The parliamentary select committee tasked with scrutinising the bill that would disestablish the Ministry for the Environment has recommended by majority that the legislation proceed, even though 583 of the 588 written submissions received opposed it.
Only five submitters backed the proposal to fold the Ministry for the Environment into a new mega-agency known as the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, or MCERT. The new ministry would absorb the existing Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Ministry of Transport, and local government functions currently sitting inside the Department of Internal Affairs.
The Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill is sponsored by RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop, who introduced it in February. According to a Beehive release at the time, Bishop argued the new agency would be “at the heart of tackling some of New Zealand’s greatest economic and environmental challenges β from housing affordability, our infrastructure deficit, and adaptation to climate change”.
The select committee’s report, released today, said the new structure would not significantly change the functions currently performed by the Ministry for the Environment. As a partial concession to the volume of opposition, committee members recommended inserting a new section into the bill that would require the Secretary for the Environment to report annually on their statutory functions through MCERT’s annual report.
The committee report acknowledged seven specific areas of concern raised repeatedly across submissions. Those areas include environmental advice and advocacy, possible conflicts of interest, the provision of environmental advice within a development-focused agency, capability and capacity to respond to environmental pressures, stewardship and values, the MΔori-Crown relationship, and process, timing and funding.
Labour and the Greens filed strongly worded dissenting views.
Green Party environment spokesperson Lan Pham said the recommendation was “an absolute travesty for New Zealand”. She told reporters that “the Ministry for the Environment was established because years ago New Zealanders decided that a voice for the environment at the heart of government was actually essential”. Pham said the current government was “pushing to bury that Ministry inside a mega-ministry focused on development and economic growth, despite no party campaigning on this and overwhelming opposition from experts, iwi and communities”.
Pham also questioned whether spending on dedicated environmental work would remain visible once the ministry was absorbed. “We had no assurance as a Select Committee, for example, that expenditure that comes from government that goes towards the Ministry for the Environment will actually be transparent and clear,” she said. The Greens described the bill as “yet another action by the most anti-environment government that Aotearoa New Zealand has ever had”.
Labour members on the committee said in their dissenting view that they were “appalled by the constant attacks on the environment by this government”. Labour MP Gen Bennett was among those signing the dissenting commentary.
The disestablishment proposal has prompted unusually broad opposition during the submission process. Submissions from environmental science networks, iwi-led conservation groups and regional environment networks have argued that placing environmental policy inside a portfolio explicitly framed around housing supply, transport delivery and infrastructure rollout creates an inherent conflict of interest. Submitters pointed out that the bill’s stated rationale, drawn from the minister’s own February announcement, leads with economic and infrastructure objectives rather than environmental ones.
The Ministry for the Environment has existed as a stand-alone department since 1986, when it was created in part to provide independent environmental advice to ministers across portfolios. Submitters told the committee that combining policy advice with project delivery in a single agency would weaken the ministry’s traditional advisory role and reduce its ability to push back against developments that pose environmental risks.
The committee’s recommendation now sends the bill back to the House. The second reading is scheduled for Tuesday, 12 May. Because government parties hold a working majority, the bill is expected to pass. A third reading and royal assent would follow before MCERT becomes operational, although the committee report did not commit to a final stand-up date for the new ministry.
The bill’s progress is being watched closely outside Parliament as well. Industry groups concerned about consenting timelines have generally welcomed the consolidation, while regional councils, scientific bodies and MΔori organisations have warned that the institutional memory built up inside the existing ministry over four decades cannot be easily transplanted into a much larger agency with competing priorities.
Voters who want to weigh up where each party sits on environmental and other issues ahead of the 2026 general election can use Newswire’s free voting tool to find out which party most closely matches their views.
What do you think, should the Ministry for the Environment be folded into a development-focused mega-ministry, or does New Zealand still need a stand-alone agency dedicated solely to environmental policy? Leave a comment below and join the conversation.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job π
Leave a Reply