The Governor-General's role as Commander-in-Chief

Speech by the Hon Anand Satyanand to the Command and Staff Course, Trentham Military Camp, Upper Hutt

10 Dec 2008

May I begin by greeting everyone in the languages of the realm of New Zealand, in English, Maori, Cook Island Maori, Niuean, Tokelauan and New Zealand Sign Language.  Greetings, Kia Ora, Kia Orana, Fakalofa Lahi Atu, Taloha Ni and as it is the morning (Sign)

May I specifically greet you: Colonel Al McCone, Commandant of the New Zealand Defence Force Defence College; Lt Colonel Andrew Shaw, Director of the Command and Staff Course; College staff and students.  May I extend a particular warm welcome to the officers from Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the People's Republic of China, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Tonga and the United Arab Emirates.  As well as members of the New Zealand Defence Force, there are also members present of other New Zealand Government agencies—greetings to you all.

It was with pleasure that my wife Susan and I accepted the invitation to meet with this, the 49^th graduating class from the New Zealand Command and Staff Course.

I would like to speak briefly about your role as senior military officers and my connection to the military as Governor-General.

The Letters Patent, which establish my Office formally describe the title as "Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief."  But I have never been a member of the military and New Zealand has not had a Governor-General with a military background since Sir David Beattie completed his term in 1986.   Barrister, Law Commissioner and Constitutional Law expert, Alison Quentin-Baxter, who played a key role in the 1980s review of the Letters Patent that constitute the Office, described the title "Commander-in-Chief" as being "devoid of substantive effect" but that it remained because of "the importance still attached in New Zealand, particularly within the Armed Services, to the naming of the Governor-General as Commander-in-Chief."

A difference can be seen in the titles of my Canadian and Australian counterparts.  While the Canadian Governor-General, by virtue of the 1947 Letters Patent, is also titled "Commander-in-Chief", the Australian Governor-General is not.  While the Australian Constitution states at section 68 that "the command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative" the recently updated Letters Patent, in August of this year, make no reference to the office holder being "Commander-in-Chief".  The title of the Australian Governor-General is simply just that—"Governor-General".

The New Zealand Governor-General's relationship with the Defence Force is largely ceremonial. This is because of the constitutional convention the Governor-General, with the rarest of exceptions, always acts on the advice of democratically elected ministers.  Additionally, much of the royal prerogative with regard to defence has been replaced by statute law.  As the English Law Lord, Lord Reid said in a 1965 House of Lords case, modern legislation had rendered the royal prerogative with regard to defence "a relic of a past age, not lost by disuse, but only available for a case not covered by statute."

Certainly times have changed in our country New Zealand since those of Governor Sir George Grey in the 1860s.  In 1865, frustrated with the conduct of the war in South Taranaki by Imperial troops, Grey entered the field of battle himself, leading a group that captured a major Maori pa.  Constitutional history shows that the last time a British monarch undertook personal command of the army was 216 years ago in 1792!

The historic links between the Office of Governor-General and the Defence Force are emphasised by the Defence Act 1990 where the first two sections outline the Governor-General's authority to raise and maintain armed forces. 

But the next section, in keeping with the points I have mentioned, goes on to specify that the Minister of Defence "shall have the power of control of the New Zealand Defence Force, which shall be exercised through the Chief of Defence Force".  The principle that the Royal prerogative regarding defence was subject to parliamentary control was established after Parliamentary forces won the English Civil Wars.  The 1688 Bill of Rights emphatically states that the: "raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom, in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against Law."  The two-part command "present arms" is not only a sign of respect but also symbolises the submission of military authority to civil control.

This contrast between the letter of the law and the reality of the constitutional role was well put by an Australian Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, in 1983.  He noted that a literal reading of the Australian Constitution suggested that he controlled a powerful office and that the Governor-General was like "a general on a white horse, at the head of his armies, with standard unfurled". 

However, he then went on to quote constitutional lawyers who declared that in reality, the Governor-General was little more than a glorified Patron of the Defence Force.  "He may retain his white horse, you might think, if he will, but in terms of military command, it will certainly prove no horse of war." 

In New Zealand, the Governor-General in exercising the role, signs commissions for all Defence Force officers.  I have, in my time to date, participated in Royal New Zealand Navy Reviews and acted as Reviewing Officer for the graduating class of the commissioning course from the New Zealand Officer Cadet School.  The New Zealand Defence Force play a key role in State Welcomes for visiting Heads of State and at the ceremonies where new ambassadors present credentials from their Heads of State to the New Zealand Governor-General.  By accepting the invitation to inspect the guard of honour, the visiting Head of State or new ambassador is acknowledging New Zealand's sovereignty as an independent nation.

Last year, when I was Reviewing Officer for the graduating class from the New Zealand Officer Cadet School, I stressed to those assembled the powers and responsibilities of officers. My comments to them, of course, were to young people about to begin their careers as officers in the New Zealand Defence Force.  As more senior officers, it is no doubt many years since you received your commissions as officers.  But there are several points that are just as relevant, if not more so, to yourselves.  While these points are particular to New Zealand, I imagine there may be many parallels for officers in other military forces.

In addressing the young officers, I told them that the law empowered me to appoint the Chief of Defence Force and to commission other officers.  In doing so, on behalf of the Head of State, the Queen of New Zealand, and their country, and on the advice of Ministers, I placed a formal trust in them. 

I then emphasised that, when signing each commission, I placed trust and confidence in their loyalty, courage and good conduct to carefully discharge their duties as an officer.  As officers they had to, not only maintain the discipline of subordinate officers and ranks, but also follow the orders and directions of their superiors.  While each country's constitutional arrangements obviously differ, such a link between the Head of State and the commissioning of military officers is a common one.

But regardless of the country where service might occur, I stressed that if so authorised, commissioned officers might have to give orders for men and women under their command to use deadly force against others.  I emphasised that the reality of military service is that men and women under their command might be injured or even killed in fulfilling their duties that they had ordered them to undertake. 

These are not powers and responsibilities that society lightly entrusts to anyone.  Outside of the military, only a few civilian agencies, such as the police or fire service, are ever entrusted with such powers or face such physical danger.  When addressing the Royal New Zealand Navy Divisions in January this year, I mentioned my sadness at the deaths of two Navy personnel in the previous year.

I would now like to turn to your participation in this course. As mid-level officers in the armed forces, you were specifically chosen to undertake the Command and Staff College course because you had demonstrated significant potential for promotion.  To move from Lt Commander to Commander or Captain in the Navy; from Major to Lt Colonel or Colonel in the Army; or Squadron Leader to Wing Commander or Group Captain in the Air Force, means a significant increase in responsibilities. 

This course was specifically designed to prepare you for higher senior command.  For 30 weeks you have lived together and have undertaken a mix of graduate academic study as well as visits to defence establishments and selected industries both in New Zealand and in Australia. The academic study has included seminars from many visiting lecturers from universities, government, diplomatic and private institutions.

Moving further up the military hierarchy involves a move from tactical and operational responsibilities to further operational but also strategic responsibilities.  In a business sense, it is moving from middle to senior management.  And just as in business, the role of a strategic military manager is far more complex today than it was even 25 years ago.  Not only has the technology become more complex, but so has the strategic terrain. 

The lessons of Viet Nam, where television played such a major role, have now been multiplied a million times over by the advent of the internet.  But whereas the television journalists who covered Viet Nam abided by an ethical code and used technology that was costly and at times cumbersome, those using the internet today face few such restraints.  The costs are minimal and release of information can be immediate. 

Contrary to the "publish and be damned" stereotype of newspaper and television editors, a majority of editors pause over the use of highly graphic photographs and footage. As some frightening videos taken by those using the internet have shown, the ethics of those wielding these communication tools are non-existent.  The reason, of course, is that the internet is being primarily as a means of violence rather than of communication.

Modern military forces need senior officers who know more than just how to lead a force into battle.  Whereas the word "terrain" once referred the lie of the land, in the 21^st Century, senior officers need to understand the increasingly complex issues in their area of command.  For example, New Zealand's defence force, like many throughout the world, is increasingly involved in peacekeeping activities where tact, diplomacy and a keen awareness of the difficulties of cross-cultural communication, rather than brute force, are the order of the day. 

Strategic thinkers need to not only be cognisant of the past, but also to be looking ahead, and often far ahead, in assessing potential challenges and opportunities.  Those challenges are more than just the obvious military issues of assessing potential and future threats and battlegrounds.

They also include recruiting personnel from an ageing population, competing against the private sector for skilled and valuable workers and assessing potential and costly technological changes and needs, not only in military hardware, but in computer equipment and logistics support.  It is for this reason, that while university degrees in strategic studies were once the preserve of officers such as yourselves, such qualifications are increasingly being achieved by senior public servants in central and local government.

To be thinking outside the square may also require you to question the prevailing wisdom of your service.  That is never easy in any organisation and none more so than one subject to military discipline.  Again tact and diplomacy will also be important! 

In conclusion then, there remains a strong link between the Crown, and hence the Governor-General, and the New Zealand Defence Force.  Just as New Zealand officers make an oath of allegiance to the Queen of New Zealand, so does the Governor-General.  As Commander-in-Chief of New Zealand, I wish the New Zealanders here all the best for your future careers with the New Zealand Defence Force.  For those of you from overseas, as Governor-General, I extend my best wishes for your careers in your respective forces. 

And on that note, I will close in New Zealand's first language Maori, by offering everyone greetings and wishing you all good health and fortitude in your endeavours.  No reira, tena koutou, tena koutou, kia ora, kia kaha, tena koutou katoa.