Could we be saying ‘ka kite' to our conservation estate?
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
21 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Could we be saying ‘ka kite' to our conservation estate?
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.
NZ Herald
13-08-2025
- NZ Herald
Highest-paid public sector chairs – how they compare with the private sector
The company's 2025 survey of directors, which covered 342 organisations across both sectors and 342 chairs, found that private sector chairpersons earn more than double the fees of their public sector counterparts, across an overall median for all entity sizes. Strategic Pay's sample puts median pay for private sector non-executive chairs at $132,815, while the public sector median is just $62,000. Strategic Pay managing director Cathy Hendry. Hendry noted that there is 'always a public sector discount … it's a long-term trend'. She said the lower pay in the public sector is driven by affordability and the source of the funding, which typically comes with much higher public scrutiny. Indeed, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon felt the heat of that public scrutiny last month, when news broke that new guidance would allow public boards to award hefty pay hikes. Labour finance spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds emphasised that the National coalition has found 'no money to help families with rising costs, but when it comes to … pay rises for Crown board members, then suddenly their pockets are full'. For his part, Luxon suggested that low board pay might damage the Government's ability to recruit the right people: 'This is just acknowledging that we need to make sure that we can attract good people … [it's] important that we actually are able to attract really good governance, of the Health NZ board for example.' Systematic fee increases began 7 months ago The Treasury has its own framework for board fee calculation, the Crown Companies Fees Methodology, and this applies to a limited subset of Crown-owned companies, including the state-owned enterprises. Last year, it advised ministers, based on benchmarking it commissioned from Strategic Pay, that 83% of all Treasury-managed Crown boards have fees below 70% of comparative market rates (both the Treasury and Strategic Pay declined to release the benchmarking work; Hendry said it is commercially sensitive). Last August, the Cabinet agreed on a two-step fee increase for these entities (excluding several, such as Southern Response Earthquake Services, which was within the target rate, and NZ Green Investment Finance, whose chair Cecilia Tarrant is on $98,000, which already enjoyed fees above the target rate). Ministers agreed on a January 1 change that increased board fees for 17 entities to 85% of the level Strategic Pay calculated the Crown rate should be – the Crown rate was set 10% below the market rate. A second increase, to bring fees up to the Crown rate, is scheduled for January 1 2026. Across both the public and the private sector, a rough rule of thumb holds that board chairs do twice as much work as regular board members. The Treasury's framework pays board chairs twice the fee of ordinary members; however, shareholding ministers approve a total annual director fee budget, and it's possible, though uncommon, for boards to allocate the chair fees that are below the figure calculated under the Treasury formula. The pay hikes are not related to good performance – the likes of Landcorp and NZ Post, where chair fees are rising 41% and 84% respectively, have been laggards – but the related Cabinet Paper makes it clear that the Government hopes the higher fees will help to attract better candidates. Both Landcorp and NZ Post have new chairs, appointed in the past year. The biggest annual fee increase accrues to Mark Binns, chair of Crown Infrastructure Partners, the remit of which has expanded considerably over his tenure. His pay will more than double. Before the rise, Binns' fee stood at $63,000. That rose to $109,620 at the beginning of the year, and will reach $128,960 in 2026. KiwiRail disclosed chair David McLean's fee was $89,000 in fiscal 23/24. On the Treasury's figures, that fee rose to $142,260 at the beginning of 2025 and will reach $167,360 at the beginning of next year (an 88% increase). The new chair is Sue Tindall. Fees for Crown Infrastructure Partners chair Mark Binns are set to more than double. Photo / Mark Mitchell Among those with smaller but still significant increases is Jim Mather, chairman of RNZ. His fees rose to $71,280 at the beginning of the year, and are set to increase to $83,860 at the beginning of 2026 -- a total increase of 41%. In contrast, Alistair Carruthers, the chairman of TVNZ, stands out as an anomaly. Despite the revisions to the fees framework and the Treasury's calculation that he is underpaid, Carruthers received no fee increase this year. The state-owned broadcaster has been struggling through cost-cutting efforts, including job losses, though it is not unique in this. Carruthers and his board opted not to take up the first round of fee increases offered by Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith, who is responsible for signing off on TVNZ board pay. The big exception: Lester Levy, Health NZ Lester Levy, chairman of the re-established board of behemoth Crown entity Health NZ, is the major public sector exception. His headline pay is extraordinary across all sectors, and so is the work required of him. Levy will earn a maximum of $450,000 a year, which breaks down into an expected maximum of $325,000, with a further $125,000 held in contingency, a Ministry of Health spokeswoman confirmed. The figures are predicated on a daily fee of $2500, for up to 130 days' work (the contingency represents an additional 50 days' work). The headline pay of Health NZ board chairman Lester Levy is extraordinary across all sectors, and so is the work required of him. Photo / Mark Mitchell By comparison, the recently updated Cabinet Fees Framework sets a maximum chair fee of $162,200 per annum for the largest and most complex public sector entities; this fee level is predicated on a workload of 50 days' work. The previous chair of HNZ, Dame Karen Poutasi, drew an annualised fee of $219,000 in fiscal 23/24. The spokeswoman said the daily fee rates for the current HNZ board, including the chair, are unchanged from 23/24. In fiscal 24/25, the board was replaced by Levy as commissioner and three deputy commissioners. The spokeswoman said the current HNZ board is in its 'establishment phase' and the current arrangement will last for the next 18 months, at which point it will be reviewed and the ministry anticipates a move to a 'more business-as-usual way of working'. HNZ is the country's single largest health care provider, its largest employer, and the Government's largest Crown entity. It received $27.2 billion in funding in fiscal 23/24, its last disclosed financial year, which fell $722 million short of spending; it is a notable financial mess. Increases for most public board chairs In July, the Public Service Commission issued new guidance providing for sizable fee increases for the vast majority of public boards, their chairs, and other government appointees such as advisory committee members and commissioners. For the largest and most complex public bodies, board chair fees can now reach up to $162,000 (the previous cap was $90,000) – an 80% increase over previous guidance. The matrix of factors that determine which chairs and boards should be best paid includes the operating budget, asset value, and business complexity of the relevant entity. The framework is not prescriptive, and the new levels set don't compel Crown entities to review their fees; the ministers responsible can review fees at any time, and by convention, this typically happens every two to three years. The Minister for the Public Service, Judith Collins, told the Herald that it's common for monitoring departments to conduct reviews across multiple entities within their portfolio, to ensure consistency. Kate MacNamara is a South Island-based journalist with a focus on policy, public spending and investigations. She spent a decade at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation before moving to New Zealand. She joined the Herald in 2020.
Otago Daily Times
11-08-2025
- Otago Daily Times
Controversial West Coast mine has fast track-bid declined
By Kate Green of RNZ Te Kuha Mine on the West Coast has had its application for fast-track approval declined, after failing to meet seven of the application criteria. The project has raised concerns over its impact on the environment and had already been rejected multiple times by the courts. Now, a letter sent to the company behind the plan, Stevenson Mining, in March but only recently published, showed the application never got as far as the minister for final approval, with the Ministry for the Environment finding it did not comply with seven requirements in the Act. Notably, it lacked an explanation of why the fast-track approvals process would enable it to be processed in a more timely and cost-effective way than under normal processes. It did not consult with local authorities like Buller District Council, the Ministry for the Environment, Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the Department of Conservation. It did not address other approvals which would be needed for the project to go ahead, like access to land owned or administered by other parties, including KiwiRail, which runs the Stillwater to Ngākawau line near the proposed mine site. Stevenson Mining has been approached for comment. Te Kuha Coal Project would have created an opencut mine, with a footprint of 144 hectares, near Westport. It would have extracted some 4 million tonnes of coking coal - the kind used for making steel - over 16 years. It would have necessitated a land swap with the Department of Conservation, as it overlapped with stewardship land. The project had already been rejected by the Supreme Court in 2020 and the Environment Court in 2023. Adam Currie, campaigner for 350 Aotearoa, said it was welcome news. "MfE declining it for now is a win for the environment," he said. "It's the process in this instance working as it's supposed to." He said it showed the lack of regard for detail and process which mining companies often demonstrated. "It's pretty incredible that companies are making these massive applications that have ginormous impacts on all these things, and they're just not thinking through these basic things." But Patrick Phelps, manager of Minerals West Coast, said it was a new piece of legislation, and companies were "getting to grips with how it actually works". "It's a novel process - any applicant, they don't fully know what the expectations are. They'll get the best advice, hydrology experts, and they'll put forward the best information that they can. "While I'm disappointed that they haven't got over the line, I would simply say that that should be an indication to people that the fast-track process is not just a rubber stamp." A spokesperson from the Ministry for the Environment said it generally did not comment on individual fast-track referral applications, but explained that it checked referral applications against the requirements of the Acts. "Incomplete or non-compliant applications are returned to applicants, along with reasons for them being returned." Applications which met the requirements would then be sent on to the Infrastructure Minister (currently Chris Bishop), who gathered advice and reports on the project's impact and, if they saw fit, would refer it on to the final step, the expert panel. The ministry said applicants were allowed to reapply if their initial application was found to be incomplete, but it would be treated as a new application, with a fresh application fee - which, according to the MfE website, would cost $12,000.
