The Government has sought to reassure New Zealanders that the Conservation Amendment Bill does not place development ahead of conservation. Conservation Minister Tama Potaka says conservation remains the primary purpose of the Act and that no automatic right to develop conservation land is created. He has also acknowledged that, if the wording fails to reflect that intention, it should be amended.
That acknowledgement is significant. It follows submissions from Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton, who warned that the proposed wording gives development a stronger legislative footing than conservation by requiring economic opportunities to be enabled to the “greatest extent practicable.” The concern is not that every proposal will be approved, but that Parliament may inadvertently alter the balance future decision-makers are required to apply.
This illustrates an important principle of good lawmaking. Ministers explain legislation. Courts interpret legislation. Future governments administer legislation. Once enacted, the words of an Act become more important than the assurances offered during its passage through Parliament. Political intent may change, but statutory wording remains until Parliament chooses to amend it.
CORANZ has consistently argued that conservation land is a public resource held in trust for present and future generations. That does not mean all development should be prohibited. Carefully managed tourism, recreation, infrastructure and conservation works all have a place. What matters is that conservation remains the overriding purpose against which those activities are assessed, not merely one consideration among several competing objectives.
The Minister’s willingness to revisit the drafting is welcome. It demonstrates that submissions to select committees can improve legislation before it becomes law. If respected legal and environmental authorities identify ambiguity in wording, Parliament should remove that ambiguity rather than rely on future assurances about how the law is expected to operate.
This is not a debate about whether development has a place on conservation land. It is about ensuring that the law says exactly what Parliament intends it to say. When public land is involved, clarity is not a drafting luxury. It is an essential safeguard.
Can you trust them? If the Ministers comments are recorded clearly in Hansard the perhaps so but it will take a Supreme Court case to determine this. It is also unclear if other new legislation will block challenges to the courts.
Minister Tama Potaka occupies both the Conservation and Māori Development portfolios, giving iwi governance and development history into Cabinet. It also makes it especially important that the Conservation Act expresses Parliament’s intentions with absolute clarity. Confidence can only be maintained when legislation provides clear safeguards, rather than relying on the judgement of any individual minister, present or future.
Given Potaka’s previous incarnations with iwi and chief executive officer of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Trust then heavily involved in the Mōkai Pātea Treaty of Waitangi claim – can we trust him to be impartial?
The Bill should be changed so that there is no reference to economic development in relation to the conservation estate.
As CORANZ notes, conservation land is a public resource held in trust for present and future generations. Anything less gives the politicians an excuse to make an exception, and over time the entire environment becomes commercialised.
Definitely conservation land is the peoples. It doesn’t belong exclusively to Minister Shane Jones although he seems arrogantly to think it does. Nor doe s it belong to the government caucus.
This is reminiscent of the Rogernomics era where the 4th Labour government sold public assets to their corporate cobbers behind the people’s back.
I’d like people to think about “multiple land use”, something I heard a lot about as a student but nothing about since. Thanks to the political scare mongering of the greens, forest and bird in particular, New Zealand probably has more land tied up for conservation/preservation purposes than most other countries. As our population increases there will be increasing pressure on using the natural resources in our conservation areas for commercial purposes, jobs. In the past government allowed commercial exploitation of these areas under a permit system. I see no reason why this should not continue eg, grazing, forestry and mining leases which do not involve selling the land, but responsible “multiple use” As an example, foresters can grow trees and farmers can farm livestock under a permit system which allows other people to use the land for hunting, horse riding, mountain biking, plant collecting, off road driving etc. I feel particularly sour about the way forestry companies deny access for Hunting and other activities for the flimsiest of excuses on land which they only lease, land which was previously conservation land.
I have spent several years working in the mining industry in Australia and New Zealand so I have seen first hand how responsible mining can be an economic windfall and not a destroyer/ polluter of planet earth as the extreme greens constantly scare monger.
Let’s talk more about “multiple land-use” and write the concept/idea into our legislation. No need to sell anything, just a case of being more tolerant and understanding of other people’s needs.