Why I'm Speaking Up for New Zealand's Wild Places

I was in my studio last week, brush in hand, working on a painting of a pair of critically endangered Tasmanian birds, when I realised I couldn't keep painting without doing something. New Zealand is facing a conservation crisis that most people haven't heard about yet. The New Zealand Government is pushing through a Conservation Amendment Bill that would make it significantly easier to sell off, develop, and commercialise public conservation land — the same forests, mountains, coastlines and river systems that make this country extraordinary. The map above, produced by Forest & Bird, shows the scale of what is at stake: the red and orange areas represent public conservation land that would be opened up to economic development and potential exchange or disposal under the new law. That is not a small corner of the country. It is the spine of Aotearoa. Australians understand better than most what it means to lose irreplaceable native species and wild habitat — once it is gone, it does not come back. New Zealand has a rare chance to be different, to protect what it still has while it still can. I have submitted my formal opposition to this Bill, and I am sharing it here because these places matter — not just to New Zealanders, but to everyone who understands that a world with more wildness in it is a better world for all of us. 

Making your own submission to oppose this bill is easy, Click HERE for link for a guide created by the folks at New Zealand Forest and Bird. Your voice matters!

 

SUBMISSION TO THE ENVIRONMENT SELECT COMMITTEE

Conservation Amendment Bill 2026

Personal Submission | June 2026

Submitted by: GEOFFREY CARRAN

Email: info@geoffreycarran.com.au

I request that oral hearings be held 'at-place' across the motu, to ensure that communities whose lives and landscapes are directly affected can participate.

WHO I AM AND WHY I AM SUBMITTING

I am submitting on this Bill not as a technical expert or a policy analyst, but as a New Zealander whose life has been fundamentally shaped by access to public conservation land. I want the Select Committee to understand what is truly at stake in this legislation, not in the abstract, but in the lived reality of what DOC land means to ordinary families across this country.

I grew up tramping New Zealand's wilderness with my family, from the North Island ranges to the wild south. My parents were not passive visitors to these places. They pointed out the specific plants underfoot, named the birds calling from the canopy, read the geology aloud from ridgelines. They turned every tramp into a living education. DOC land was not a backdrop to my childhood, it was one of its primary teachers.

Some of the most formative experiences of my life happened on public conservation land. The Ruahines and the Tararuas, Taranaki, Tongariro, became a second home for my brother and me. We were out on those trails every other weekend as teenagers, tramping, trail running, rock climbing, hunting and fishing. That land gave us freedom, wildness, and a sense of belonging to something ancient and irreplaceable.

As a teenager, I looked at the heavily developed landscapes of other countries and felt, viscerally, how lucky we were. Standing on an unmarked ridge in the Ruahines with nothing but native bush in every direction, I began to understand what New Zealand had that most of the world had already lost. And when I heard local iwi speak about their whenua, their stories woven into the same hills and rivers I was learning to love, those two things fused in me: the land itself, and the human narratives that belong to it.

I have spent the last twenty six years as an artist the past fifteen of those full time. My work started by centring on how New Zealand's native birds, landscapes and flora shape identity. Subjects I encountered first, and most deeply, on DOC land. I was inspired by the artists who came before me: Robin White, Toss Woollaston, Michael Smither, Colin McCahon, Bill Sutton, Dick Frizzel, painters who looked at this specific land and saw that it demanded its own visual language. They gave me permission to believe I could do the same. The career I have built, the body of work I have made, the livelihood I have sustained, all of it traces back to the hours I spent as a child and teenager moving through native bush, learning to see. Without free, open, protected access to that land, I would not be the artist I am. The work would not exist.

My brother went further still. He became an environmental scientist and has spent his career working for DOC and Landcare Research New Zealand, monitoring and caring for the places we grew up exploring. Where he travels for his work, the remote valleys, the high country, the offshore islands, represents New Zealand at its most extraordinary: ecosystems still largely intact, still humming with life, still being carefully watched over. That work matters more now than it ever has. A world that is increasingly mined, fenced, subdivided and developed needs New Zealand to be different. We have the rare chance to show that it is possible to build a prosperous, modern society that also protects its natural inheritance. This Bill risks throwing that away.

OPPOSITION TO THE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL

I write in strong opposition to the Conservation Amendment Bill 2026. This Bill represents the most serious threat to New Zealand's conservation system in a generation. It would fundamentally dismantle the architecture of the Conservation Act 1987, an Act built on a clear, unambiguous commitment to protecting this country's extraordinary natural heritage for all current and future New Zealanders.

New Zealand's wild places are not just a local asset. They are part of the global inheritance of biodiversity on a planet in ecological crisis. Our forests, wetlands, river systems, coastlines and offshore islands support some of the most ancient and irreplaceable species on Earth, species found nowhere else. Once lost, they are gone forever. This Bill, in its current form, risks exactly that outcome: not through a single dramatic decision, but through the slow accumulation of compromises, disposals, and development approvals on land that was never meant to be traded away.

It has taken New Zealand generations to assemble the conservation estate we have. Every track, every protected valley, every predator-free island sanctuary represents decades of public investment, political will, and conservation effort. Once sold or developed, these places are gone. There is no buying them back. This is not a theoretical risk, the evidence from countries around the world that have sold or degraded their public lands is overwhelming and irreversible. New Zealand must not repeat those mistakes.

I urge the Select Committee to reject or substantially amend this Bill. I also ask that oral hearings be held at-place, in the regions where the conservation land at issue actually exists, so that the people who know and love these places can be heard where they live.

1. CONSERVATION MUST REMAIN DOC'S PRIMARY PURPOSE

The proposed amendment to DOC's core functions is the most philosophically significant change in this Bill. Requiring DOC to identify 'economic opportunities' and 'enable economic use and development' on public conservation land is not a minor adjustment, it is a transformation of the Department's identity and mandate.

DOC was established as a conservation agency. Its entire legislative framework, its expertise, its culture, and its relationships with communities and iwi are built around the protection of nature. Asking it to simultaneously serve as a vehicle for economic development creates an inherent and irresolvable conflict of interest. When budgets are stretched, when pressure comes from developers or investors, when short-term economic arguments are made against long-term ecological ones, the conservation purpose will lose, unless it is protected absolutely.

As a teenager, I dreamed of becoming a DOC ranger, of making new tracks through these extraordinary places, of being part of their protection. My brother made a version of that dream real. The DOC he joined was a department with a singular, unambiguous mission: conservation first. That clarity of purpose is what makes it work. Dilute that purpose, and you dilute everything that flows from it.

Conservation values are not competing interests to be weighed against profit margins. They are the reason these lands exist in public ownership at all. I strongly oppose any change to DOC's functions that introduces economic development as a co-equal or competing purpose, and I ask the Committee to recommend that conservation remain the singular, unqualified primary purpose of the Department.

2. THE SALE AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC CONSERVATION LAND MUST NOT BE MADE EASIER

New Zealand's conservation estate took over a century to assemble. It was built through the foresight of generations who understood that some land must be held in trust, not for its owners, but for nature itself, and for all the people who depend on and love it. The proposed changes to land exchange and disposal rules risk unravelling that legacy in ways that cannot be undone.

The Ruahines and Tararuas where my brother and I tramped as teenagers are DOC land. The valleys in the Southern Alps where I now take my own children, where their faces light up with the same sense of discovery and wonder that I felt at their age, are DOC land. These are not abstract parcels of terrain on a government ledger. They are living places with deep meaning to families like mine across every region of this country. Once they are sold, you will never get them back. The history of every other country that has privatised public land confirms this beyond any doubt.

Under the current Act, disposal of conservation land is tightly constrained: land must have no, or very low, conservation value. That constraint is the essential safeguard that ensures the conservation estate is permanent, not provisional. The Bill replaces this with a 'net conservation benefit' test that is vague, subjective, and will be deeply contested. What constitutes a 'net benefit'? Who decides? Under what timeline? By what ecological standard? These questions have no clear answers in the Bill, and that ambiguity will be exploited.

I am deeply concerned about the inadequacy of the proposed Schedule 5 exemptions. The following categories of land should be unconditionally excluded from any disposal or exchange process:

• World Heritage Areas, whose internationally recognised significance belongs to all humanity
• All public conservation land acquired using public funds, this land was bought by New Zealanders and should remain theirs
• Offshore islands, which represent irreplaceable sanctuaries for species found nowhere else on Earth
• Schedule 4 lands under the Crown Minerals Act 1991, including the Coromandel Peninsula
• The beds of rivers and lakes, which are fundamental to freshwater ecosystems
• Marginal strips, which protect water quality and public access to waterways
• Conservation Parks, managed for the long-term protection of natural and historic values

Any exchange of conservation land should remain strictly limited to land with no, or very low, conservation value. Stewardship land must go through the proper reclassification process before being considered for exchange or disposal. The reclassification process exists precisely to ensure decisions are made on evidence, not expediency.

3. INDEPENDENT GOVERNANCE MUST BE PRESERVED

The proposed reduction in the powers of the New Zealand Conservation Authority and regional Conservation Boards is a troubling centralisation of decision-making. These bodies exist because conservation decisions should not be made unilaterally by the Minister of the day. They provide independent, expert, locally grounded oversight that protects public conservation land from political interference.

Reducing these bodies to 'commenting only' roles removes a critical democratic check. Decisions about our most precious natural landscapes will be made at the top of a political hierarchy, insulated from the communities who know those places best. That is not good governance.

The people who should have influence over what happens to the Ruahines and the Tararuas are the people of Hawke's Bay and Manawatu who walk those ranges, the scientists who monitor them, and the iwi whose tupuna lived alongside them. Not solely a Minister in Wellington responding to economic pressure. Local knowledge, local voice, and local accountability must be part of these decisions.

I ask the Committee to recommend restoring the Conservation Authority and Conservation Boards to their current roles, with real decision-making authority.

4. VISITOR AMENITY AREAS: DEVELOPMENT BELONGS IN COMMUNITIES, NOT IN CONSERVATION LAND

The proposed Visitor Amenity Area designation, which could include accommodation, restaurants, car parks and associated infrastructure, even within National Parks, raises serious concerns about the incremental commercialisation of conservation land.

New Zealand's tourism industry does not exist despite our wild places, it exists because of them. The extraordinary, uncompromised character of our national parks, forests and coastlines is the asset. Development that degrades or commercialises these places destroys the very thing visitors come to experience.

When I take my children into the Southern Alps, what moves them is not a restaurant or a visitor centre. It is the silence. The scale. The kea landing three metres away on a rock. The moment when a valley opens up and all you can see is snow and sky and native bush. As an artist who has spent sixteen years trying to capture exactly that quality on canvas, the unmediated wildness of this land, I can tell you that it is irreproducible once it is gone. You cannot paint infrastructure out of a landscape. You cannot restore the feeling of wilderness once a car park and a cafe have been built into it. That experience, unpackaged, uncommerialised, free, is New Zealand's greatest gift to its people and to the world. It must not be traded for short-term revenue.

Infrastructure and accommodation should be developed in the gateway communities near conservation land. This approach protects conservation values, distributes tourism income into local economies, and avoids the creeping urbanisation of our most ecologically significant landscapes. I strongly oppose Visitor Amenity Areas being established without rigorous conservation safeguards, independent oversight, and binding requirements to avoid adverse effects on surrounding land and biodiversity.

5. CONCESSION REFORM MUST NOT BYPASS ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

The introduction of 'exempt' and 'pre-approved' concession categories is presented as a simplification measure. But what is being simplified is the process of assessing impacts on some of the most ecologically sensitive land in the country. That is not an efficiency gain, it is an ecological risk.

Every piece of conservation land is different. Species distributions, habitat sensitivities, cumulative pressures from existing activities vary from place to place and change over time. A concession that is benign in one location may be devastating in another. My brother's work in environmental monitoring has shown him repeatedly how unexpected and cumulative impacts can unfold in ways that no one anticipated. Pre-approval that bypasses site-specific assessment fails to account for this reality.

At minimum, any exempt or pre-approved activities must be subject to robust monitoring and reporting requirements. DOC must be empowered to suspend activities immediately if unanticipated or cumulative effects emerge. The ecological integrity of the site must always take precedence over the convenience of the applicant.

6. THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD MUST BE PRESERVED

The proposed removal of the automatic right for submitters to be heard on plan changes and concession applications is fundamentally undemocratic. New Zealand has a proud tradition of public participation in environmental decision-making. Giving a Minister the discretion to decide which submitters will and will not be heard creates an arbitrary and potentially politically influenced process.

People who take the time to research issues, prepare submissions, and participate in democratic oversight deserve to be heard. Their right should not depend on ministerial favour. I ask the Committee to reject this provision entirely and restore the automatic right of all submitters to be heard.

7. ACCESS CHARGES: PUBLIC LAND MUST REMAIN ACCESSIBLE TO ALL

The introduction of charges for access to public conservation land raises serious questions of equity, access, and purpose. New Zealand's conservation estate belongs to all New Zealanders, including those who cannot afford to pay for it.

One of the most important things about the Ruahines and Tararuas when I was growing up was that they were free. We did not need money to access these extraordinary places, we just needed boots and a pack and the willingness to walk. That freedom was not incidental to what DOC land meant to us. It was fundamental. Access charges risk turning conservation land into a privilege of the affluent, not a birthright of all New Zealanders.

If access charges are introduced in any form, I ask the Committee to ensure that: charges do not disadvantage low-income New Zealanders or families; all revenue raised is 100% reinvested in conservation; and any revenue collected supplements, and cannot replace, government funding to DOC. Charging for access while cutting DOC's core funding would be a betrayal of the very purpose these charges are claimed to serve.

8. TREATY OBLIGATIONS MUST BE STRENGTHENED, NOT WEAKENED

The proposal to replace the current requirement to 'give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi' with a weaker obligation to merely 'consider' comments from Māori groups is a significant step backward. The Treaty is not a consultation checklist. It is a founding constitutional document that establishes a genuine partnership between the Crown and tangata whenua.

Growing up on DOC land, some of my most formative experiences came from hearing local iwi speak about their connection to the land, their stories layered into the same hills, rivers and forests I was learning to love. The land was not empty before it became a national park or a conservation reserve. It had names, histories, and relationships going back centuries it was alive. That understanding shaped my own sense of place, and it profoundly shaped my storytelling. A conservation system that sidelines those voices is not only morally wrong, it is ecologically poorer for it.

The health of te taiao and the protection of te ngahere are inseparable from the exercise of kaitiakitanga. Conservation decisions affect Māori rights and interests in profound ways. Reducing Treaty obligations in conservation law sends a message that those rights matter less than economic convenience. That is unacceptable. I urge the Committee to recommend that the full force of section 4, the requirement to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, be maintained and strengthened throughout the Act.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Aotearoa New Zealand's natural heritage is extraordinary, irreplaceable, and under serious threat. Our extinction rates are among the highest in the world. Our freshwater systems are degraded. Our remaining native forests and wetlands are under constant pressure. This is not the moment to weaken conservation law. It is the moment to strengthen it.

I am now passing on to my own children what my parents gave me: the experience of walking into a wild place and understanding, in your bones, that the world is vast and beautiful and worth protecting. The Southern Alps. The sounds of birds that exist nowhere else on Earth. The cold of a river crossed at dawn. These things have been the source material of my entire artistic life. Bill Sutton, Michael Smither, Robin White, Toss Woollaston, Colin McCahon all drew from this same well, the specific, irreplaceable character of Aotearoa's landscapes and light. That well only exists because the land was protected. My children deserve to draw from it too, and so do the artists and scientists and storytellers not yet born. This Bill puts that inheritance at risk.

New Zealand has a rare opportunity to lead the world in demonstrating that a prosperous, modern society can also be a society that protects its natural inheritance without compromise. That requires keeping conservation land in public ownership, free and accessible to all, managed first and always for the benefit of nature. This Bill moves in the opposite direction, and I urge the Committee to say so clearly.

I ask the Select Committee to recommend the following:

• That conservation remain the sole primary purpose of DOC, with no competing economic development function
• That the current strict limits on land exchange and disposal be retained, requiring land to have no or very low conservation value
• That Schedule 5 be amended to unconditionally protect World Heritage Areas, publicly funded conservation land, offshore islands, Schedule 4 lands, riverbeds, marginal strips, and Conservation Parks
• That the New Zealand Conservation Authority and Conservation Boards retain their current decision-making powers
• That Visitor Amenity Areas be subject to binding conservation safeguards and independent oversight
• That exempt and pre-approved concession categories include robust monitoring, reporting, and suspension powers
• That the automatic right of submitters to be heard on plan changes and concession applications be restored
• That any access charging regime reinvest 100% of revenue in conservation, supplementing rather than replacing government funding
• That the full requirement to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi be maintained
• That oral hearings be held 'at-place' in regions across Aotearoa, so that the communities directly connected to the conservation land under discussion can participate

New Zealand's wild places do not have a voice of their own. They have ours. I respectfully ask that the Select Committee use its voice too, to protect what cannot be replaced, and to reject a Bill that would make it easier to lose it.

Geoffrey Carran

23 June 2026