A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.
Opinion
When I read the front-page article of Saturday’s Gisborne Herald, I could not believe my eyes regarding the huge amount of money allegedly being given to help Tairawhiti’s cyclone recovery.
On Sunday I emailed the editor and voiced my concerns about the correctness of the story, and on Monday sent in
a letter about those concerns.
First, I was critical of a statement being issued by the mayor — no mention of the whole council. Of course, I realise the council CEO and communications “experts” must have created the words published.
My main concern was that the article did not match the reality of the Government’s own statements.
No such sums of money had been confirmed by Government, nor have recovery details been anywhere near finalised. Before the Budget proper, the Government announced cyclone recovery funding would be for both Hawke’s Bay and Tairawhiti — and it should be noted that the damage bill is larger in Hawke’s Bay.
It seemed to me that Saturday’s front page was a brazen grab for publicity on the back of the Government’s Budget releases.
I have seen the original mayor’s statement issued through the Scoop and Voxy publicity agencies, and it does differ somewhat from that which appeared in The Gisborne Herald. However, it is misleading, and misrepresents the funding situation.
Mayor Stoltz said: “the Recovery Centre has mapped out how we can recover, and this funding will go a long way to achieving that”.
Recovery Centre? The implication is the funding has been approved.
Again: “the Initial Recovery Plan for our region includes immediate funding of $555 million . . .”
This too implies confirmation, and also implies the money is just for our (Tairawhiti) region.
The mayor claims “a further
$613 million is to build resilience into the future . . .”, but again this is not confirmed.
If these figures refer to the Gisborne council’s own wish list, that should have been made clear.
Whoever in council prepared this statement was not careful to avoid misinterpretation.
Nonetheless, the mayor (and CEO who must have overseen the publication) must take the blame for making misleading claims.
Roger Handford
