iSAYSO
EPA Refuses to Explain Its Use of the Word “Safe”
The questioning of key words in documents has become a priority for a while now. Authority and Jurisdiction is what is sort. Yet its hidden by clever use of words.
EPA Refuses to Explain Its Use of the Word “Safe”
BY NIGEL GRAY 17 JUNE 2026 PLEASE SHARE!
Today I lodged a formal complaint with the Ombudsman after the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) refused to release any information about how it uses the word “safe” in its public mission statement — or what the term even means inside the agency.
For context:
The EPA publicly claims it is “enhancing a safe way of life for all New Zealanders.”
Yet when asked:
The EPA publicly claims it is “enhancing a safe way of life for all New Zealanders.”
Yet when asked:
…the EPA responded that it holds no documents, no emails, no drafts, no definitions, no criteria, no discussions, and no internal reasoning whatsoever.
Nothing.
They also refused to provide a section 23 explanation (which is legally required when an agency makes a decision affecting the public without documented reasoning), claiming the section “does not apply.”
They then attempted to withhold cross‑team discussions under a clause intended to protect OIA processing advice, even though my request was about policy and risk communication, not OIA administration.
In short:
This raises serious questions about transparency, accountability, and the accuracy of public‑facing statements from a regulator responsible for hazardous substances and environmental risk.
The Ombudsman will now review the EPA’s refusal under sections 18(e), 23, and 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act.
New Zealanders deserve clarity about what “safe” means — especially from the agency tasked with protecting them.