The Legislative Basis for the New Zealand Conservation Authority’s submission

The New Zealand Conservation Authority / Te Pou Atawhai Taiao o Aotearoa (the Authority, NZCA) was established under the Conservation Act 1987 (Act), with members appointed by the Minister of Conservation. It is an independent statutory body with a range of functions as set out in the Act including to act as an independent advisor on conservation matters to the Minister and the Director-General of Conservation.

The Authority as a Statutory Body provides advice to the Minister of Conservation and the Director General on conservation policy, the management of national parks and the other activities and responsibilities of the Department. Specific Responsibilities of the Authority include the development, approval and implementation of conservation management strategies and national park management plans.

The Authority has an obligation under Section 4(2)(b) of the National Parks Act 1980 (National Parks Act) that states that “Except where the Authority shall otherwise determine, the native plants and animals of the parks shall as far as possible be preserved and the introduced plants and animals shall as far as possible be exterminated.”

The Conservation Act 1987 and all Acts listed in its First Schedule, which includes the National Parks Act 1980, must be so interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Section 4).

NZCA Submission

1. NZCA position / summary statement

   • 1.1 Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the proposed Conservation Amendment Bill (CAB)
   • 1.2 The CAB represents a fundamental shift of statutory purpose, moving from a position of protecting conservation for present and future generations, with communities empowered in conservation outcomes in their local area, to one focused on realising economic benefits from Public Conservation Land (PCL).
   • 1.3 The NZCA supports more streamlined and efficient processes that deliver better conservation outcomes, particularly for indigenous biodiversity. The Authority is not opposed in principle to appropriate economic development that allows the Department to invest back into conservation efforts as long as conservation remains the primary objective of any development initiatives.
   • 1.4 Our concern is that the Bill as drafted rolls back environmental protections and removes independent statutory oversight that has underpinned conservation primacy for nearly four decades, rather than modernising the processes of conservation management.
   • 1.5 We advocate for retaining the community voice in the development and adoption of conservation plans, for the separation of powers in the current Act to be preserved in the amendment, and for Treaty obligations under Section 4 of the current Act to be upheld in the amendment.
   • 1.6 The NZCA’s position on each matter is set out below, corresponding section-by-section to the substantive comments that follow.

• • • Treaty obligations — ss 4 and 4A (Section 3) — Section 4 of the Conservation Act is the strongest Treaty directive in New Zealand law. Section 4A should be expressed as minimum procedural requirements that do not limit the substantive duties arising under s 4; s 14ZG should be removed or amended to preserve the only Treaty route to fairer concession access; and Treaty settlement arrangements operating through the NZCA and Conservation Boards must retain materially equivalent governance effect.
    • Statutory purpose (Section 4) — New section 6(ea) must be brought into alignment with section 6(e) and made consistent with conservation. Without this requirement, enabling economic use and development “to the greatest extent practicable” risks displacing conservation primacy across all public conservation land, and is highly likely to generate ongoing litigation.
    • Governance and independent oversight (Section 5) — Concentrating national policy, regional planning and concession decisions in a single Ministerial office — alongside a new economic development mandate — dismantles the independent oversight that has maintained conservation primacy since 1987. The NZCA proposes joint NCPS approval (Option A) or, at minimum, a quality assurance finding (Option B).
    • Public participation and scrutiny (Section 6) — Public notification and the right to be heard should be retained. Conservation outcomes are proven to be more effective when communities are engaged and listened to.
    • Concessions regime (Section 7) — The NZCA supports streamlining, standardisation and a class-based approach, but long-term concessions of up to 60 years require a balance of appropriate conservation protections to prevent adverse effects on conservation for future generations.
    • Visitor amenities areas — Part 3D (Section 8) — Part 3D should be narrowed, its scale and number capped, and made consistent with conservation. Visitor amenity area rights should attract the same statutory thresholds as disposal of conservation land, and be made non-transferable, time-limited and non-exclusive, with the statutory roles of Conservation Boards and the NZCA maintained.
    • Land exchange and disposal (Section 9) — The land exchange and disposal provisions are being removed from the draft Bill, which the NZCA welcomes. We record our concerns to guard against their reintroduction and note the related Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill may have similar effect.
    • International commitments (Section 10) — Enabling privatisation of conservation land, and the shift in statutory purpose and governance arrangements, move New Zealand away from its 30x30 and Kunming-Montreal biodiversity commitments and its climate-related obligations, and risk its standing as a global conservation leader.

RECOMMENDATION 1.1: The NZCA recommends to the Committee that it refers the Conservation Amendment Bill back to the Minister of Conservation for substantial amendments and refinements.

2. Background/History Context

   • 2.1 Conservation issues were not a high priority in New Zealand in the first part of the 20th century, with two world wars and depression, most people were concerned with financial security, and extraction rather than protection pervaded. Decades of public and political discourse resulted in the separation of decision-making structures to address the former dilemma of balancing conservation against development to achieve greater accountability and effectiveness.
   • 2.2 In the following years, a number of Acts were enabled to protect, manage and allow access to the conservation estate. The National Parks Act 1952, emphasised that native plants and animals would be preserved, introduced species controlled and exterminated. The Reserves Act 1977 provided for acquisition, control, management, maintenance, preservation (including the protection of the natural environment), development, use of reserves, and to make provision for public access to the coastline.
   • 2.3 The National Parks Act 1980 addressed a number of scientific and conservation concerns and added ecological systems to the list of features that merit National Park status, and finally the Conservation Act was created to promote the conservation of NZ’s natural and historic resources and includes the National Parks Act 1980 in its schedules.
   • 2.4 Section 4 of the Conservation Act states it must be so interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Section 4).
   • 2.5 In 1990, the National Park Authority and Park Boards were disestablished and the NZCA and Conservation Boards were established
   • 2.6 The Department of Conservation (DOC) was ultimately formed bringing under one department functions formerly managed by several government departments, eg; Forestry Department, Lands & Survey and the Wildlife Service.

3. Section 4 and Section 4A — Treaty Obligations in Conservation June 2026

NZCA Position

• • 3.1 Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 is the strongest Treaty directive in New Zealand law. It requires the whole Act (including the Acts listed in its first schedule) to be interpreted and administered to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, active protection, partnership, and participation, as the legal expression of the Crown’s obligations to Māori in managing a third of New Zealand’s land.
  • 3.2 The Authority’s position on sections 4 and 4A is grounded in cumulative experience working with section 4 across Conservation Act processes over three decades. The Authority does not speak for tangata whenua on section 4 matters, that is properly the role of iwi and hapū. The Authority does, however, advocate strongly for the protection of Māori rights and interests under the Act, including the rights of Treaty settlement entities whose arrangements operate through the NZCA and Conservation Boards. These are not the same thing, and the NZCA is careful to maintain that distinction throughout this submission.
  • 3.3 The NZCA supports the consultation framework proposed in s4A, structured engagement at defined stages, impact analysis reports, and Ministerial consideration obligations. But three features of the Bill risk reducing, not clarifying, the Crown’s Treaty obligations: s4A may function as a complete code for Treaty compliance, displacing substantive duties; s14ZG removes the only Treaty-based route to competitive concession access; and incomplete Treaty settlement equivalence is being negotiated against an already-shifting legal baseline.

s4A: Certainty Achieved, Obligation Reduced

• • 3.4 Active protection and partnership under s4 impose substantive obligations, not merely procedural expectations. In Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation [2018], the Supreme Court confirmed s4 may require decision-makers to consider extending preference to iwi, weigh the economic benefit of doing so, and in some circumstances decline a concession altogether. These obligations are capable of affecting outcomes, not only the process leading to them.
  • 3.5 The NZCA supports what s4A adds: structure, transparency, and legislative discipline to processes historically reliant on administrative practice. The concern is what s4A risks replacing. Once prescribed consultation, reporting, and consideration requirements are completed, s4A compliance may increasingly be treated as discharging the full scope of s4. The broader, context-specific inquiry recognised in Ngāi Tai, including the possibility that active protection may require substantive outcomes in particular circumstances, may in practice be foreclosed. DOC’s own advice acknowledged that “specific descriptive Treaty provisions alone cannot provide full certainty as interpretation of s4 may apply additional requirements.” The Bill risks narrowing Treaty obligations in principle while potentially falling short of the certainty it seeks in practice.

Recommendation 3.1: Amend s4A to clarify that its consultation, reporting, and consideration requirements are minimum procedural requirements only, and that compliance does not limit, replace, or exhaust the wider obligations arising under s4. This preserves the structured engagement framework while maintaining the substantive duties of active protection, partnership, and participation recognised by the courts.

s14ZG: Removing the Only Treaty Route to Fairer Access

• • 3.6 The Conservation Act’s concessions system defaults to whoever applies first, favouring incumbents and existing operators. Ngāi Tai changed this by confirming that s4’s active protection principle could, in some circumstances, require the Minister to consider running a competitive process. That was the single legal route through which fairer concession access for iwi could be raised on land that is often ancestral territory.
  • 3.7 S14ZG removes that route entirely, for every concession. This goes further than DOC’s own advice, which recommended limiting any competitive process obligation only to existing long-term leases involving significant private investment, not eliminating the Treaty obligation across the board.

Recommendation 3.2:  Remove s14ZG or amend it to require the Minister, when deciding whether to initiate a competitive process, to consider Treaty rights and interests, conservation outcomes, and market demand. For existing long-term leases involving significant private investment, competition need not be required where defined performance standards are met.

Treaty Settlement Negotiations Are Happening on Shifting Ground

• • 3.8 Conservation carries more Treaty settlement commitments than any other area of government. Many settlements embed iwi directly within decision-making through co-development, co-approval, and governance arrangements, including Ngāi Tahu representation on the NZCA and Conservation Boards, co-governance of Taranaki Maunga, and shared decision-making in Te Hiku o Te Ika. The NZCA does not speak for settled iwi or post-settlement governance entities, they must speak for themselves, and their rights are theirs to assert. But many of those settlement arrangements operate directly through the NZCA and Conservation Boards, and the Authority has a direct institutional interest in ensuring those governance rights are not diminished by this Bill.
  • 3.9 Around 63 complex commitments remain unresolved as DOC works with PSGEs on material equivalence. Those discussions are occurring while s4A and s14ZG simultaneously redefine how s4 operates in planning and concession processes. Three risks follow: the baseline for equivalence may shift as s4 is reinterpreted; partnership commitments expressed through governance and decision-making may be weakened; and if settlement partners conclude that redress has been substantively altered without agreement, litigation risk increases.

Recommendation 3.3:  Ensure that settlement arrangements conferring co-governance, co-development, co-approval, or other shared decision-making rights continue with materially equivalent practical and legal effect in the new system, and that nothing in s4A or s14ZG is interpreted as limiting or diminishing those commitments.

Recommendation 3.4:  Ensure that affected PSGEs are provided with clear information on the interaction between their replacement settlement arrangements and the proposed operation of s4A and s14ZG, and are given a meaningful opportunity to reconsider proposed arrangements in light of the Bill as a whole.

4. Proposed changes to purpose related provisions of the Conservation Act and functions of the Department

NZCA Position

• • 4.1 The added section 6(ea) must be made consistent with conservation or be removed. Without that caveat, enabling economic use and development “to the greatest extent practicable” risks displacing conservation primacy across all public conservation land, and is highly likely to generate ongoing litigation.

New DOC functions to enable economic opportunities

• • 4.2 The Conservation Act (1987) (the Act) is relatively simple and clear. It has stood the ‘test of time’ over almost four decades and has enjoyed broad bipartisan support through implementation by successive governments. It established the Department of Conservation (the Department) with functions including to manage for conservation purposes, public conservation land, to advocate the conservation of natural and historic resources, and promote the benefits of conservation to present and future generations.
  • 4.3 The Conservation Act 1987 currently provides clear direction as to the functions and priorities of the Department of Conservation but does not contain a standalone purpose clause. Instead, the purpose is built through several related provisions, including:

• • • the definition of conservation - “conservation means the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations”
    • the purposes for which different categories of land are held, and,
    • the functions as set out in section 6 (a) to (g), including subclause e) which recognises the hierarchy inherent in the Act as follows: -

“(e) to the extent that the use of any natural or historic resource for recreation or tourism is not inconsistent with its conservation, to foster the use of natural and historic resources for recreation, and to allow their use for tourism:”

Sections 6(e) and 6(ea) — Functions of the Department

What the Proposed Amendment Does:

• • 4.4 Clause 6 of the Bill replaces the current section 6(e) of the Conservation Act 1987 with two distinct functions. New section 6(e) retains the Department’s existing recreation function — to foster the use of land and other natural and historic resources managed by the Department for recreation — and usefully adds the qualifier "to the extent consistent with their conservation." New section 6(ea) introduces a new function: to recognise the economic opportunities arising from the use and development of land and other natural and historic resources managed by the Department, and to enable that use and development "to the greatest extent practicable under this Act and other enactments." The tourism function previously contained within section 6(e) is absorbed into section 6(ea).

Support for the Consistency Standard in Section 6(e):

• • 4.5 The New Zealand Conservation Authority supports the formulation adopted in new section 6(e), which expressly limits the recreation function to what is consistent with conservation. This correctly establishes conservation as the primary constraint on departmental functions with respect to public conservation land.

Concern: Section 6(ea) Must Also Be Consistent with Conservation:

• • 4.6 The Authority submits that new section 6(ea) is inadequately framed and must be brought into alignment with the consistency standard applied to section 6(e). As currently drafted, section 6(ea) requires that economic use and development be enabled "to the greatest extent practicable under this Act and other enactments." This is an operational qualifier — it addresses feasibility and statutory compliance — but it does not require economic use and development to be consistent with conservation. That is a substantive omission.
  • 4.7 Conservation is defined in section 2 of the Conservation Act 1987 as the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations. This definition is foundational. It establishes what the Act exists to achieve and frames the purpose within which all departmental functions must operate. Economic opportunities on public conservation land must arise from, and remain consistent with, that purpose — not stand alongside it as a co-equal or parallel objective.
  • 4.8 The Authority is concerned that the current drafting of section 6(ea) risks reframing economic enablement as an objective of equivalent standing to conservation. The phrase "to the greatest extent practicable" introduces a maximisation imperative that, absent a consistency constraint, could be used to justify levels of use and development that would not otherwise meet the statutory conservation standard. This is inconsistent with the nature and purpose of the Conservation Act 1987 as the primary legislation governing the management of public conservation land, and with the principle that conservation legislation has primacy in that management context.
  • 4.9 The Authority notes that reference to compliance with "other enactments" does not remedy this concern. Resource management, commercial, and other general legislation does not replicate or substitute for the conservation standard established by the Conservation Act 1987. Conservation legislation is not one consideration among many in this context — it is the governing framework.

National Conservation Policy Statement

• • 4.10 New section 13D empowers the Minister to make a National Conservation Policy Statement, with the purpose including to “recognise the economic opportunities that arise from the use and development of land and other natural resources and historic resources managed by the Department, and to enable this use and development to the greatest extent practicable under those Acts”.
  • 4.11 The practical effect of these proposed changes is to redefine conservation as no longer being focussed on preservation and protection, rather to be focussed on enabling use and development to the greatest extent practicable.
  • 4.12 The Bill would fundamentally alter DOC’s core statutory functions. The change would apply to all PCL, including national parks, ecological areas and World Heritage Areas. It would substantially influence the new National Conservation Policy Statement (NCPS) and Area Plans. Other proposed changes, such as the new visitor amenity areas will further compound the impacts of these changes.
  • 4.13 These fundamental changes are extremely concerning to the New Zealand Conservation Authority (the NZCA). The status quo provides broad protections to a third of Aotearoa New Zealand, habitats, ecosystems and indigenous species, immensely valued recreational areas and outstanding examples of our nation’s historic heritage. It is essential to protect these lands and waters for present and future generations. Rather than ‘modernising’ conservation management, the CAB reverts to a pre-1987 time when multi-use government agencies sought to balance conservation and economic development objectives with resultant major impacts on the environment. It also appears to foreshadow a possible future dismantling of the Department of Conservation as the economic imperatives lead to entrenched activities suitable for corporatisation.
  • 4.14 The NZCA understands section 6(ea) was a last-minute direction from Cabinet, and does not reflect discussions in the consultation phases of the development of the CAB. Certainly, the proposed wording of s 6(ea) was not raised in any engagement by DOC officials with the NZCA during the Bill’s development process.
  • 4.15 In the Department of Conservation’s Supplementary Analysis Report (April 2026), prepared as part of the development of the CAB, the analysis says that the changes are intended to be a minor shift that will benefit a small number of less economically significant activities and that “conservation will remain the primary purpose of the Conservation Act”. It also states that the changes are intended to enable economic development “that is not inconsistent with conservation”, while “protecting conservation values” and “preserving conservation outcomes”.
  • 4.16 However, none of this has been translated into the drafting of s 6(ea).
  • 4.17 This economic development function is further reinforced through its insertion in several other parts of the Amendment Bill, specifically proposed new section 13D(2)(b) (purpose of the National Conservation Policy Statement), proposed new section 13H(2)(b) (purpose of Area Plans), and proposed new section 14 (purpose of concessions framework).
  • 4.18 This function is very explicit in its intent. Those economic opportunities, which must be enabled to the greatest extent practicable, do not even have to be consistent with the definition of conservation (to preserve and protect), or conservation values.
  • 4.19 This will require that economic use and development on public conservation land must be encouraged and enabled by DOC. This could include farming, mining and minerals processing, forestry, solar and windfarms, or hydro-electric dams. It could also mean new hotels, restaurants, gondolas and visitor centres, including in areas of international, national, and regional conservation significance.

In particular:

• • • there is no hierarchy between the Department’s functions so this new economic function will sit alongside conservation functions, and potentially able to be “balanced” against them.
    • there is no limitation to the scale of the activities (i.e. “minor” or “insignificant” descriptors).
    • there is no qualifier to ensure that economic activities would need to be consistent with conservation matters.
    • the phrase “to enable this use and development to the greatest extent practicable under this Act” is potentially directing the Department to prioritise economic activity irrespective of conservation outcomes.
    • indeed, the drafting is so open ended, it could conceivably enable all manner of new future economic developments - factories, datacentres, satellite launch facilities, anything that might benefit from a remote location, access to fresh water or renewable energy, and a favourable Ministerial decision.
  • 4.20 This proposed new statement of function for the Department of Conservation, in s 6(ea) of the Bill, would transform the role of the Department away from conservation and stewardship of protected lands and waters, turning DOC into an economic development agency.
  • 4.21 The insertion of section 6(ea) raises particular issues and troubling questions regarding the continued place of public recreation on PCL.
  • 4.22 While the Department’s recreation function is still recognised in the proposed amendment to section 6(e) - “, to foster the use of land and other natural resources and historic resources managed by the Department for recreation to the extent consistent with their conservation” – the addition of s 6(ea) potentially reprioritises and diminishes that recreation function, which historically has involved free public access to conservation lands and waters for all New Zealanders for recreational purposes.
  • 4.23 As these recreation activities must be consistent with conservation values, while economic activities do not have the same explicit legal imperative in section 6(ea), this may enable economic activities relating to tourism or commercial recreation to take priority over private recreational activities on conservation lands. Recreational use of public conservation lands and waters has a longstanding and highly valued place in New Zealand society. The NZCA notes that many groups are expressing significant concerns about this aspect of the Bill.
  • 4.24 The change in function will affect New Zealand’s World Heritage listed areas. New Zealand’s UNESCO World Heritage Areas (WHA) are internationally recognised for their outstanding universal values (OUV). New Zealand has a legal obligation to ensure world heritage listed areas are protected and conserved for all humanity. New Zealand’s WHA include a variety of conservation land classifications, such as national parks, wilderness areas, reserves, and stewardship land. The Bill does not ensure that World Heritage Areas will be safeguarded, protected, or conserved, as required by the Convention.
  • 4.25 Without amendment, the CAB will enact a fundamental shift in the management of the conservation estate, whereby economic imperatives are given strong priority (they must be enabled to “the greatest extent practicable”). This will create uncertainty and it is highly likely the Act will be the subject of ongoing litigation if it proceeds in its current form.

Recommendation 4.1:  The NZCA recommends that 6(ea) be removed, or, if it is to remain in the CAB it should be amended so that economic development activities, uses, including allowing for visitor amenity areas, land exchanges and disposals on public conservation lands and waters must be consistent with conservation:

• to recognise the economic opportunities that arise from the use and development of land and other natural resources and historic resources managed by the Department, and to allow this use and development to the extent consistent with their conservation.

5. Centralisation of Decision-Making, Independent Oversight and Conservation Governance

NZCA Position

• • 5.1 Streamlining planning instruments, reducing duplication, and enabling faster concession processing are legitimate objectives the Authority has consistently supported. The Bill’s governance design is another matter. Concentrating national policy, regional planning, and concession authority in a single Ministerial office, while simultaneously mandating an economic development function for all conservation land, dismantles the independent oversight that has underpinned conservation primacy for nearly four decades. Ministerial accountability and independent oversight are not the same thing, and the reform’s efficiency rationale does not require removing the distinction between them.

The Governance Design Is Without Precedent in Conservation Law

• • 5.2 The separation of rule-setting from rule-application in conservation was deliberate. It was the direct institutional response of the Conservation Law Reform Act 1990 to documented failure: before DOC’s creation, conservation outcomes depended on who held political office. The Bill repeats that design failure. The Minister will now set the NCPS, approve all area plans under it, and make concession decisions within both, while the same Bill mandates enabling economic development on conservation land to the greatest extent practicable. The New Zealand Law Society has warned this creates a Minister who is "both ultimate decision-maker and setter of the framework that governs their executive decisions." New Zealand has had five Ministers of Conservation in six years. That is not durable institutional protection for conservation values across political cycles.
  • 5.3 The ‘have regard to’ standard the Bill provides to the NZCA is not independent oversight. It requires consideration, not weight. A Minister who reads and sets aside NZCA views has complied in full.

Recommendation 5.1:  The committee examine whether the governance design adequately addresses the structural risk of concentrating rule-setting, planning approval, and concession decision-making in a single office alongside a new economic development mandate.

Efficiency Does Not Require Removing Independent Oversight

• • 5.4 DOC’s own briefings identified the causes of planning system delay as duplicated documents and internal resourcing constraints, not NZCA or Conservation Board approval processes. The committee should seek specific evidence of NZCA or Board-caused material delay before the efficiency rationale for removing those approval functions is accepted.
  • 5.5 The NZCA preference would be for joint approval by the Minister and the NZCA, reflecting its national significance and its role as the policy framework for all public conservation land. Area plans are approved by Conservation Boards, consistent with their place-based statutory mandate and Treaty settlement appointment rights. This most fully preserves existing decision-making architecture, requires no new standing bodies, and provides the strongest safeguard against Treaty settlement risk. Where the Minister and NZCA cannot reach agreement on the NCPS, an independent Panel convenes. The Panel, three members, one nominated by each party, mutually agreed chair, convenes within a fixed timeframe and dissolves once its determination is issued. Its mandate is limited to determining whether the proposed NCPS is consistent with conservation outcomes under the Conservation Act. The Panel convenes within a defined timeframe, its determination is binding on both parties, and it dissolves on issuing that determination. The Panel is not a standing body, it exists only to resolve a specific impasse and cannot be used to relitigate settled questions.

Recommendation 5.2:  Adopt a joint approval process as the primary amendment. The NCPS is approved jointly by the Minister and the NZCA; area plans are approved by Conservation Boards. Where agreement on the NCPS cannot be reached, an Independent Panel is convened within a defined timeframe to determine consistency with conservation outcomes. Its determination is binding and final.

6. Public Participation as Governance Is Not Consultation

NZCA Position

• • 6.1 The NZCA and Conservation Boards are governance bodies, not advisory committees. Advisory bodies inform decisions; governance bodies participate in making them. When these bodies approve a plan, they exercise the independent judgment of cross-sector, publicly accountable institutions whose membership embeds diverse community and iwi knowledge directly in the outcome. When they provide comment the Minister must ‘have regard to,’ they provide input to a Ministerial decision. These are structurally different, and the Bill’s ‘have regard to’ standard does not preserve the former. The New Zealand Law Society has also warned that excluding these bodies from early drafting stages risks undermining the quality of the NCPS itself.
  • 6.2 Public notification is narrowed and often discretionary and public hearings are removed. There will be fewer opportunities for public challenge or input at application stage (if any). Participation is effectively shifted upstream to planning, not individual decisions.
  • 6.3 The Authority advocates for the community voice to be protected in the amendment. Outcomes for conservation are proven to be more effective when the community is engaged and listened to. This amendment in effect takes the power away from the community and puts in the hands of those wanting to exploit conservation for economic benefit. Having communities remaining active and engaged in decision-making will provide much better outcome for future generations.

Recommendation 6.1:  Amend the Bill to involve the NZCA and relevant Conservation Boards at NCPS and area plan drafting stages, not only at the post-draft consultation stage. Early involvement produces better-quality planning documents and requires no change to the approval structure, regardless of which governance model the committee adopts.

Treaty Partnership Requires Governance Structures, Not Process Rights

• • 6.4 Approximately 30 Treaty settlements embed iwi directly in conservation planning through co-drafting and co-approval rights with the NZCA and Conservation Boards. Those rights were negotiated when those bodies held approval authority. When that authority shifts to the Minister, the practical effect of those rights changes, even where formal settlement commitments are preserved. DOC’s engagement with post-settlement governance entities on ‘material equivalence’ has 63 complex commitments still unresolved. The committee must satisfy itself that material equivalence means equivalence of governance effect, not equivalence of process steps. Structured consultation is not governance participation and cannot be substituted for it in the Treaty settlement context.

Recommendation 6.2:  Seek Crown Law advice on whether the shift from Board-based to Ministerial settlement obligations constitutes a substantive change to settlement redress. Ensure no PSGE enters the new system on temporary placeholder provisions at enactment. Confirm that the material equivalence process with affected PSGEs addresses governance participation, that iwi with co-approval authority will retain equivalent substantive decision-making power, not only equivalent process steps.

7. Concessions Regime – Modernisation and efficiency

NZCA Position

• • 7.1 The NZCA supports streamlining, standardisation and a class-based approach, but long-term concessions of up to 60 years require a balance of appropriate conservation protections to prevent adverse effects on conservation for future generations.

Revised concessions regime

• • 7.2 The amendment proposes “an overhauled concessions regime that will enable faster, standardised processes with early decline powers, preapproved/exempt activities, reduced notification and allowing for long-term concessions of up to 60 years”.
  • 7.3 This leads to a greater approval likelihood, but could potentially lock in long-term use of PCL, and reduced flexibility for future conservation decisions.
  • 7.4 The Authority is supportive of changes to streamline and make processes for use of PCL more efficient for users and tourism operators. We believe though there needs to be a balance of appropriate conservation protections to prevent any adverse effects on conservation for future generations.

Recommendation 7.1: Add further requirements to ensure conservation decisions on long term use of PCL are consistent with conservation protections.

8. Visitor Amenities Areas (proposed Part 3D)

NZCA Position

• • 8.1 Part 3D should be narrowed, its scale and number capped, and made consistent with conservation. VAA rights should attract the same statutory thresholds as disposal of conservation land, and be made non-transferable, time-limited and non-exclusive, with the statutory roles of Conservation Boards and the NZCA maintained.

Visitor amenities areas

• • 8.2 The Bill introduces a new mechanism allowing the Minister to set apart visitor amenities areas (VAAs) across conservation parks, stewardship areas, national parks and most reserve classes. Given NZCA’s role in statutory planning processes, this section sets out our concerns with the proposal and the changes we consider necessary.
  • 8.3 The scope is vague and expansive. The purpose in section 16A is open-ended, extending to accommodation, restaurants, cafes, car parks and “any other infrastructure that supports visitors,” alongside commercial services such as guiding, transport and merchandising. Nothing in the Bill caps the number, size or scale of VAAs. The same mechanism could be used to set apart an entire national park village such as Aoraki/Mount Cook, or applied repeatedly to many smaller sites — ski fields, sections of Great Walks such as parts of the Milford Track, or sites like the Copland hot pools. This invites cumulative, “death by a thousand cuts” effects across the conservation estate that the single-site assessment in section 16E(2)(a)(iii) does not capture.
  • 8.4 A VAA creates fully tradeable, privately owned property rights in public conservation land. Ultimately, the approval to carry out an activity on public conservation land is itself a valuable right that accrues to its holder — this is not merely about disposal of the land. Amenity Areas would allow wilderness lodges and similar commercial developments to be established and operated, and although the land on which they are built remains vested as public conservation land, the right to use that land for VAA activities — and to on-sell those rights to other commercial or private interests — becomes entirely possible. Section 16G expressly contemplates authorisation “by concession or otherwise,” and such interests can be of long duration and assignable. The effect is a privatisation in substance, if not in title, of conservation land, the activities carried out on it, and the public benefits and values it is held to protect — not dissimilar in its consequences to disposal of the land itself. Multiple such areas could be created rapidly by the Minister and/or the Director-General, with no right of appeal, legal redress, or independent oversight.
  • 8.5 Conservation purposes and area plans can be overridden. Section 16E(3) allows the Minister to proceed even where the decision is inconsistent with the area plan, or with the very purposes and principles under which the land is held. Section 16G(2) then provides that those purposes apply only so far as they are compatible with authorised activities. Because national parks are included under section 16(1)(c), even the highest standard of statutory protection can be displaced through this process.
  • 8.6 Statutory planning bodies are sidelined. Conservation Boards have no defined role in the process at all. The NZCA is only consulted, and only where the land in question is a national park (section 16C(2)(b)). This removes place-based decisions about what happens where, from the Boards and the NZCA — a function that sits at the heart of their statutory planning role.
  • 8.7 The procedural safeguards are weak. Submitters on the publicly notified documents have no right to be heard (section 16D). The test that an area is “predicted to be” of high visitor use (section 16E(2)(b)(i)) allows speculative development in areas that are currently low-use, lowering the threshold for setting a VAA apart.

Recommendation 8.1:  The NZCA recommends that the visitor amenities area provisions in proposed Part 3D be amended so that, taken together, they achieve the following:

• The purpose should be narrowed and the scale, number and total area of VAAs capped, with permanent commercial accommodation excluded.
• A conservation consistency standard should apply sections 16E(3) and 16G(2) should be removed or constrained so that a VAA cannot override the purposes for which the land is held, or any VAA within one required to be consistent with the National Parks Act and the NCPS.
• VAA rights should be treated as equivalent to disposal of conservation land and attract the same statutory thresholds, protections and processes, with any authorisation — and the ownership of any infrastructure established under it — made expressly non-transferable, time-limited and non-exclusive, and with infrastructure remaining vested in, or reverting to, the Crown and removable on expiry.
• The statutory roles of Conservation Boards and the NZCA should be maintained, with both consulted at the draft stage and their concurrence required for any VAA proposed within their area of responsibility.
• Finally, the role of the public and iwi should be strengthened by providing submitters a right to be heard and requiring a mandatory assessment of cumulative effects across the estate before a VAA is set apart.

9. Land Exchange and Disposal

NZCA position

• • 9.1 The land exchange and disposal provisions will be removed from the draft Bill, which the NZCA welcomes. We record our concerns to guard against their reintroduction and note the related Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill may have similar effect.

Potential issues with land exchanges

• • 9.2 The Bill loosens existing constraints on exchanging and disposing of Crown-owned conservation land, the intent of which is “The increased flexibility created by loosening those constraints supports more effective land management by allowing greater optimisation of the portfolio of land managed by the Department.”
  • 9.3 The rhetoric of “increased flexibility” and “optimisation of the portfolio” in conjunction with changed statutory framework that has economic drivers is cause for significant concern.
  • 9.4 We consider that there are some constraints in the current system that could be addressed, but the proposed changes do not sufficiently protect conservation and protection outcomes.
  • 9.5 The Bill states “Land exchanges will be possible where the land received will have higher conservation values than the conservation land traded away. The assessment of conservation values include cultural and historic values”. Whether a proposed exchange meets this test will be determined by the Minister.
  • 9.6 Land disposals will be possible where the land is considered to be “not important for the conservation of threatened species or ecosystems, the habitat provided is not one of the best examples of its type”, and the Director-General of Conservation (the Director-General) has recommended it.
  • 9.7 If the proposed amendment goes ahead:
    • Approximately 5 million hectares of public conservation land, including previously protected stewardship land and popular forest parks will be available for consideration for land exchanges & disposal.
    • 40% of public conservation lands (National parks, marine reserves, nature/scientific reserves, and specific offshore islands) will be exempt (also exempt are RAMSAR sites). It appears that this doesn’t include areas protected under some other national or international agreements (e.g. World Heritage sites,) (Note – there are aspects that the Minister must consider for exchanges e.g. Section 15C (2) (iv) the national and international significance of the outgoing land).
    • Some of the land available for exchange & disposal relatively recently came to public conservation lands through the tenure review process – this process assessed conservation values and there was expenditure by government for acquisition of land.
    • Also at risk is land that has been acquired through public fundraising through the Natural Heritage Fund and gifted to the Crown - including beech forest in the Lewis Pass area, such as the Poplars Conservation Area, and hill country tussock and grasslands on the east coast of the South Island including Korowai Torlesse Tussocklands.
    • There is a range of groups (including hunters, fishers, Federated Mountain Club and Forest and Bird) expressing concern about implications for access resulting from land exchanges & disposal – loss of tracks, trails, public access.
    • As with so many parts of this proposed legislation, there is a concentration of decision-making power with Ministers that reduces independent and public oversight, removing critical checks and balances.
    • The loss of Conservation Board input, providing local understanding and mana whenua perspectives on implications/impacts of land exchanges & disposals, constitutes a risk for sound decision making.
    • Loss of NZCA input with concomitant loss of national oversight has wider implications for conservation values and outcomes at national level.
  • 9.8 In addition, we believe that the recent Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill, accepted into Parliament in April, will also enable a broader range of activities and make it easier to reclassify and dispose of public land.
  • 9.9 We are concerned for the proposed lower threshold for disposal using a “net benefit” test (discretionary). While high-value land is protected, we see that there is risk of incremental loss of conservation land over time.
  • 9.10 Noted in section 15D (3) “The Minister is not obliged to maintain the same classification, status or purpose for the incoming land as that of the outgoing land”, meaning the Minister will have absolute discretion over the classification of the land and the appointment of any management body to be responsible for the newly acquired land.
  • 9.11 In terms of disposals, section 15K notes the Minister may dispose of land if “the land is not important for the conservation of threatened species, threatened ecosystems or both, and "In the ecological district in which the land is located the indigenous vegetation of the land or habitat of indigenous fauna present on the land is not the best or one of the best examples of the type in relation to legally protected land in that ecological district”
  • 9.12 This is highly problematic on a number of levels:

• • • there does not appear to be constraints on disposal of land with high historic or recreational values under proposed s 15K.
    • “best or one of the best” highly subjective and problematic. Given how many habitats and ecosystems have become degraded and the fact that the Department hasn’t had the resources to stop decline of many species/habitats/ecosystems, this seems a very challenging framework to operate in. An applicant need only point to another comparable site to meet this test.
    • We hold major concerns centring around the test for how land is evaluated and considered to be surplus to conservation needs. It has been proven that land can be restored to a high conservation level to support the regeneration of endangered species. Who is to say what land will be useful for this purpose in the future.

Recommendation 9.1: The committee confirm that the land exchange and disposal provisions have been removed from the draft Bill and will not be reintroduced at any subsequent stage. The committee further examine whether the Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill, accepted into Parliament in April 2026, produces equivalent effect to the removed provisions and, if so, whether the concerns set out in this submission apply with equal force to that Bill.

Recommendation 9.2: Ensure the proposed amendment directs the Department of Conservation, not the Minister, to determine the classification of any potential land swap.

10. Undermining international commitments

NZCA position

• • 10.1 NZ was seen as a world leader in conservation having already achieved the land-based protection global objective of the "30x30" goal set out in Target 3 of the Convention on Biological Diversity Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
  • 10.2 Adopted in December 2022 by 196 nations, including New Zealand, this international agreement commits countries to effectively protect and conserve at least 30% of the Earth’s lands, inland waters, and coastal/marine areas by 2030 through achieving 30x30 at national level. New Zealand had already met and been internationally recognised for exceeding the land-protection target, with 33% of lands protected when the framework was adopted. The targets set in NZ’s own national biodiversity framework undertakes to ensure by 2030:
  • 10.3 Biodiversity system governance, in partnership with Treaty partners, provides leadership, accountability, including monitoring and reporting and inclusive decision making and that the costs and value of restoring indigenous biodiversity have been quantified and inform decision making. (https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/about-doc/role/international/nz-national-targets-contributing-to-the-gbf.pdf)
  • 10.4 As stated previously, the NZCA is pleased the land disposal provisions of the Conservation Amendment Bill will be removed, however, the new section 6(ea) “to recognise the economic opportunities arising from the use and development of land and other natural and historic resources managed by the Department, and to enable that use and development "to the greatest extent practicable under this Act and other enactments” without a caveat that conservation outcomes must be the primary objective, together with the proposed amendments to conservation governance, move New Zealand away from its international conservation commitments and risk undermining its credibility as a global conservation leader.

Recommendation 10.1: Remove or amend s 6(ea) and provide for consideration of environmental protections under the Convention on Biological Diversity Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.  

Appendix 1 – recommendations

Section	Recommendation	Page
1	NZCA position / summary statement
	The NZCA recommends to the Committee that it refers the Conservation Amendment Bill back to the Minister of Conservation for substantial amendments and refinements	3
3	Section 4 and Section 4A — Treaty Obligations in Conservation June 2026
3.1	Amend s4A to clarify that its consultation, reporting, and consideration requirements are minimum procedural requirements only, and that compliance does not limit, replace, or exhaust the wider obligations arising under s4. This preserves the structured engagement framework while maintaining the substantive duties of active protection, partnership, and participation recognised by the courts	5
3.2	Remove s14ZG or amend it to require the Minister, when deciding whether to initiate a competitive process, to consider Treaty rights and interests, conservation outcomes, and market demand. For existing long-term leases involving significant private investment, competition need not be required where defined performance standards are met.	6
3.3	Ensure that settlement arrangements conferring co-governance, co-development, co-approval, or other shared decision-making rights continue with materially equivalent practical and legal effect in the new system, and that nothing in s4A or s14ZG is interpreted as limiting or diminishing those commitments.	6
3.4	Ensure that affected PSGEs are provided with clear information on the interaction between their replacement settlement arrangements and the proposed operation of s4A and s14ZG and are given a meaningful opportunity to reconsider proposed arrangements in light of the Bill as a whole.	6
4	Proposed changes to purpose related provisions of the Conservation Act and functions of the Department
4.1	The NZCA recommends that 6(ea) be removed, or, if it is to remain in the CAB it should be amended so that economic development activities, uses, including allowing for visitor amenity areas, land exchanges and disposals on public conservation lands and waters must be consistent with conservation: to recognise the economic opportunities that arise from the use and development of land and other natural resources and historic resources managed by the Department, and to allow this use and development to the extent consistent with their conservation.	10
5	Centralisation of Decision-Making, Independent Oversight and Conservation Governance
5.1	The committee examine whether the governance design adequately addresses the structural risk of concentrating rule-setting, planning approval, and concession decision-making in a single office alongside a new economic development mandate.	11
5.2	Adopt Joint Approval as the primary amendment. The NCPS is approved jointly by the Minister and the NZCA; area plans are approved by Conservation Boards. Where agreement on the NCPS cannot be reached, an Independent Panel is convened within a defined timeframe to determine consistency with conservation outcomes. Its determination is binding and final.	12
6	Public Participation as Governance Is Not Consultation
6.1	Amend the Bill to involve the NZCA and relevant Conservation Boards at NCPS and area plan drafting stages, not only at the post-draft consultation stage. Early involvement produces better-quality planning documents and requires no change to the approval structure, regardless of which governance model the committee adopts.	13
6.2	Seek Crown Law advice on whether the shift from Board-based to Ministerial settlement obligations constitutes a substantive change to settlement redress. Ensure no PSGE enters the new system on temporary placeholder provisions at enactment. Confirm that the material equivalence process with affected PSGEs addresses governance participation, that iwi with co-approval authority will retain equivalent substantive decision-making power, not only equivalent process steps.	13
7	Concessions Regime – Modernisation and efficiency
7.1	Add further requirements to ensure conservation decisions on long term use of PCL are consistent with  conservation protections.	14
8	Visitor Amenities Areas (proposed Part 3D)
8.1	The NZCA recommends that the visitor amenities area provisions in proposed Part 3D be amended so that, taken together, they achieve the following: The purpose should be narrowed and the scale, number and total area of VAAs capped, with permanent commercial accommodation excluded. A conservation consistency standard should apply sections 16E(3) and 16G(2) should be removed or constrained so that a VAA cannot override the purposes for which the land is held, or any VAA within one required to be consistent with the National Parks Act and the NCPS. VAA rights should be treated as equivalent to disposal of conservation land and attract the same statutory thresholds, protections and processes, with any authorisation — and the ownership of any infrastructure established under it — made expressly non-transferable, time-limited and non-exclusive, and with infrastructure remaining vested in, or reverting to, the Crown and removable on expiry. The statutory roles of Conservation Boards and the NZCA should be maintained, with both consulted at the draft stage and their concurrence required for any VAA proposed within their area of responsibility. Finally, the role of the public and iwi should be strengthened by providing submitters a right to be heard and requiring a mandatory assessment of cumulative effects across the estate before a VAA is set apart.	16
9	Land Exchange and Disposal
9.1	The committee confirm that the land exchange and disposal provisions have been removed from the draft Bill and will not be reintroduced at any subsequent stage. The committee further examine whether the Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill, accepted into Parliament in April 2026, produces equivalent effect to the removed provisions and, if so, whether the concerns set out in this submission apply with equal force to that Bill.	22
9.2	Ensure the proposed amendment directs the Department of Conservation, not the Minister, to determine the classification of any potential land swap.	22
10	Undermining international commitments
10.1	Remove or amend s 6(ea) and provide for consideration of environmental protections under the Convention on Biological Diversity Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.	23