21 April 2026

Which Minister accepts responsibility for ensuring that the term “protective of human health”

Share on Facebook Share on X Interactive reader

Thank you for your response.

I acknowledge your clarification that wastewater discharge standards fall operationally within the responsibilities of Simeon Brown (Local Government), Simon Watts (Health), and are administered in part by Taumata Arowai.

However, the issue raised is not confined to operational responsibility within a single portfolio.

The matter concerns the integrity of the regulatory framework as a whole, specifically:

– the absence of a defined evidential threshold for what constitutes “safe”;

– the absence of a nationally integrated model linking discharge, exposure, and human health outcomes; and

– the absence of any clearly identified authority responsible for cumulative risk assessment across the system.

In that context, the current position—where responsibility is distributed across multiple portfolios—appears to result in no single Minister or agency holding accountability for the evidential basis of “safety” itself.

That is the issue requiring clarification.

Accordingly, I request confirmation of the following:

1. Lead Accountability

Which Minister accepts responsibility for ensuring that the term “protective of human health” is supported by a defined and measurable evidential standard at a national level?

2. Framework Integrity

Whether any Minister has oversight of the regulatory framework in its entirety, including how environmental standards, public health limits, and local implementation interact in practice.

3. Coordinated Response

Whether your Office will facilitate, or support, a single coordinated ministerial response, rather than fragmented replies across portfolios that do not address the system as a whole.

For clarity, this is not a request for operational comment, but for confirmation of where accountability sits when a cross-portfolio framework makes assertions about human health protection without a unified evidential basis.

If no single point of accountability exists, that itself is a material issue requiring acknowledgment.

I appreciate your time and request that this matter be addressed at a level that reflects its cross-portfolio nature.

Tracy Lynch

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

On Apr 21, 2026 at 11:53 AM, <Nicola Grigg (MIN)> wrote:

Good afternoon Tracy,

Thank you for your follow‑up email and for outlining your concerns in further detail.

The Minister for the Environment does not have responsibility for wastewater discharge standards. These matters sit with Taumata Arowai and fall within the Minister for Local Government’s portfolio responsibilities. Matters relating to public health protection and health‑based limits are the responsibility of the Minister of Health.

In light of this, this Office is not in a position to offer comment on the regulatory framework you have described, or to advise on whether other Ministers may provide a coordinated response.

We appreciate you taking the time to set out your questions so clearly, and trust they will be considered by the relevant Ministers.

Kind regards,

Office of Hon Nicola Grigg
Environment Portfolio

Minister for the Environment | Minister of State for Trade and Investment

Minister for Women | Associate Minister for ACC | MP for Selwyn

Email: [email protected] Website: www.Beehive.govt.nz

Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand

From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 April 2026 11:11 am
To: Nicola Grigg (MIN) <[email protected]>
Cc: Simeon Brown (MIN) <[email protected]>; Simon Watts (MIN) <[email protected]>; records <[email protected]>
Subject: NGCOR2381 Re: NGCOR2381 – Clarification of the Evidential Basis for “Safety” in Wastewater Environmental Standards

Thank you for your response and for advising that this matter has been transferred to Hon Simeon Brown and Hon Simon Watts.

For clarity, the issues raised in my correspondence are not limited to operational matters within a single portfolio, but concern the integrity of the regulatory framework itself, specifically:

– The absence of a clearly defined evidential threshold for what constitutes “safe” in wastewater discharge standards

– The lack of a nationally integrated model linking discharge, exposure, and human health outcomes

– The delegation of cumulative exposure assessment without an identified coordinating authority

These matters engage environmental regulation, public health protection, and local government implementation simultaneously, and therefore sit across multiple ministerial responsibilities.

In that context, I request confirmation of the following:

1. Whether your Office will retain oversight of this matter insofar as it relates to the environmental standards framework and its statutory basis; and

2. Whether a coordinated ministerial response will be provided, rather than fragmented replies across portfolios

Given the nature of the questions raised—particularly regarding the evidential basis upon which “safety” is asserted—it is important that the response addresses the framework as a whole, rather than in isolation.

I appreciate the referral and look forward to a substantive response from the relevant Ministers.

Tracy Lynch

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

On Apr 21, 2026 at 9:55 AM, <Nicola Grigg (MIN)> wrote:

Kia ora,

On behalf of Hon Nicola Grigg, Minister for the Environment, Minister of State for Trade and Investment, Minister for Women, Associate Minister for AC and MP for Selwyn, thank you for your email.

As the issue you have raised is more closely connected to the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Health and Minister for Local Government, your correspondence has been transferred to Hon Simeon Brown and Hon Simon Watts, for consideration.

Kind regards,

Office of Hon Nicola Grigg
Environment Portfolio

Minister for the Environment | Minister of State for Trade and Investment

Minister for Women | Associate Minister for ACC | MP for Selwyn

Email: [email protected] Website: www.Beehive.govt.nz

Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand

From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, 11 April 2026 8:11 am
To: Ministerials <[email protected]>
Cc: Records <[email protected]>
Subject: Clarification of the Evidential Basis for “Safety” in Wastewater Environmental Standards

MINISTERIAL NOTICE OF ISSUE

To: Minister for the Environment

Cc: Taumata Arowai

From: Tracy Lynch

Date: 11 April 2026

Subject: Clarification of the Evidential Basis for “Safety” in Wastewater Environmental Standards

1. INTRODUCTION

This correspondence is provided to bring to your attention a matter arising from a recent Official Information Act response from Taumata Arowai (Ref: CAS-02027-Q9W8C1).

The response relates to the evidential basis upon which wastewater discharge standards are considered “protective of human health and the environment.”

2. ISSUE IDENTIFIED

The Authority has confirmed that:
– No single integrated scientific risk model was identified linking discharge to human health outcomes
– Cumulative exposure effects are not assessed at a national level, but are instead delegated to regional authorities
– Standards are described as “protective” based on established frameworks, expert input, and a precautionary approach

However, no clear definition or evidential threshold for the term “safe” (or “protective of human health”) has been identified.

3. MATTER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

This raises a fundamental question as to how national environmental standards may be asserted to be “protective of human health” in the absence of:
– A defined and measurable threshold of safety
– A unified evidential model linking discharge, exposure, and outcome
– A clearly identified authority responsible for assessing cumulative human health risk

4. REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL CLARIFICATION

1. Responsibility
Which agency holds responsibility for defining what constitutes “safe” in the context of wastewater discharge and environmental exposure?

2. Evidential Framework
Whether a nationally consistent evidential framework exists that defines safety thresholds, incorporates cumulative exposure, and supports assertions that standards are protective of human health.

3. Ministerial Assurance
Whether you are satisfied that current wastewater environmental performance standards are supported by a complete and integrated assessment of human health risk and a clearly defined evidential basis for determining safety.

4. Future Action (if applicable)
If such a framework does not exist, what steps (if any) are being taken to ensure that environmental standards are supported by a transparent and evidence-based assessment of risk.

5. PURPOSE OF CORRESPONDENCE

This correspondence is not made by way of complaint, but to seek clarity as to the integrity, transparency, and evidential basis of the current regulatory framework.

Given the potential implications for environmental and public health, it is important that the basis upon which “safety” is asserted is clearly defined and consistently applied.

6. CONCLUSION

The matter raised is one of framework clarity and accountability, rather than any single operational decision.

A clear response will assist in understanding whether the current system operates on a defined evidential standard, or whether there exists a gap in how “safety” is determined and applied across the regulatory structure.

Nāku noa, nā
Tracy Lynch