New Zealand First says it will campaign to allow greater economic development on conservation land, including mining and quarrying outside national parks. Deputy leader and Resources Minister Shane Jones says conservation status should not automatically prevent land from contributing to jobs, exports and economic growth.
eLocal Report: Based on reporting by Ellen O'Dwyer for RNZ HERE
New Zealand First is taking a potentially significant change to the management of New Zealand's conservation estate into the 2026 election campaign, arguing that some conservation land should be available for economic development.
Deputy leader and Resources Minister Shane Jones told RNZ the party would campaign for activities including mining and quarrying to be permitted on conservation land, while excluding national parks.
The debate centres partly on a provision currently contained in the Conservation Amendment Bill. Clause 6(ea) says the Department of Conservation should recognise and enable "economic opportunities" on conservation land to the greatest extent practicable.
The bill remains before Parliament's Environment Select Committee and its final form is therefore not settled.
Jones Wants Economic Development Given Greater Weight
Jones said he had fought to retain the economic-development provision and rejects the idea that all conservation land should effectively be regarded as permanently unavailable for development.
"We, NZ First, rejects the notion that [conservation land is] some type of Camelot lotus land feature of New Zealand that can never ever be used or developed," he told RNZ.
He said that position had driven the party to seek legislation giving economic development greater priority and status.
Whether the provision survives in its current form — or is strengthened or diluted — could ultimately depend on the composition of Parliament following the election.
Jones is making the distinction between national parks, which he says would remain outside the proposal, and other parts of the conservation estate where NZ First believes commercial activity should at least be considered.
Earlier Land-Sale Proposal Was Pulled Back
The argument follows an earlier controversy over proposed changes that could have made approximately 2.8 million hectares of conservation land eligible for sale.
Conservation Minister Tama Potaka subsequently backed away from those changes and sought their removal during the bill's redrafting process.
Potaka told RNZ he had also written to the Environment Select Committee asking it to work with NGOs, iwi and sector groups to ensure section 6(ea) supported "strong and enduring conservation outcomes".
The committee has begun hearing oral submissions but is not expected to complete that process during the current parliamentary term. That means consideration of the legislation is likely to continue after the election.
Critics Say Conservation Law Has a Different Purpose
Opponents argue that placing economic development explicitly within conservation legislation risks changing the fundamental purpose of the conservation estate.
Greenpeace has argued that conservation land should be protected from "economic exploitation", allowing native wildlife to thrive while preserving land for the public and future generations.
Jones rejects that framing.
His argument is that economic activity and conservation do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, and that suitable development could produce jobs, export earnings and wider economic benefits.
That disagreement exposes the central policy question: whether conservation status should generally act as a barrier to commercial development, or whether proposals should instead be considered according to the environmental and economic characteristics of individual sites.
DOC Could Also Face Restructuring
NZ First's proposal goes further than changing what activities may occur on conservation land.
Jones said he would also campaign on restructuring the Department of Conservation.
Under his proposal, DOC functions dealing with concessions, permits and rights of access could potentially be separated from its other responsibilities — or transferred to another organisation that Jones says would be less driven by conservation considerations.
That could represent a substantial institutional change.
DOC currently operates within a framework in which conservation is its defining purpose. Separating commercial approvals from that function would raise a further policy question: which institution should decide when economic development on public conservation land is justified?
The answer would determine not simply how quickly applications are processed, but what weight is given to conservation, economic returns, environmental risk and public access when decisions are made.
The Election Could Determine What Happens Next
The timing makes this more than a technical debate about a bill already before Parliament.
Jones is explicitly putting the issue before voters.
If NZ First holds significant influence in post-election coalition negotiations, access to conservation land for economic development could become part of negotiations over the next government's resources and conservation policies.
Conversely, a different parliamentary balance could see the existing economic-development clause diluted or removed.
Potaka has indicated that the next Parliament's Environment Select Committee is likely to continue hearings and consider possible improvements to the bill, including provisions relating to economic development.
The Economic Case Will Need Numbers
If opening conservation land to development becomes government policy, the economic argument can ultimately be measured.
Jobs and export earnings are two of the benefits Jones identifies. That means individual projects could be assessed against their promised investment, permanent employment, export revenue, royalties and taxes — alongside measurable environmental effects, remediation liabilities and any loss of conservation value.
Those figures would also make it possible to distinguish between projects offering substantial national benefit and those whose economic return may not justify the environmental cost.
The same principle applies to rehabilitation. Mining or quarrying proposals on conservation land would raise questions about who pays to restore a site, what financial guarantees are required before development begins, and what happens if an operator fails.
The RNZ report does not set out the detailed safeguards NZ First would apply to those issues.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
Directly.
This is ultimately a debate about what New Zealand means when it designates publicly owned land for conservation.
NZ First's position does not propose opening national parks to mining or quarrying. But it does challenge the assumption that other conservation land should automatically be insulated from economic development.
For supporters, that could unlock resources, investment, regional employment and export income from land currently constrained by conservation rules.
For opponents, explicitly elevating economic opportunity within conservation legislation risks gradually shifting the purpose of the estate from protection toward commercial utilisation.
The distinction matters.
The election debate therefore should not end with a choice between "development" and "conservation". Voters also need to know which land could become available, what environmental thresholds would apply, who would make the decisions, what economic return New Zealand would receive, and what protections would prevent irreversible damage where development does not justify the cost.
Those details will determine whether the proposal amounts to carefully controlled economic use of selected public land — or a much broader change to New Zealand's conservation settlement.
Source: Ellen O'Dwyer, RNZ, “NZ First to campaign for conservation land to be open for economic development.”
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.