Jamie Botes
Gisborne District Council
Jamie-Lee Botes worked as a qualified lawyer in South Africa for six years before moving to New Zealand. For the past four years, she has worked as an Senior investigator at Gisborne District Council, specialising in environmental compliance and enforcement. Her role involves managing complex investigations and enforcement matters under the Resource Management Act, particularly in relation to forestry, earthworks and environmental discharges.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: AI in Environmental Enforcement
Artificial intelligence is already reshaping how councils approach compliance, monitoring, and enforcement (CME)—but its role is not straightforward. This session takes a practical look at the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of AI in the enforcement space, with a focus on what it means for council teams working at the frontline.
On the positive side, AI tools offer clear opportunities to improve efficiency. From automating record-keeping and organising large volumes of compliance data, to assisting with document review, evidence collation, timeline creation, and drafting routine correspondence, AI can reduce administrative burden and free up officer time for higher-value work. Used well, it can support consistency in decision-making, improve audit trails, and help teams manage increasingly complex compliance workloads.
AI can also support the development of automations used to generate reminder notices to consent holders for upcoming monitoring, reporting, or compliance obligations, and assist in creating tracking systems that help officers maintain oversight of compliance status, outstanding actions, and key deadlines across multiple sites and operations.
However, these gains come with limitations. AI tools are only as reliable as the data and prompts behind them. Risks include inaccuracies, lack of context, and over-reliance on outputs that may not stand up in a legal setting. Questions also arise around transparency, record integrity, and whether AI-assisted processes meet evidential standards—particularly where decisions need to be justified in Court.
The “ugly” sits at the interface between technology and enforcement risk. Councils are increasingly encountering AI-generated LGOIMA requests, submissions, and even court documents prepared lay litigants without legal input—often high-volume, templated, and strategically designed to test system limits. This has implications for resourcing, response strategies, and procedural fairness. It also raises difficult questions about how enforcement systems respond when the volume, speed, and sophistication of engagement is amplified by AI.
This session provides a grounded, practical discussion of where AI can add value, where caution is required, and how CME teams can respond. The focus is on equipping councils to use AI effectively—without undermining the integrity, defensibility, and credibility of their enforcement functions.