Calls for a new Minister for Social Cohesion reflect anxiety about Australia’s civic health, but risk mistaking rhetorical panic for structural failure – and policy symbolism for effective governance.

The American writer A J Liebling claimed that “I write better than anyone who writes faster, and faster than anyone who writes better.” While that’s not easy to prove (or disprove), he may have been right.

Whatever, Liebling’s aphorisms were sharp. The press, he said, is “the weak slat under the bed of democracy”. That’s easier to verify – just have a look at Australian newspapers following the Bondi atrocity. It wasn’t all bad but a lot of it was, with much of the commentary being un-evidenced and twisted by extravagant expression and historical amnesia. A few examples:

• Henry Ergas claimed that “the multi-cultural project…has failed” in the face of what he sees as “the steady dismemberment of Australia’s social fabric.”
• Chris Kenny (of The Australian newspaper) said we are in a time of “unprecedented national trauma”. Tell that to the families of the 60,000 Australian troops killed in WWI.
• Scott Morrison (of Robodebt infamy) wrote that “our own society was shredded by the anti-Semitism unleashed in Australia after October 7 (2023)”.
• Mick Keelty (a former head of the Federal Police) alleged that the growth in antisemitism in Australia in recent times is down to “a failure of political leadership” and “pro-Palestinian demonstrations”. Hey, but what about the war in Gaza whose terrible consequences have been on the television news every night for more than two years?

There’s scope for concern about the state of Australian society but to say it’s shredded, dismembered and traumatised are cheap and shoddy diagnoses. They’re also inconsistent with serious studies, including evidence gathered by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

With inter-country measures of criminality, homicide rates and quality of life, Australia lines up favourably with comparable countries, usually out-scoring the likes of Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, Sweden and Spain.

The Office of Social Cohesion in the Department of Home Affairs says that “Australia is a prosperous, safe and united country.”

The former Labour Minister, Barry Jones, and former Liberal opposition leader, John Hewson, have provided more sound commentary than Ergas et al arguing “there is a strong case for the creation of a minister for social cohesion”. They say such a position could “give definition to the challenge, collect and manage the relevant data, create a national focus and monitor activities across key portfolios”. They’ve even been bold enough to suggest Tanya Plibersek could take on such a ministry where she’d be responsible for “leading the public discourse, hoping to keep the debate more on track.”

Could a Minister for Social Cohesion provide a counterweight to the extravagances of the Ergases, Kennys, Morrisons and Keeltys? It’s possible, although these worthies seem to know what they think without having a Minister point out inconvenient facts.

Then in terms of effective machinery of government the Jones-Hewson proposition wobbles.

Social cohesion, however it might be defined, is central to the whole business of government. Ministers for health, education, taxation, defence, climate change, industrial relations, immigration, housing, social security, regional development and so on are there to advance the well-being of society as a whole and their efforts are coordinated through the Cabinet.

It’s not evident Ministers would be much assisted by having a colleague running rulers over their policies and administration to see that they conform to measures of social cohesion devised at a distance. Certainly a Minister for Social Cohesion, even if backed by significant department support, could not be expected to match the knowledge, expertise and acuity of those long involved in the complications of tax, social security, industrial relations or other major functions whose key objectives are concerned with equity and fairness. And as Jones and Hewson allow, there is a risk attempts to advance social cohesion can become “rigid, dogmatic and authoritarian.”

Moreover, the current Federal government ministry is top heavy. There are 75 minister and assistant minister roles which are filled by 42 ministers and assistant ministers. This must strain the working of the Cabinet, the government and its supporting public service departments. One more ministry might not make matters a lot worse but it’s hard to see how it would be helpful.

It’s to be hoped that the Royal Commission on Anti-Semitism and Social Cohesion will look closely at the federal government’s ministerial and administrative machinery, in particular the Home Affairs portfolio. In this struggling segment of the federal public service, immigration – a major government function if ever there was one – has been subordinated to a semi-glorified division within the Home Affairs Department. There it has been tainted by “national security” and affected by a mindset to make it more difficult for immigrants to get citizenship by, for example, requiring a 10 year probation. How that promotes social cohesion is anyone’s guess.

So, rather than have a Minister for Social Cohesion, the Royal Commission would do well to recommend the re-establishment of a free-standing Department of Immigration. It should be responsible for related policy and administration including migrant settlement and compliance and be protected from the distortions to which it is now vulnerable in the Department of Home Affairs. That would not add to the numbers of those at ministerial level as there’s already an assistant minister for immigration who should be converted into the real thing.