A new government proposal could open up millions of hectares of public land for sale or disposal.

A version of this article was originally published on Melanie Nelson’s Substack Disinterpeted.

If successful, the government’s Modernising Conservation Land Management proposals would mark the most far-reaching shake-up of New Zealand’s public conservation estate in a generation. 

The plan centres on making around five million hectares – over 60% of public conservation land – eligible to be sold or exchanged if deemed surplus or needed to support other government priorities. Concessions processes will also be overhauled, with the government’s explicit intention to “unleash economic growth on one third of New Zealand’s land”.

Public conservation land covers about 8.5 million hectares, or one third of New Zealand’s total land area. This includes national parks, conservation parks, reserves and stewardship land. For perspective, five million ha is roughly 30% of the entire South Island

These areas are highly valued for their ecological and scenic value, as cultural landscapes, for recreation and as the backdrop for our significant tourism industry.

What land is on the line

Currently, the threshold for disposing of public conservation land is strong, ensuring it is retained in the public interest. A cabinet paper on the proposed reforms stated: “Disposal of public conservation land is currently limited to reserves and stewardship areas that have been assessed as having ‘no or very low’ conservation values. In practice this is too restrictive.” 

While the government does not appear to be proposing large-scale proactive disposals of conservation land, the law change is significant nonetheless. Under the new settings, the government could determine that land with medium or high conservation values was “surplus to conservation needs” or repurpose it to “support other government priorities by making land available for development”.

Land disposals would be subject to tests to protect conservation values and other factors like public access, cultural and historical significance. However, critics note that “surplus” is not clearly defined, leaving open the possibility that land with substantial biodiversity or cultural value could be lost to private ownership or more intensive commercial use. 

The government has noted that 40% of conservation land would not be eligible for disposal – namely national parks, nature reserves, wilderness areas and sites with World Heritage or Ramsar designation.

While a detailed list of sites has not been provided, the five million ha which may become eligible for sale or exchange likely includes:

• Stewardship land (2.4m ha) – much of it still unassessed for conservation value, but known to contain areas of high ecological and cultural significance.
• Other Department of Conservation-managed areas – including conservation parks, forest parks and most types of reserves. 

Alongside the disposal provisions, the proposals seek to increase amenities areas and streamline concessions for commercial activities on conservation land by pre-approving or exempting some types of activities, setting new statutory timeframes for decisions, reducing public notification and reconsideration steps and allowing longer terms or competitive allocation of some types of concessions. This could lead to faster approvals for tourism, mining or infrastructure projects. It could also facilitate more intensive development – potentially even in currently sensitive areas – through a more market-driven allocation process, including pre-approvals for activities deemed lower-impact.

Also tabled is the removal of statutory planning decision-making powers from the New Zealand Conservation Authority / Te Pou Taiao o Aotearoa and Conservation Boards. The current multi-layer policy and planning process would be replaced by a National Conservation Policy Statement and a single tier of Area Plans. Decision making for all statutory plans would be shifted to the minister of conservation (currently Tama Potaka).

This would be a highly significant change for conservation lands, as the conservation authority and boards consist of a wide range of community and iwi members, providing crucial checks and balances for lands which are essentially held in trust for the public.

Treaty principles at the core

Conservation lands are the traditional lands of tāngata whenua, and much of it was appropriated in unjust ways. A critical fault in the proposals lies in how the Crown proposes to uphold Treaty principles – specifically through section 4 of the Conservation Act –and the essential role of iwi in decisions about conservation land.

Section 4 obliges the Department of Conservation and the minister of conservation to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when exercising conservation powers. It applies not just to the Conservation Act, but to all conservation legislation listed on Schedule 1 of the Conservation Act. 

Significantly, it was recently reported that the government has removed the Conservation Act and the Crown Minerals Act from its broader Treaty clause review – opting to subject both to a separate, standalone review instead. This decision underscores their complexity and distinct importance in managing Crown obligations, and the legal risks to the Crown, particularly regarding the interdependence of Treaty settlements with conservation legislation.

The government has signalled in the Modernising Conservation proposals its intention to retain section 4, but clarify specific requirements to give effect to Treaty principles in management planning, concessions processes, amenities areas, and for land exchanges and disposals. 

The importance of iwi input

In his submission on the proposed conservation reforms, the parliamentary commissioner for the environment, Simon Upton, emphasised that conservation decisions must reflect both national and regional perspectives:

“…different hapū and iwi will also have their own taonga and significant places on public land that need to be protected. For that reason, access to public conservation land and the experiences it can offer must also be considered regionally.”

The Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the Wai 262 claim acknowledges the conservation estate is far more than protected scenery – it’s a repository of taonga places, where kaitiaki relationships with the land endure:

“The conservation estate… is home to most of the surviving ‘taonga places’, where kaitiaki relationships with the natural environment and flora and fauna are possible in a way that they are not in other areas.”

For many iwi, the conservation estate holds ancestral whenua, sources of rongoā, wāhi tapu, and taonga species – elements essential to maintaining identity, tino rangatiratanga and cultural continuity. The Waitangi Tribunal affirms:

“Within the conservation estate is ancestral whenua, taonga species, ngahere, wāhi tapu, sources of rongoā and kai… The Treaty guaranteed that such taonga would remain in the control of whānau, hapū and iwi for as long as they wished to possess them.”

The five million ha that the proposed law changes would make possible to exchange or dispose of represent some of New Zealand’s most significant natural landscapes and ecosystems, and are of immense value to iwi, hapū and communities throughout New Zealand. 

The voices of local communities, iwi, advocacy groups and those who enjoy recreational activities on conservation land have played a strong role in protecting and retaining public conservation lands for all New Zealanders, our international visitors and our many native species which are found nowhere else in the world. These proposals suggest that public conservation land and the public’s role in determining its future should not be taken for granted. 

The government intends to introduce the legislation to make these changes next year. At that point there will be an opportunity for the public to contribute through the select committee process, with the legislation expected to pass prior to the 2026 election.

Balancing economic growth with the protection of our conservation estate is not just about defending access, biodiversity and cultural heritage – it is about safeguarding the heart of our nation for future generations. 

A version of this article was originally published on Melanie Nelson’s Substack Disinterpeted.