Conservation Minister Tama Potaka has removed a controversial clause from the Conservation Amendment Bill that would have enabled the sale of conservation land.

Potaka made the announcement at the Environmental Defence Society conference, accepting personal responsibility for the confusion around the bill. "Yes, it's on me, it's on us. And that's why we've heard the people, we've listened, and we've taken action, and that's what political leadership requires," he said.

The minister acknowledged that public understanding of the bill diverged from his original intent, saying he had failed to communicate the bill's land protection measures clearly enough.

Scale of proposed changes

The now-withdrawn provision would have opened up an additional 2.8 million hectares of conservation land for potential sale, on top of 2.4 million hectares of stewardship land already eligible for disposal. Under the bill's framework, proceeds from any sales would have been reinvested into conservation and biodiversity programmes.

Potaka said the bill was never meant to facilitate disposal of major conservation tracts, citing only minor parcels such as a Wellington building used by MetService and a West Coast gravel reserve as examples of targeted sales. "We've had no intention to sell off large parcels of land, but it seems that the words don't necessarily match our intentions," he said.

But conservation groups and opposition parties argued the bill's language created a legal mechanism for disposing of large tracts of land, irrespective of stated policy aims. Potaka said maps distributed by Forest and Bird depicting land potentially available for sale and development misrepresented Government policy.

"That's caused a bit of uncertainty, that's caused concern, and to be fair, a lot of ambiguity. So we've heard New Zealanders, we've listened to New Zealanders, and as a result, we're taking action," Potaka said.

Coalition backing for U-turn

New Zealand First deputy leader Shane Jones endorsed Potaka's decision to withdraw the clause. "The reality is the scope was far too much for key members in the environmental community, and the broader community, to swallow," Jones said.

He added the Government wanted to avoid creating the impression of widespread privatisation: "But we don't want to open up some gaping wound that causes people to feel that there's a mass privatisation exercise about to be embarked upon."

Potaka will take revised proposals to Cabinet with strengthened safeguards around any future land disposals. He told the EDS conference that sections of the bill relating to economic development emphasis also required further work.

Campaigners call for full withdrawal

Environmental organisations welcomed the retreat but demanded the bill be abandoned entirely. Greenpeace campaigner Gen Toop said Potaka's concession fell short of what was needed. "From start to finish this bill is rotten to its core. It must be thrown out immediately," Toop said.

She highlighted concerns about provisions that would prioritise economic activity on conservation land: "Even if National manages to convince its coalition partners to pull the land sales parts out - this bill would still make it easier for open cast mines, private resorts, gondolas, and shopping malls to degrade the wild places we all treasure."

Close to 50,000 people signed a petition organised by Greenpeace demanding the bill be scrapped.

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said the reversal demonstrated the effectiveness of public pressure. "This is a backdown forced by tens of thousands of New Zealanders who refused to let their wild places be put on the market. The minister has finally heard them, but removing these clauses does not fix a bill that was built to serve developers instead of nature," Davidson said.

Davidson called for the bill to be withdrawn and redrafted, pointing to remaining concerns about economic development provisions.

Economic development provisions remain contested

Forest & Bird acting chief executive Erika Toleman described the withdrawal as a victory for public advocacy, but cautioned that even without the explicit sales provision, land could still be removed from the conservation estate through an economic clause in the bill.

That clause would introduce a new core purpose for DOC: prioritising economic opportunities when making decisions to the greatest extent practicable. The bill would require DOC to weigh economic considerations alongside conservation values.

"It enables the change of land status of various types of conservation land, which means they can be revoked, or passed out of the conservation estate," Toleman said.

Potaka said the phrasing of the economic development clause would be reviewed, while maintaining that economic considerations would remain part of the bill in some form. Potaka had previously characterised the bill as the most substantial reform to conservation management in decades, eliminating bureaucratic obstacles and modernising public conservation administration.

Toleman said she was hopeful Forest & Bird would participate in discussions about the economic clause before the bill reaches select committee. "If economic development is going to be recognised in the purpose of DOC, it needs to be in a hierarchy where protection of conservation values sits right at the top," she said.

Submissions on the bill close on 2 July 2026.