EXTRACT

The Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility welcome the opportunity to respond to the proposal by the Ministry for the Environment (MftE) and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to amend the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities) Regulations 2016.[1] (Hereafter referred to as NES-TF Regs 2016).

An Interim Regulatory Impact Statement proposing the deregulation of the NES-TF Regs 2016 was finalised on April 16, 2025[2], and a Package 1 Discussion Document[3] was released in May 2025 with a corresponding Attachment 1.5. [4] The proposing Ministers are Hon Chris Bishop, Minister Responsible for RMA Reform and Minister for Infrastructure and the Hon Paul Goldsmith, Minister for Media and Communication. Consultation closes on 27 July 2025.

The Interim Regulatory Impact Statement and the proposals in the Discussion Document (Part 2.5) propose significant and extensive deregulatory status for a broad group of technical devices which emit Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF). The MBIE and the MftE propose to remove authority from regions and communities to decide on the appropriate location of these devices and they propose to expand the category definition and sweep other devices inside this category.

PSGR recommendations: Not fit for purpose, fails to adhere to legislative purpose.

New Zealand’s standard, at the frequency range 2 GHz – 300 GHz, permits an electric field strength of 61 volts per metre (V/m root mean square). Any antennae fitted to a pole, mast, lattice tower, or similar structure or building, may sit in that frequency range, and hence have a maximum permitted electric field strength of 61 V/m.

Any deregulation which would bring any device closer to a building or area of recreation should not be permitted. New Zealand’s standards are on par with the worst in the world.

An expanded category for sensitive areas will not appear to apply to urban areas. ‘Sensitive activities that includes residential buildings (including visitor accommodation and retirement accommodation), care facilities, childcare facilities, schools, hospitals, custodial or supervised accommodation where residents are detained on site, marae, or a place of worship.’

Increasing densification of towers and antennae is not required for public health, nor social or economic purposes. New Zealand has an extensive fibre optic broadband network. Government policy is required to maximise this for low-income populations. Fibre optic networks do not present the same safety risks as Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) and are relatively politically uncontroversial.

The risk to health and safety is central to this discussion because densification increases radiation risk. The policy is not fit for purpose. Official powers to draft the NES-TF Regs 2016 arose from the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The RMA requires that officials acting under the RMA must provide for the health and safety of people and communities.[5]

The proposal substantially expands categories without any focus on the risk from RF-EMF emissions, and then explicitly drafts out any discussion of risk to health and safety. The exclusion of consideration of health and safety is deliberate, yet the overarching legislative framework demands that officials take into account the health and safety of people and communities.

The cumulative biological impact from the use of technologies involved is central to telecommunications infrastructure policy. It is not the passive proximity to individual components such as cell towers or mobile devices in isolation but the risk to health and safety from the interactive dynamics between them. Specifically, the continual oscillation or bidirectional signalling exchange of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), increases the intensity, variability, and complexity of exposure. Officials cannot ethically and legally discretely separate these issues out by choosing to exclude health and safety as a consideration. The telecommunications companies desire the deregulation directly because of potential use by the public. These interactive, combinatory factors drive risk.

The deregulatory context of the proposal directly concerns a claim that ‘low-impact’ telecommunication facilities do not require regulation because they are ‘low impact’. The designation ‘low-impact’ is misleading. ‘Low impact’ has not been defined, nor accompanied by any scientifically rigorous analysis. Low-impact is not defined in the 2016 regulations, the 2016 Users Guide, the 2025 Interim Regulatory Impact Statement[6] nor the proposed policy. [7] [8] The Interim RIS did not provide a technical definition as to what a ‘low impact’ would constitute whether it was an emitting device or a location that is not just the physical location of towers/antennae but the regions where 5G is enabled. As such, there has been no disclosure as to the technology spectrum emitted by the claimed ‘low impact’ activities, any risks in urban environments and the greater risks to vulnerable communities which include babies and children.

While ‘small poles’ may remain ‘small’ – the antennae (where radiation levels as per New Zealand standards are arguably out-of-date) nevertheless present health risks. These health risks are unnecessary as access to fibre-enabled broadband is available to 87% of New Zealanders and all urban communities should have access. Fibre broadband is the backbone of telecommunications for the vast majority of New Zealanders, for industry, government and personal use, not mounted antennae.

There is no evaluation of risk from emissions burdens to vulnerable groups, yet this consideration is of the essence. The policy is silent on multisource exposure, cumulative for all stations and antennae affecting a site. This includes risk from highly localized intensity peaks, pulsed emissions, and the cumulative contribution of background radiation from multiple sources between devices and infrastructure and the interactive dynamics between them. Multi-source exposures concentrate RF-EMF radiation in certain areas, forming zones of constructive field overlap and spatial heterogeneity.

A significant weight of evidence, including mechanistic data strongly suggests that low dose Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) at levels currently considered safe, and at levels lower than this, can harm vertebrate systems. An increasing battery of evidence strongly suggests that prenatal and postnatal exposures, and exposures in childhood and youth carry additional risks that have not been sufficiently assessed in New Zealand. In addition, increasing literature highlights increasing hypersensitivity to RF-EMF.[9]

PSGR recommends that special attention is given to poor scientific process by the Ministry of Health, who have failed to review the scientific literature on non-thermal effects from RF-EMF and instead harmonise with an institution that does not follow independent scientific process to establish guidelines.

The MftE and MBIE claim that the deregulated telecommunications facilities would be ‘low impact’. It may be presumed that panel antennas, dish antennas and small cell units are low impact, but no definition of ‘low impact’ has been provided.

As such any deregulatory actions by MftE and the responsible agency MBIE will be poorly timed, due to the advancing literature which suggests that current claimed safe levels cannot protect health.

PSGR recognise that this policy proposal may be hastily convened to secure weaker standards in advance of increasing acceptance of health risk from non-thermal effects. MBIE’s industry colleagues may recognise that Ministry of Health claims concerning the alleged safety of non-thermal exposures, supporting the lock-in of relatively high exposure levels, are scientifically indefensible.

The economic impact of digital fibre/satellite infrastructure – not more antennae!

Fibre technology continuously evolves, giving us faster speeds, lower latencies, improved resiliency, greater security, and more flexible applications. Speed records are consistently being broken.[10]

The New Zealand Government initiated the Ultra-Fast Broadband (UFB) initiative in 2009 with the rollout commencing in 2010. Fibre networks are safer than telecommunications facilities (including towers, antennae and small cells on power poles) and politically uncontroversial. Currently 87% of New Zealanders have remarkable access to fibre broadband and New Zealand ranks 9^th in terms of fixed broadband connectivity. [11] [12]

The Ministry officials’ argument for deregulation focused exclusively on reduced regulatory costs for the telecommunications industry and did not consider safety. There is no requirement for greater densification of towers and antennae in New Zealand urban environments which have, in the majority, fibre-optic cabling. Connectivity from handheld devices is demonstrated to be associated with cancer risk and household access to fibre broadband is high. Devices can be more safely enabled through Wi-Fi, and devices can remain on airplane mode. The long-term operational performance and reduced maintenance may make fibre optic cabling more economically feasible over the longer term.[13]

The issue that the government needs to address is broadband connectivity for lower income groups.

‘Nearly a quarter of Pacific peoples are without the internet in the home – three times the rate for New Zealand Europeans and almost twice the rate for Māori. Māori and Pacific peoples are particularly over-represented among younger people without internet access.’

Remote and rural businesses and residences are extensively served by satellite-enabled telecommunications. Starlink supplies broadband to New Zealanders. Starlink is the largest constellation supplying satellite data to New Zealand and, of the 38 systems that will provide data in the future, it is expected to remain so.[14] Direct-to-satellite mobile services and satellite systems which form part of the network architecture, enhance early warning and emergency communications.

More antennae and towers will not add to wellbeing and quality of life for most Kiwis.

The proposing policies are not fit for purpose:

The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) demonstrates that any consideration of the health and safety of New Zealanders has been deliberately excluded from the current policy initiative. Health relating to exposures is explicitly drafted out of scope:[15] There is no evidence for benefits and well-being from this policy proposal, indeed the greater evidence in the literature suggests risk.

Policy problem: The changes to NES-TF is to enable ‘greater efficiency in the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure’. The policy problem is concerned with ‘low impact telecommunication facilities (e.g. antennas, cabinets, poles, telecommunication lines)’ where ‘current rules in NES-TF are too restrictive and do not cover certain low impact telecommunication facilities. This is resulting in the inefficient deployment of telecommunications infrastructure.’ Where a new facility is not currently permitted, telecommunication providers must obtain resource consents which ‘uncertainty, complexity, significant costs and delays for deploying telecommunications infrastructure and services’.

Policy objective: To ‘support efficient deployment of low impact telecommunication facilities that meet the needs of New Zealand households and businesses’ and limit the capacity for territorial and local authorities to set their own standards. The approach consolidates agency power away from local governments. The policy mandate from Cabinet in June 2024 was to make changes to NES-TF [CAB-24-MIN 0246 refers], and so non-regulatory options (such as guidance for councils, voluntary standards, or global consents) were not considered.

Out of Scope (pages 20-22):

Guidance for councils, voluntary standards or global consents) were not considered. Officials also consider that non-regulatory options would be inadequate in addressing the problem definition.
Established protections relating to environmentally significant places and areas.
[47] Changes to radio frequency exposure standards are out of scope. Under NES-TF, telecommunications providers need to comply with the New Zealand radio frequency exposure standard NZS 2772.1:1999 by reference, which is administered and reviewed by the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand (Te Whatu Ora). The protections for radio frequency exposures will be maintained with no changes. The Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand advised that the references to NZS 2772.1:1999 align with international best practice and remain fit for purpose.

The policy problem and objective has excluded any obligation to ensure the health and safety and hence protection of local communities. This has been enabled through fragmented and outdated policy and legislation which enables the Ministers for the Environment and for Media and Communication to prima facie absolve themselves from any risks that arise as a consequence of such a policy change.

The MftE and MBIE have not made a genuine effort to identify, understand, and estimate the various categories of cost and benefit associated with the options for change.

Reports and data are not held by the Ministry of Health, MBIE, or the MftE that publicly demonstrate that ongoing monitoring, evaluation and reporting is frequently undertaken, to signal that the agencies have the health of New Zealanders front and centre of this proposal. There is no route for reporting by hypersensitive groups, or groups and individuals that report shifts in health and wellness after a telecommunication facility is installed. Reporting of cases, and documenting them, produces a bank of policy-relevant information. Yet by failing to do this, authorities create a barrier to evidence. Global case studies are identifying changes in health status, and there should not be barriers to reporting this in New Zealand.[16] [17] [18]

There has been no systematic impact and risk analysis. No review of best-practice and the actions of countries that have more tightly regulated equipment, with awareness that the advancing science continues to fail to demonstrate absence of risk and increase knowledge of vulnerability, particularly in key developmental periods. The policy and subsequent proposals do not conform to any standard of safety and risk and are not evidence informed. Neither the RIS nor the Package 1, Part 2.5 NES-TF proposal does not conform to good regulatory practice, which is required by The Treasury.[19]

The supporting policy documents fail to review the safety of the status quo, against international best practice and compare this to the claimed safety of the proposed measures in the Consultation. The main argument appears to be to promote ‘efficiency’ because ‘the current rules in NES-TF are too restrictive and do not cover certain low impact telecommunication facilities’. Benefits are structured around reducing consenting costs, claiming that it would reduce downward pressure on prices for consumers, and reduced administrative costs for councils. The benefits are exclusively structure around efficient and timely deployment. No financial assessment was provided. The RIS stated: [20]

Based on the information held, officials consider that the benefits of the proposed changes to NES-TF outweigh the costs.

Responsibility to monitor and reassess the safety of the current allowable electromagnetic exposure limits appears to be drafted out of any white paper or regulatory legislation that has been produced, at minimum in the last decade. Safety was referred to in the RIS – but there was no discussion of the costs of monitoring to ensure that there was standards compliance, and the cumulative level of radiation emissions would not exceed limits.

The action of MBIE and MftE to deregulate reflects a global pattern, where governments act to centralise regulatory power and oversight over the deployment and location of telecommunications facilities, and constrain regulatory discretion. These streamlining clauses remove local government autonomy over these decisions.[21] [22]

However, globally, regions are contesting this increasing regulatory oversight, with increasing numbers of local resolutions being passed and with countries independently acting to lower radio radiofrequency exposure limits. These ordinances are feasible because of fibre optic broadband. [23] [24]

Ministry of Health science inadequate for the purpose of policy development:

Public trust in the safety of telecommunications NES-TF regulations based on Ministry of Health claims of the alleged safety of non-thermal exposures, cannot be sustained. The regulations are predicated on current standards (NES-TF Regs 2016, Subpart 7) being safe.

The standards are upheld by claims of the ‘evidence’ for safety, which arises from unauthored ‘Reports to Ministers’ that are expected to be scientifically authoritative but lack any comprehensive methodology that heavily references a non-government institution which itself fails to demonstrate scientific rigor.

Public trust cannot be expected to be sustained when the government

Explicitly excludes discussion of major concerns about health risk.
Does not transparently publish and update monitoring data.
Does not evaluate such data against published data on risk (including in vitro, case control and cohort studies).
Does not compare NZS 2772.1 with maximum-allowable standards elsewhere, particularly in Russia and Europe.

In short, NZS 2772.1:1999 is now 26 years out of date. This New Zealand Standard remains in force comprehensively relitigated -- and not by members of ICNIRP, which is closely associated with the telecommunications industry. In the current consultation public concerns as to the safety of the measures would be dismissed as outside the scope of the current proposal.

The New Zealand Ministry of Health has tended to downplay and dismiss cancer risk, while European reviews tend to take risks more seriously. A 2021 European review recognised the seriousness of the cancer risk, finding that radiofrequency radiation is harmful for health[25], while a Committee reviewing 5G deployment stated that:[26]

The 5G radio emission fields are quite different to those of previous generations because of their complex beamformed transmissions in both directions – from base station to handset and for the return. Although fields are highly focused by beams, they vary rapidly with time and movement and so are unpredictable, as the signal levels and patterns interact as a closed loop system. This has yet to be mapped reliably for real situations, outside the laboratory.

In the conclusion, PSGR lists standards in European countries that more closely reflect these risks.

5G carrier waves create added complexity and health risks that increase risk-based uncertainties:

Use a much broader part of the microwave spectrum including waves with wavelengths in the millimetre range (hence called ‘millimetre waves’).
Extremely complex modulation patterns involving numerous frequencies form novel exposures.
Beam formation[27] characteristics can produce hotspots of high unknown intensities.
Increased numbers of antenna arrays and small cell antennas (which are erected at 200-500m distances along streets) increase exposures.[28]

[1] Order in Council. Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities) Regulations 2016. 2016/281. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2016/0281/30.0/whole.html#DLM6985849

[2] MftE MBIE (April 16, 2025). Interim Regulatory Impact Statement: Amendments to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities) Regulations 2016. https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Interim-Regulatory-Impact-Statement-Amendments-to-the-National-Environmental-Standards-for-Telecommunication-Facilities-2016.pdf

[3] Ministry for the Environment. (May 2025). Package 1: Infrastructure and development – Discussion document. Part 2.5 National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities. Page 43-51. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. ISBN: 978-1-991140-86-9 Publication number: ME 1895 https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/RMA/package-1-infrastructure-and-development-discussion-document.pdf

[4] Attachment 1.5 Proposed provisions – Amendments to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for

Telecommunication Facilities) Regulations 2016 National direction consultation – Package 1: Infrastructure and development. https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/RMA/attachment-1.5-national-environmental-standards-for-telecommunications-facilities.pdf

[5] Resource Management Act 1991. Section 5(2) https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/whole.html#DLM230265

[6] MftE MBIE (April 16, 2025). Interim RIS NES-TF Regulations 2016 amendment.

[7] Ministry for the Environment. (May 2025). Package 1: Discussion document. Part 2.5 NES-TF Regs Page 43-51

[8] NES-TF Regs Package 1: Infrastructure and development. Attachment 1.5 Proposed provisions

[9] Increasingly referred to as microwave syndrome.

[10] Belden (2024) Looking at the future of Fiber Broadband in 2024. https://www.ppc-online.com/blog/future-of-fiber-broadband-in-2024

[11] Deloitte (October 2024). Unleashing fibre: The future of digital fibre infrastructure in New Zealand https://www.deloitte.com/content/dam/assets-zone1/nz/en/docs/services/financial-advisory/2024/deloitte-unleashing-fibre-future-of-digital-fibre-infrastructure.pdf

[12] Wikipedia. Ultra-Fast Broadband (New Zealand). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Fast_Broadband_%28New_Zealand%29

[13] Singh A. Integrating Fiber Broadband and 5G Network: Synergies and Challenges International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management. 9(2)1-8. DOI:10.55041/IJSREM18134

[14] Katavich-Barton S.O.L. Investigating the usage and impacts of satellite data in New Zealand.Page 62. Katavich-Barton S.O.L. (Feb, 2025). Investigating the usage and impacts of satellite data in New Zealand. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Civil Engineering, The University of Auckland.p.62 https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/00f972de-15c5-40ad-aca7-638ecac032a4/content

[15] MftE MBIE (April 16, 2025). Interim RIS NES-TF Regulations 2016 amendment. Pages 1-2 and 20-22.

[16] Nilsson M, Hardell L (2023) A 49-Year-Old Man Developed Severe Microwave Syndrome after Activation of 5G Base Station 20 Meters from his Apartment. J Community Med Public Health 7: 382. DOI: 10.29011/2577-2228.100382

[17] Hardell L, Nilsson M, Case Report: A 52-Year Healthy Woman Developed Severe Microwave Syndrome Shortly After Installation of a 5G Base Station Close to Her Apartment. Ann Clin Med Case Rep. 2023; V10(16): 1-10

[18] Nilsson M, Hardell L. Development of the Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly after Installation of 5G on the Roof above their Office. Ann Clin Case Rep. 2023; 8: 2378

[19] The Treasury (April 2017). Government expectations for good regulatory practice.

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2015-09/good-reg-practice.pdf

[20]MftE MBIE (April 16, 2025). Interim RIS NES-TF Regulations 2016 amendment. Page 7.

[21] Meese J, Hegarty K, Wilken R, Yang F, Middleton C. (2024). 5G and urban amenity: regulatory trends and local government responses around small cell deployment. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance. 26:6 DOI 10.1108/DPRG-10-2023-0150

[22] Environmental Health Trust. Ordinances to limit and control wireless facilities, small cells, and rights of ways. Accessed July 18, 2025.https://ehtrust.org/usa-city-ordinances-to-limit-and-control-wireless-facilities-small-cells-in-rights-of-ways/

[23] See E.g. Hawaii. Bill 24. Ordinance amending chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code 1983. https://records.hawaiicounty.gov/weblink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=1108131&cr=1

[24] Hawaiian Telcom. (Jan 10, 2025). Hawai‘i to Become the First Fully Fiber-Enabled State by 2026. https://blog.hawaiiantel.com/connections/hawaii-to-become-the-first-fully-fiber-enabled-state-by-2026

[25] Belpoggi F. Health impact of 5G, study for the panel for the future of science and technology, panel for the future of science and technology. In: European parliamentary research service, scientific foresight unit. Brussels; 2021. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf.

[26] Blackman C, Forge S. (2019) 5G deployment: state of play in Europe, USA and Asia, study for the committee on industry, research and energy, policy. Luxembourg: Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament. P.11 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)631060_EN.pdf

[27] Albanese, R., Blaschak, J., Medina, R. and Penn, J. Ultrashort electromagnetic signals: Biophysical questions, safety issues and medical opportunities (Report No. AL/OE-JA-1993-0055).Occupational and Environmental Health Directorate, Brooks Air

Force Base, San Antonio, Texas, USA. (1994).

[28] Bandara P, Chandler T, Kelly R et al (2020). 5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a medical discussion in Australia and New Zealand. ACNEM Journal Vol 39 No 1 – July 2020

Download

Proposed amendments to the: Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities) Regulations 2016.

EXTRACT

Information

Providing scientific & medical information & analysis in the service of the public's right to be independently informed on issues relating to human & environmental health.