John Campbell's reports have stirred up a hornet's nest in the Samoan community both at home and overseas. Whilst I do not deny that there are questions to be asked in the Government's handling of the Tsunami aid money ( I have asked some on this blog ), Campbell's news reports lacked balance and proper analysis of the Government's tsunami report and the later explanations given by the Government by way of media release. As a result, the reports lead to misleading conclusions of ambiguity over the tsunami aid money.
The Analysis of the Figures
Campbell analysis of the Tsunami report is quite wrong. The Government's report clearly said that the World Bank, ADB and IMF funding that the Samoan government has received is not specifically for tsunami aid (reconstruction and housing). In his news reports, John Campbell said that by "his" estimation, those ADB, World Bank and IMF grants was all part of the aid that was sent to Samoa for the tsunami. This is completely wrong. It wasn't.
These World Bank, IMF, and ADB grants had already been committed to Samoa long before the Tsunami even struck; for things like the economic stimulus to weather the global recession; the expansion of the nationwide water and electricity supply; and the sanitation projects in Apia. Some of this expenditure would obviously be in tsunami affected areas (eg: new power and water lines) but this funding was not sent to Samoa for the tsunami. It was sent as part of a wider package of pre-tsunami initiatives to develop the country (as per the Samoa Development Strategy 2008-2012). John Campbell should not have added these grants into his figures that he came up to counter the PM's assertion that only $35million was received.
Campbell also suggests that there is a discrepancy in the government's tsunami report in that MORE than $35million has been spent in the year to date. The govt has already answered this question in the 2010-2011 Budget statement of accounts (also available to John Campbell through the Ministry of Finance website) and also in the media release released after the Tsunami report. The Samoan taxpayers had to cover the rest of tsunami-related expenditure for the first year of Tsunami recovery because only $35million had been received.
The thing with Aid is that it doesn't all come in at the same time. A Government media release has clearly explained this. Much aid is pledged over a period of time and is only released on conditions. For example, once stage one of the sanitation project in Apia is finished, then money is released for stage two. If stage one is not finished, stage two money is obviously not released. The funds pledged by the UN, China, and Japan have not come in yet. Only the funds from New Zealand (NZ), Australia, and the United States, as well as the Government's own Tsunami relief fund have been received. This amounts to $35.1million. Campbell says that NZ gave over $100 million. He is presumably including ALL THE AID that NZ gives to Samoa as part of pre-tsunami development projects and all the non-governmental aid that doesn't go to the Samoan govt (eg: Red Cross, Oxfam, and others). This is quite wrong. The Samoan government has clearly not included non-governmental aid in its tsunami report for the very logical reason that it doesn't actually receive this aid. Non-governmental aid is distributed by Non-Government Organisations (NGOs). Campbell could have easily interviewed the New Zealand High Commission for a clarification of the figures. He did not interview anyone from the NZHC. Perhaps because the NZHC has already come out and defended the Samoan government over the handling of tsunami aid money.
The People John Campbell Interviewed
Why didn't John Campbell interview those people that did receive government housing? He could have asked them how they got their houses and what the process was for getting their houses. He then could've asked the same questions to the people that he did interview (in the interests of balance and fairness). Example of questions Campbell could've asked are these:
1) "Those guys inland have received their houses with tanks and running water, they said they applied for the funding through their village pulenuu, did you apply for the govt housing programme?
2) Did you know about it?
3) Did the pulenuu tell you the process?
4) Did the govt explain to you the process?"
These questions would have been much fairer and provided much needed balance in Campbell's news reports. Campbell said all the people he talked to didn't receive any or much government assistance. This paints a completely misleading picture of the situation in these areas. He cannot possibly say that there is nobody in these areas that have received government assistance because there are quite clearly are people who have received government housing built by Habitat for Humanity, Caritas, and other government contractors. He even said so in his second report: "yes, there are new roads and houses but...". Surely in the interests of balance and fairness, he could have interviewed those fortunate people (the "haves") and compared their situation with the "have-nots". Then the viewing audience could have had a much more balanced view of the situation.
Campbell also interviewed a guy from the NUS and a lady from SUNGO about when the govt was likely to make available an audited report to parliament. How would these people know? They're not a part of the govt. Why didn't he interview the Ministry of Finance or Parliament's Chief Secretary for the timetabling of parliamentary business? Is it any wonder that the NUS and the SUNGO interviewees said they wouldn't have a clue?
Also, for balance, the question must be asked again why Campbell did not interview the NZ High Commission in Samoa? He keeps saying that by (his) 'estimation' the NZ govt had given this much and this much in aid. Why didn't he interview the NZHC to actually get a clear picture of the situation from the NZ govt's point of view? They are the people on the ground in Samoa . Murray McCully isn't.
The Sideshow over Interview dates
He interviewed McCully and (tried to interview) Tuilaepa on the hop asking where the money has gone. Whatever happened between the PM's office and Campbell Live's scheduling mishap, Campbell has refused to interview the PM again in Samoa. He wants the PM to travel to Auckland and be interviewed in studio by Campbell. What is so wrong with interviewing the PM over the phone or satellite television hook-up? Why must Campbell insist on face-to-face contact? It really does seem to be an avoidable argument. There are other ways to do interviews. Campbell and the PM's office have clearly miscommunicated somewhere along the line, but instead of finding another solution, Campbell went on the offensive and concentrated on the PM's "cancellation" instead of finding another date for interview. Instead, Campbell decided to create more confrontation by ambushing the PM coming out of another function at 11.00pm at night. Did Campbell really think he was going to get a quality answer from the PM at that time of night in those circumstances? If so, he is very naive. It really was a ridiculous sideshow made for the television cameras. Meanwhile, there was another date available for a more in-depth interview where Campbell could have been given more detailed itemised reports to peruse over.
Conclusion
I don't deny that there are questions to be asked. However, what John Campbell did was completely misread the figures that he got, added in some other figures from non-tsunami aid donors, and totalled them up to come up with a total that was totally at odds with the $35million that the Government of Samoa says it has received. He then insinuated that there is missing money. After that, he went off and found people who hadn't received government assistance, whilst ignoring those people who HAD received govt assistance. There was only one conclusion anyone could've reached after watching Campbell's reports. A conclusion that was reached without seeing any interviews from the government side or anyone who had received government assistance.
It is a legitimate case for the Broadcasting Standards Authority to have a look at. Campbell's reports were unbalanced and consequently led to misleading conclusions being made.
