Clive Bibby: Enquiry or Review - Govt. deliberately chose the wrong one.

One of first things they teach you as an MP joining a new government is that you never agree to an enquiry without knowing the outcome before it starts proceedings.

Although last week's announcement stated that a review of the recent East Coast floods was chosen over an enquiry because the latter would take too long - that is not the real reason for the choice.

From government’s point of view, enquires have an unfortunate habit of getting to the truth. And this one, should it be agreed to, has the potential to be politically damaging to an administration that has quite a lot of egg on its face after an event that exposed policies that have contributed to a nation wide problem.

History shows the both the Cartwright and Mahon enquires exposed failures in the system that contributed to unnecessary loss of innocent lives.

Comments about corrupt practices are the last thing that this government will want people to be reading when they open their morning papers - even if it is the weekend edition. The truth is that this administration has much to cover up if and when we find out how their policies have directly contributed to the latest disaster.

They can talk all they like about the need to make a meaningful contribution to the international effort of reducing carbon emissions but they will not want to defend that policy against the criticism that it could have and should have been done differently.

We here at the epicentre of all the major East Coast climate disasters that have occurred over the last 40 years have all the information they need to make the changes necessary that will go some way to prevent them happening again - at least some of these changes would have helped reduce the damage if they had been implemented after the last one. We remaining survivors of every flood including Bola are the people most able to make comparisons about the damaging effects of each one but, more particularly - the relative merits of the different government support measures following each event. Those discussions will be very important when deciding the type of relief measures to implement in the future. Experience shows that some available after Cyclone Hale have been next to useless and we have told them so.

However, I doubt we will get the chance to make submissions to the review.

Unfortunately, figuratively speaking - we know where the bodies are buried.

But it is obvious that this government wants to control the narrative that will emerge from any discussions that will supposedly take place in the next month or so.

Already we have noticed how the announcement has been stage managed.

What else can you say about John Campbell’s appearance on the local Mangatokerau bridge during prime time TV news on Wednesday of last week.

Those clips were filmed from a spot less than a kilometre from our front gate.

Many viewers who are familiar with the area would not have recognised the “slash” he was referring to in the river bed behind him because most of the original dumping had disappeared from the site as a result of the cleanup - a common enough mistake from someone who makes simple errors because he isn't really interested in attention to detail, particularly if it shows the government in a bad light. Unfortunately, it also probably explains the reason why Campbell (one of this country's most recognizable investigative journalists) declined an invitation to talk with me in an effort to expose the truth.

But our problems don't end with the media's distorted commentary.

For those of us who depend on the "powers that be" to help us with our own recovery, we must hope that our regional disaster is not "swamped" in the government's response to the Auckland floods.

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, our leaders will be wanting to put up a better performance for the million or so voters who live up there than the disingenuous effort they organized over here.

For them, it will offer a welcome excuse for treating us as irrelevant - politicians will always be more likely to place their bets on the people who can influence the outcome.

Unfortunately, this time we are not those people.

So, what can we expect from this localised review.

Well don’t hold your breath in anticipation that we will get to the truth and be able to point the finger at who is really to blame. Nor should we expect to see recommendations from the hand picked committee that will force the government to abandon its current GHG emission reduction strategy.

More likely we will see the forestry companies share the blame for this recurring damage and an exoneration of both Central and Local Government from any responsibility for the destruction of our landscape and business operations.

If they are sincere about establishing a better way of doing things, they should be including us mere peasants on the review team.

But that would be a bridge too far.

Tell me something new.

Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.