Like social cohesion.
Just who used it first in modern New Zealand parlance I don’t know but it’s not a new concept.
The philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote about cohesion in 1678. He described it as “the glue that bonds society together, essential for achieving peace, democracy and development.”
The phrase is actually part of a Ministry of Social Development initiative called Te Korowai Whetu Social Cohesion. You won’t be surprised that this word salad of an outfit was started under the Ardern government in 2022.
At that time two million dollars was set aside for “community-based social cohesion initiatives.”
How much of that money has ever been spent I don’t know, but the idea was that “we can support each other to thrive and shine bright like whetū or stars together. This vision was developed in collaboration with diverse communities across Aotearoa New Zealand.”
Umm? What does that all actually mean?
Probably giving some money to a group for whom their identity matters above everything else in order to make them feel a bit better.
Putting that to one side, what piqued my recent interest in the concept of social cohesion was the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) from the Ministry of Justice on the Treaty Principles Bill.
In the RIS some well remunerated but not democracy aligned public servants opined that “the proposal and the debate surrounding the Bill pose a threat to social cohesion.”
It then goes on to say that “putting decision making on Treaty/te Tiriti to a wider public through a referendum brings a significant risk that the will of a non-Maori majority will impose on the minority partners (who are also most likely to be affected by the policy.)”
Commentary like this from public servants is doing a serious disservice to the country.
At its most basic, social cohesion is best achieved if we are all equal before the law, if we all have equal opportunity in life through education, health and social services, and that what we own is ours to enjoy, develop and dispose of within the parameters of the law as set by the government that we all elect.
(The preceding paragraph might be the best precis of the Treaty Principles Bill I’ve yet read, even if I wrote it myself!)
Every New Zealander whether they arrived eight hundred years or eight hundred minutes ago has an identity. In a really cohesive society it’s up to each of us to respect the identity of others.
But I don’t expect someone of another identity to have privileges conferred on them by government or others unless it’s for a service of need.
So if you’re unemployed I’m happy for the government to help you out until you can get a job.
If you’re wheelchair bound I’m happy for the government or one of their agencies like ACC to help you with equipment or living assistance.
If you have a debilitating illness or physical disability then it’s right you’re supported through government assistance.
But I don’t expect you to get special privileges just because you happen to be descended from a particular ethnicity.
I don’t think you should have special representation in a local authority by appointment just because you belong to a particular iwi, as now happens in Canterbury.
I don’t think you should get special admission rights to medical school just because you’re Māori.
(Remember the MOPAS – Māori or Pacific Admission Scheme – has been in operation at Auckland University since the 1990s and now thirty percent of the annual admissions are through the scheme. Yet the number of doctors of Māori or Pacific Island descent is still just seven percent of the doctor workforce. That says the scheme doesn’t work.)
I certainly don’t think you are entitled to any special privilege over water sources just because you are of a particular racial group.
Those are just a few examples of ways that social cohesion can be challenged.
Yet they exist today and our political class is wary of doing anything about them for fear of .. well I don’t know what.
Social cohesion will not be threatened by the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.
Social cohesion will not be threatened by a referendum on the said bill.
Democracy is not perfect, but its best form ensures that all people who live in such a jurisdiction will be considered when the people’s elected representatives make decisions.
Half the country didn’t like the outcome of the 2020 election. I was one of them. But I accepted the will of the majority for three years.
Sadly far too many of the 48 percent who didn’t get the government they wanted in the 2023 election have not accepted the will of the majority and are actively campaigning to undermine it.
But for a nation to have social cohesion only the will of the people can decide the nation’s direction.
To suggest any other way is a direction I would not want this country to take.
J.D. Vance has just told European leaders the same thing.
Sadly I see too many signs of that direction already.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
The phrase is actually part of a Ministry of Social Development initiative called Te Korowai Whetu Social Cohesion. You won’t be surprised that this word salad of an outfit was started under the Ardern government in 2022.
At that time two million dollars was set aside for “community-based social cohesion initiatives.”
How much of that money has ever been spent I don’t know, but the idea was that “we can support each other to thrive and shine bright like whetū or stars together. This vision was developed in collaboration with diverse communities across Aotearoa New Zealand.”
Umm? What does that all actually mean?
Probably giving some money to a group for whom their identity matters above everything else in order to make them feel a bit better.
Putting that to one side, what piqued my recent interest in the concept of social cohesion was the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) from the Ministry of Justice on the Treaty Principles Bill.
In the RIS some well remunerated but not democracy aligned public servants opined that “the proposal and the debate surrounding the Bill pose a threat to social cohesion.”
It then goes on to say that “putting decision making on Treaty/te Tiriti to a wider public through a referendum brings a significant risk that the will of a non-Maori majority will impose on the minority partners (who are also most likely to be affected by the policy.)”
Commentary like this from public servants is doing a serious disservice to the country.
At its most basic, social cohesion is best achieved if we are all equal before the law, if we all have equal opportunity in life through education, health and social services, and that what we own is ours to enjoy, develop and dispose of within the parameters of the law as set by the government that we all elect.
(The preceding paragraph might be the best precis of the Treaty Principles Bill I’ve yet read, even if I wrote it myself!)
Every New Zealander whether they arrived eight hundred years or eight hundred minutes ago has an identity. In a really cohesive society it’s up to each of us to respect the identity of others.
But I don’t expect someone of another identity to have privileges conferred on them by government or others unless it’s for a service of need.
So if you’re unemployed I’m happy for the government to help you out until you can get a job.
If you’re wheelchair bound I’m happy for the government or one of their agencies like ACC to help you with equipment or living assistance.
If you have a debilitating illness or physical disability then it’s right you’re supported through government assistance.
But I don’t expect you to get special privileges just because you happen to be descended from a particular ethnicity.
I don’t think you should have special representation in a local authority by appointment just because you belong to a particular iwi, as now happens in Canterbury.
I don’t think you should get special admission rights to medical school just because you’re Māori.
(Remember the MOPAS – Māori or Pacific Admission Scheme – has been in operation at Auckland University since the 1990s and now thirty percent of the annual admissions are through the scheme. Yet the number of doctors of Māori or Pacific Island descent is still just seven percent of the doctor workforce. That says the scheme doesn’t work.)
I certainly don’t think you are entitled to any special privilege over water sources just because you are of a particular racial group.
Those are just a few examples of ways that social cohesion can be challenged.
Yet they exist today and our political class is wary of doing anything about them for fear of .. well I don’t know what.
Social cohesion will not be threatened by the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.
Social cohesion will not be threatened by a referendum on the said bill.
Democracy is not perfect, but its best form ensures that all people who live in such a jurisdiction will be considered when the people’s elected representatives make decisions.
Half the country didn’t like the outcome of the 2020 election. I was one of them. But I accepted the will of the majority for three years.
Sadly far too many of the 48 percent who didn’t get the government they wanted in the 2023 election have not accepted the will of the majority and are actively campaigning to undermine it.
But for a nation to have social cohesion only the will of the people can decide the nation’s direction.
To suggest any other way is a direction I would not want this country to take.
J.D. Vance has just told European leaders the same thing.
Sadly I see too many signs of that direction already.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
Cohesion is the action or fact of forming a united whole. So social cohesion is applicable in society.
Simply put it could be said it is humans ability to agree to disagree and not let issues go undiscussed to find solutions that suit the majority of folk in a society. That then enable society to go forward to face which ever may be its next challenge.
In out little, petty minded country now filled with niche identity, socio-political 'justice', genderised ideological and race theoretical proclivities we have nil chance that a discussion can be had without one party using their 'veto' either thugs or loudspeaker to down tread the other party.
Sadly it seems mostly to come from those with their niche issues who seem to bellow the loudest. These people act like a child who cannot have 'their' way.
Watching the Select Committee on the TP Bill shows how purile some of the opposers are versus the reasoned respondents from the 'for' camp.....I wont mention the politicians involved as they are obviously NOT willing to have the discussion at all.
Sadly without the common being practiced back into common sense we will not have cohesion socially, politically and or ethnically.
There are far, far to many bad actors pushing their own niche agendas that suit them and not taking a cohesive approach to carrying along others that rules it out.
We have media that stokes the niche fires at every opportunity and in a large number of cases even supports the divisions in society to make a buck....for them if it bleeds it leads and New Zealand is certainly bleeding out rapidly with little sign that the life support is working anymore.....
One wonders what it will take for the majority to wish back their cohesive society and step out of the shadows to bring back 'common' sense or are we doomed for generations to slide further into civil strife if not civil violence?
Excellent Peter.
At the moment we are teetering.
I was annoyed that so many esatblished pro maori platitudes were allowed to pass without question by the Waitangi Treaty Bill committees. Including the accusation of disrupted cohesion. Few things have disrupted this more than the modern interpretations of the Treaty which the Bill attempts to constrain and limit the endless artful expansion of.
And, all the while this race nonsense continues and cohesion turns to division, the nation will continue in the winter of discontent, or GDP doldrums - per the current reality. Wake up, PM Luxon!
Post a Comment