Tim Murphy, co-editor of Newsroom, went out to bat for the Public Interest Journalism Fund in an email to his readers at the weekend.
He acknowledged that the fund, set up by the Ardern Government to support media companies and expand important news coverage through the pandemic and economic recovery, has its critics.
But he said it has been
“… a target of much lame criticism.”
He went on to explain that the $50m over three years isn’t all extra money (this shrinks the $55m sum involved in other reports) and said:
“It takes over many millions in existing state funding for a range of news and journalism projects funded for years by NZ on Air.”
More emphatically he insisted:
It isn’t, as some critics claim, aimed at journalism that pushes Treaty of Waitangi principles or leftie woke agendas.
This is curiously defensive.
First, Point of Order is unaware of critics saying the fund has never been used for worthwhile projects.
Second, Newsroom (a recipient of funding) has earned its keep by contending that opposition to Three Waters is racist (HERE, for example) :
And third, the eligibility criteria (made more explicit in a follow-up guide published in March) make plain what recipients must do to get their snouts into this trough.
Goals of the fund include
Actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner.
The first item listed on the general eligibility criteria calls for
Commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to Māori as a Te Tiriti partner
And:
Applicants can show a clear and obvious commitment or intent for commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo Māori. This commitment will enhance public interest journalism, resulting in stronger Māori representation and greater bi-cultural collaboration within the wider journalism sector.
A day or two after Milne defended the fund, Jonathan Mile, managing editor for Newsroom Pro, gave readers a rundown on the Future for Local Government Review’s draft report.
Describing a breakdown in trust between central and local government, it recommends new funding tools to enable councils to do more – and indeed, just to enable them to perform the duties that Government has already heaped on them.
The report proposes specific changes to the allocation of roles and functions that affect local wellbeing, including in housing and urban development, public health, economic development, waste management, and building consenting.
But in a tacit nod to this Govt’s project to reverse 30 years of devolution, the panel also agrees that some local functions could be centralised, like animal control, sale of alcohol, and building regulations…
Milne notes that the terms of reference Mahuta set last year prohibit the review team from making recommendations on Three Waters or resource management reforms
“– but nonetheless, it does applaud the greater hapū/iwi participation these reforms envisage.
“The major reform programmes across government, including Three Waters and resource management reforms currently underway, are pushing and pulling the roles and functions that local government undertakes, with a tendency towards the centralisation/regionalisation of functions away from the local level.”
Milne proceeds to mention the draft report’s recommending the government should pay rates on Crown property.
And he mentions the recommendation that councils all switch from first-past-the-post voting to single transferrable vote – a system already used by some councils like Wellington.
“It argues that would enhance diversity – as would an improvement to councillors’ remuneration.”
But whoa. Hasn’t Milne overlooked something that National and Act immediately railed against?
We refer to the proposal to take the highly controversial and distinctly undemocratic Canterbury Regional Council model and extend it to all local authorities, enabling mana whenua to appoint their representatives to sit alongside the representatives elected by everybody else to sit at council tables.
The idea we should have two standards of citizenship based on ancestry for determining who governs us at the local government level – in short – apparently was not worth mentioning.
He went on to explain that the $50m over three years isn’t all extra money (this shrinks the $55m sum involved in other reports) and said:
“It takes over many millions in existing state funding for a range of news and journalism projects funded for years by NZ on Air.”
More emphatically he insisted:
It isn’t, as some critics claim, aimed at journalism that pushes Treaty of Waitangi principles or leftie woke agendas.
This is curiously defensive.
First, Point of Order is unaware of critics saying the fund has never been used for worthwhile projects.
Second, Newsroom (a recipient of funding) has earned its keep by contending that opposition to Three Waters is racist (HERE, for example) :
And third, the eligibility criteria (made more explicit in a follow-up guide published in March) make plain what recipients must do to get their snouts into this trough.
Goals of the fund include
Actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner.
The first item listed on the general eligibility criteria calls for
Commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to Māori as a Te Tiriti partner
And:
Applicants can show a clear and obvious commitment or intent for commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo Māori. This commitment will enhance public interest journalism, resulting in stronger Māori representation and greater bi-cultural collaboration within the wider journalism sector.
A day or two after Milne defended the fund, Jonathan Mile, managing editor for Newsroom Pro, gave readers a rundown on the Future for Local Government Review’s draft report.
Describing a breakdown in trust between central and local government, it recommends new funding tools to enable councils to do more – and indeed, just to enable them to perform the duties that Government has already heaped on them.
The report proposes specific changes to the allocation of roles and functions that affect local wellbeing, including in housing and urban development, public health, economic development, waste management, and building consenting.
But in a tacit nod to this Govt’s project to reverse 30 years of devolution, the panel also agrees that some local functions could be centralised, like animal control, sale of alcohol, and building regulations…
Milne notes that the terms of reference Mahuta set last year prohibit the review team from making recommendations on Three Waters or resource management reforms
“– but nonetheless, it does applaud the greater hapū/iwi participation these reforms envisage.
“The major reform programmes across government, including Three Waters and resource management reforms currently underway, are pushing and pulling the roles and functions that local government undertakes, with a tendency towards the centralisation/regionalisation of functions away from the local level.”
Milne proceeds to mention the draft report’s recommending the government should pay rates on Crown property.
And he mentions the recommendation that councils all switch from first-past-the-post voting to single transferrable vote – a system already used by some councils like Wellington.
“It argues that would enhance diversity – as would an improvement to councillors’ remuneration.”
But whoa. Hasn’t Milne overlooked something that National and Act immediately railed against?
We refer to the proposal to take the highly controversial and distinctly undemocratic Canterbury Regional Council model and extend it to all local authorities, enabling mana whenua to appoint their representatives to sit alongside the representatives elected by everybody else to sit at council tables.
The idea we should have two standards of citizenship based on ancestry for determining who governs us at the local government level – in short – apparently was not worth mentioning.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
1 comment:
There is minimal public awareness of the blatant pro maori conditions of the PIJF because the main purveyors of public information are recipients of or candidates for, and few trouble or risk to report such information anyway. I recently had cause to canvass a street in an affluent suburb seriously affected by the new zoning. Despite all middle aged professionals and successful retirees, only 10 % had any nominal notion of the situation, and that despite some newspaper publicity. I doubt if 1% of the adult population would be aware of PIJF and even less of its blatant the pro maori conditions. I do not know where the average citizen gets general information from. Very few now receive or read newspapers on line and most are padded out with relative trivia. The conditions would not be emphasised, if disclosed at all, by RNZ or TV. I suspect the great majority of persons are simply uninformed. (Unlike 90 years ago where near all read wide ranging and balanced newspapers). There is no discussion or outrage because hardly any know about; and reporting on any discussion would not meet PIJF conditions. These effectively carry over to all reporting by recipients and prospective recipients.
I have encountered worthy articles supported by PIJF. Topics which 40 years ago would have been covered in newspapers anyway. I was astonished to find articles about the Local Board activity, and about some Council activity including mana whenua influence on their expert topic climate change. All in a free newspaper the only known source of which the local library.......patronised by a few hundred, and few of those interested..
Again it staggeres me that the monstrous flaw of the Fund, the blatant pro maori provisons, got past Caucus. Maori are very obviously in control.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.