As debate over the Conservation Amendment Bill intensifies, iwi and environmental advocates in Hauraki say a central issue is being overlooked: much of the conservation estate sits on ancestral Māori land, and proposed changes could place future decisions over that whenua further beyond the reach of mana whenua.
The Conservation Amendment Bill proposes changes to how public conservation land is managed, which makes up about a third of New Zealand’s land area. Some changes are framed as streamlining and modernising decision-making processes.
However, Environmental groups, including Forest & Bird, say provisions in the Bill could make up to 60 per cent of the conservation estate eligible for disposal, exchange or development.
Conservation Minister Tama Potaka rejects claims the Government intends to sell large areas of conservation land, describing suggestions of a widespread sell-off as “spurious, scandalous, scurrilous and mischievous”.
“There’s no way we’re going to sell off large swathes or large parcels of land in the conservation estate. We’re not going to do that,” he asserts.
Potaka says the Bill is intended to clarify existing disposal processes and strengthen safeguards around decisions involving land exchanges, disposals and concessions.
Former Green MP and member of environmental advocacy group Hauraki Watchdog, Catherine Delahunty, disputes that characterisation, arguing concern stems from what is written in the legislation rather than ministerial assurances about how it may be used.
Hauraki Watchdog says the changes could leave nearly 40 per cent of their region exposed to disposal risk.
“Ultimately, conservation land is Māori land that has ended up in the hands of the government,” says Neville Williams, Watchdog spokesperson and uri of Ngāti Pūkenga and Ngāti Maru.
Why conservation land matters to Treaty settlements
For many iwi, conservation land remains one of the few categories of Crown-owned land that can be included in Treaty settlement redress. Unlike privately owned land, which is generally unavailable for return through the settlement process, conservation land can form part of cultural, commercial, or governance arrangements negotiated between iwi and the Crown.
Potaka says the proposed changes could, in some cases, make it easier for iwi to receive sites of significance currently tied up in lengthy legislative processes. He says some iwi have identified pā sites, urupā and other culturally significant areas they would like to own or manage, and that the Bill creates a clearer pathway for those transfers.
Opponents dispute that rationale. They argue much of the conservation estate already sits on ancestral Māori land, and say the issue is not how iwi might obtain culturally significant sites, but why they should have to seek ownership of them in the first place.
If iwi can be consulted and ignored, the Crown retains all power while mana whenua carry the consequences of those decisions.
— Herearoha Skipper, Chair of Ngāti Pāoa Trust
In Hauraki, those questions remain particularly relevant, as the Hauraki Collective settlement process remains unresolved. Opponents of the Conservation Amendment Bill argue that transferring conservation land into private ownership could remove future options for redress and limit the ability of future generations to reconnect with, govern, or seek the return of ancestral whenua.
Williams says that while iwi may not currently exercise full authority over conservation land, it remains accessible in ways that privately controlled land often is not.
Herearoha Skipper, Chair of Ngāti Pāoa Trust, says the proposed Conservation Amendment Bill raises concerns that extend beyond settlements and into the ability of future generations to maintain connections with ancestral whenua.
Skipper says the Bill risks closing the door on opportunities that future generations may otherwise have had to strengthen relationships with culturally significant landscapes.
“These lands are not surplus assets, they are part of our ancestral landscape and contain significant cultural, environmental and historical values that can’t be replaced once lost,” she explains.
Debate grows over Te Tiriti obligations
While the Bill does not change Section 4 of the Conservation Act, which requires the Act to be interpreted and administered in a way that gives effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it introduces new provisions setting out how Māori are to be engaged on matters such as land disposals, exchanges and concessions.
The government says the changes provide greater clarity and consistency. Critics argue they could narrow the practical effect of Section 4 by defining specific engagement processes with iwi and hapū, potentially limiting broader Treaty obligations previously recognised by the courts.
Potaka says the reforms are intended to create greater clarity around engagement requirements and improve the operation of the conservation system while maintaining existing protections.
Both Williams and Skipper say this does not amount to rangatiratanga and does not reflect genuine Treaty partnership.
“If iwi can be consulted and ignored, the Crown retains all power while mana whenua carry the consequences of those decisions,” Skipper stresses.
She says genuine partnership requires shared decision-making and recognition of mana whenua authority over matters affecting their taonga and whenua, pointing to Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Ultimately, conservation land is Māori land that has ended up in the hands of the government.
— Neville Williams, Hauraki Watchdog
Fears proposed changes could undermine Schedule 4 safeguards
In the Coromandel, Watchdog says its biggest concern is the prospect of conservation land being transferred into private ownership, potentially opening the door to further mining development.
Tama Potaka rejects suggestions that the Bill is intended to facilitate mining, saying mining activity is regulated through the Crown Minerals Act rather than the Conservation Act.
“Any suggestion that this is all about mining has got nothing to do with the actual facts,” he said.
“We’re not selling national parks. We’re not selling wilderness reserves. We’re not going to do that.”
Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki argues that the issue is not whether the Bill directly changes mining law, but whether it alters the status of conservation land itself.
The organisation believes the proposed changes to the Conservation Act could have even greater consequences for the Coromandel than the Fast-track Approvals Act.
While the Bill does not directly amend Schedule 4 protections under the Crown Minerals Act 1991, Watchdog argues it could weaken those safeguards in practice if conservation land is removed from public ownership. It says land that is part of the conservation estate may no longer be subject to the same restrictions that currently limit mining activity in Schedule 4 areas.
Delahunty argues the proposed criteria for assessing land could prioritise whether it contains the “best examples” of threatened species or ecosystems, rather than recognising the wider ecological networks needed to sustain biodiversity.
She says this approach risks overlooking the broader landscapes required for species survival.
“You can’t just have the best examples. Species need buffer zones, they need regeneration areas, you need wide areas of biodiversity to support them,” she said.
‘Ko te taiao te kaupapa matua,’ Williams says
In Hauraki, mining impacts extend beyond extraction sites with heavy metals affecting waterways, ecosystems and access to the environment.
“People come all over the world, from all over Aotearoa, to the Coromandel for its natural beauty. They don’t come here to look at gold mines. They don’t come here to be shut out from that whenua because gold mines are operating on them,” Williams remarks.
He goes on to say that alienation from whenua has long been a consequence of colonisation, and further development risks deepening that disconnect.
Herearoha Skipper says Ngāti Pāoa shares concerns that weakening protections could increase pressure for developments that alter culturally and environmentally significant landscapes.
“For Hauraki whānui, for all of us here in Hauraki, we’ve already experienced generations of environmental degradation through the loss of forests, wetlands, and waterways. Kāore mātou e hiahia kia tukurua ngā hē o mua.”
She says conservation land should be strengthened, not reduced in status.
Public response and political context
Public concern over the Conservation Amendment Bill has been widely expressed online and through submissions.
According to Local Democracy Reporting, the proposed changes would shift decision-making away from Conservation Boards and the New Zealand Conservation Authority and place greater authority with the Minister of Conservation. The reforms would reduce approval powers for these statutory bodies, leaving them in a more advisory role.
Opposition groups have also drawn parallels with the Fast-track Approvals Act, which they say was opposed by around 95% of public submissions but still passed during consultation.
Since coming into force in 2025, some mining activity in Waihi has progressed from consent to development within months, which critics say reflects earlier warnings.
Minister for Conservation says public concern reflects a strong commitment New Zealanders have to conservation and says he remains open to feedback through the select committee process. He says the Government is listening to submissions and is prepared to consider improvements that provide greater public confidence in the reforms.
Submissions for the Bill close on July 2, and the Select Committee is due to report back on the Bill in November.
