Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill

Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill Third Reading Debate resumed. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): We’re now on call six of the second split call of the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill. STEVE ABEL (Green) (19:30): The disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment comes in the context of a Government that is the most radically anti-environment that we have seen in our history. The environment is gone already, you could say, so why do we need a Ministry for the Environment? “Let’s just shut it down. It’s done.” This Government has caused those New Zealanders who are passionate about caring for our environment to resort to gallows humour to survive, because that is how bad it is. They are watching dairy expansion in the Canterbury Plains, the primary cause of nitrate contamination, at the same time as their Prime Minister’s been lobbied by the biggest company in the country, and he’s denying it. Hon Member: Shame. STEVE ABEL: Shameful. They’re shredding our water protections, right from the beginning of this term, facilitating mining in wetlands, fast tracking mining, and removing sways of legislation from consideration through the fast-track process. They’re subsidising oil and gas exploration to the tune of $200 million, and building a $1 billion liquefied natural gas terminal, a white elephant. And they’re opening 60 percent of our conservation estate to mining and exploitation. And they’re swapping out the Resource Management Act for a bill that centres environmental protection around private property rights. You cannot have swimmable rivers by focusing on private property rights, you cannot have drinkable water, and you cannot have a stable climate or healthy biodiversity. Now, let’s speak about the extraordinary and the magnificent biodiversity that exists in our country—the amazing endemic seabirds threatened by overfishing that this Government is about to pass a bill on, to worsen the state of our fisheries. David Attenborough’s favourite bird in the whole world— Hon Member: Kākāpō. STEVE ABEL: —the kākāpō, that’s right—our own native kiwi, and these amazing, rare amphibians that exist in only two places on Earth, both of them in the Waikato, the Coromandel Peninsula and the Whareorino Forest near Te Kūiti: Archey’s frog. Let me tell you about Archey’s frog. Archey’s frog is about the size of the top end of your finger. It’s a tiny 3 centimetre frog. It has an extraordinary lifestyle. Its life cycle means that it lays eggs in wet bushland in the Coromandel. They don’t hatch as tadpoles; they hatch as froglets with little tails—in no other place on Earth do frogs do this; it only occurs in Aotearoa New Zealand. And then, their father has looked after them for eight weeks while they were incubating in eggs, they proceed to climb on to his back and spend five weeks carried around on their dad’s back until they get big enough to look after themselves. They’re mute and they’re deaf. Our birds don’t fly and our frogs don’t ribbit in Aotearoa New Zealand. These frogs live for about 30 to 40 years; they’re extraordinarily long lived. And they are critically endangered. And they are 200 million years old as a species; they existed in the time of the dinosaurs. This Government’s attitude to that rare endemic species that only exists in the Waikato, in New Zealand, is “Bye, bye, Freddy.” That is literally their attitude. And they have just fast tracked a gold mine in their habitat. They have just fast tracked a gold mine in the Coromandel Forest Park, in the Waikato. Andy Foster: You’re making things up. STEVE ABEL: Facts. I visited it just before. There is gold throughout the entire universe, but, so far as we know, in the vastness of that universe, there’s only one place that life exists, and it is on this earth. If anyone was looking down and wondering that we were choosing between looking after that rare endemic 200-million-year-old Archey’s frog, or we were choosing 30 years of royalties from a Canadian gold company, they would say, “You are fools for choosing the gold over the life that only exists in this country.”, that it is our duty to protect. We should not be surprised that this Government is shutting down the Ministry for the Environment, because the environment that they disdain is what voters will be choosing to protect when they throw out the most destructive, anti-environmental Government in our history. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (19:36): Look, we are streamlining the Public Service—less duplication, more efficiency. By merging environmental management, planning, and development, it makes sense. This is about fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (19:36): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Here we are, yet again, debating another bill that this Government has rushed through, something that they didn’t campaign on that, once again, will potentially erode protections for the environment. Members opposite contribute 30 seconds to this, including the chair of the Environment Committee—the chair of the Environment Committee, who arbitrarily decided that we will truncate submission hearings on this at select committee, something that this Parliament never discussed as we should have. I’m going to begin with that, with process, because it was an absolute travesty to democracy what happened here. This is our last opportunity to debate this, and I will reiterate for the House, and anyone who’s watching, that this particular bill was referred to the Environment Committee on 19 February 2026, we were instructed by the House to report back no later than 24 April 2026, submissions were called with a closing date of 20 February, so one day for people to submit on the fact that this Government has decided to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment, without campaigning on it, with no heads-up to anyone who cares about the environment—one day to submit. We received and considered submissions from 588 interested individuals and organisations, we heard oral evidence from 22 submitters—that was under three hours of hearings—and, then, the committee deliberated for 40 minutes on this bill. And here we are today. The Minister and members opposite have waxed lyrical about the fact that this is a change to form, not function; none of them could debate at committee stage the questions, or answer the questions that were raised by members on this side of the House that would have presented even a reasonable argument for what they’re doing. All of them have stood up on that side of the House and parroted lines from what they’ve been given, no real substance to the— Grant McCallum: Oh, come on! Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I absolutely feel strongly about this. There’s been no debate on the substance of this bill, not by the new Minister and not by members opposite. I will go into a bit of detail as to why it is not just form over function; it looks like form over function, but it’s most probably not, and I will go into— Hon Nicola Grigg: What a dud! Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Well, the Minister’s very vocal today, but she wasn’t at committee stage; couldn’t answer any of the questions that were raised, with no particular detail, dismissed the submission by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE), former National Minister Simon Upton, who gave us a very detailed submission but the Minister chose to dismiss it and not even give us a fulsome response to any of the points that were raised by Simon Upton. I will go into that in detail now. One of the things that he said—his recommendation was for the Minister to leave out the Ministry for the Environment in this merger of the mega-ministry that they are proposing, which is why we’re here under rushed time frames to debate this bill. His ultimate recommendation was to leave this out. He made some really good points. It would have been good if the Minister had been able to actually do justice to an argument that refuted his points and that of submitters rather than just, with a fair sense of arrogance, dismissing what submitters have said. The point that the PCE made was that one of the things that falls away as a result of this amalgamation into a mega-ministry is a focus on rural communities, which, for a party that purports to be the party for rural New Zealand, didn’t seem to really care and never gave us any argument as to why that is not true. The onus should be on the Government to do that. He says, and I quote, “What is missing from the focus of the agencies slated for merger is rural New Zealand, which arguably makes up most of New Zealand’s modified environment and where some of our biggest environmental challenges are present. One could have equally and perhaps more persuasively argued that the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries could have been combined.” For a Government that claims that they are all about efficiency and streamlining the Public Service, there were other options that would have made better sense than what is presented to this House today. That would have had its own challenges, but it could have been a better focus, a better use of their time and energy. The other bit that I feel equally strongly about is the fact that there is an issue around trade-offs. He says, and I quote, “It would make sense for each bill to be managed by a separate agency so that the trade-offs are explicit and left for Ministers to decide rather than risking them being resolved within an organisation. Keeping these trade-offs explicit will be all the more important because, based on the current drafting of the bills”—and these are the bills that replace the Resource Management Act—“there is a requirement for decisions around trade-offs: environmental protections and infrastructure and economic growth.” Now, all of this is going to be subsumed into one mega-ministry. As someone who has been the Minister of a large ministry where the chief executive reported to about seven different Ministers and had about seven or eight different portfolios to deal with, I know that it’s not always best. Sadly, this is a Government where previous iterations of National Governments are what created the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which doesn’t necessarily work more seamlessly and without silos than the rest of the Public Service. I find it a little cute when members opposite get up and read off their lines and say, “Oh, this is about silos. It is about the Public Service working more collaboratively.” Newsflash: you can actually make them work more collaboratively without a mega-ministry that subsumes the Ministry for the Environment. Then you stand up and talk about form over function, where so many submitters have come to the Environment Committee and said that this Government’s track record gives them no confidence that there will be a focus on the environment. At this point, I want to point to the fact that I had an amendment at committee stage on the Table that would have given this Government the opportunity to strengthen the reporting by the chief executive to the Minister. It would have required annual reports that actually reported on matters related to the natural environment, that looked at the ministry’s performance of its statutory functions as they relate to the natural environment. When the Minister gets up and says that we could make the argument that this would strengthen the new ministry’s focus on the environment, she has not given us one reason to believe that that would actually eventuate. All she has done is to stand up and say, “Well, it could happen.”, but there was no support for an amendment that would actually strengthen that. That is what gives us cause to be concerned. That is what has given those 588 submitters who were largely opposed to this bill the cause for concern. The fact is that all this Government has done is to water down protections for the Hauraki Gulf. They had a bill that they could have just passed which would have strengthened protections. Sure, they passed the bill, but they watered down those protections for the Hauraki Gulf. They have stripped $1 billion from a focus on the environment. They have a former Minister for the Environment who said that the pendulum has swung too far towards the protection of the environment. All this Government has done is to pretend that we have a decision to make between economic growth and environmental protections. That is absolutely a false dichotomy. This Government keeps pretending, with their Fast-track Approvals Act that waters down environmental protections, with their Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill that water down environmental limits, that there is that choice between a strong economy and a healthy environment, but that is a political choice that this Government makes. There is no economy with polluted rivers. There is no productivity on eroded land. There is no growth on a warming planet. The environment is the economy, but they don’t seem to get that on that side of the House. They frame nature as an obstacle to growth, and that is lazy politics. That is lazy economics and lazier governance from that side of the House. When members and Ministers say that it’s growth versus the economy, what they are really talking about is short-term gain for long-term loss on our part and long-term loss of wellbeing. This is a false dichotomy. It is a smokescreen from a Government that has a failing economic model, and they are pillaging the environment to prop that up. It is a Government that is out of touch. They can neither address the cost of living for people nor protect the environment. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (19:46): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, step back and think about it. How can you reflect the importance of the environment in our decision-making processes? How can you do that? You can do it by putting it at the heart of the planning for our roads and for our urban development and our housing—put it at the heart of that and make it a more efficient system so the decisions have to be made in consideration with the environment. That is what this Government is doing. It is fixing the basics and building the future, and I commend the bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is a five-minute split call. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (19:47): I rise to take a call—an unexpected call, actually—on the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill. It’s very disappointing that we’re getting such short calls. The member over there tried so hard to get to this House. Once he arrives here, he’s taking very short calls on a supposedly important bill. I haven’t got much time, so I’ll keep this very brief, but I just want to reiterate a couple of points that I made in my earlier contribution. I really get a kick out of bringing tourists over here when people visit from overseas and we get to show them around New Zealand. A couple of years ago, I was able to host a Five Power Defence Arrangement delegation into Christchurch. We jumped on the bus, went through Amberley, took them up to Hanmer, and they were just absolutely amazed around this valuable asset that we have in New Zealand which is our environment. They could not believe that we would later on down the track try and derail or devalue the environment by putting in legislation like this that makes it almost like a second or a mixed priority in a mega-ministry. It reminds me of—and I don’t intend to get too academic here, but there is an individual, an academic, by the name of Peter Feaver. He’s got this study around principal-agent theory. There are three types of oversight that he purports. One is community policing where the principal—i.e., the Minister—works with the ministries to make sure that they can get the best value for money and the best result for the people that they serve. Then you also have community policing which is alongside the agency, allowing them to come up with concerns and you work with them to try and address problems as they come up. The third one is the fire alarm model, where the Minister is absolutely hands-off and they rely on the fire alarm—i.e., something to go seriously wrong before they’ll pile in and address it. Usually, they rely on things like the media or a whistleblower within the agency to raise any concerns. What we’ve actually done with establishing this mega-ministry is create it from a community policing model into a fire-alarm model. We’re going to have to wait for something to go seriously wrong, which is a huge concern. This brings me on to clause 13, because the closer the expert advice sits at the centre of a delivery-focused mega-ministry, the easier it is for that advice to be filtered, delayed, or reprioritised, or pushed outwards, particularly when it cuts across a whole lot of other different objectives. That’s not a criticism of officials; that’s just how large organisations work. That’s how the likes of academics like Peter Feaver see that principal agent theory panning out. Having an individual ministry with one main effort is a lot more efficient, and it serves the people a lot better. I also just want to add, around other contributions by the ACT Party in the earlier readings, around purporting to remove red tape and remove layers of bureaucracy to make things easier: doing this and combining it into a mega-ministry actually creates more red tape. It actually makes it harder to navigate. This is what academics say. There’s empirical evidence that suggests this. What this Government is doing is just repeating mistakes that we’ve made in the past. I’d just like to highlight that to the ACT Party—that, inadvertently, they’ve actually made things more difficult for themselves. The other thing is around how agencies work on the ground. Sometimes the legislation doesn’t keep up with their realities. One example I’ll quickly touch on is the Defence Act that was created 30-plus years ago. That Act still exists today, but it doesn’t actually reflect the operational realities of how the defence force works on the ground. The same thing with the Ministry for the Environment—it actually reflected the value that New Zealanders placed on the environment. Unfortunately, changing into this mega-ministry does not reflect the reality, and it will need amending later on—probably in the very near future. For that reason, I do not support the bill, our party does not support the bill, and I’ll leave my contribution there. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (19:52): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I thought I’d make it really simple and use a bit of a diagram to help explain to the Opposition, because they seem a bit confused. They think that we’re dissolving the Ministry for the Environment and that we don’t care, but what we’re doing is—here we’ve got Cities. [Holds up a glass] This represents Cities. We’ve got Regions, and then we’ve got Transport. What we’ve got is Environment all by itself, all over here, feeling quite alone. What we’re going to do is bring them all together and integrate them all, so it makes a lot of sense and they can all get along together in an integrated fashion. We are fixing the basics and building the future. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I call Mr Bennett: Mr Bayly, most members, I realise, do other things while they’re in the Chamber, but they go through the motions of pretending they’re actually attending to the business of the House. Sitting there with earphones on, in another space, I’m just not quite sure is keeping with that “pretence”, for want of a better word. I’ll invite you—not demand you—to show a little more attention to the House. I’ll leave it up to your wisdom and judgment as to whether you’re doing that. GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (19:53): I’m assuming that the Hon Andrew Bayly was obviously trying to block out— Grant McCallum: The speeches from the other side, absolutely! GLEN BENNETT: —the speeches from this side of the room. That is exactly what I was going to say—the speeches from this side of the House, because he was convicted by what we are saying and by the truth of what we are saying in this House tonight. That’s why he had them on, because he didn’t want to be broken-hearted by the fact that his own party is walking away from the environment. His own party—maybe he was a member of the Bluegreens, and he had to put his headphones on to block it out because he was like, “I know they’re telling the truth. I know what they’re saying, and I’m so sorry, environment.” Also, as I begin my contribution, the previous speaker, Ryan Hamilton, had a diagram which was, well, not paper, but it was some props, I think—some glasses—some empty glasses. I’m not sure what was in the glasses that have become empty now, in terms of that example of his, but I think his attempt to explain it to us does fall very short. This is disestablishment. It says it on the tin. That’s what this Government is doing. Again, as we have traversed this this evening, as it has been through all the stages. This is around disestablishing a number of ministries, but the fact that it’s going to create a new mega-ministry—the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport. Now, we’ve been here before, a number of years ago, under a previous National Government. Of course, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) was a ministry that was created. I want to give credit to the fact that I think that political parties and Government should try things, should give things a go, and I fully agree with that, but often I feel that, with the MBIE model that was created, so often ministries that were brought into that one mega-ministry get lost or get overlooked or get forgotten. Or, in terms of the money that goes into that mega ministry, sometimes it’s hard to sort of wade through and understand it. Having a stand-alone Ministry for the Environment obviously says what it means and does what it’s supposed to do. It’s around the environment. My colleagues have made it clear, and Andrew Bayly struggled with it, so he had to put headphones on. What we have been saying from this side of the House is look at the track record of 2½ years and look at the track record of what has happened, as environmental protections are undone or, it feel likes, loosened and loosened a lot. Now, we’ve talked about the Fast-track Approvals Act that it now is. I spent my time on the Environment Committee when that bill came through the Environment Committee and then was enacted into law. Again, we had fast track as a Labour Government, we had fast track in our repeal and our new Resource Management Act reforms, but our fast track obviously had environmental measures, had environmental protections, because the whole thing, if you dig up a paddock, if you bulldoze a bank, if you pull down a bunch of trees, that piece of the environment, is changed for ever. We need to understand that that piece of the environment, that piece of land, that tree, that river, that stream, must have environmental elements put into it. Why? Because it is changed for ever. That’s why it is so important to make sure that we have a ministry and to make sure that we have advocates who are fighting for the protection of our natural environment. Our environment is life. Our environment is what gives us life. It’s economics. The environment is economics. It’s around protecting a pristine environment—the fact that we are well cared for and looked after. For myself, as the spokesperson for tourism and hospitality, I know that very well. We often talk about the “100 percent pure” New Zealand brand. Well, the postcard we send to the world is our natural environment—the postcard we send to people on the other side of the world, to the people who have on their bucket lists that they want to come to New Zealand. Why do they want to come to New Zealand? Not for some road or some big pylon. Not for some big car park or four lanes here or there. The reason they come to New Zealand is for our natural environment. That is good economics. That is good economics. As we look at this and as we meander— Grant McCallum: How are people going to drive to get there? Are they going to walk? GLEN BENNETT: Well, no, I’m not saying that at all. We have roads already, I think. Unless the Government is now talking suddenly about getting rid of the roads, we have roads. We have the infrastructure that is in place, but we need to figure out how we actually honour our environment and protect it to make sure it is given to our grandchildren in better condition than we left it. Now, looking at this legislation, I’ve got a few comments to make. In terms of some of the thoughts from select committee, and then in the report that came back to the House, there are things like the loss of independent advice and advocacy. That was something that was brought up and was very important—the institutional dilution and structural conflicts of interest within the new ministry. We had the three glasses that were brought together that were a bit empty in different places. Who knows what was in them. The fact that it actually dilutes the work of the Ministry for the Environment is a concern that we have. So I acknowledge the three glasses sitting there, but if suddenly they are brought together, there is again the conflict of interest, the challenge, and then we have a piece around, if I can find it here—sorry about this; let me just find my page; it’s right here. The piece around the Secretary for the Environment has become one of many that will inevitably be traded off against other priorities by the chief executive of the mega-ministry. That is the dilution, and that is something that—yes, of course we’ve got to look at models and doing things differently, but when it comes to something as precious, as important, and as fundamental, I think, to the values of what being a New Zealander is, I think we have to say no. It goes on, in terms of the briefing that came to the select committee, that the process was concerned around governance, around consultation, and around perceived damage to democratic legitimacy, and that’s something we really need to note. I talked about fast track and what that did in removing the environment. Of course, there’s now the piece of work being done around regional councils and their place, and maybe it’s something that we get rid of. And, again, that’s something that focuses on the environment. It focuses on water. It focuses on making sure the wellbeing of nature and of our communities. I think as I listened to some of the submissions and as I read through some of the reports, what I saw was the fact that this piece of legislation reduces visibility. It reduces visibility on the environment. I think, if anything, maybe we should have a mega-ministry of the environment—maybe a mega-ministry of the environment that brings in other ministries into it. Maybe there are things around the “Ministry for Water”, maybe around the “Ministry for Bird Life”, and the “Ministry for Biodiversity”. We could have a mega-ministry that is actually about protecting those things, because we know that New Zealand is one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to our biodiversity and what is being done. Hon Member: Nonsense. Absolute rubbish. GLEN BENNETT: That’s completely factual—absolutely. Look at the statistics. Look at our wetlands. Look at what has been done in terms of our wetlands. It means, as someone who comes from Taranaki—of all of the indigenous wetlands, Taranaki has been impacted the worst. Therefore, we need to make sure— David MacLeod: That’s a lie. GLEN BENNETT: That’s absolutely true. David MacLeod: No, it’s not. GLEN BENNETT: Three percent— David MacLeod: Of New Zealand? GLEN BENNETT: —of Taranaki; that’s exactly right. What I’m saying is we—the member can challenge it all he likes, but the fact that we’re standing here disestablishing—disestablishing—the Ministry for the Environment, just let that sink in. We are disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment. We’re tucking it away into another mega-ministry—when it comes to cities, when it comes to regions, when it comes to transport, and a bit of environment sprinkled in there. Maybe it’s to appease a few of the Bluegreens, maybe—I don’t know what it is. But I am concerned. We cannot support this bill. It is yet again an attack on our environment. It is an attack on us. There is no way we will be supporting this legislation tonight. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (20:03): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is actually a very small bill. It’s a culmination of the fact that the Government of the day is wanting to join a number of ministries together—namely the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Ministry of Transport, the local government functions of the Department of Internal Affairs, and, of course, the Ministry for the Environment—what this bill is primarily about. This bill is about it because that’s the only entity—the Ministry for the Environment—that needs an Act for it to be disestablished. That’s what the primary reason for this bill is all about. It’s a very small bill. It’s absolutely correct that we’ve had a lot of submissions that have been saying that our environment is at risk, and the select committee took that very much into account when we made a very specific amendment about making sure that the Secretary for the Environment, which happens to be the new CE of the new Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport (MCERT), is required to report annually to the House about them carrying out the responsibilities around the Environment Act. It is a fact that the function of the Ministry for the Environment continues exactly as it is in the new form of the ministry there, but it’s under a different form of MCERT. I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.