I have been noting with interest the coverage of various government social initiatives since the election. A wonderful example was provided by the recent proposal to ban smoking in prisons. This proposal was not 'framed' in the media as any kind of "over the top public health measure", "nanny state" or the much beloved "pc gone mad". I don't think that any of those descriptions would be accurate ones, but I am fairly sure that such a proposal under a Labour-led government would have been framed in exactly those ways.
Great post - thanks Russell for putting this all together. Organisations apply for public funds all the time, and it is the job of government agencies to do their homework and allocate funds appropriately. In this instance the lack of proper process appears to be absolutely breathtaking, and we've heard words such as 'scandal' in situations much less obviously flawed. However it will be interesting to see where this particular buck stops. I have a sneaking suspicion that, as with other cases of funding to Pacific agencies (such as the 'hip hop' funding of several years back), this will end up looking (to the public) like a 'Pacific' problem rather than a government one. I totally agree that PEDA seems like an extremely odd/ dubious/ bizarre choice for a budget windfall, but it is windfall process that I would like to see the media scrutinize in more depth.
I'm tempted to see this as evidence to the contrary to your view that things will blow over. But welcome in from the lurking cold anyway, Julie.
I did say "maybe"! Ever the optimist, but thanks for the welcome :)
Oh, and it isn't that cold out there at all, sort of warm and safe ...
I too am relieved that the review has found that the mayhem predicted by Family First and others has still ... um ... not arrived at all.
However I am also frustrated that the continual (FF) debate over individual cases diverts focus away from the groundbreaking repeal of section 59. Even if the review had found some problems with implementation, this would still not have provided the ammunition against the law its opponents continue to seek. There are plenty of perfectly good laws which are found clunky, or ill-fitting, or which are occasionally poorly implemented. This does not, in itself, provide grounds for repeal.
But anyway, on it goes. Maybe the debate will go on so long that eventually the media and public will just get tired of it and subsequently sideline the noise-makers due to lack of interest. We can but hope.
PS I thought it might be the child discipline law which transformed me into an ex-lurker :)