Conservation Minister Tama Potaka said the Bill did not include a plan to sell great swathes of conservation land and there was no legislative direction to facilitate development.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton, however, described it as one step removed from an absolute legislative direction to facilitate development.
His submission said the wording in the bill of "development" was a stronger legislative footing than "conservation." The amendment he was referring to set out new functions for the Department of Conservation (DOC) to recognise the economic opportunities that arise from the use and development of conservation land and to enable those opportunities to the "greatest extent practicable."
Upton declined to be interviewed on RNZ's Nine to Noon on Tuesday morning.
Similar fears over the amendment act were made in a submission by the Ecological Society, with its president Jo Monks, a conservation biologist at the University of Otago, telling Nine to Noon, the wording was clear that economic activity would be prioritised ahead of conservation in any particular decision.
"The wording of this bill is quite extraordinary... Conservation can't be a diminished or secondary purpose and so, a focus on economic function is just outrageous, to be frank."
Monks took particular issue with the words in the amendment which said the economy had to be considered to the greatest extent practicable.
"It's an extremely high bar and it's quite rare to see that kind of wording, that wording was used during Covid-19 for airline staff wearing protective clothing... so to see it as a term being applied to economic activity, that's frightening in a conservation act."
"That's quite frightening as well for the general public.
"The key objection in our submission is we strongly believe conservation land is for all New Zealanders... and we really need a strong public voice in key decisions and that public voice needs to start with mana whenua... all New Zealanders need to be able to have a say especially locals and communities which have that place-based knowledge."
Under the proposed amendment bill, Monks said, the approval rights of conservation boards and bodies would be weakened.
Monks said the amendments would make it easier to build amenities inside conservation land, which she said could include infrastructure like a hotel.
"At the discretion of the minister and subject to area plans. Essentially these parts of the conservation estate would be divorced from the rest of it..."
Monks agreed the bill did need streamlining and the process of how economic activities happened on conservation land was a good thing, but said conservation needed to be the primary purpose of the bill.
"Let's not ignore the absolute need for public contribution and participation and community voice in decisions and Te Tiriti responsbilities."
Potaka said in a statment to Nine to Noon he accepted Upton's expertise on the subject, but did not accept the bill put development ahead of conservation.
"Conservation remains the primary purpose of the act, the proposed wording of the act does not create an automatic approval or right to develop or shortcut existing statutory protections.
"Any activity would still need to be consistent with the conservation purpose for which the land is held."
Potaka said he'd already made it clear to the Environment Committee that if the drafting did not clearly reflect the government's intent it should be fixed.
"I have invited the committee to work with conservation organisations, iwi, tourism operators and other interested parties to make sure the final wording supports strong and enduring conservation outcomes while allowing appropriate activities such as huts, guided walks or visitor facilities."
