Changes to the overarching purpose of the Conservation Act – to enable greater economic development on public conservation land – were a late addition to the suite of reforms. But their impact could be profound, writes Melanie Nelson.
As other widely discussed and highly controversial reforms to conservation law began progressing through parliament last week, one fundamental change slipped through barely noticed.
The reforms that had previously been made public were already significant, including making 60% of conservation land eligible for sale or exchange, reducing the scrutiny required for certain commercial activities on public conservation land, enabling more development in specific areas, and shifting key decision-making powers from community-based boards to rest almost solely with the minister of conservation.
What’s more, obligations to iwi are being “clarified” – which has been criticised as meaning codified and narrowed, and attempting to ease the way for economic development and privatisation. These moves are seen as undermining many “full and final” Treaty settlement arrangements, and also reduce the Crown’s broader, ongoing Tiriti o Waitangi commitments and obligations.
But piggy-backing on these flagged changes is another fundamental shift in conservation legislation – one that was not consulted on and has still not been directly announced by the government. The Conservation Amendment Bill, which passed its first reading on Tuesday last week, quietly included material changes to the overarching purpose of the Conservation Act that were previously unknown.
Newly released documents reveal that in June 2025, after consultation had closed, Cabinet directed the minister of conservation to amend the purpose statement of the Conservation Act “to ensure that wider reforms to the conservation land management system enable greater economic development on conservation land”.
The “modernising conservation management” changes proposed last year would in themselves have led to increased economic development on the conservation estate. However, the extent of such development would have been partially constrained by the overriding purpose of the Conservation Act, with which conservation planning documents and decisions must be consistent.
In contrast to some laws that have one specific purpose clause, the Conservation Act’s purpose is drawn from a “purpose architecture” comprising several different parts of the law. Until now, the purpose architecture of the Conservation Act has given priority to conservation values, while also enabling recreational use of public conservation lands to be fostered and tourism allowed when these activities are not inconsistent with conservation. No express recognition was given to economic development.
However, the guardrails provided by the purpose of the Conservation Act are surreptitiously being pushed to the side by the bill being progressed by the government. The official documents outline that three intentionally “incisive” amendments to the law’s purpose are being implemented. These include making “allowing development” a subsidiary function of the Department of Conservation (DOC), and empowering statutory planning documents to facilitate it.
Conservation may appear to retain primacy in the new hierarchy of values, tabled last week in parliament. However, an amendment to Section 6 of the Conservation Act will require DOC to “recognise the economic opportunities that arise from the use and development of land and other natural resources” on public conservation land, and to “enable this use and development to the greatest extent practicable” under the laws. Similar language is repeated in the new purpose provisions for planning and concessions.
These changes serve to reduce constraints on economic development and the grounds for any legal challenges to that development. This is intentional – the retrospective supplementary analysis report on the changes to the Conservation Act’s purpose noted that the government’s primary objective was to enable greater economic development on public conservation land, while mitigating the risks of legal challenge was a subsidiary objective.
The changes to the law’s purpose insert the economic development of public conservation land into the heart of considerations made by DOC and the minister of conservation. It places a clear obligation on DOC to enable economic development, whenever possible within the bounds of the law.
The wording of the proposed clause, “to the greatest extent practicable”, also appears to place relatively greater priority on economic development opportunities than recreation going forward, changing the balance of how DOC manages the land it is entrusted with for the public.
The government’s analysis also briefly acknowledges that the proposed changes will have an impact on the Treaty settlements that refer to the purpose of the Conservation Act, and that cultural values more broadly may be diminished due to greater ability to approve economic development on public conservation land.
The purpose amendment, in combination with the codification of Treaty obligations for certain processes through the bill that have already been criticised, may dramatically alter the conservation landscape for many iwi.
Had this proposal to change the Conservation Act’s purpose been fully shared with the public prior to being introduced to parliament, it would possibly have been challenged in the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal. By introducing the legislation prior to the public becoming aware of this particular change, that path may have been circumvented.
The Conservation Amendment Bill passed its first reading last Tuesday night with minimal publicity or discussion of the far-reaching changes to the overarching purpose of the Conservation Act.
It is now over to the public to make their views known through the select committee process, with the government intending to pass the bill into law before the election.
