They could have fixed this — but they didn’t.
This article is part of a 3-article mini-series exploring how New Zealand failed to act on the PCE’s chemical oversight recommendations.
- Part 1: The PCE’s Warning We Ignored
- Part 2: What the Consultants Found About Monitoring Gaps
- Part 3: The Reforms That Never Landed (you are here)
Every now and then, the public gets a rare glimpse behind the curtain — a moment where a regulator, an independent office, or an oversight body spells out what needs to change. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment did exactly that when they recommended practical policy reforms that could have strengthened chemical oversight in New Zealand.
These weren’t theoretical ideas.
They were real requests.
Things like:
- creating a national pollutant release and transfer register (PRTR)
- improving how hazardous substances are assessed
- bringing our monitoring and reporting systems closer to international best practice
And if those reforms had been adopted, we’d likely have a very different level of transparency today.
But despite public money being spent, research being done, consultants being commissioned, and submissions being written — those proposed reforms never truly landed.
Which raises a fair question:
why did we get so close to change… only to walk away?
What the PCE Was Asking For — In Plain Language
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment wasn’t asking for something vague or impossible. The recommended reforms were practical, specific, and grounded in real-world examples from other countries. These weren’t “blue sky” ideas — they were basic accountability tools.
Two of the most important pieces were:
- a national Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) — a public database showing what chemicals are released into the environment, and where
- improvements to how hazardous substances are assessed under HSNO — so we don’t just approve chemicals, but actually keep track of what they’re doing over time
In short, the Commissioner was asking for a move from paper approval to real transparency.
A PRTR isn’t a radical concept.
Canada, Australia, the United States, and Europe already have versions of one.
It’s one of the simplest tools to restore public trust — because it replaces assumption with data.
If we had one here, we wouldn’t need guesswork. We wouldn’t need to rely on marketing language. We wouldn’t need to assume chemical fate.
We would know.
That was the opportunity on the table.
Why This Should Have Been Straightforward
What makes this even more frustrating is that these reforms weren’t controversial. They weren’t about banning chemicals. They weren’t about outlawing the tools farmers and councils rely on.
They were about information.
They were about knowing what’s actually happening out there in the environment — instead of flying blind and hoping for the best.
And the timing was ideal.
New Zealand was already reviewing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) settings. The PCE had done the groundwork. Consultants had mapped the monitoring gaps. International models existed to copy from. There was momentum. There was context. There was evidence.
You don’t often get alignment like that — where a reform proposal arrives at the same time that the data shows the exact weakness it could fix.
And yet… nothing moved.
The window was open — and then it closed again.
So Why Didn’t It Happen?
To this day, there has never been a clear public explanation. No ministerial statement. No “we’re not doing this because…”. No transparent justification for walking away from reforms that would have strengthened environmental oversight.
Instead, the whole thing just… went quiet.
Almost as if momentum evaporated the moment it needed to turn into action.
Was it political hesitation?
Was it pressure from industry?
Was it seen as too administratively “messy”?
Or was it simply easier to leave things as they are?
We can’t say for sure.
But what we can say is this: ignoring these reforms didn’t happen by accident. Someone, somewhere, made the choice not to progress them.
And in a political environment where glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup, neonicotinoids, and other high-use substances remain widely applied across the country — the outcomes of that decision matter.
Because when we fail to modernise oversight, we don’t freeze risk where it is — we let it continue unchecked.
What We Missed by Not Moving Forward
The biggest loss wasn’t the lost paperwork — it was the lost clarity.
A Pollutant Release and Transfer Register would have given us something we’ve never had before in New Zealand: a baseline understanding of what chemicals are entering the environment, in what volumes, and from which sectors. It would have turned “we think” into “we know”.
Without that, we remain stuck with:
- fragmented regional monitoring
- inconsistent datasets
- assumptions standing in for evidence
And when you combine that with the scale of use — glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup, systemic insecticides, industrial solvents, preservatives, surfactants, and all the rest — the risk isn’t only about the chemicals themselves.
It’s about the gaps in understanding.
It’s about what we don’t know.
A modern polluter register would have shifted the burden. Instead of the public having to ask “is this safe?”, industry and regulators would have had to demonstrate transparency.
We could have had that.
We were right on the brink of joining the countries that take this seriously.
And then the moment passed.
And Here’s What Makes It Even Stranger
These reforms would have actually made things easier for government in the long run.
Think about it:
- data reduces argument
- transparency reduces suspicion
- a national register reduces duplication
- and clarity reduces public pushback
When you have strong data, you can say:
“Here is what is being released into the environment — and here is how we know.”
Instead, New Zealand is still trying to manage chemical risk in a void.
That makes every debate harder — not easier.
And it puts agencies in the awkward position of giving reassurances without the monitoring infrastructure to back them. This is how we end up with the familiar pattern: major pesticide approvals, minimal national tracking, and then a series of defensive comms responses whenever the public starts asking questions.
We didn’t just lose a reform pathway — we lost a foundation for trust.
And now, years later, we are still asking the same basic questions that a Pollutant Release and Transfer Register could have answered.
What This Really Says About Decision-Making in New Zealand
It’s one thing to lack information. It’s another to ignore the chance to collect it.
New Zealand had an opportunity to step up — to move from assumption to evidence, from blind spots to transparency, from “trust us” to “here is the data”. And it was right there — mapped out, costed, explained, and openly recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
We didn’t need new science.
We didn’t need new technology.
We just needed to act.
Instead, those reforms were allowed to quietly fade into the background. While high-use chemicals like glyphosate-based herbicides continue to be sprayed, consumed, exported, and normalised — without the kind of nationwide monitoring system that would let us see how they move through soil, water, or food.
And the most frustrating part?
This wasn’t a lack of knowledge.
It was a lack of will.
That’s not just a missed opportunity.
That’s a choice.
New Zealand still has the opportunity to step up. We missed it once — let’s not miss it again.
Resources & References
These are the primary sources and companion reads for the policy recommendations discussed in this article.
PCE – Submission on Hazardous Substances Assessments Amendment Bill
This is where the Commissioner formally pushed for stronger assessments and smarter regulatory settings — one of the reforms that never progressed.
PCE – Letter to Ministers on Creating a Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR)
A direct call to establish a national register that would finally make chemical releases transparent — a simple fix that still hasn’t been delivered.
PCE Report – Regulating the Environmental Fate of Chemicals (2022)
The overarching report that highlights how weak and inconsistent chemical tracking is across Aotearoa — and why reform was urgently needed.
Related Article: MPI once promised a reassessment of glyphosate’s pre-harvest use
A previous NoMoreGlyphosate.nz article outlining another lost reform opportunity — this time inside MPI itself.
Related Article: Toxic Legacy — Stephanie Seneff Review
A companion read that explores the long-term environmental and biological impacts of chemical exposure — and why data gaps matter.
We don’t share these to overwhelm — we share them because each one shows the same pattern: the knowledge is there, the recommendations exist — and action is still optional.
Image Source & Attribution
The feature image on this page is a screenshot of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) website page: https://pce.parliament.nz/publications/regulating-the-environmental-fate-of-chemicals/
