another attempt to remove a symbol of the link with the Crown.
"QC" is a well-known and understood brand of excellence; "SC" would be much less recognised, as the experience of several Australian states, and certain other counties which have made similar changes, would appear to show.
The public should be particularly concerned at the wording of clause 106(1):
"As from the commencement of this section, –
The office is not simply being abolished, it will be impossible to appoint any more without a change in the legislation. This appears to be a determined effort to remove Queen’s Counsel "root and branch", as the Government must know very well that such amending legislation would be unlikely to be a priority for any future Parliament. There can be no reason for this provision except a dogmatic hostility to something which is seen as 'tainted' by association with the Crown.
This type of reform has no place in the legal profession, which should be – and seen to be – non-political. It should also be asked whether The Queen has given her consent to the limitation of her prerogative in this respect – or whether Her Majesty had even been consulted.
This change is being proposed by the same Ministers who are currently seeking to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council – a step opposed by the majority of groups which made submissions to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee. Maori, legal professionals, and business groups were particularly strongly opposed to the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council. Those Maori who have told the Government what they think of contemporaneous foreshore and seabed proposals, at hui held throughout the country, may justifiably question whether these further steps are not gradually removing our links with the Crown, and our constitutional heritage.
Given that our founding document is a treaty between Crown and Maori it must surely be a legitimate question whether the Government has the moral authority to be making these changes without a mandate to do so. None of these changes – to the Privy Council, the laws governing the foreshore, and now Queen's Counsel, are merely technical changes; they have profound constitutional and political implications. None should be implemented without genuine consensus.
Dr Noel Cox Chairman Monarchist League of New Zealand Inc