Lauded by the government as a modernisation that will cut red tape, the Conservation Amendment Bill has passed its first reading – to claims of ‘commercialisation over conservation’ from opponents.

The government is pushing on with conservation reforms it says cut red tape and enable fees for foreign tourists visiting New Zealand’s premium natural areas.

The opposition warns it opens up 60% of the conservation estate to sale, and changes how current treaty settlements are interpreted.

The Conservation Amendment Bill passed its first reading supported by the coalition parties, and opposed by the opposition – 68 votes to 54.

Conservation minister Tama Potaka – who called it the most significant reform to conservation law in 40 years – said it was about modernising the management of conservation land and supporting economic growth.

The bill enables international visitors to be charged a levy for access to some areas of conservation land, with the minister saying those details would be worked out at a later date.

“Yes, we are going to charge foreigners to go on some tracks around the country,” Potaka told parliament.

“Conservation and economic development do not sit in opposition to one another all the time. Done properly they can support one another – that’s what we believe in.”

The bill also makes changes to how concessions – permissions for tourism and other operations on conservation land – are managed; enables “amenity areas” where buildings like toilets or potentially eateries could be established; simplifies planning in line with the Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms; and amends or clarifies how treaty settlement and takutai moana rights are upheld.

Labour’s conservation spokesperson Priyanca Radhakrishnan warned it would also open up 60% of conservation land to being sold, including areas home to species considered “at risk” rather than endangered – like the Lewis Pass beech forests.

She said it went far further than modernisation.

“It’s a sneaky, egregious bill that goes so much further, it is the most significant rollback of conservation protections in a generation and it puts commercialisation over conservation. And that minister should be ashamed.”

Greens co-leader Marama Davidson was similarly outraged, saying the coalition had chosen to put profit over the environment – particularly given the $135 million in cuts to the Department of Conservation during this term.

She said it would also put more power in the hands of ministers, while reducing independent and public oversight.

The Act Party’s Cameron Luxton argued the changes would prioritise people.

“For too long, New Zealand has had a conservation system that often treats people as the problem. It has treated a new track, a new hut, a new wharf, a better facility … or a business who’s looking to provide an experience, as something suspicious before it’s even been considered.”

NZ First’s Andy Foster welcomed the faster processing of concessions and the new treaty clause, which would insert a new section in the Conservation Act. Potaka said this new section, 4A, would “provide more clarity” on section 4 of the principal act, which requires the act to be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Foster said that rather than removing the existing treaty clause in the Conservation Act – “which would have been quite good, in our view, I think” – the new clause helped “interpret what this means”.

“As I read it, it says ‘you are going to engage’.”

But Labour’s Rachel Brooking said the clause was a “watering down” that would “undermine active protection”, while her colleague Jo Luxton said it would “hollow out and replace the ‘giving effect to’ with a procedural checklist”.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi warned it would have a chilling effect on those yet to reach a Treaty settlement, describing the bill as another part of the coalition’s “ram raid” on conservation.

“This demonstrates a blanket lack of good faith, and only adds to the iwi Māori suspicion of the Crown’s ability to act with honour,” he said.

“Amending settlement legislation cannot be taken lightly – how can this government believe it can amend any legislation regarding Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it continues to fail to uphold it?”

Potaka, however, was adamant the government remained committed to honouring settlements and good-faith negotiations.

“We want to be clear, the wording of section 4 is not being changed,” he said.

“This bill provides greater certainty about what it means, and of course members of the opposition know there is no veto – that’s what the supreme court said and that’s what this government says.”

The bill’s first reading came the same day the coalition announced it would override the supreme court, which had agreed a lawsuit challenging companies’ climate records under tort law could go ahead.

In a move the activist taking the case – iwi leader Mike Smith – called “an affront to democracy”, the government now planned to ban such cases.

After the bill’s passage, the next piece of legislation up for debate was the second reading of legislation that would abolish the Ministry for the Environment, so the government could merge the department into the new MCERT (Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport) mega-ministry.

This story was first published on rnz.co.nz