Public trust in science advice depends not only on the quality of evidence, but on confidence that advice is independent, transparent, and free from undue influence. That is especially true in New Zealand, where science advice directly informs decisions on land use, freshwater quality, climate policy, and environmental regulation.
It is in that context that a reasonable question has emerged: does the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor face a conflict of interest - or at least a perception of one - that warrants closer scrutiny?
This question is not an accusation. It is a governance question, and one worth asking openly.
What we know
The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, John Roche, was recruited from DairyNZ, where he held a senior scientific role. That background is publicly acknowledged and was part of his professional profile at the time of appointment.
In addition, Dr Roche is publicly listed as the Managing Director of Down to Earth Advice Ltd, a private consultancy involved in agricultural and research advisory work. This is not hidden information; it appears in sector biographies and professional listings.
These facts alone do not establish wrongdoing. Movement between industry, research, and government is common, and sector expertise is often precisely why individuals are appointed to senior advisory roles.
Why perception matters
However, perception matters almost as much as reality when it comes to public trust.
Dairy intensification and pasture-based farming sit at the centre of some of New Zealand’s most contested policy areas, including:
- nitrate contamination of groundwater
- freshwater ecosystem health
- nutrient management limits
- land-use intensity
- climate and emissions policy
When a senior science advisor has:
- a recent senior role in an industry body directly affected by regulation, and
- a current private consultancy operating in the same sector,
it is reasonable for the public to ask how potential conflicts are identified, disclosed, and managed.
Conflict vs perceived conflict
It is important to be precise.
An actual conflict of interest would exist if:
- the advisor retained undisclosed financial interests
- private commercial work benefited directly from policy outcomes they advised on
- advice was given without recusal where interests overlapped
There is no public evidence that any of this has occurred.
A perceived conflict of interest, however, arises when reasonable observers could question independence - even if advice is entirely sound. That perception alone can undermine confidence if not actively addressed.
What good governance requires
International best practice for senior science advisors in politically sensitive roles typically includes:
- full public disclosure of current directorships and consultancies
- regular conflict-of-interest declarations
- formal recusal from advice directly affecting aligned sectors
- independent peer review of advice in high-impact policy areas
Where these safeguards are visible and enforced, trust is strengthened. Where they are unclear or opaque, doubt fills the gap.
Why this matters now
New Zealand faces increasingly complex environmental decisions. Public confidence in science advice will be critical - particularly where policies require trade-offs between economic activity and environmental protection.
That confidence is not maintained by silence or by assuming good faith will be taken for granted. It is maintained through transparency.
Asking whether conflicts exist - and how they are managed - is not an attack on science. It is a defence of it.
A question worth answering
CORANZ is not asserting that a conflict exists. We are asserting that the question is legitimate.
Clear, public answers about:
- current commercial interests
- disclosure processes
- recusal protocols
would go a long way toward reinforcing trust in the independence of science advice at the highest level of government.
In matters as consequential as freshwater health, land use, and environmental regulation, public confidence is not optional. It must be earned - and maintained - through openness.
That is not criticism. It is good governance.