• PDF SUBMISSION TO THE ENVIRONMENT SELECT COMMITTEE

New Zealand’s Natural Environment Bill arrives with big claims. It promises stronger environmental protection, better enforcement, clearer limits, and a more coherent system than the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) that it replaces. On paper, it sounds like a course correction after decades of frustration.

But if you read the Bill closely and place it alongside what we actually know about modern environmental risk, a more uncomfortable conclusion emerges: the Bill is unlikely to achieve the purposes and functions it sets out for itself.

Not because it lacks ambition. But because it is structurally incapable of grappling with the kinds of environmental harm that now dominate the real world.

This is not a drafting quibble. It is a problem of design, knowledge, and political comfort.

1. A system built to manage what we already understand

The Natural Environment Bill is framed as a stewardship statute. It claims to protect ecosystems, human health, and the life-supporting capacity of the environment.

Yet its operational focus remains narrow and retrospective. It is designed to manage known effects, measured through existing indicators, using data that already exists or that can be ‘reasonably obtained’ at the time of a decision.

That might have made sense in the 1990s. It does not make sense now.

Modern monitoring technologies and the analytical capacity that is provided by AI and machine learning vastly shifts the potential for humans to identify the how, what and why of pollution and contamination from chemical mixtures and tech emissions.

Modern environmental risk is dominated by:

• Persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals
• Low-dose, chronic exposures
• Mixture (“cocktail”) effects
• Delayed and cumulative impacts
• Transformation products more toxic than their parent compounds

None of these fit neatly into a system that asks decision-makers to assess effects only where they are already visible, measurable, and attributable.

The Bill repeatedly gestures toward ‘best obtainable information’. But it defines that phrase in a way that explicitly limits inquiry, rather than requiring it. There is no obligation on central government to establish the state of scientific knowledge before setting national standards. No duty to ask whether key risks are simply not being monitored at all.

In effect, the system manages what is legible, not what is dangerous.

2. The quiet sidelining of precaution

Environmental law is supposed to take uncertainty seriously. That is why the precautionary principle exists. But in the Natural Environment Bill, precaution is confined to a narrow corner of the statute: permit decisions, made late in the process, once plans and standards are already in place.

That is precisely where precaution is least useful.

By the time a permit application is being assessed, the system has already decided:

• which effects matter
• which risks are “in scope”
• which uncertainties are irrelevant

Upstream decisions: national standards, policy direction, monitoring frameworks, are where precaution should operate. That is where uncertainty needs to be treated as a reason for deeper inquiry, not as a reason to move on.

Instead, the Bill embeds proportionality rhetoric but where the guts of the text consistently works against precaution. Decision-makers are told to limit information-gathering based on cost, feasibility, and the ‘scale’ of effects, even though the system itself lacks the knowledge to judge that scale.

This creates a systemic bias toward false negatives: failing to detect real harm because it does not yet fit existing categories.

3. ‘Less than minor effects: a legal fiction with real consequences

One of the Bill’s most consequential design choices is its instruction not to consider ‘less than minor’ adverse effects, unless they cumulatively become more than minor. On the surface this sounds reasonable. It is not.

In environmental systems, harm does not announce when it begins. Low-level contamination can accumulate silently for years before thresholds are crossed. Effects classified as ‘minor’ in isolation may be decisive when combined across space, time, and chemical class.

The Bill relies heavily on cumulative-effects safeguards but provides no scientific architecture capable of making those safeguards real.

There is no requirement to:

• identify contaminant classes likely to accumulate
• monitor transformation products
• assess mixture toxicity
• integrate sediment, water, and biotic pathways

Without those capabilities, ‘cumulative effects’ risks becoming a rhetorical device rather than an operational one.

4. Where is the science?

Perhaps the most striking feature of the Natural Environment Bill is what it does not talk about.

It does not talk about:

• funding
• research
• scientific capacity
• long-term expertise

The Ministry for the Environment is given expanded powers and responsibilities, including setting national standards to protect human health, but no statutory mandate to generate the knowledge required to do so.

There is no ring-fenced funding for contaminant science. No obligation to build or retain expertise in environmental toxicology, ecotoxicology, or mixture risk. No requirement to commission long-term research programmes that track persistence and bioaccumulation.

New Zealand’s science system has already been shaped by decades of under-investment in public-good research on pollution. The Bill does nothing to correct that. It simply assumes the knowledge will exist when needed.

It will not. It cannot.

5. A nutrient-centric view of environmental harm

The Bill inherits a familiar bias from existing environmental policy: a fixation on nutrients, sediments, and pathogens, particularly in freshwater management.

These matter. But they are not the whole story.

Large classes of synthetic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, PFAS, industrial solvents, surfactants, are largely absent from routine monitoring frameworks. Where toxicity is mentioned at all, it is usually confined to ‘toxic waste’, as though harm only arises from discrete disposal events rather than diffuse, chronic exposure.

This blind spot is not theoretical. It has practical consequences:

• chemicals go unmonitored because they are not listed
• harm goes unrecognised because it is not measured
• regulators cannot act because there is “no evidence”

The Bill provides enabling powers to develop national instruments that might address these gaps in the future. But it imposes no duty to do so, no minimum evidential requirements, and no timetable.

History suggests that optional science rarely happens.

6. Centralisation without capability

The reform narrative emphasises consistency, efficiency, and reduced litigation. National direction is meant to simplify planning and reduce risk for development. But this comes at a cost.

Local and regional councils are expected to implement complex, technically demanding frameworks while operating under the financial and accountability constraints of the Local Government Act 2001. The Bill barely engages with this tension.

Councils are placed in an impossible position:

• expected to act cautiously without clear scientific backing
• constrained from funding precautionary work
• exposed to legal challenge if they go beyond national settings
• Centralisation without scientific capability does not produce better environmental outcomes. It produces uniform ignorance.

7. The illusion of system performance

The Bill promises system-level oversight, reporting, and performance frameworks. These sound reassuring, but performance reporting is not the same as independent scientific accountability.

If the underlying indicators are incomplete, if monitoring avoids entire classes of risk, and if uncertainty is treated as an inconvenience rather than a signal, performance frameworks will simply confirm that the system is functioning as designed, – not that it is protecting the environment.

8. What this Bill really does

At its core, the Natural Environment Bill manages political risk more effectively than environmental risk. It narrows what counts as harm. It limits inquiry. It defers hard questions to future instruments. It avoids confronting the reality that modern environmental governance requires sustained scientific investment, uncomfortable uncertainty, and a willingness to act before damage is undeniable.

The Bill may streamline processes. It may reduce litigation. It may unlock development, but none of those outcomes are the same as protecting ecosystems or human health.

9. A choice we keep avoiding

New Zealand faces a choice it has postponed for decades.

Either we:

1. build a governance system capable of understanding complex, cumulative, and uncertain environmental harm; or
2. continue to manage what is easy to see, while calling the rest “out of scope”

The Natural Environment Bill, as drafted, chooses the second path.

It is not malicious. It is cautious, administrative, and deeply familiar. That is precisely the problem. Environmental harm does not respect administrative comfort. And legislation that cannot see the risk cannot prevent it.

If environmental law is meant to protect the future, then a system that refuses to invest in knowing what threatens it is not precautionary – it is willfully blind.

Originally published on PSGRNZ.