I am seriously concerned with the ethnic bashing going on in the mainstream media, especially in Sunday Star Times (‘Ethnic rights advice stuns communities’ on February 12) and Dominion Post (editorial on February 13.)
I would like to take this opportunity to communicate what I consider is also a mainstream perspective to the issues around the constitutional review and multiculturalism in New Zealand.
The idea of a multicultural policy for New Zealand is neither new nor a scary proposition, as it has been portrayed in Sunday Star Times.
The idea has been around for nearly 20 years in New Zealand and has been in practice in Canada and New South Wales (Australia) for as many years.
In both cases, this legislation (and supporting frameworks) is well connected with other Human Rights legislation in their respective countries.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has infact endorsed the New South Wales framework as relevant to the entire country.
The Multiculturalism Act was first promoted in 2006 by the New Zealand Federation of Multicultural Councils (NZFMC), then known as the New Zealand Federation of Ethnic Councils (NZFEC) of which I was the chairman.
The call for a Treaty-based multicultural framework therefore predates any formal establishment of constitutional review.
Ethnicity concept
The Federation at that time considered that the concept of ‘ethnicity’ as understood then, referred to non-predominant ethnic groups and was out dated.
The NZFEC outline of a Multiculturalism Act recognised the special status of Maori as Tangata Whenua and their special rights under the Treaty of Waitangi.
This document was prepared at that time as a proposal for a legislative environment and plan of action for government, community and business to recognise the multicultural makeup of our society.
For the purposes of this work, multiculturalism was defined as the recognition and promotion of a society in which (a) All cultures and ethnicities that make up New Zealand are acknowledged (b) The full and equitable participation of every individual from all cultures and ethnicities is promoted (c) The existence of different ethnic communities, their history and heritage is recognised and (d) Intercultural understanding is promoted.
Popular support
Statistics New Zealand figures show that at least one in four New Zealanders was born overseas. There is evidence that at least four out of five New Zealanders think that we should welcome New Zealand as a multicultural society.
Recent migrants continue to promote the need for greater formal recognition of Maori traditions in the Constitution including formal observance of Matariki. Further, the Hijab, the Turban, the dot on the forehead of Indian women, religious festivals of the Muslims, Hindus, Chinese and other communities are no longer foreign; they have been part of the New Zealand identity for a long time now.
I believe that any constitutional review that does not take into consideration such basic human needs will not reflect the society that we have become.
The articles in the newspapers refer to the recent briefing paper to the incoming minister). In my view, the briefing paper reflects accurately the sentiments and views of the people, resonating with the views of many New Zealanders that we would like to see our values and cultures reflected in the new constitution.
I strongly believe that a multicultural perspective to the constitutional review will bring freshness to the meaning of a bicultural New Zealand.
There is nothing scary or controversial on this score. In fact, there is a silver lining to these articles, which despite being poorly researched, have given the issue of multiculturalism a long deserved promotion, albeit in a backhanded manner.
Pancha Narayanan is past-president of the New Zealand Federation of Multicultural Council and an advocate for the Multiculturalism Act.
Editor’s Note: Read related reports under Homelink and Viewlink in this issue.
