Steven Gaskell: A Cure for Everything – As Long as It’s “Inclusive”

Māori call dementia “mate wareware,” which translates roughly to “the sickness of forgetfulness.” The phrase itself is fairly new , made up in 2017 by Dr Makarena Dudley and her team at the University of Auckland. Apparently, Dr Dudley has also found the answer to dementia but only through a cultural adaptation. Her Haumanu Whakaohooho Whakāro programme takes the globally recognised Cognitive Stimulation Therapy, gives it a uniquely local lens, and delivers it on marae with a bit of cultural atmosphere. Admirable? Certainly. But here’s the catch: we’re all paying for it.

In today’s New Zealand, it feels as though every public service health, justice, education, even dementia care now needs its own boutique, culturally branded version. If there’s a successful idea overseas, Wellington can’t resist repackaging it with local symbolism and a new name. It’s presented as inclusivity, but too often it just becomes duplication two (or more) taxpayer-funded systems running side by side, each promising to do the same job.

The real problem isn’t culture; it’s cost and accountability. We already have proven, publicly funded dementia treatments like Cognitive Stimulation Therapy that anyone can access. Yet somehow, the government keeps finding new money to re-label the same services under fresh banners. No one objects to tailoring health care so people feel comfortable, but the bill for endless “special versions” keeps landing in the same letterbox - yours.

What used to be called public health increasingly looks like a competition for bespoke programmes. The bureaucrats love it: new funding streams, new acronyms, and press releases about “transformative partnerships.” But behind the buzzwords, ordinary taxpayers just see rising costs and shrinking results. The same pattern shows up in every department a pilot here, a cultural framework there and each one comes with consultants, advisors, and evaluation teams who rarely talk to each other.

If the government truly wants equality, it might start by making sure every community rural, urban, Māori, Pākehā, new migrant, elderly can access the same high-quality care without having to fit into a specially branded programme. True inclusion means one robust system that treats everyone fairly, not parallel bureaucracies divided by cultural marketing.

New Zealand doesn’t need a dozen competing “pathways”; it needs one clear route to effective public services. A national dementia strategy, for instance, could incorporate cultural flexibility within a single framework, rather than building separate silos that do the same thing. That would save money, simplify delivery, and actually help the people the system is supposed to serve.

So yes, celebrate innovation but maybe ask where the line sits between genuine cultural adaptation and government self-promotion. Because at some point, “inclusive spending” just becomes expensive branding and we all know who ends up footing that bill.

Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.