Submission against the Disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment
This is Environment Hubs Aotearoa’s submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill.
The Bill seeks to amend the Environment Act 1986 to legally abolish the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) to enable the consolidation of several agencies into a new super-ministry—the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT.
Submission made on 11.03.2026
Environment Hubs Aotearoa calls for:
Adequate resourcing for environmental oversight and policy development, including a dedicated, independent environmental policy function.
Reinvestment in community environmental funding streams, including mechanisms similar to the former Community Environment Fund.
Strong partnership frameworks between central government and community environmental organisations.
A Minister who actively champions environmental protection, listens to scientific advice and community expertise, and advocates for strong and long-term ecological wellbeing alongside economic development.
Environment Hubs Aotearoa represents a national network of 23 community-based hubs working at the frontline of environmental action, climate response, food resilience, waste reduction, biodiversity restoration, and community wellbeing. Our network engages directly with households, businesses, mana whenua, and local councils to deliver practical programmes that give effect to national environmental objectives and climate commitments on the ground.
We oppose the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill. We recommend that the Committee report back that the Bill not proceed, and that Aotearoa New Zealand retains a dedicated Ministry for the Environment, as established under the Environment Act 1986, with a clear mandate to provide independent, system-wide environmental advice to Cabinet.
Why the disestablishment of MfE matters
The Bill repeals the provisions that establish the Ministry for the Environment and transfers its functions into a new Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT). This is not a neutral machinery-of-government adjustment. It removes Aotearoa’s only dedicated environmental policy ministry, created in 1986 precisely to ensure that long-term environmental stewardship and independent advice are embedded in central government decision-making.
Our network is very concerned regarding the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment (MfE). This change compounds what we have already witnessed as a systematic weakening of environmental leadership, at the very moment Aotearoa urgently requires bold, unified, and future-focused action in response to climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing extreme weather events.
We are particularly concerned that — within a mega‑ministry whose mandate also spans transport, housing, cities and regional development — environmental stewardship will become subordinate to short‑term economic and infrastructure imperatives. International and local experience shows that when environmental functions are subsumed within broader economic portfolios, environmental advice is more easily sidelined and accountability for environmental outcomes becomes more diffuse.
MfE has administrative responsibility for a wide range of environmental legislation, including:
Resource Management Act 1991
Climate Change Response Act 2002
Environmental Reporting Act 2015
Waste Minimisation Act 2008
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996
Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012
Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005
Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941
The proposed restructuring proposal contains little analysis on the effect of the disestablishment of MfE on the functions, duties and powers under this fundamental environmental legislation. In our view, this poses a significant risk that such functions, duties and powers will be eroded, particularly as the Secretary for the Environment functions will be transferred to the Chief Executive of the new Ministry. There is insufficient analysis in the proposal to assess how these key environmental functions will be protected.
Such changes compound what we have already witnessed as a systematic weakening of environmental leadership, at the very moment Aotearoa urgently requires bold, unified, and future-focused action.
The need for real environmental leadership
We call for real and urgent environmental leadership from this coalition Government and from the Minister, Hon Penny Simmonds. Leadership means:
Championing science-based policy, including climate and biodiversity policy that reflects current evidence and risk assessments.
Protecting environmental safeguards rather than weakening or rolling them back.
Investing in prevention and mitigation to reduce the scale and cost of future climate and disaster impacts.
Coordinating cross-government climate adaptation so that communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems are prepared for more frequent and severe events
Recognising Environment Hubs and other community environmental organisations as core infrastructure that underpins community resilience, behaviour change, and local implementation of national policies.
The Government has a responsibility beyond supporting business profitability or short-term economic balancing. It has a constitutional and moral duty to protect people and ecosystems — both current and future — from foreseeable harm and to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi in environmental decision‑making.
Community hubs are filling a leadership vacuum
Communities are not waiting; they are providing leadership in a vacuum from central Government. Across Aotearoa, Environment Hubs are:
Coordinating local climate adaptation efforts.
Strengthening food resilience.
Supporting waste reduction and circular economy initiatives.
Restoring local biodiversity.
Hosting climate conversations.
Supporting communities during extreme weather events.
Our organisations are building resilience from the ground up. We provide what can be described as “soft infrastructure”: the relational, social and local knowledge networks that hold communities together during crisis and enable behaviour change over time.
We recommend that the Committee explicitly recognise the role of community environmental organisations, including Environment Hubs, as part of Aotearoa’s national environmental and climate resilience infrastructure, and that this be reflected in both institutional design and funding arrangements.
Community leadership cannot substitute for national policy leadership. We need partnership, not abandonment. Without strong national environmental institutions and policy settings, community efforts are constantly working against the tide of structural drivers of environmental harm.
Risks of folding MfE into MCERT
While we acknowledge that cross-agency integration can bring efficiencies, those efficiencies can be achieved without dissolving a dedicated environmental ministry. If the Government proceeds with MCERT, then at minimum the integration must ensure:
The environmental voice remains strong and independent, with a clearly designated Secretary for the Environment responsible for providing free and frank environmental advice to Ministers.
Adequate financial resourcing is maintained or increased, including for Community organisations and environmental monitoring, rather than eroded within a larger ministry.
Specialist expertise is retained and developed, not lost in restructuring.
Environmental outcomes are explicitly prioritised alongside economic and infrastructure objectives, with clear performance measures and reporting to Parliament.
Without a dedicated Ministry, it becomes harder for Parliament and the public to identify who is responsible when environmental outcomes deteriorate. We are incredibly concerned that broader economic and development mandates will be prioritised, resulting in weaker environmental protection. The environment must not have to compete for attention internally without a clearly mandated and properly resourced advocate at the Cabinet table.
Once a dedicated Ministry is disestablished, the political, financial, practical, and psychological barriers to re‑establishing one in the future are likely to be substantial, even if environmental degradation accelerates and policy failures become more obvious. This must be clearly understood and taken into account before dissolving our highly regarded Ministry for the Environment.
Funding cuts and inequity
As a result of absent support, the disestablishment of the Community Environment Fund and subsequent funding reductions across the sector have already had significant impacts. Community organisations, including many of our hubs, have experienced:
Loss of long-term funding pathways.
Greatly reduced operational funding.
Greatly increased uncertainty.
Despite this, hubs continue to operate. They continue to deliver programmes. They continue to mobilise volunteers. They continue to respond during extreme weather events. In many cases, on shoe-string budgets.
This demonstrates resilience — but it also highlights inequity. Community organisations are being asked to carry increasing responsibility while national environmental infrastructure is weakened. This is not sustainable.
We urge the Committee to recommend:
Reinstatement and expansion of dedicated community environmental funding streams, including mechanisms similar to the former Community Environment Fund, with multi‑year funding horizons that reflect the long‑term nature of environmental work.
Transparent reporting on total central government investment in community environmental action, to prevent further erosion hidden within wider “efficiency” measures.
Climate risk and long‑term costs
The pattern of environmental funding cuts and rolling back environmental policy, rather than strengthening protection and mitigation, is deeply concerning. At a time when climatic events increase in number and severity, the leadership response should be acceleration of environmental safeguards and resourcing rather than contraction.
We consider it a travesty for present and future generations if environmental stewardship is deprioritised at this critical moment in history. Future society and governments will bear higher adaptation costs, greater disaster recovery expenses, and deeper social inequities if protective frameworks are dismantled now. This is consistent with international evidence that delayed climate action significantly increases long‑term economic, social and ecological costs.
We note that environmental advocates, experts and opposition parties have already raised concerns that dissolving a dedicated environment ministry will weaken independent environmental advice and dilute accountability for climate, freshwater and biodiversity outcomes. As a national network of community hubs working at the frontline of climate adaptation, food resilience, waste reduction and biodiversity restoration, we see daily the costs of policy retreat and under‑resourcing in these domains.
We are doing our part. We call on the Government to do the same: to retain a dedicated Ministry for the Environment, to strengthen — not weaken — environmental institutions and safeguards, and to invest in the community‑based infrastructure that is essential for delivering a liveable future for all.
