"important national conversation about the place of the Treaty in our constitutional arrangements".

The hikoi is timed to coincide with the first reading of the contentious Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill on Thursday.

It and other similar protests are a response to what many perceive as a fundamental threat to New Zealand's fragile constitutional framework.

With no upper house, nor a written constitution, important laws can be fast-tracked or repealed by a simple majority of Parliament.

As constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer has argued about the current Government's legislative style and speed, the country "is in danger of lurching towards constitutional impropriety".

Central to this ever-shifting and contested political ground is te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi.

For decades it has been woven into the laws of the land in an effort to redress colonial wrongs and guarantee a degree of fairness and equity for Maori.

There is a significant risk the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would undermine these achievements, as it attempts to negate recognised rights within the original document and curtail its application in a modern setting.

But while the bill is almost guaranteed to fail because of the other coalition parties' refusal to support it beyond the select committee, there is another danger.

Contained in an explanatory note within the bill is the following clause:

The Bill will come into force if a majority of electors voting in a referendum support it. The Bill will come into force 6 months after the date on which the official result of that referendum is declared.

Were David Seymour to argue his bill has been thwarted by the standard legislative process and must be advanced by a referendum, the consequences for social cohesion could be significant.

The referendum option

While the bill would still need to become law for the referendum to take place, the option of putting it to the wider population - either as a condition of a future coalition agreement or orchestrated via a citizens-initiated referendum - should not be discounted.

One recent poll showed roughly equal support for and against a referendum on the subject, with around 30 percent undecided.

And Seymour has had success in the past with his End of Life Choice Act referendum in 2020.

He will also have watched the recent example of Australia's Voice referendum, which aimed to give a non-binding parliamentary voice to Indigenous communities but failed after a heated and divisive public debate.

The lobby group Hobson's Pledge, which opposes affirmative action for Maori and is led by former ACT politician Don Brash, has already signalled its intention to push for a citizens-initiated referendum, arguing:

"We need to deliver the kind of message that the Voice referendum in Australia delivered."

The Treaty and the constitution

ACT's bill is not the first such attempt. In 2006, the NZ First Party - then part of a Labour-led coalition government - introduced the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill.

That bill failed, but the essential argument behind it was that entrenching Treaty principles in law was "undermining race relations in New Zealand".

However, ACT's current bill does not seek to delete those principles, but rather to define and restrain them in law.

This would effectively begin to unpick decades of careful legislative work, threaded together from the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, the Treaty settlements process, the courts and parliament.

As such, in mid-August the Tribunal found the first iteration of ACT's bill

would reduce the constitutional status of the Treaty/te Tiriti, remove its effect in law as currently recognised in Treaty clauses, limit Maori rights and Crown obligations, hinder Maori access to justice, impact Treaty settlements, and undermine social cohesion.

In early November, the Tribunal added:

If this Bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times.

If the Bill remained on the statute book for a considerable time or was never repealed, it could mean the end of the Treaty/te Tiriti.

Social cohesion at risk

Similar concerns have been raised by the Ministry of Justice in its advice to the government.

In particular, the ministry noted the proposal in the bill may negate the rights articulated in Article II of the Treaty, which affirms the continuing exercise of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination):

Any law which fails to recognise the collective rights given by Article II calls into question the very purpose of the Treaty and its status in our constitutional arrangements.

The government has also been advised by the Ministry of Justice that the bill may lead to discriminatory outcomes inconsistent with New Zealand's international legal obligations to eliminate discrimination and implement the rights of Indigenous peoples.

All of these issues will become heightened if a referendum, essentially about the the removal of rights guaranteed to Maori in 1840, is put to the vote.

Of course, citizens-initiated referendums are not binding on a government, but they carry much politically persuasive power nonetheless. And this is not to argue against their usefulness, even on difficult issues.

But the profound constitutional and wider democratic implications of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, and any potential referendum on it, should give everyone pause for thought at this pivotal moment.

• First published in The Conversation
• Alexander Gillespie is a Professor of Law, University of Waikato
• Claire Breen is a Professor of Law, University of Waikato

New Plymouth woman Alana Brough faces a $1000 fine with an additional $50 added every day if she doesn't remove a fruit and vegetable garden she planted in her berm.

But a senior lecturer at the University of Western Australia's school of agriculture and environment, Natasha Pauli, said research she had done over almost a decade showed improved community well-being was "an accidental consequence" of allowing "verge gardens" as they were called in Australia.

"So the research that we've looked at is predominantly around low growing vegetation. Read more

A media release accompanying the report stated that social cohesion is under threat in this country.

"[The] challenge of social cohesion is becoming increasingly critical, and more research and policy development is needed to help sustain it," the statement noted.

Society has changed rapidly, greater ethnic diversity in cities and elsewhere is a reality, and "the resolution of what it means to be a ‘Kiwi' is still evolving".

"Societies only function well when they exhibit a level of cohesiveness that allows them to work for the mutual benefit of all their diverse members, despite differing world views, identities, and values. Societal well-being therefore depends on maintaining social cohesion," the statement added.

A robust media and better democratic processes that encourage informed debate were among the ways suggested for maintaining or enhancing social cohesion.

"We need to understand social cohesion through a very Aotearoa lens, and recognise [that] our social cohesion needs will be different from any other country," the statement added, with particular reference to Te Tiriti O Waitangi.

There will likely be differences with other nations, but there will also be similarities. The report did not touch on faith or religious affiliation overmuch as a factor in social cohesion.

In fact, the report mentioned "faith" once, and "religion" six times, but almost always in the context of looking at the past.

However, while the 2018 census showed an increasing percentage of respondents saying that they had "no religion", it also showed that a significant proportion of the population still states they have a religious affiliation.

Christians made up 37 per cent of a population of 4.7million.

That is not an insignificant statistic, in its own right, and also in terms of consequences for social cohesion.

In 2014, the UK Catholic Weekly The Tablet noted a study by the Social Integration Commission, which showed that churches are the most successful places in Britain to meet a wide variety of people.

"It shows that attending a church gives the best chance of interacting with others across lines of age, income and ethnicity. The research found that while sporting events are the best places to bring people together across the age groups, churches were next best," The Tablet article stated.

Also from Britain, a 2020 paper by the Theos Think Tank pointed to research that showed that "people with a religious affiliation are more active citizens than those without".

Many of the participants in the Theos study had religious motives for civic and community engagement.

"Particularly common themes were the need to follow Christ's example, the call to be ‘salt and light' in the community, bringing the marginalised into the centre, building the ‘Kingdom of God', and love of neighbour," the paper noted.

"First, at their best and in contrast to much of cohesion policy which has been driven forward in crisis, churches are emblematic of an approach that views cohesion as a desirable outcome in its own right," the paper added.

"They (churches) are embedded in their local communities, and [are] often working concertedly under the radar to bolster the strength of our collective relationships.

"Therefore, policymakers should ensure that they are working with churches wherever possible and appropriate, as a practical step towards a less crisis-driven approach to cohesion."

It is to be hoped that, while the work of churches in the community in this country frequently flies under the radar too, those responsible for policy-making and research in this area will work with churches in this country too, for the good of all.

As the Theos paper noted, churches are generally good at listening to what communities need, tailoring responses to local circumstances, and prioritising what the community and congregation will support on a sustainable basis.

• Michael Otto is NZ Catholic's editor.
• First published in NZ Catholic. Republished with permission.
• CathNews

Hours after he touched down in Lisbon on Wednesday, one of three huge billboards erected by activists to raise awareness of sexual abuse by clergy was removed, says the campaign group This Is Our Memorial.

WYD follows hard on the heels of a report released in February by a Portuguese commission, which said at least 4,815 minors were sexually abused by Portuguese clergy - mostly priests - over seven decades.

The commission in charge said that was just the "tip of the iceberg".

The campaign group described the removal of the billboard as "censorship".

Another billboard located in the municipality of Oeiras has also been taken down.

Organisers of the awareness campaign called "This is our memorial" shared images of the removal on various social media platforms.

The Church had promised a memorial would be unveiled during the week-long event but a date has not been set, with the Church saying the project was still being studied.

Another issue Francis will be aware of is a decline in Catholic engagement with the Church.

A study published in June reveals 56 percent of Portuguese aged 14 to 30 consider themselves believers (50 percent consider themselves Catholics) and 34 percent identify as practising believers, compared to 60 percent in the overall population.

"Young people identify less with the Church" says parish priest Father Paulo Fernando Filipe.

"Although they grew up in Catholic families and were baptised, they abandon religious practice as they age. I no longer see young adults in the churches I serve.

"They feel trapped, stifled by a certain conservatism," he laments.

"We have a communication problem, struggling to encourage them to get involved."

However, the most recent national census found that Catholicism's decline affects Portuguese society as a whole. Fewer practise their faith, far fewer have church weddings, and ordinations are down.

Hope for the future

On the plus side, numerous Catholic volunteers have come together to welcome young participants.

Organisers hope WYD will breathe new life into the Church in Portugal.

Over the past four years, a network of young people preparing for the event has developed.

"Not all Catholics have engaged in this process," admits Bishop José Ornelas Carvalho.

"But those who have engaged have done significant work that will revitalise evangelisation after the World Youth Day."

Source

• La Croix
• Reuters

From being little known members of small institutes they became rock stars, invited to press conferences, deferred to by politicians, selectively chosen for comment by the media, but also resented by representatives of big business and defenders of individual freedom.

The resentment is understandable because their expert advice has urged restrictions on freedom that business groups wanted removed, and their advice has prevailed.

But perhaps it also points to deeper differences between the two approaches.

The business lobby looked for a response that focused on the big, the certain and the technological. Scientists concerned with the spread of epidemics and the response to them focus simultaneously on the big and the small, on the probable and the human.

Those who wanted to remove restrictions in the interests of economic growth wanted certainty in naming a timetable for freedom and in fixing in advance the conditions that must be met, and promising certainty.

Without certainty about laying in supplies, contracting staff and opening premises, it is difficult for big businesses to operate.

They wanted a hard science that could deal with large quantities, organise deliveries on time, find the technological challenges to sourcing and delivery.

If they had in mind a relevant field of expertise it would be mechanical engineering.

Instead of that, they got epidemiology, assisted by the human sciences.

It is paradoxical in that it also deals in very large numbers — trillions of viruses, large human populations and potential infections. But at is centre is the need to predict the behaviour of small and uncertain things and to give advice based on that behaviour.

The cause of the pandemic was the simplest and smallest of beings — a protein and a prick, as the Coronavirus was described.

It had the capacity to change unpredictably and so defeat the defences marshalled against it.

Those defences lay partly in technology — vaccines — but also necessarily in the changed behaviour of large populations of people and in the acceptance by individual persons of those changes.

Both the spread and the restriction of infection have been shaped by human behaviour.

The epidemiological response also lay in modifying that behaviour through large scale organisation to dismantle shared workplaces, close schools and shops, limit freedom of movement and of association in groups at pubs, churches and sporting grounds.

These are precisely the activities that mediate economic activity and underpin social life.

Instead, people were asked to live restricted lives with all the effects that this had on their mental and physical health and on their financial security.

The target of the sweeping organisation, of course, was the variety of people and groups who were affected by these measures and particularly of those who would be most at risk of catching and spreading infection. Together with the aged and the elderly in nursing homes, these included people who are least valued in society: the people who were mentally ill, homeless, unemployed and immigrants.

Their health, crowded accommodation and presence on the streets meant that they were more likely to be infected and to infect others.

They also included people who in their work were exposed to infection, including nurses, doctors and quarantine staff.

Among them were the least noticed people whose work, often at the risk to their health and lives, was the most significant. They included people involved in caring for the aged, delivering food and supplies, ensuring the integrity of quarantine, and cleaning in nursing homes and hospitals.

They were often lowly paid, less likely to be vaccinated, and forced to work casually in more than one job to support their families.

These formed part of the vast interlocking network of relationships that epidemiologists and other experts had to take into account when evaluating responses to the coronavirus.

Each of these relationships was subject to change as the virus mutated, transmission times shortened and social conditions also changed.

In such a world the inability and refusal of experts to name definitively the dates for loosening restrictions and reopening the economy, even after a serious program of vaccinations has begun, is both necessary and principled.

The answers depend on many variables:

• the number of vaccinations,
• their take-up by vulnerable people and areas,
• the compliance with restrictions,
• the effects of mutations in the virus on health and on infection,
• the pressure on hospitals,
• health workers and others,
• the spread of infection despite tracing and other controls, and
• the harmful effects of lockdown on people, to name just a few.

Any judgment about opening times will depend on a series of other provisional judgments.

The response to the coronavirus, too, disclosed the gap between the value of the work of different groups of people and its remuneration and esteem.

People involved in caring for the aged, delivering food and supplies, ensuring the integrity of quarantine, and cleaning in nursing homes and hospitals were among the least well paid. But their contribution to the community was of vital importance and far greater than the highly remunerated executives in business and politicians.

The discrepancy between the value of work and its remuneration was shown in the spread of the virus in nursing homes by people forced to support their families by working on different sites.

The deeper challenge posed by epidemiology and allied sciences to the received wisdom about business lay in the reconsideration of values prompted by the necessary response to the virus.

Instead of relying on economically competitive individuals to generate wealth, society now depended on people's readiness to sacrifice themselves for others.

Governments, in turn, had to support people in order to avoid economic collapse.

The dignity of each human person, the care for the common good and the precariousness of all human enterprises were the pillars on which a resilient society needed to be built.

The central questions were human, not technological.

If we look in retrospect at the effects of the coronavirus and of the response to it on Australian society, we can see on the one hand the move from big to small, from competitive to cooperative and self-sacrificing, from the exclusion of people who are marginal to inclusion and protection, from the institutional settings that viewed managers, financiers and investors as the most important in society to the recognition that the most important were actually those looked down on and badly paid.

Those re-evaluations were the sign of a well-functioning society.

On the other hand, the outcome of the response to the virus has revealed an opposed dynamic.

• Wealthy individuals and corporations have grown richer while those on precarious incomes have grown in number.
• Those left unemployed in the lockdowns have had their support sharply reduced.
• House prices and rents have risen.
• The most valuable members of society still need to work multiple jobs to support their families.
• The comfortably off are vaccinated while those more in need of it, and more vulnerable to its spread are not.

The emblem of the values espoused by the Federal Government remains its encouragement to large corporations to milk Jobkeeper, to retain their profits from it, and to have their identity concealed.

It is evident that the values of big business have triumphed over the values whose adoption proved central in responding to the coronavirus. But the victory will come at a cost to social cohesion.

It will also make it more difficult to put out the fire next time.

• Andrew Hamilton SJ is consulting editor of Eureka Street, and writer at Jesuit Social Services.
• First published in Eureka Street.
• CathNews NZ is grateful to Andrew Hamilton SJ for his permission to re-publish this and future columns.

"This follows a general trend occurring across the country, where religious diversity has been collapsed into broader discussions of biculturalism, ethnic diversity and superdiversity."

He says the result has been that "we lack the expertise to talk to the New Zealand state and citizenry about the contemporary challenges occurring around religious diversity".

Hoverd thinks the lack of emphasis on religion will create problems for understanding social cohesion and healing after Christchurch.

He says Prime Minister Jacinda Arden argued that the very reason our nation was targeted for a terrorist event was because of its diversity.

She noted that New Zealand has "200 ethnicities, 160 languages, and amongst that diversity we share common values".

But "Her language focused solely on ethnic diversity and did not mention religion or religious diversity".

Hoverd posed the question: "After the decline of the study of religion in New Zealand, how will we develop a sensitive and informed discussion and language of religious diversity where increased state management and community cohesion can function together to renew our nation as a safe and harmonious place that accepts all people, no matter what they believe?"

Personal Contact breaks down fears

Another Massey academic, Professor Stephen Croucher, says his research in India, France, Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States has shown that many dominant group members, often white Christians in those countries, express fear of immigrants in their nations.

"The more contact we have with each other and learn about one another, the less likely we are to fear one another," he says.

Dr Wil Hoverd is a senior lecturer at the Massey University Centre for Defence and Security Studies. A sociologist of religion by training, he is an expert in religious diversity and New Zealand national security.

Professor Stephen Croucher is the head of Massey University's School of Communication, Marketing and Journalism.

Source:

• massey.ac.nz
• massey.ac.nz
• radionz.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• Image: canterbury.ac.nz

And that will test a region united by a trading bloc but divided by religion, ethnicity, and forms of government.

Potentially, the dangers are many. Indonesia experienced this harsh reality when it was beset by anti-Chinese riots in the aftermath of the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis.

More than 1,000 people died, 168 cases of rape were reported, and long-serving dictator Suharto was ousted.

Severe inflation, food shortages, and widespread unemployment were the harbingers of protests across the region as the contagion spread.

This is a danger the 10-members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) are acutely conscious of.

Today, economies are in much better shape than they were at the turn of the century, but growth is slowing, interest rates are rising, markets are volatile, and fears of a global recession later this year, or early next, are being stoked by the trade war between China and the United States.

Supply chains

Billions of dollars in tariffs imposed on Chinese goods by U.S. President Donald Trump is exacerbating the Chinese mainland's economic slowdown with growth in GDP expected to slow to about 6 percent this year.

That might sound reasonable compared with GDP expectations of between 1-3 percent in Western countries, but in China, as a developing country with 400 million poor people — where double-digit growth year after year was long the norm — it's a worrying figure.

This marks the weakest outlook for China in 30 years and that will directly hurt the more advanced economies in ASEAN — Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand — which are integral to Chinese supply lines as component manufacturers in areas such as electronics, white goods, and vehicle production.

Moody's noted recently that these countries are increasingly focused on social welfare and more inclusive growth conducive to social cohesion. However, their responses have sharply differed.

Singapore, where the economy has deteriorated faster than expected, is foreshadowing higher taxes to pay for aged care and to maintain living standards.

For the same reasons, Malaysia has abandoned its goods and services tax.

With an election slated for March 24, Moody's also noted that Thailand faces "high political risks" after four years of military rule. During the Asian financial crisis, Bangkok escaped the type of nasty riots that arose elsewhere in the region, largely because of a previous history of spreading wealth.

However, under the leadership of General Prayut Chan-o-cha, Thailand is now the world's least-fair country in terms of wealth distribution, ahead of Russia, Turkey and India. According to Credit Suisse's annual Global Growth Report in 2018, the top 1 percent of Thais control 66.9 percent of the wealth, while the poorest 10 percent have zero.

Chinese dependents

Fearing a debt trap, Malaysia has already put the brakes on further Chinese investment.

However, Brunei, amid dwindling oil reserves, and Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar, are Chinese dependents with an insatiable appetite for mainland investment, aid, and loans.

Their main strength is their geographical position. Beijing needs those countries for its Belt and Road Initiative, giving it access to seaports, highways and pipelines for trade, as well as for diplomatic support and military projection.

Importantly, China doesn't quibble over human rights like Western nations, which are in the advanced stages of imposing sanctions and removing trade preferences from Cambodia and Myanmar, forcing investors and donors into the wings.

If China scales back its offshore spending as growth rates fall, these four countries could be hurt badly. And grassroots anti-Beijing resentment is a rising reality within ASEAN, further complicating traditional prejudices and animosities.

The government in Brunei's capital, Bandar Seri Begawan, has played its Islamic credentials to seek more investment from Saudi Arabia.

But Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos — where poverty rates remain stubbornly high and violent protests are not uncommon — have limited choices if their economies hit the skids.

Why this matters

Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines are also bracing for an economic downturn as ASEAN anticipates growth rates of less than 5 percent. But their economies are less exposed to China, and they have brighter export prospects in the U.S. and Europe.

Another cushion is the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), which was launched two years ago to embrace a population of about 620 million.

Eight professions are tapped to head a free trade regime: doctors, nurses, dentists, engineers, architects, surveyors, tourism industry workers, and accountants.

The E.U. provided ASEAN with an economic role model, but the AEC lacks a central bank, its own currency, and free trade has been hobbled by heavy restrictions on the mobility of labor because of Southeast Asia's long-standing cultural divides.

The biggest issue confronting ASEAN is its lack of unity, with each country set-apart by its ethnic, religious and political make-up.

Variously, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and atheism are layered with monarchy, democracy, military rule, and communism.

Atheist Vietnam has arrested people because of their spiritual beliefs, while Islam-dominated Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei have seen non-believers imprisoned.

Buddhist Thailand and Myanmar, as well as the Christian-dominated Philippines, contend with long-running Muslim insurgencies.

Khmer antipathy towards anything Vietnamese is near xenophobic, matching a Thai version for the Burmese. Meanwhile despite what the AEC says, a Cambodian nurse cannot get a job in Thailand.

As Michael Smiddy of Emerging Markets Consulting recently noted, the free movement of people — to bolster industry and spur economic growth — remains the "least palatable" among regional leaders.

A repeat of the Asian financial crisis is unlikely, but as economies falter, jobs dry up.

Protest movements and opposition politicians find ready-made audiences when there's not enough to go around, and governments obfuscate on their responsibilities by playing to nationalism fueled by religious bigotry.

In such circumstances, calm heads are needed to prevent social upheaval.

• Luke Hunt is a senior opinion writer for ucanews.com. Follow him on Twitter @lukeanthonyhunt
• Image: Asia Life