Tama Potaka: Conservation Minister on the Government's plan to reform conservation law in order to raise money and cut costs

The Conservation Minister says the new planned reforms of conservation law will benefit Kiwi businesses and biodiversity. 

It lays the groundwork for reinvesting revenue from charging international tourists - estimated at about $60 million a year - back into conservation land.

It also speeds up the Department of Conservation signing off leases and permits.

Minister Tama Potaka says this will modernise legislation that was in need of an update.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now the government is forging ahead with one of the
most significant reforms of conservation legislation in nearly forty years.
The Minister in charge shares the changes are necessary because
it is so out of date, and quote Lucy Goosey
and Tama Portack are the ministers with us now, Hi,
Tamma sure to.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Hear the house the city of Sales.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
Mate, Lucy Goosey A technical term?

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Is it? Yes, it's something that comes out of Hamilton.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
I think all right, listen, is this going to make
it easier for you to get rid of land you
don't want or don't think you need.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Yes, there's a lot of land out there that's of
low conservation value, but it's not a wholesale sale of
all swathes of conservation land. Like there's sections in reefed
in between two houses that have no endangered species of them. Actually,
that's the sort of land that conservations should sell a
following a process and use that money to reinvest and
buy diversity and looking after the things that are good

(00:47):
for us. How much land is it, Well, we haven't
quantified that. Between the two our sections just house sections
heither how did you get house sections? A lot of
land pushed into conservation in the nineteen eighties that had very
little to deal with conservation, and that includes the met
service building on Bolton Street and Wellington.

Speaker 1 (01:07):
Outrageous And if you sold it, it would have no
impact on conservation whatsoever. But it would line your coffers
a little bit, wouldn't it.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
Yes, And we can then reinvest that into looking after
species like caught out and Karkapul and Kiwi and all
those great ones out at tity Titty Martinie is there though.

Speaker 1 (01:23):
I mean, it's so fair enough because these are examples
that everybody would I think look at it and go,
you should be able to sell it. But there will
be borderline stuff, won't There berg tracks of borderline land
that you don't think you need that other people will
say you do.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
No, I think we have to be very careful. It's
not a huge massive sell off of the conservation of state.
That's what some people on the left hand side of
the spectrum might think we're doing. But no, we just
want more flexibility for conservation to deal with that, but
more importantly, to modernize four year old legislation. It's nearly
as old as me.

Speaker 1 (01:51):
Heather, Yeah, how are you going to tidy up what's
going on with EWI because they are so often the
ones putting the handbrake on any kind of development.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
Well, first of all, a lot of you we actually
want to undertake the development and are involved in development,
whether or it's tourism or mining or running boats out
on the Hodaki golf So here we are both applicants
and sometimes they also have a part to play in
the process. So, first of all, uphold the tree settlements.
That's what we need to do. The second thing is
being more clear and consistent about what the treaty principal's

(02:22):
reference actually means. So we're going to give time frames
around engagement with concession, decision making and other things, and
we just need to be more clear, more consistent and
describe what that means. Okay, So it's a challenge we've
had as we haven't had that in the past, and
I'm going to do it.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
So you're going to say, when we go to an
e and we start talking about the concessions, we have
to wrap this up with an X amount of time.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
Yes, that's the general intent. Now, some ere we have
arrangements in the settlements, Okay, we'll uphold those, but we're
going to give time frames around that engagement, Heather, and
that gives people more certainty and gets rid of red
tape and green tape.

Speaker 1 (02:55):
Yeah, that's cool. But what happens at the end of it?
So let's say you go to an E and you're
having a debate about the concession. I don't know e
WEE are around to it. It'll shadow and you can't
reach it. You reach the end of your deadline and
you can't reach any agreement with the EE.

Speaker 2 (03:09):
What happens, Well, first of all, there's area planning that
takes place here. Then right now, there's about eight one
hundred plans, eighty of which are massively out of date.
Make sure you involve EREWE upfront in the planning. The
second thing, on an individual concession, there will be time
frames and e we don't have a veto in concession decision.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
Making currently, justntion gives them a veto.

Speaker 2 (03:32):
No, that's what the Supreme Court said and the famous
night Thi decision and around ling to them.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
But they have the dominant don't they have the dominance, say,
and the and documents the subservient position.

Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, that may be how some people interpret it. Down
at Forest and bird. But it's not how the Supreme
Court has described it here, and neither is it how
Parliament is described in legislation. There is definitely a part
to play for EWE across the conservation of state, and
sometimes they are applicants and want to do great things,
just like down at Milford Sound Terminal where we have
partnered up with Southern Discoveries and Real and Zed to

(04:06):
run that terminal.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
Right, what are you going to do with charges? Is
this going to give you permission to really lift the
charges on what the foreigners pay when they use a
dock hut on the Milford Walk.

Speaker 2 (04:16):
Well, fast back, Heather. We have thirty percent of New
Zealand's land is in the conservation of state and makes
sixty million dollars. Now that's not good enough, and we
think we should enable access charging for international visitors. Just
like when we go to Hawaii we pay to go
and see Kellawaya, when we go to the United States
we pay to go into national parks and in some

(04:36):
of the iconic locations, places like Milford or Cathedral Cove.
We believe foreigners should pay to access those places that
will generate money we can use then to look after
birds and other species.

Speaker 1 (04:47):
Cool. Don't hate it at all. Tama, thank you very much.
Enjoy the rest of your day. That's Tummer Portuck at
the Conservation minisleut for more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
Listen live to news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio