When conservation remains primary, but development becomes the instruction
The puzzle in the government’s own report
The government’s own newly released analysis of the Conservation Act purpose change contains a puzzle. Public conservation land is already widely available for compatible economic activity. DOC already approves almost all concession applications. Yet, in June 2025, after consultation on the wider reform package had closed, Cabinet directed the Minister of Conservation to amend the Act’s purpose-related provisions so the reforms could enable greater economic development on conservation land.
The timing is not incidental. The purpose change was not among the changes the government had clearly announced and consulted on. Those announced reforms — to concessions, planning documents, decision making, land exchanges and disposals, and Treaty-related processes — are significant in themselves. But the Bill now before Parliament goes much further. It changes the instructions that will guide DOC, Ministers, applicants, planning documents and courts.
I have written for The Spinoff about the late, unconsulted nature of this purpose change. Here, I want to focus on the next question: if the system is already so permissive, why change the Act’s statutory instructions at all?
The government’s reassurance is that conservation will remain the primary purpose of the Conservation Act 1987. In a narrow technical sense, that may be right. The Bill does not strike out conservation and replace it with development. It does not say public conservation land should now be treated as ordinary Crown land, available for whatever economic use can be found for it.
Instead, it does something more difficult to see at first glance. It leaves conservation at the top of the hierarchy, while inserting economic development into the provisions that tell the Department of Conservation (DOC), Ministers, planning documents and concession decisions how that hierarchy is to work. The precise wording is doing a lot of work.
What the Bill actually says
Under the Bill, recreation would continue to be fostered only “to the extent consistent with” conservation. Economic use and development are given a different, stronger instruction. DOC would be required to recognise the economic opportunities arising from the use and development of land and resources it manages, and to enable that use and development “to the greatest extent practicable” under the Conservation Act and other enactments. Those are materially different instructions.
The Bill could have said economic development may be allowed where it is not inconsistent with conservation. It could have kept development in the category of things that may occur on conservation land in appropriate cases, within a conservation-first framework. It could have remained within the parameters of the proposals consulted on last year, and made technical changes to allow increased economic development, without changing the overriding purpose of the Conservation Act.
It does not do that. It tells DOC to recognise economic opportunities, and to enable use and development as far as practicable within the relevant legal limits. Far from being a minor drafting choice, this changes what the conservation system is being asked to keep in view. It also brings the basic question back into view: what is public conservation land for?
Purpose is not housekeeping
The Conservation Act does not have one neat, standalone purpose clause. Its purpose is built through several provisions, including the definitions of conservation, preservation and protection, the long title, the purposes for which different categories of land are held, and the functions of DOC.
That is why changing section 6 matters. This goes well beyond housekeeping. It affects the architecture of the Act, and its interpretation. But section 6 is not the only purpose-related provision being amended. The same enabling logic is carried beyond section 6 — into planning and concessions — a point I return to below.
The government’s own Supplementary Analysis Report, finalised in April 2026 as a retrospective analysis of earlier Cabinet decisions, makes the intention reasonably plain. In June 2025, after public consultation on the wider conservation reform package had closed, Cabinet directed the Minister of Conservation to amend the purpose of the Conservation Act so that the wider reforms to the conservation land management system would enable greater economic development on public conservation land.
The report also says the current prioritisation of conservation values is one factor that constrains how far the new National Conservation Policy Statement and area plans can go in enabling economic development.
That tells us something important. The report is unusually clear that the current conservation-first settings do not let the new planning documents go as far as the government wants. The purpose change is the way around that problem.
A targeted change, or a system-wide signal?
The report presents the proposed amendments as targeted and “incisive”. It says conservation will remain primary. It suggests the change is likely to affect only a small number of concession applications that might otherwise be declined.
That may sound reassuring. It also exposes the central tension in the report: if almost all concessions are already granted, why alter the Act’s interpretive frame? The answer appears to be less about the immediate number of extra approvals, and more about the legal direction of the system.
The report measures the change as if the main issue is how many individual concession applications might move from “declined” to “approved”. But the Bill operates at a higher level than that. It is not written as only making small amendments to individual concession decision tests.
The same development-enabling language is threaded through the purposes of the new planning architecture. The National Conservation Policy Statement would be given the purpose of recognising economic opportunities and enabling use and development to the greatest extent practicable. Area plans would carry the same purpose at regional and local levels. The concessions framework is also reframed around enabling use and development, rather than simply deciding whether particular activities should be allowed. That will shape the rules and assumptions future conservation decisions begin from.
The purpose change will matter when DOC officials write advice. It will also matter when the National Conservation Policy Statement is drafted, when area plans are prepared, when applicants frame their proposals, when the Minister justifies decisions, and when iwi, hapū, conservation groups and local communities object or challenge them. That is why the repeated reassurance is not enough.
What happens when economic development becomes something DOC must actively enable? What happens when the planning documents that guide future decisions are themselves required to recognise economic opportunities and facilitate greater use and development? What happens when applicants can point to that language and argue that Parliament has told DOC and the Minister to enable use and development as far as practicable?
When conservation becomes the threshold
A conservation-first framework asks what a place, species, ecosystem, landscape, or relationship requires, given the purpose for which the land is protected. A development-enabling framework asks how far use and development can be enabled, provided conservation does not rule it out. The distinction may sound subtle, but it is significant. Over time, these two starting points can produce very different answers.
The danger is not that conservation disappears from the Act. It is that conservation risks becoming the line development must not cross, rather than the reason the land is held. Development does not need to advance conservation. It only needs to be framed as not inconsistent with it, while the statutory machinery is told to recognise economic opportunities and enable use and development to the greatest extent practicable.
That is why the phrase matters so much. “To the greatest extent practicable” is active language. It is not a neutral acknowledgement that some economic activity may occur, but is an instruction to go as far as the law practicably allows.
What the report does not test
The Supplementary Analysis Report gives little confidence that those downstream effects have been seriously examined. It acknowledges that the purpose-related changes were not included in the earlier public consultation, and that no subsequent public consultation was undertaken. It says Cabinet had already directed the scope of the change, limiting the options officials considered. It also acknowledges that time, scope and consultation constraints affected DOC’s ability to undertake in-depth analysis.
Officials further acknowledge that, without a fuller understanding of the exact activities the changes are intended to enable, they had limited ability to assess whether those activities would be better enabled on public conservation land. That is a thin basis for changing the legal purpose of conservation law.
The report does not meaningfully examine how the purpose change may affect DOC’s institutional culture, Ministerial decision-making, the content of the first National Conservation Policy Statement, area plans, legal advice, applicant expectations, Treaty settlement redress, iwi relationships, public recreation, or cumulative pressure on particular places.
Instead, it treats that formal hierarchy as the answer. But that does not settle the question. The practical effect of a law also depends on the instructions sitting underneath that hierarchy. If those instructions repeatedly tell decision-makers to recognise economic opportunities and enable use and development as far as practicable, the conservation purpose may remain in place while doing less work than it did before.
The report is also clearer about who is expected to benefit than about what conservation or New Zealanders may lose. Potential concessionaires are identified as the primary beneficiaries, while impacts on cultural, recreational, historic and natural values are treated as minor and manageable through conditions.
It also briefly mentions Treaty settlement implications. Some settlements refer back to the purpose of the Conservation Act, and the report accepts that changing that purpose will have an impact. But again, the impact is effectively minimised on the basis that conservation remains formally primary.
That is a significant assumption, and the report does not explore how a changed statutory purpose may alter the practical context in which Treaty settlement commitments, cultural values, iwi and hapū relationships, and place-based obligations are interpreted.
Those flow-on effects are important, and I will come back to the Treaty settlement and cultural implications in more detail soon in this series of articles.
[subscribe button]
Legal risk is part of the objective
The government’s report is explicit on this point: greater economic development on public conservation land is the primary objective, and mitigating the risk of legal challenge is subsidiary. Reducing legal risk is not just a side effect of the change; it is part of the stated objective.
If economic enablement is written into those purpose-related provisions, future Ministers and applicants will have stronger statutory language to defend development-enabling decisions. Communities, conservation groups, iwi and hapū may still object to particular proposals. But they will be doing so under provisions that direct DOC and the Minister to enable use and development to the greatest extent practicable.
That does not mean every proposed activity will be approved. But it may alter the centre of gravity: from “why should this be allowed on conservation land?” to “why should this not be enabled, if it can be made not inconsistent with conservation?”
Where the contest moves
It is also likely to affect where the real contests happen. If the National Conservation Policy Statement and area plans are required to enable use and development, then the most important decisions may be made upstream, in the documents that set the frame before individual concession applications are even lodged.
That matters even more because, through the same Bill, as previously announced, key planning decisions are being shifted away from the New Zealand Conservation Authority and community-based conservation boards, and towards the Minister. Those bodies would still be able to comment and advise, but they would no longer hold the same approval role in the planning system. In a framework newly directed towards enabling economic development, concentrating power in the Minister also increases the risk that commercial lobbying will shape the rules before any particular application is considered.
Once an activity, place, or category of use has been framed as appropriate in those documents, later decisions may become much harder to contest. Communities and iwi may find themselves having to fight earlier, in more technical planning processes, rather than at the point where a concrete proposal is before them.
The report does not appear to grapple with that shift: how decision-making power shifts, and what assumptions are built into the system before the public sees a particular application.
The government says this is not a fundamental shift away from conservation. But a change does not need to be presented as fundamental to have serious consequences over time.
What public conservation land is for
Public conservation land is not ordinary Crown land. It is land held because some places, species, ecosystems, landscapes and relationships are meant to be protected from the ordinary pressures of commercial use. For many iwi, hapū and whānau, it is ancestral land, holding wāhi tapu, taonga and relationships that long predate the conservation estate.
None of this means no use can occur. It never has. But use has been organised around conservation, and increasingly also around local relationships to place, not the other way around.
That is what this Bill begins to change. It does not need to say development comes first. It only needs to tell the conservation system, again and again, to recognise economic opportunities and enable them as far as practicable.
A change of that significance should have been openly consulted on, closely scrutinised, and properly analysed before it was put before Parliament. It was not.