To: Hon Kiritapu Allan, Minster of Conservation 
Date: 30 March 2022

The Authority is aware that you will be receiving a number of public submissions on the Department’s discussion document Stewardship land in Aotearoa New Zealand: Options to streamline processes for reclassification and disposal. I am writing to you, on behalf of the Authority, in its function as your strategic advisors under the Conservation Act 1987 (Act) and the National Parks Act 1980.

The Authority, as noted in its letter to you dated 21 January, are strongly supportive of the reclassification of stewardship land, and also generally support the use of national panels to assess conservation values (subject to what we say below about expertise and conflicts of interest). Some of the proposals for legislative change, however, have raised concerns amongst the membership. To understand these concerns, it is crucial to recognise that the Authority is the only body that has oversight of all national parks across Aotearoa New Zealand, to ensure they are managed for the benefit of all New Zealanders and future generations.

Another prerequisite for outlining our concerns is the need to understand the reasons for delay in this process to date, and the work that has been undertaken already to expediate the process. The lack of progress made over the past 30 years does not stem from an inadequate system and framework, but rather from the de-prioritisation of the reclassification of stewardship land by previous leadership in conservation. The Authority is concerned that this has been in part due to stewardship land being perceived as more readily available for development and mining proposals, and consequent pressure from some quarters to not tighten the regime by conferring specially protected status on stewardship areas.

The statutory framework to progress legal reclassification following the panels’ mahi already exists. The willingness of the statutory entities to engage in the need to reclassify stewardship land is demonstrated by the work undertaken in 2016-17 by conservation boards to identify the five priority areas for reclassification in each of their rohe. This work was completed by conservation boards in good faith, at short notice from the Department, as part of a proposed 5-year plan to reclassify stewardship land (see Attachment 1). Unfortunately, in spite of the sudden rush to attend to the issue, the Department almost immediately deprioritised the project and nothing further happened. The panels are now able to progress work that the Department has not previously adequately resourced.

As the only body with national level oversight of national parks and land status, the Authority is of the view that there is no other entity able to apply the same rigour to proposals to add land to national parks. The membership of the Authority and method of appointing this membership, under section 6D of the Act and through a rigorous Cabinet appointment process, ensures that skill gaps and expertise are well filled. The Authority notes that the membership on the national panels currently lacks knowledge and expertise in biodiversity.

The Authority also notes that it is important that any conflicts of interest that members of national and tangata whenua panels may have are transparently managed. In particular it is important that members with mining or other development interests declare that interest and are not involved in making recommendations on land where they could be perceived as having an interest in its disposal, or in otherwise ensuring that it remains available for development or mining.

The Authority does not support the proposal that the national panels should make recommendations to reclassify land to national parks, and instead proposes that the tangata whenua and national panels work closely with the Authority on possible reclassification to national parks, with the process then following the current process set out in the National Parks Act 1980 and the General Policy for National Parks (GPNP).

An additional consequence of removing the Authority from its current statutory function under section 7 of the National Parks Act 1980, would be the requirement to revise the GPNP to remove the role of the Authority under Policy 6. This will be a lengthy and resource heavy process for a Department that is currently stretched and underdelivering on its statutory management planning responsibilities.

In recognition of the role that they played in 2016, to identify the highest priority areas for reclassification within their rohe, we believe conservation boards should still have their role, as set out in the Act, in recommending reclassification of land to other land tenures or the disposal of PCL. This is particularly important given their local knowledge of their rohe and their connection to place and understanding of local issues/context.

The proposed shortened timeframes raise concerns that the public will be unable to give reclassification proposals the time required to digest and comment meaningfully and would create issues for NGOs that operate at a national level. The integrity of the process will be undermined, and there is significant risk that the public interests and values for a place will be unheard and overlooked. Transparency and rigour in the consultation process are integral; the Department should be accountable for such public notification, submissions, and hearing processes, to provide transparency and assurance that the Crown's responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi are being fulfilled. Given the decades that stewardship land has remained as such since 1987, the Authority does not consider that saving a couple of weeks by shortening the consultation process is efficient or justified.

The current legislative model allows for the panels to deliver recommendations to the Authority and conservation boards and for the Department to deliver on these recommendations. Introducing new legislation diverts resources from actioning reclassifications, and there is a possibility that it will take longer to enact and result in decisions that lack rigour, integrity, and public transparency.

In any process, the Authority supports funds from the disposal of public conservation land going to the Department, noting that there will be a likely budget reduction and so overall no real financial gain; and stresses the importance that the local knowledge of conservation boards is properly captured.

The Authority has concerns about part 6 of the Consultation Document: clarifying the status of concessions on reclassified stewardship land. Both of the options put forward appear to be premised on an incorrect legal interpretation of the status quo; i.e. that changing the status of stewardship land could affect concessions during their term. Clearly if land is disposed of, such disposal would need to be on terms enabling the existing concession to continue for its term. If stewardship land is reclassified, the reclassification will not impact on the concession during its term. As a result, the options put forward (of either continuing to agree with concessionaires that they will not be affected; or alternatively providing through legislation that concessionaires will not be affected) address a problem that does not exist, and at the same
time inappropriately give the impression that when existing concessions expire the new land status will not affect decisions on renewals. To be clear: if the intention is to “grandparent” existing concessions’ ability to be renewed when they expire despite any change in land status, the Authority strongly opposes such an approach.

The Authority advises that legislative change is not required to expedite the process of reclassifying stewardship land, but rather advises that it is only as a result of you making clear your priorities as Minister, that has ensured that the Department is now prioritising the reclassification of stewardship land. The establishment of the panels for evaluating conservation values has essentially outsourced the work that the Department should have been doing for the past 30 years.

With this work finally underway, the Authority’s advice is that it is in the best interests of conservation for the current legislative framework to continue to be used, as it provides a fair, transparent, and robust process for progressing reclassification.

No reira
E noho ora mai

Edward Ellison ONZM
Chairperson NZCA