a tectured background of NZ notes, with an outline of a ticket in the centre and an NZ icon on top of that ticket. There's a photo of a pretty lake and some hilssi n the foreground (at the base of gertrude valley if you're interested) the kind of generic pretty nature there is heaps of in New Zealand, often protected as conservation land

Charging for access to conservation land could give DoC much needed funds. What’s the tradeoff? (Image: Shanti Mathias)

PoliticsMarch 31, 2025

The proposed changes to DOC land – and the reaction to them – explained

Contributing writer

Charging for access to conservation land could give DoC much needed funds. What’s the tradeoff? (Image: Shanti Mathias)

A proposal to shake up how conservation land is managed could mean people are charged to access parts of national parks. Shanti Mathias explains the proposed changes, and what people have said in response.

Almost a third of New Zealand – 32.9% of the country’s total land area – is classified as conservation land. This includes national and regional parks, stewardship land and QEII and Ngā Whenua Rāhui covenants. Around 50% of New Zealanders visit a national park annually, along with thousands of international tourists.

A new proposal to “modernise” how this land is governed has attracted submissions from hunters, mountain climbers and conservationists.

“The world has changed considerably since the Conservation Act was enacted in 1987,” conservation minister Tama Potaka told Morning Report in November. “We are asking people to get their feedback in around the potential to charge for access in some places – not all places, not most places, but in some very popular places.”

shadows fall between blue, steep mountains in the evening sunlight, with a twining flat glimpse of a fjord beyond — A view of Piopiotahi/Milford Sound from Gertrude Saddle, a popular spot for tourists to visit and on conservation land. (Photo: Shanti Mathias)

What are these changes?

In November, DOC released discussion documents concerning two ways to update how conservation land is managed. Charging for access to some areas under DOC’s management would be a source of income for the department, which has faced recent cuts. While it has raised some money – 7% of its overall budget annually – from the international visitor levy, DOC has said there is a 30% shortfall in the money it needs to maintain huts and tracks. It was also carrying out some operations, like trapping, with Jobs for Nature money, a Covid stimulus that is now coming to an end.

At the moment, national parks and other conservation land is free to access for anyone. However, all international visitors to New Zealand pay a $100 visitor levy, some of which goes to conservation, and visitors to Stewart Island pay a $10 levy on top of that. There are numerous paid experiences, like helicopter flights and landings, private guiding and private huts, which take place on conservation land. The first proposal lays out reasons how and why DOC could charge for access to some of these popular spots.

The second proposal is about the management of concessions, which are permits that allow non-conservation activities to happen on conservation land, such as commercial tourism and recreation, or infrastructure maintenance of pipes or electricity pylons. The stated goals of these proposed changes are to “generate revenue” , “reduce red tape”, strengthen iwi and hapū relationships and “identify and strengthen protection of high-value conservation areas”. This would include a simplified process for applying for a concession, making applying for concessions more competitive and having set timeframes to take action, meaning decisions would be faster. The proposal also considers how “low- or no-value” land could have its conservation status removed and how to make it easier to establish amenity areas (like carparks and toilets) within national parks to reduce congestion in high-traffic areas like the Aoraki visitor centre and Piopiotahi/Milford Sound.

a view from a small plane window of a glacier covered in stones and snowy mountains — Most of the Southern Alps are protected as conservation land. (Photo: Shanti Mathias)

The changes are framed as “modernising” the Conservation Act and ensuring “equity between users of public conservation land, and between the taxpayer and users”, according to the discussion document. However, the suggestion of paying for access to conservation land has raised big questions about whether this land is valuable only for people who use it, or for everyone.

What are people saying about the changes?

Submissions on the proposed changes closed at the end of February, and many interested groups publicly released theirs. Many submitters agreed it was vital to maintain a focus on conservation, not just recreational and tourist use and concessions for other activities. Here are some other key points:

The Environmental Defense Society said the proposals needed to include climate change considerations, and that consultation with the public would be vital before a minister established amenity areas. It also opposed the idea of using a “conservation value” test before removing public conservation status from an area of land, and said that local iwi and hapū needed a right of first refusal over any land being sold.

Forest and Bird, using a template it set up to help others submit, said the value of conservation land should be preserved, without making it easier for the government to change its status. Proposed charges should not prevent New Zealanders from connecting with nature.

The New Zealand Deerstalkers Association was concerned there was almost no reference to recreational hunting in the discussion document. It suggested that updates to the Conservation Act and related legislation should focus on “selective management” of animals like deer and tahr rather than trying to remove all non-native species from conservation land.

State-owned grid operator Transpower, which has about 5% of its infrastructure running through conservation land, said the Conservation and Wildlife Protection Acts can make it hard to carry out important maintenance work on electricity infrastructure. Simplifying the process of getting planning permissions and concessions for work and upgrades in concession areas would make things easier for the organisation.

View of a snow-capped mountain under a clear blue sky, surrounded by dry grass and shrubbery in the foreground. — Mount Ruapehu is protected as part of Tongariro National Park (Photo: Getty Images)

Simon Upton, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, said that while some of the problems with conservation land management as it stands had been identified, a blanket national response wasn’t always the solution. “Access to public conservation land and the experiences it can offer is a regional issue, not just a national one,” he wrote. He criticised the idea of having area plans focused on concessions for conservation land as a “transactional approach to the conservation system that ignores the primary purpose of the conservation system” – ie conserving nature.

The Federated Mountain Clubs said that charging to access conservation land wouldn’t fix some of the issues that come with having large numbers of tourists, especially given the model of using the international visitor levy to fund conservation and tourism, which “both promote[s] New Zealand as an iconic destination [and pays] for the environmental costs of tourism”. Charges could discourage volunteers, who currently carry out some track and hut maintenance work, and would be expensive to implement. The submission was broadly supportive of improving the process for concessions.

The New Zealand Law Society said that while the proposals addressed long-running concerns with management of conservation land, they raised new legal issues. Referencing the Fast-Track Approvals legislation, the Law Society said it was “concerned that the proposals also mark a shift towards concentrating ministerial power and undermining systemic checks and balances on executive decision-making, in ways not fully acknowledged in the discussion material. When considered together with other current reforms, these are part of a wider and concerning pattern.”

When will these changes be finalised? Will a law change be needed to confirm them?

Yes, charging for conservation land would require a law change and select committee process, meaning more chances for public feedback along the way. According to the discussion document, any confirmed changes, like charges for accessing specific areas, will be announced in 2026, when the public will be able to respond again.

In a statement to The Spinoff, Tama Potaka confirmed that after it has worked through submissions, DOC would provide him with advice soon. “While exact timing for the process after that will depend on the government’s wider work programme, it is my intention for the amendments to come into force this parliamentary term,” he said.

Keep going!

A woman in a white shirt stands against a background featuring a repetitive police emblem with a crown, shield, and the word "POLICE." The image has a glitchy, digital effect.

Tamatha Paul (Image: The Spinoff)

OPINIONPoliticsMarch 28, 2025

Is Tamatha Paul in ‘la-la land’? Here’s what the evidence says

Emmy Rākete

Guest writer

Grace Gordon

Guest writer

Peyton Bond

Guest writer

Tamatha Paul (Image: The Spinoff)

Three criminologists explain how a history of negative experiences of policing will affect how some communities view the police – and it’s crucial that the opinions of these communities are heard.

Over the last day, a media frenzy has erupted over Green Party MP for Wellington Central Tamatha Paul’s comments criticising the police. As criminologists at three of New Zealand’s major universities, this furore seems somewhat ridiculous to us. Paul argued that police beat patrols make some people feel unsafe, that the police have a history of discrimination, and that there are a number of tasks for which the police are not the appropriate responders. This prompted outrage from the government as well as the Labour Party, with various politicians claiming she was “ill-informed” and in “la la land”. The only problem with all of this is that, from a criminological perspective, Tamatha Paul is completely correct.

Paul’s critique of policing was made at a university panel discussion, an event at which she was asked to share her constituents’ perspectives. Speaking for communities and sharing their opinions on issues that matter to them is literally the task of electorate MPs. That’s why we have them. Paul commented that police patrols, as visible expressions of the state’s coercive power, mean a different thing to the community she represents than they may mean to others. A history of negative experiences of policing will affect how communities view the police. Criminologists began collecting evidence that the New Zealand Police engaged in racist discrimination decades ago. Last year’s Understanding Police Delivery report, co-produced by researchers and the police themselves, affirmed that this discrimination continues into the present. Māori are around seven times more likely than Pākehā to be the victims of police violence. This reality affects how the communities Paul represents perceive the police. They, and she, have a right to share that perception.

When politicians criticise Paul for sharing her constituents’ views of the police, they are attempting to render these opinions inexpressible. It’s worth considering whose voices get to be heard in public and whose voices are categorically dismissed. Research conducted in West Auckland showed that different communities held different opinions on policing. Pākehā communities were indeed found to support increased police patrols, but Māori and Pacific people overwhelmingly preferred other justice measures. When these populations are also those disproportionately targeted by the police, it is crucial that their opinions be heard. The conversation about justice policy cannot be a monocultural monologue. The people Paul is speaking for are part of the public too, and their opinions are at least as important as those of the business owners and politicians who have tried to shut them out.

It is also crucial to remember that the NZ Police, as outlined in the Policing Bill 2007, is “an instrument of the Crown”. As instruments of the Crown – armed instruments of the Crown – the police must at the very least be held to high standards and challenged by the communities they purport to serve. They must also be responsive to the historical and present injustices perpetrated by their forces. Just this week, RNZ reported that an 11-year-old girl was handcuffed, taken to a mental health facility, and injected with powerful antipsychotics after police misidentified her as a 20-year-old. Paul mentions this horrific event and asserts the need for alternative non-police protocols for mental health callouts. Despite police minister Mark Mitchell dismissing Paul’s concerns as “laughable”, Mitchell himself said in July 2024 that police were not trained to respond to mental health callouts and the system of police response was “not working properly” for those experiencing mental distress. The entire parliamentary right appears to be united in ferocious condemnation of Paul for positions the police minister himself holds.

Paul’s other concerns were sparked by community organisations reaching out to her with concerns about police confiscating homeless people’s few belongings. The dismissal of this claim – despite it, again, being completely true – is cause for further concern about how the police and government are treating and responding to our most vulnerable populations. Paul’s key point – one that she has reiterated over the past day – is that “not everyone’s interactions [with the police] are the same”. This claim is indisputable. The discipline of criminology is founded on this fact. From repressive policing of Māori communities at Bastion Point, Rūātoki and Ihumātao, to racialised surveillance of young Māori in 2022, to the everyday violence of systemic racist discrimination, we see how policing maintains the racist oppression and class exploitation on which this country was founded. It’s never done anything else.

David Seymour asked if Tamatha Paul supported policing, or “some other world, and how would that work?” As criminologists, we say proudly that we support some world other than this one ruled by inequality, exploitation and injustice. The safe, healthy and thriving communities we all say that we want can only be achieved by addressing the root causes of insecurity. We must ensure that everyone’s needs are provided for. Expanding access to affordable housing, mental health support, youth development programmes and food to eat will do far more to prevent crime than just unleashing police patrols on the poor.

‘Help keep The Spinoff funny, smart, tall and handsome – become a member today.’

Gabi Lardies
— Staff writer

That Paul’s remarks, as well-evidenced and reasonable as they are, were met with such fervent opposition from four party leaders is deeply concerning, and reflects a broader shift towards rightwing populism. Four decades of neoliberal economic policy have made New Zealand a paradise for the rich and a nightmare for the poor – a place of tax breaks, benefit sanctions, holidays in Queenstown, and sleeping in gutters. There are policy choices that we could make to keep people warm, fed, housed and connected. New Zealand would be a better place, and a safer place, if we did. Tamatha Paul is being shouted down not because she said anything ridiculous, but because she said something sensible. This is not an ill-informed dream of some impossible world, but a world that almost exists – a world so possible that we could choose to call it into being.