Dr Muriel Newman
The Coronation of King Charles III was watched by over 400 million people worldwide. Millions of royal fans crowded into London to be part of the celebration, with over a hundred thousand lining the procession route.
The pomp and pageantry of the Westminster Abbey ceremony dates back almost 1,000 years to William the Conqueror in 1066. King Charles III is the 40th sovereign to be crowned there. The coronation chair used by the new King was built for King Edward I in 1297, and the golden coach, carrying the newly crowned King and Queen was built in 1762. Weighing 4 tonne, the team of eight Windsor Greys that pulled the carriage were amongst 200 horses taking part in the event.
Security surrounding the coronation, known as operation Golden Orb, involved 29,000 security officials and police. Some 6,000 military personnel were involved in the parade, and over 2,200 invited guests – including world leaders and other dignitaries from more than 200 countries – attended the service.
Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking, New Zealand’s only media representative present in the Abbey, wrote:
“It’s one of those moments you think ‘how long would you walk for, how long would you wait for, how much security can you endure, how many crowds do you want to battle?’ The answer is all of it and more. I love the royals so I’m a paid-up member. But even the most hardened republican would have had trouble in the Abbey not seeing the overwhelming history, power, influence and consistency of the monarchy. Two hours that live forever.”
With the Coronation setting off a debate over whether New Zealand should remain a constitutional monarchy or become a republic, this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, former Judge and Law Lecturer Anthony Willy, outlines the options:
“Stability is important in our lives and there can be no doubt that currently the most stable nations on earth are Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Japan, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. All are constitutional monarchies of considerable heritage and in none of those countries is there any serious suggestion that they become republics.
“Then there is the pomp and circumstance which attend much of the Monarch’s duties… nowhere better on display than at the lying in State and funeral of the late Queen and the Coronation of King Charles III.
“In the case of the late Queen… it afforded an opportunity for ordinary members of the public to put aside their own cares and rejoice in a life of utter devotion to their service. Similarly with the coronation of King Charles.
“It is too simplistic to dismiss this spectacle and the comfort it affords to ordinary people as pointless grandstanding by an institution which has outlived its usefulness. It is not and it has not. People crave continuity and certainty in their lives and in their institutions.”
The Coronation was commemorated in our Parliament at 2 pm last Tuesday 9 May, when the Prime Minister moved the following motion, “That this House congratulate His Majesty the King on the occasion of his coronation”.
In his address, Chris Hipkins explained, “King Charles automatically became the King of New Zealand on 8 September last year, following the death of the late Queen. The coronation was a celebration of his accession to the throne not just of the United Kingdom but as head of State of 15 nations around the world, including our own.”
The PM reminded us that King Charles, who has visited New Zealand ten times over the years and has a strong personal commitment to our country, took public oaths of service and duty during his coronation:
“While not everyone in our nation, or even in this House, shares similar views on the role of the monarchy in a modern society, I’m sure that everyone will join with me in congratulating His Majesty on this significant milestone. I wish King Charles well in his role, and I send the warmest wishes and congratulations to His Majesty and to the Queen for the lives of service that they have committed to, on behalf of all New Zealanders.”
National’s leader Christopher Luxon noted that while the Coronation symbolised King Charles’ role as head of the Church of England, his life-long dedication to public duty was the key: “I agree with the sentiments of Prince William who said, ‘For all that celebrations are magnificent, at the heart of the pageantry is a simple message: service.’ Almost all King Charles’ life has been about service. First, as Britain’s longest serving Prince of Wales, giving support and strength to his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II… At 16 he undertook his first official royal duty and has not stopped serving since.”
Only two other MPs spoke in the debate.
The ACT Party’s Nicole McKee shared some little-known facts about the King, including that he likes eggs and is a fan of ‘Emmerdale Farm’, before concluding with “Long live the King”.
In his one-sentence contribution, the Green Party’s co-leader James Shaw said:
“On behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, I would like to extend Charles, Camilla, and their respective families all the very best.”
According to the Hansard record, the Motion, “That this House congratulate His Majesty the King on the occasion of his coronation” was agreed – supported by Labour with 62 votes, National with 34, and ACT with 10.
There were 10 abstentions – the Green Party with 9, and Elizabeth Kerekere.
And 3 votes opposed – the Maori Party with 2 votes, and Meka Whaitere.
In failing to support a motion congratulating New Zealand’s new Head of State, the Greens, the Maori Party and the two independent MPs displayed not only a meanness of spirit towards the new King on his special occasion, but hypocrisy on a grand scale by denigrating the Westminster Parliamentary System, while revelling in its privileges as Members of Parliament.
For the Maori Party, their hatred of the British monarchy runs deep. A petition to remove the Monarch features on their Party website:
“Te Pati Maori are calling for the House of Representatives to remove the British royal family as head of state; and create a Te Tiriti Centric Aotearoa through constitutional transformation.”
In by-gone times, such disloyalty to a Head of State would have resulted in ostracism or worse. Nowadays it seems fashionable.
Since the Maori Party may well hold significant influence after the next election, let’s examine what else they are promoting on their website.
They want to entrench the Maori seats, force all Maori to register on the Maori electoral roll (a move that would end up doubling the number of Maori seats) and establish a Maori Parliament. They would re-open the Treaty settlement process, enable tribal claims on private land, and transfer the conservation estate to Maori. Waitangi Tribal recommendations would become binding on the Government (giving the Tribunal superior legal status to Parliament), and a new constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi would be introduced.
Their ambition to control the country – and gain access to unlimited wealth and privilege – represents a significant threat to New Zealand’s future.
If these extremists succeed in replacing our unwritten constitution with a new written version based on the Treaty, it would be a disaster – as constitutional law expert David Round has explained:
“The Maori Party’s avowed aim is to put the ‘principles of the Treaty’ into our constitution. Thereafter the special status and privilege of those of Maori descent will be guaranteed for ever. It would be impossible to undo such an arrangement, for any attempt by Parliament or anyone else to do so would thereafter be ‘unconstitutional’. If the Treaty gets into our constitution – if there is any mention of it which an unscrupulous judge can use – then the majority of the people of New Zealand will become second-class citizens in their own country. This must not happen. If it does happen, then our increasingly unhappy, impoverished and divided country will be irrevocably stuffed.”
It remains a tragic fact that most New Zealanders are unaware of the threat that a new written constitution represents. Currently, our unwritten constitution not only guarantees the sovereignty of Parliament, but it provides a powerful democratic safeguard – if our government runs amok, we can vote them out at the next election.
If New Zealand had a written constitution however, Parliament would no longer be sovereign – we would be forever beholden to unelected Judges who would make the laws and be accountable to no one.
Here’s David Round again:
“The fundamental principle of our constitution is the ancient one we inherited from the common law of England that Parliament is supreme. That principle is not found in any Act of Parliament, it is simply ancient law. It is also, of course, a principle consistent with democratic government. As things stand at present, then, any Parliament could abolish racial privilege and restore the equality of citizens and government for the common good. But if the Maori Party has its way ~ if we come to be saddled with an over-riding written constitution which controlled what Parliament may and may not do, and which declared that the ‘principles of the Treaty’ were a higher law which always prevailed ~ then Parliament would not be supreme in future. If future Parliaments were to attempt to establish and restore true racial equality, then, its laws could be struck down by judges who considered that those laws breached a ‘Treaty principle’ of eternal special status for those of Maori descent.”
Recognising the danger to the country posed by the Maori Party’s separatist agenda, the National Party leader Christopher Luxon has finally ruling out working with them after the election:
“Today, I have ruled out National coming to any arrangement with Te Pati Maori in forming a government after this year’s election. National believes New Zealand is one country with one standard of citizenship, meaning one person, one vote. Te Pati Maori has a different view.
“I’m making clear to New Zealanders that in 2023, a vote for Te Pati Maori will be a vote for a Labour/Greens/Maori Party coalition of chaos, and continuing economic mis-management.
“National is deeply committed to improving outcomes for Maori, but doesn’t believe separate systems are the best way to do this.”
Christopher Luxon’s announcement has put an end to the Maori Party’s ‘Kingmaker’ claims.
As expected, the response from the Maori Party President John Tamihere was belligerent:
“What they’re trying to do is scare people into thinking if the hories get anywhere near the power, we’ve got problems and that’s just so untrue and it licenses people just to keep attacking us as they do… I guarantee you, on October 15, if the Maori Party hold balance of power, Mr Luxon will be calling.”
In fact, John Tamihere wants the Maori Party to have a permanent power base in Government:
“It doesn’t matter if there is a left government or a right government, they’ll have to do business with us; so you become a permanent party in government.”
But their arrogance and naked ambition to rule the country is even too much for Prime Minister Hipkins, who warned:
“Smaller parties need to be careful with whatever they issue in terms of ‘bottom lines’ or they could find themselves simply not able to be part of any governing arrangement at all.”
Like shifting sands, New Zealand’s political parties are readying themselves for the most important election of our time. On the one hand, opposition parties are focused on removing race-based laws and growing the economy, while on the other, the “coalition of chaos” – Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party – looks likely to double down on He Puapua and tribal rule, while continuing their reckless tax and spend. October 14 promises to be a pivotal moment in our history.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Should New Zealand remain a Constitutional Monarchy or become a Republic?