spinofflive
Members of the public in front of the Christchurch High Court during the last day of the sentencing of the March 15 shooter (Photo: SANKA VIDANAGAMA/AFP via Getty Images)
Members of the public in front of the Christchurch High Court during the last day of the sentencing of the March 15 shooter (Photo: SANKA VIDANAGAMA/AFP via Getty Images)

OPINIONPoliticsOctober 27, 2022

The social cohesion framework should be applied to government first

Members of the public in front of the Christchurch High Court during the last day of the sentencing of the March 15 shooter (Photo: SANKA VIDANAGAMA/AFP via Getty Images)
Members of the public in front of the Christchurch High Court during the last day of the sentencing of the March 15 shooter (Photo: SANKA VIDANAGAMA/AFP via Getty Images)

The response to recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry into the March 15 attacks is a hopeful first step towards building stronger communities, writes Anjum Rahman. 

Social cohesion is a fancy term, with many definitions. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks on Christchurch Masjidain (RCOI) noted a comprehensive definition that included:

  1. belonging – a sense of being part of the community, trust in others and respect for law and human rights;
  2. inclusion – equity of opportunities and outcomes in work, income, education, health and housing;
  3. participation – involvement in social and community activities and in political and civic life;
  4. recognition – valuing diversity and respecting differences; and
  5. legitimacy – confidence in public institutions.

At a basic level, people often think of social cohesion as space where we all agree with each other, we all think the same way and have similar values and cultural touchpoints. For me, social cohesion is about how we get along when we vehemently disagree on the most fundamental aspects of life, of society, of morality. It is about valuing the humanity of each person, about making space for each other.

That, in itself, is the one value judgement we need to agree on. Popper’s paradox of tolerance (that “in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance”) is the space where social cohesion stands or falls. Building that first space of consensus is never easy, and it’s not one into which  governments can and should venture.

Having the government develop a social cohesion strategy holds the danger of social engineering, of telling us how to think and act. This is never a good place for any state to be.

If this is the case, what is the purpose of a social cohesion framework? As someone who was part of the Social Cohesion Working Group and gave advice to MSD, the purpose is to guide communities in the way they organise and take action. It’s a resource that any community, not-for-profit, public sector or corporate entity can use to build belonging, inclusion, participation, recognition and legitimacy.

This is the greatest challenge with the framework. After so many months of hard work, a lack of uptake will mean the framework is a failure. A lack of investment at all levels will result in a lack of meaningful change.

On the other hand, when we have communities that are fracturing and divisive in ways that lead to violence, both physical and psychological, government has the resources to be able to develop strategies that keep us safe from harm while allowing political dissent, testing of ideas through debate and dialogue, and protecting the freedoms we expect in a democratic society.

‘If you value The Spinoff and the perspectives we share, support our work by donating today.’
Anna Rawhiti-Connell
— Senior writer

In developing the social cohesion framework, the Ministry of Social Development began a process of comprehensive consultation, along with convening a representative working group. These engagements allowed for a diverse range of communities to shape the framework.

This was not a full co-design process, as key decision points sat with government agencies. The Royal Commission Of Iinquiry into March 15  recommended that “the public sector mindset must shift to value communities’ input into decisions, transparency and engaging in robust debate”. To that extent, MSD took comprehensive feedback to develop the framework, list action points and think about monitoring and evaluation tools to see if we were improving as a society.

Members of the public in front of the Christchurch High Court during the last day of the sentencing of the March 15 shooter (Photo: Sanka Vidanagama/AFP via Getty Images)

There are many for whom social cohesion is not a problem. Systems, institutions, cultural values and norms all fit in their lifestyles and beliefs. They succeed materially and otherwise because society is set up for them. They see change as a threat, they approach it with fear and defensiveness. These fears are exacerbated by actors who benefit from the status quo and see change as a loss of social and economic status and power.

Until those who benefit most from the current systems are willing to change it, social cohesion will be a failed experiment. This is the place where government can lead: by applying social cohesion to itself, to the public servants and politicians that design and uphold systems, set policy and make decisions about the allocation of public resources.

Leading by example is critical, across the political spectrum. We see too often, both here and overseas, political actors who exploit divisions or create them, in order to achieve political power. Presenting a targeted group as a threat to “our way of life” unfortunately remains an effective political tool.

Ultimately this is about safety and equity for all of us. It’s about caring enough about all the people who live on this whenua. It is about embracing and enacting Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a pathway forward, for without justice and equity for tangata whenua, there can not be justice and equity for the rest of us.

The launch of a framework is a first small step. It is a small change in the way policy is developed, with other government departments also moving to more participation from communities. They need to go further, although it is difficult to do so in a political environment that brutally punishes failure. For the public service to relinquish control and trust communities to be the author of their own solutions is a fundamental design shift and requires a much higher level of investment and risk.

I’m quietly hopeful that we might get there. Discordant voices tend to be the loudest, but in our interactions with people in communities, there is a strong desire for us to move to a place where we can respect and value each other. Where we can find ways to build consensus while allowing each other the space to be true our own sense of self.

Keep going!
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

PoliticsOctober 27, 2022

Auckland Transport responds to Wayne Brown’s open letter in all-staff meeting

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

Auckland mayor Wayne Brown sent Auckland Transport a letter telling it to stop changing how Aucklanders live. In an all-staff meeting yesterday, its top executives seemed to be taking that instruction on board.

Auckland Transport will be putting some cycling projects on hold and making sure it considers cars more in road upgrades, its top executives told an all-staff meeting on Wednesday afternoon. 

Interim chief executive Mark Lambert said the change in direction was a response to a letter from incoming mayor Wayne Brown, staff members present at the meeting told The Spinoff.

Brown’s letter chastised AT for focusing on “changing how Aucklanders live” with transport policy, and ordered it instead to “deeply understand how Aucklanders actually live now, how they want to live in the future and deliver transport services that support those aspirations”.

Though Brown doesn’t have the authority to set AT’s direction, and any actual policy decisions are the responsibility of the council’s governing body where he has just one of 21 votes, Lambert said the letter would be treated as an informal letter of expectation, two sources say.

A formal letter of expectation is usually sent to AT by the full council in November or December, and sets out its priorities for the organisation.

Lambert said the agency would respond to Brown’s instructions by making sure road users who can’t walk, cycle or use public transport are considered more in project planning, revisiting some cycling projects that are now more controversial than they were before the election, and looking at delegating more decisions to local boards.

Lambert also signalled a potential slowdown in public transport investment.

Mayor Wayne Brown and Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick (Photo: Supplied)

Multiple sources said he told staff that AT may not need to increase public transport patronage as rapidly as projected, given Auckland’s population growth has slowed.

He added that the agency would respond to the mayor’s aversion to road cones by completing current projects before starting new ones, sources said.

If Lambert’s presentation defines AT’s actions going forward, it would mark a big policy shift for the council-controlled organisation. 

In the weeks before the election, councillors passed the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway, which delivers a roadmap to decrease Auckland’s transport emissions 64% by 2030. 

It sets out a rapid reduction in the city’s dependence on cars, and a huge escalation in its investment in other transport choices.

A graphic from the TERP showing the transport transformation required in Auckland.

When it passed, AT board chair Adrienne Young-Cooper said “decarbonising transport in Auckland will be a critical part of meeting Aotearoa’s global obligations to reduce the impact of climate change”.

The TERP remains in operation, along with the policy it’s designed to enact, Te Tāruke-a-Tāwhiri Auckland’s climate plan.

Councillors haven’t been sworn in, and the council’s governing body hasn’t yet met following the local body election earlier this month.

One councillor, who did not want to be named, said any major policy changes would need to be signed off by the full council. “I haven’t seen that come through our emails. No update from Mark [Lambert]. There’s a ‘no surprises’ policy, so I thought just as a matter of courtesy it would come to us. But even process-wise it’s got to come to us,” the councillor said. “And they know that.” 

In a statement to The Spinoff this morning, Auckland Transport did not dispute the meeting’s agenda, and said the team was “looking forward to working constructively with the mayor and wider council through the upcoming formal annual statement of intent process.”   

“We agree with the mayor that a new approach is needed to better understand the needs and expectations of our communities, and how we, our decisions and the work we do impacts on people’s daily lives,” an AT spokesperson said.

“We are reviewing some of our existing and planned public consultations and engagements, and if appropriate we may take the opportunity to get further local input. This is a request we have had from various parts of the community, not just the mayor.”

During his campaign, Brown railed against AT and another council-controlled organisation, Eke Panuku, for what he saw as underperformance and in AT’s case, social engineering.

He has called on the boards of both organisations to resign, but so far only Young-Cooper has followed that instruction.

AT has been the subject of heavy criticism in recent years. Conservatives have accused it of trying to force people out of their cars, while advocates for transport choice and climate action have pointed out that the organisation is failing to enact the progressive strategies passed for it by the council, and blamed that lack of action partly on resistance in the organisation’s management.

But wait there's more!