In The Cooks

How to Read An Annual Report Pitfalls In The Cooks

From a NZ Correspondent The Auckland Star, in its con tinuing and highly laudable cam paign to present Cook Islands affairs to the New Zealand pub lic in a series of temperate and well founded articles, found it self in holts with Island Terri tories Department in March over an unsigned article and an edi torial about leprosy in the Cooks.

The material appeared on March 4, and late in the month it appeared the Star had lost the round, although not—Cook Islands resi dents will hope—the bout.

The Star’s error was an un fortunate one. Anyone whose business it is to try to interpret government annual reports knows how difficult it can be to sort fact from official cover-up gobbledegook.

Added to that is the term “year” used in such reports.

When a New Zealand annual report refers to 1958, for example, this means the fiscal period from April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959 and anything that happened in the first quarter of 1958 did not happen in 1958 at all—that was 1957.

It was into this pitfall that the Star slipped, as well as into another, similarly concealed.

Late in February the new Minister of Island Territories announced that New Zealand was to step up its drive to eliminate leprosy at Aitutaki, and some figures were given which were certainly disturbing.

As a result the Star, doing a little research, came across a SPC report published in October, 1954, and compiled by Dr. Norman R. Sloan, a leprologist who had made a survey of the situation as it existed in May-June, 1953. This report was a grim document and it made recommendations for meeting the situation.

No Reference to Visit The Star found that there was absolutely no reference to Dr.

Sloan’s visit or to his report or its recommendations in the Cook Islands annual report of the year concerned—or of any later year, for that matter, and that the recommendations had not been implemented.

The Star, aware also that other highly critical medical reports on

The Changing Face of Rarotonga

The changing face of Rarotonga, Cook Islands, is shown in these photographs taken [?]or "PIM" by W. H. Percival. TOP shows the new offices and stores block of the United islands Traders, Ltd., now being built to replace those destroyed by fire last November. [?]e bulk store will be erected on the rubble area, foreground. CENTRE picture is Mr John [?]arnngton's new store at Avarua, Rarotonga. Mr. Harrington sold out his Aitutaki in [?]trests. BELOW is the new U.I.T. trading store, erected in 16 days by Mr. Kati Heather's [?] nstruction gang, under contract.

00k Islands health in later years id received negligible if any ention in the Cook Islands ports, assumed that the Sloan port had been deliberately ppressed and the newspaper led strong terms in adopting this sumption.

But due to the difference in fiscal id calendar years the Star made 1 error in its leprosy figures, lich only further seemed to nfirm the assumption of suppres m of facts.

On March 13 the Star published statement from the Minister in lich he pointed out this error in ;ures. He also pointed out that e SPC report could not have been .blished except with the express thority of Island Territories ipartment.

Phis was proof, the Minister said, at there was no suppression of ;ts.

He also pointed out that there '.s a reference to Dr. Sloan’s visit, t in the report on the Cook ands but in the Department’s n annual report—an entirely jarate publication which, in large asure, usually summarises in ich less complete form, much the material contained in the >orts of the separate Island rritories —the Cooks, Niue, the kelaus, Western Samoa, etc.

Che Minister did not explain why ;re was no reference to the an survey in the report in ich everyone would expect to d it—the Cook Islands report, fhe Minister’s correction was blished by the Star without nment; but this was apparently t enough. )n March 21 the Star was made get right down and apologise, said, in part, the Star . . . “has eived a communication claiming it certain statements in the icle were defamatory of Mr. J.

Wright, Secretary of Island rritories, by giving the impression it Mr. Wright was responsible failure to render correct tements of the position”. The

ir . . . “unreservedly expresses

regret . . . has certainly no ire to publish an incorrect tement reflecting upon the egrity of an individual civil vant, and it expressly apologises Mr. J. B. Wright for any mis ;en impression which might have n created”, fowhere in the Star's articles or torial had the name of any civil vant actually appeared, nor was 1 blame expressly placed on the iretary. ’he incident did emphasise, vever, that the Cook Islands lual report doesn’t always pass to the public all the available ts or even a reasonable indica -1 of where these available facts y be located. No doubt these isidiary reports can be located aewhere —but why are they not luded in at least outline in the lual report?