Stuart Smith
https://stuartsmith.national.org.nz/
As local MP I have had a lot of complaints about the inaccuracies in ECan’s report which led me to write to them seeking an explanation.
What is particularly alarming is ECan’s dismissive response to these legitimate grievances. Instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue and addressing the substantive issues raised, ECan has chosen to cling to hollow assurances of being “Honest Brokers” and championing the accuracy and integrity of its science reports. Such platitudes ring hollow in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
However, Richard Shaw, who lives close to the Blythe River took things further: he rallied neighbours and, with support and funding from the North Canterbury-based Rural Advocacy Network, commissioned an independent review, something ECan had refused to do. The findings of this review, conducted by a highly experienced professional surveyor, lay bare the extent of ECan’s failings. From the misclassification of river margins to the inclusion of erroneous data, the report’s flaws are not only egregious but also indicative of a systemic failure within ECan’s scientific apparatus.
Equally troubling is ECan’s lacklustre response to calls for accountability. The refusal to conduct an independent review, coupled with attempts to downplay the severity of the report’s shortcomings, erodes public trust and confidence in the institution.
Furthermore, the revelation of similar errors in other rivers included in the report must be addressed. The notion that such gross inaccuracies could go unnoticed speaks volumes about the deficiencies in ECan’s quality assurance mechanisms and peer review processes.
As a community, we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to such atrocious breaches of trust. The implications extend far beyond a single technical report; they strike at the heart of our democratic principles and the sanctity of evidence-based decision making.
It is imperative that ECan undertake a comprehensive review of its scientific processes and governance structures. This includes fostering a culture of accountability, promoting transparency, and embracing external scrutiny as a means of safeguarding the integrity of its scientific outputs.
The issues raised by the community regarding ECan’s technical report are not merely a matter of academic debate; they represent a fundamental test of our collective commitment to truth, integrity, and accountability. Failure to address these issues in a timely and transparent manner not only undermines the credibility of ECan but also jeopardises the very foundation upon which our environmental policies and practices are built.
The report was extensively covered in Stuff on April 8, 2023. It would only be fair and balanced for a follow-up story to set the record straight and add much-needed balance which the rural community quite rightly feel is missing.
