Walking Access Bill

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs) Link to this

I move, That the Walking Access Bill be now read a second time. In speaking to this reading I will take the opportunity to extend my thanks to the Local Government and Environment Committee for its careful and very prompt consideration of this bill. The bill is the culmination of a lengthy process of public consultation. The committee received 136 submissions, resulting in a number of very useful improvements to the bill. I am pleased the committee was able to report that all changes were agreed to unanimously. This will give the many people who have expressed an interest in the bill and in the policy a real sense of surety for the future.

The primary purpose of the bill is to establish the New Zealand Walking Access Commission, with the aim of providing the public with free, certain, enduring, and practical walking access to the outdoors. In addition to setting up the commission, the bill re-enacts, with appropriate amendments, the provisions of the New Zealand Walkways Act 1990. At the same time, it transfers to the commission the present roles of the Minister of Conservation, the Director-General of Conservation, the New Zealand Conservation Authority, and conservation boards, in respect of walkways.

The commission is to be established as a statutory entity, with the status of an agency of the Crown under the Crown Entities Act, and will be funded largely by parliamentary appropriation. It will be governed by a board of up to eight members, and have all the usual powers available to a Crown entity. It is appropriate that the functions and powers of the commission as a Crown entity are broadly defined in the bill, as this will allow the commission sufficient flexibility to develop its policies and priorities within the purpose and objective of the bill. The commission will lead, and provide a central point for, the coordination of walking access. It will support the negotiation, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of walking access. Key tasks will include the improvement of existing access opportunities and the negotiation of new access across private land, including access to public resources.

The term “public resources” has not been defined in the bill. The committee did not consider this necessary, as the bill clearly provides that the commission give priority to access to conservation land, to local authority parks and reserves, to sports fish and game habitats, and most lakes and rivers. Sports fish and game are often referred to as public resources. Access that is negotiated over private land may take the form of a walkway, a lease or easement for walking access, or some other legal form. The commission will provide authoritative information, which is hard to obtain at present, on the location of public land that is open to walking access.

An important task will be to develop a code of responsible conduct, in order to provide a guide on appropriate behaviour and conditions of use in relation to walking access. The code will also provide a vehicle for the dissemination of information on the powers of enforcement officers, culturally sensitive sites, and other useful information.

The committee did not consider that there was a need to change the provision for a review of the bill to take place after a period of 10 years. Clearly, the commission will have its work cut out during its start-up phase in developing its statement of intent and in establishing relationships with relevant agencies and stakeholders to achieve its objectives, and complex issues will need to be worked through over a period of time.

The bill affirms the high value that we as New Zealanders place on access to the outdoors and to our natural heritage. In providing a focal point for walking access, the bill fosters an appreciation of the environment, and is well-aligned with wider Government priorities and initiatives that enhance New Zealanders’ sense of identity and promote healthy lifestyles. In providing for the negotiation of walking access across private land, the bill upholds landowners’ right to make decisions about public access to their property, and acknowledges their need to go about their business without threat to their safety and security.

It is a fundamental principle of the bill that such access will remain subject to negotiation and agreement with the landholders concerned. The committee supported that principle. Arbitration of disputes or compulsory acquisition of land for access is likely to be counter-productive, as it would destroy the goodwill that currently exists, and escalate demands for compensation. I note that although a minority report in the commentary on the bill takes the opposite view, that position was not pursued in the bill itself, as reported back to this House.

I point out that there was considerable public support for the general approach taken in the bill, and the committee did not question the need for a walking access commission, or change its primary functions. Two main areas of public concern were identified, however. The first was that greater provision needed to be made for the inclusion of other forms of access in addition to walking access, such as access with dogs, bicycles, or vehicles, or with firearms for hunting purposes. Although the negotiation of rights in addition to walking access was already provided for in the functions of the commission, the purpose of the bill and the objective of the commission have now been amended to specifically include the types of access associated with walking access.

The issue that attracted most concern was the provision carried over from the current New Zealand Walkways Act for walkways to be created on unformed legal roads. Many submitters were concerned that this would remove existing rights of access and restrict activities, such as access with firearms, dogs, bicycles, or motor vehicles, that would otherwise be lawful on the road. There seems to have been an assumption that the provision would result in the widespread creation of walkways on unformed legal roads, although this has rarely occurred in the past. The committee agreed that the fundamental purpose of the bill would not be affected if the provision for creating walkways over unformed legal roads was removed, and recommended that in view of the level of opposition to it, this provision be deleted. I agree with that recommendation. The extensive network of unformed legal roads that exists remains a valuable resource for public access even if walkways are not created over them.

I will briefly mention some of the other changes agreed to by the committee. A few changes have been made to the interpretation clause in the bill. The definitions of “private land” and “landholder” have been clarified, and a clearer distinction is made between “walking access” and “walkway”, which is only one form of walking access. In response to submissions the bill now includes improved procedures for the public to be notified about the creation, naming, and revocation of walkways, and here is also a greater focus on collaboration with local authorities.

The need for a list of priorities to guide the commission in negotiating access over private land has been reconsidered. The committee noted that the list of priorities set out in the bill was not ranked in any particular order, and that a list of priorities may be too limiting in any case. Instead, the bill now identifies the matters that must be taken into account by the commission when considering its priorities for negotiating access over private land. These matters now include the development of walking access that is continuous over land adjoining the coast, rivers, or lakes; access to conservation areas or access to areas of scenic or recreational value; and access to sports fish and game.

The bill has been amended to take account of the views of Māori and representatives of other persons who may have an interest in the naming of walkways. There is a new requirement that the commission consider the appropriateness of publishing maps that show the location of culturally sensitive sites. In addition, provision has been made for information on tikanga Māori, Māori relationships with the land and waterways, and sites of cultural significance to be included in the code of responsible conduct.

I am grateful to the Local Government and Environment Committee for these amendments and for a number of other minor technical amendments, which have improved the bill considerably. In establishing the New Zealand Walkways Access Commission the bill raises the profile of walking access and it provides a strong foundation for the improvement and extension of walking access opportunities in New Zealand. I have no doubt that the bill will result in the enhanced public enjoyment of our natural heritage and will make a significant contribution to our national identity, and I am very pleased to support it. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this

I have to say that I do not have any significant points of disagreement with the Hon Damien O’Connor, who led this debate.

I am not normally a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, but I did ask our whips whether I might be associated with that committee for the purpose of dealing with the Walking Access Bill. I did that for several reasons. The first is my own personal situation. I am a keen tramper, hunter, gatherer, and boater—I have an inflatable boat with which I navigate rivers that may or may not have marginal strips on them—so I have a whole range of reasons to be associated with the select committee dealing with this legislation. I am also a landowner. On my rather modest landholding I think I have almost every land type that this bill may or may not be about. I have streams with marginal strips, streams without marginal strips, and wetlands without marginal strips. I have paper roads. I have formed roads that are not legal roads. I also have some pylons that are 70 metres high. So I am aware of quite a number of the issues surrounding the debate about what is quite a significant bill.

We need to understand that New Zealand is a unique country in a lot of respects. One of them is just the very nature of our country. We think of ourselves as having a sort of conservation estate and a rural landscape, yet we are one of the most urbanised countries in the world. A quarter of our population lives in one city, another quarter lives in another four cities, and, in fact, very, very few people reside in a rural environment. I would not say that we have a conflict, but we have this ongoing issue about access.

Another interesting thing about New Zealand is that it had laid down by instruction, firstly from Queen Victoria, a whole range of mechanisms of access that overlay a whole lot of property rights that exist. For various reasons, as I mentioned when this bill was introduced, some of the provisions that were laid down—particularly marginal strips, or what is known as the Queen’s Chain—were incomplete. In most cases there is a reasonably amicable interface between the public and the landowner. In some cases it is not so amicable. In some places there has been private capture of some unique public resources, and this bill does not actually deal with that. At some stage in the future this Parliament may have to address those issues if they escalate, or if some of the issues that exist now cannot be resolved. That may be an issue for the future, but this bill does not set out to resolve those issues.

New Zealand is a unique place, and another unique thing about New Zealand is the participation factor. If we look at the figures from Sport and Recreation New Zealand, which was the only agency I found to have these kinds of figures, we see that about half our population is involved in outdoor recreational pursuits that cross private land or the conservation estate, or that need to cross private land in some instances to get to the conservation estate. Camping, hunting, tramping, walking—there is a whole range of things out there. We are unique in a whole lot of ways.

The first instruction came from Queen Victoria in 1841, I think, and there have been a number of times in history when we have tried to look after the uniqueness of this access situation. The last major attempt was made by McKenzie of the Ballance Government, in around 1891. This bill is another step forward, so we are doing quite a significant thing here. The interesting thing is that this legislation acknowledges the property rights that exist. The bill acknowledges a lot of the difficulties out there, but it sees negotiation as the methodology by which these things need to be resolved. That is what it does.

I will talk a wee bit now about the purpose clause of the bill, because I think it is important. Some things around the bill’s purpose need to be amplified a little for the benefit of the House. There is another issue now because of today’s technology. Today we can buy little items like this global positioning system device that I have here, at a starting point of $150. We can download a cadastral map, and it can have a much more accurate description of what may or may not be out there than what the landowner has in a lot of instances. In a way, that also creates an issue that needs to be resolved.

Let us look now at clause 3, “Purpose”, in Part 1. Some bits need amplification. If we look at clause 3(a), we see mention of public resources. The bill does not define what a public resource is. A public resource is many things. It is our conservation estate, our vistas, our mountain scenery, and our access to them. It is the acclimatised fish and birds that exist out there, and it is the right to do whatever is necessary to be able to capture and hunt them. It is the right to go tramping. It is the right to do all those things that are intrinsically a part of the New Zealand psyche. It is the birthright that was first laid down, essentially, by our forebears, who wisely created some of the walkways and unwisely acclimatised a lot of birds and animals that probably should not have been here in the first instance, but they are here now and are part of our birthright. The public resource is all of those things, and this bill enshrines some negotiation powers that are important in relation to accessing it.

The second thing is that clause 3(c) talks about “responsibility for leading and supporting the negotiation, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of—(i) walking access …”. So negotiation is enshrined in the purpose clause. I hope that when the Walking Access Commission—which this bill sets up to resolve some of those issues—goes about the process of negotiation, there is an element of goodwill. Those parties that might be a wee bit recalcitrant need to note that the House has resiled from enshrining definite leverage points, in recognition of property rights, but the expectation is that there will be good-faith bargaining, and that some goodwill will come to the table in terms of that negotiation.

Further down in clause 3(c) is an interesting little subparagraph that captures something that is not otherwise in the bill. It gives the Walking Access Commission the right to deal with things that are outside walking access, and they include the carriage of firearms and crossbows, and anything else that might be needed.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

I am happy to stand in support of the Walking Access Bill in its second reading. As chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I want to thank all the submitters who wrote to us, emailed us, and came along to the select committee to express their support for, or their concerns about, the bill. I think that we, as a committee, managed to incorporate without too much difficulty most of the issues that were raised.

I also want to thank the officials who advised us on the bill. Certainly, the advice we received was very timely and of a very high quality. There is no doubt that there was a lot of passion amongst the officials for this legislation, and it was a pleasure to work with them on the bill. I especially want to thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee—both the permanent members and the members who were subbed on, including the member who has taken his seat. It was clear that the members had a wealth of knowledge, and the select committee was able to tap into it. As a little thankyou to the honourable member Eric Roy, we made sure that his crossbow was covered by the legislation.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this

I want to start by thanking the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Moana Mackey, for keeping me informed and inviting me to attend as a participant on that committee. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend very often, but I have a significant interest in this public access issue.

I want to pick up on a comment made by my colleague Eric Roy when he said that this bill goes a long way to solving an ongoing issue of access around rural New Zealand. From my point of view, it became an issue because of the way it was poorly handled by the Labour Government.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

The Green Party will be voting in favour of the Walking Access Bill. The bill moves towards Green Party policies in a number of ways—the establishment of a code of conduct; additional focus on, and resourcing for, negotiating access; a commission to build relationships with landowners and land users; and improved mapping and information. These are all positive things, and the Green Party will be supporting the bill for those reasons. However, we have to say we are disappointed that what we thought was an opportunity to enshrine in legislation public rights of access has been missed with this bill. The valuable and well-meaning objectives of the bill, and the functions of the commission, are thereby limited because of that failure. Fundamentally, we remain unconvinced that we have the right balance in this bill between private property rights and the rights of public access to public land and public resources.

As we stated in our minority report, the Green Party has long advocated for a commission with powers beyond mere voluntary negotiation. If the public has rights to land and to public resources, then there must be an authority with the ability and the power to uphold those rights against unreasonable exclusion and exclusive capture. This bill establishes a commission to facilitate and negotiate, but not to arbitrate.

We are unconvinced that the public rights of access are sufficiently enshrined in law, relative to the well-entrenched private property rights. This bill was a chance to enshrine public access rights and public rights, but it has failed to do that. The statement of public rights of access in this bill is confined to the purpose clause of the bill, which states that the intent of the legislation is to “provide the New Zealand public with free, certain, enduring, and practical walking access to the outdoors …”. It is quite obvious that private property rights in our country are thoroughly clear and entrenched in New Zealand law, whereas public access rights are significantly less entrenched in law. This includes both access to public lands—such as the coast, lakes, along rivers—and access to public resources.

The bill defines public and private land, but it does not define public resources, which include wild game, wildlife, freshwater fisheries, and natural water. Such resources do not attach to land title and belong to the public. The public has rights to them and, therefore, rights to fair and reasonable access to them. It also includes public access to customary resources, be it Māori access to eels or pounamu, or general public access to whitebait, trout, or deer. It also includes public access to recreational opportunities on rivers and beaches, and in public, recreation, and conservation lands. Too often unreasonable landowners have blocked access, to exclusively capture public resources for their own ends—personal or commercial. I certainly acknowledge, as previous speakers have, that the vast majority do not do that, but we do know that it happens. We certainly hope this bill will put an end to this exclusive capture but, given the weaknesses of the bill, only time will tell whether it achieves that.

We welcome the establishment of an access authority, albeit limited by an inability to exercise that authority in access disputes and a continued lack of clarity as to the extent of public access rights. The commission will have quite a bit to do. We certainly hope it will not lose sight of the main policy problem that the legislation is trying to solve—that is, the thorny access obstacles in specific places. The commission is faced with mandates to do work on strategies, glossy brochures, mapping information, education, advice provision, and administration. These are all important aspects to access provision but they do not resolve the real, and very difficult and growing, problem of access—access of the public to their own public resources right across New Zealand.

The Green Party also believes that the bill is a back-track on early Government policy of enshrining public rights in completing the Queen’s Chain. Given the significant change in access policy with this bill compared with previous Government policy, and even aspects of the Acland Walking Access Consultation Panel reports, it is outrageous that the bill has a review period of 10 years. We think that 10 years is a long time to see whether this will work and whether it will prove that it will give people access to their own resources—resources owned by the public that the public does not have access to. For that reason we support a shorter review period of 5-yearly reviews.

We will be seeking continued progress on public access in New Zealand through this bill, in complementary ways. I would just like to touch on one of those, which has been raised by Federated Mountain Clubs and Fish and Game New Zealand. Currently, the Government is a bit reluctant to notify, or engage with, access stakeholders when overseas land sales occur. Sales of significant land to overseas buyers are approved by the Overseas Investment Office—some would say rubber-stamped—and conditions can be placed on sales, including conditions of access. There have been examples where that has been done to good effect and access has been increased during the process of going through the Overseas Investment Office, but there have also been examples where opportunities have been missed to use that process to improve access. It seems perfectly reasonable to the Green Party that the office should liaise with the Walking Access Commission—which this bill will establish—in these situations so that we can identify and set conditions for public access if these sales go ahead. The commission will have the expertise and contacts with the appropriate stakeholders. We will continue to work with the Government and other parties to achieve this.

I would like to end by thanking the members of the public and organisations that have been key to driving these access issues, and have contributed along the way. Fish and Game New Zealand is a crucial advocate both for environmental protection and for public access to public resources, as is Federated Mountain Clubs, which has a long and proud history of advocating for New Zealanders’ rights to recreate in our mountains and rivers.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou i tēnēi pō. As I understand it, a key statement appeared throughout some of the 136 submissions received from the public about this bill, and I note that the submission from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu stated it pretty clearly. It stated: “The Crown has a duty under article 2 of the Treaty to protect Māori in use of their lands and waterways to the fullest extent practicable.” I note that the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board and the Federation of Māori Authorities were united in their position, which was: “Article two of the Treaty granted ‘te tino rangatiratanga … o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’, or the ‘full and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, fisheries and other properties’. This article therefore guarantees Maori the right to determine access to their land.” I have to say that it is a view that the Māori Party absolutely supports. We know that iwi Māori have a special relationship, a partnership relationship, with the Crown that is separate from that of general citizens. We also know that a consequence of the unique Treaty relationship involves the duty of the Crown, and all agents of the Crown, to undertake the active protection of the rangatiratanga rights under article 2.

So when the Local Government and Environment Committee finished its report, without so much as even the word “Treaty” included in its brief, we thought there must have been some huge mistake. We will therefore be representing the views of hapū and iwi, and during the Committee stage we will introduce the Treaty clause that submitters asked to be inserted in the bill.

It makes for interesting analysis that the first two bills on our Order Paper today—the Walking Access Bill and the Policing Bill—have both suffered from minuscule vision when it comes to the most critical issue of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We are trying not to read too much into it: that in both cases Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu has been instrumental in coming forward, recommending to the Crown that a Treaty clause would improve the overall effectiveness of this legislation.

So we might ask why the Crown is not prepared to listen to the wisdom of Ngāi Tahu, at least, in helping this nation move forward. My understanding is that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu’s submission outlined what a Treaty clause could do, in effect. A Treaty clause would ensure that the rangatiratanga and mana of tangata whenua over customary land and sites of significance were respected and protected. A Treaty clause would enable our kaitiaki responsibilities to be recognised in decision making. A Treaty clause would demonstrate that public access to private land and Māori land remained subject to negotiation and agreement with landholders. If not through the bill, then one would expect, at the very least, that the New Zealand Walking Access Commission would include such a clause, as both the Federation of Māori Authorities and the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board recommended—namely, a Treaty clause being an important provision enshrined in their constitution and rules.

This is for us a very important bill, and the federation confirmed that for us. Any bill that threatens to impact on “te tino rangatiratanga … o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa,” we in the Māori Party take very, very seriously. Māori have already been, and continue to be, deprived, as we have seen over our history the deprivation of our people of most of our lands, and do not want to see the continuation of any more plans to alienate or confiscate in the name of the Crown.

The Māori Party holds true to the challenge laid down so many years ago by Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana that the Treaty should be embodied in statute, that legislation should ensure the protection from sale of our lands, that there should be no more land confiscation, and that there should be compensation for land that has been stolen. This was the challenge represented, I believe, through the placement before a former Labour Prime Minister of four objects. This will be a bit of a history lesson for us, Madam Assistant Speaker. They were a potato, a broken watch, a hūia feather, and a greenstone tiki. As I have heard about and read about, T W Rātana explained to Michael Joseph Savage that the potato was the ordinary Māori needing his or her land; the broken watch was the broken machinery of law relating to the lands of Māori—only the law could repair the law; the tiki stood for the mana of Māori people; and the hūia feather, a sign of a chief, would be worn by Mr Savage if he would look after his Māori people. Yet as history and Hansard record, that hūia feather would not be worn, the tiki would be discarded—indeed, we believe that those original four objects to be would all be lost in the legacy of broken promises and unfulfilled dreams.

For us, this bill would have been a great opportunity to address those expectations. This bill could have signalled a commitment to enshrine the Treaty in legislation. It could have been used to repair the law itself and to guard against further alienation. We ask why this Government is not prepared to insert a Treaty clause into the legislation. Why did it not support the Māori Party amendment to insert the Treaty clause into the Policing Bill? The numbers on that evening indicated the amendment would have passed in this House with 60 Ayes and 58 Noes. Instead, what we have is a “yes, but” bill.

Clause 8 deals with the composition of the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. Submitters recommended that Māori representation, the capacity for the sharing of knowledge of tikanga Māori, on the commission’s board be increased from one. The select committee included that view in the report, yes, but no amendments were included to address it. Then we turn to the protection of sites of Māori cultural significance. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu advised that permission should be sought from tangata whenua before information relating to mahinga kai, wāhi tapu, and other sites of cultural significance be published. Yes, the committee agreed it was important, but it was not so much significance but cultural sensitivities that the commission should take account of.

Clause 10(2) minimises the advice of Ngāi Tahu by suggesting that the commission should consider any cultural sensitivities of which it is aware, without actually explicitly requiring it to gain the permission of tangata whenua.

Then there is the concept of the code of responsible conduct for users and landholders. Again, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu came up with robust advice, specifying that the code should include information on tikanga Māori, Māori relationships with land and waters, and desirable standards of behaviour to be observed when accessing sites. Yes, but we will take it on the first part of this thinking of the select committee, so clause 16(1)(bb) was inserted to include reference to guidance about tikanga Māori. The Federation of Māori Authorities has spoken for so many in endorsing the principle of the code of conduct as a benchmark standard to which the users must adhere. It was hoped that such gold standards would include information and understanding of Māori land, à la rāhui, negotiated permission, wāhi tapu, all those sorts of things, as part of the desirable standards of behaviour to be observed. So it was pretty disappointing that the select committee has continued to be a little bit half-hearted about this in its recommendations to simply include a reference to guidance about tikanga Māori, rather than a stronger statement of support such as adherence to tikanga Māori.

This bill has some very positive features as it has emerged from the select committee process. We are pleased that there are new clauses to require the commission to take into account the views of local hapū and iwi in the naming of walkways over either public or private land. We are pleased, too, with the amendments to clause 29 to allow the commission to purchase private land as a means to provide public access. The word “acquire” has been removed from this clause to remove the implication of the compulsory acquisition of private land, a concept that Māori shudder even to contemplate. But in summary, our position on this bill is influenced by the prevailing “yes, but” mentality. We do not believe that it is acceptable to minimise, to trivialise, or to compromise the guarantee of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to protect Māori in the use of their lands and waterways to the fullest extent practicable. Throughout this bill every attempt is made to dilute and diminish the mana of the arguments put forward by mana whenua, and because of that we cannot possibly support this bill at its second reading.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the Walking Access Bill. United Future considered it very worrying that included in the bill that went to the Local Government and Environment Committee was such a large section on the establishment of walkways across public land. This topic was barely touched upon by the Walking Access Consultation Panel. Presently, public land has few restrictions. However, walkways administered under the New Zealand Walkways Act by local government would be much more restrictive with, for example, no vehicles, guns, or dogs being permitted along these walkways—all of which are often used by keen fishermen, hunters, or trampers.

The establishment of walkways over public land administered by regional and local councils would have served to displace unformed legal roads as a legal entity. Under the New Zealand Walkways Act a regional council can apply to stop a legal road by selling it and de-gazetting it, which means this legislation may well have succeeded in stymieing public access, rather than enhancing it. United Future is far happier with this bill, now that the select committee has identified that “the power to create walkways over unformed legal road is not critical to the success of the walkways regime”, and has since deleted this clause from the bill.

It is a special and crucially important feature of New Zealand that wildlife, freshwater fisheries, and natural water do not attach to land title under New Zealand law but, rather, are part of the public estate owned by everyone in general. As a consequence, it is not unreasonable that these notional owners—that is, the general public—should be able to expect and have fair and reasonable access to that which is theirs, while respecting the property rights of landowners, for recreation and for something as basic as food gathering in the case of fishers and hunters, but also other forms of food gathering, such as shellfish, and Māori customary food gathering.

A future consequence of this is that there are therefore now two sets of property rights in New Zealand—private property rights in land, and public property rights in public resources. This is what makes New Zealand special, and has its origins in the wishes of early settlers to not see a replication of the landed gentry owning and exclusively controlling the fish and game animal resource. It is therefore good and important that clause 3 specifically refers to these public resources. However, the Hansard record needs to show that Parliament intended public resources to include wildlife, freshwater fisheries, and natural water.

United Future joins with the Green Party in voicing our ongoing concerns over a couple of aspects of this bill. The New Zealand Walking Access Commission, established by the bill, remains basically toothless. Although it can negotiate with landowners to acquire an easement or lease over the land for use as a walkway, it has no formal power to resolve any disputes over access. This is particularly important when negotiating over private land in order to gain access to a public resource, such as a lake or a river. We envisage and agree with the National Party that for 90 percent of cases this will not be a problem. The commission will effectively be able to negotiate access across private land with the least bit of hassle to landowners. However, in the few cases where access is difficult to negotiate, the commission has no formal power to resolve the dispute and provide public access to a public resource by way of a walkway or enforcing access by way of an unformed legal road. It is difficult to understand this aspect of the bill. The intention is there to resolve the issues surrounding the public’s right of access. However, the commission that the bill sets up has no formal powers to do that.

The bill sets out that the Minister, after 10 years, will consult the Walking Access Commission and review the bill. This will cover whether it is still needed, what amendments may be necessary, and also a review of its effectiveness and the operation of the commission. United Future supports the reasoning for a review, but we are concerned that 10 years is too long to wait. Surely any problems in the implementation of this legislation will be clear after a much shorter time—perhaps 5 years, as the Green member suggested. We are worried that a 10-year wait will possibly allow a flawed process ample time to become entrenched and thus very hard to review accurately and amend.

Finally, we want to finish this second reading by recognising the efforts of the Fish and Game people in causing this bill to happen. It began back in 1999 when they convinced the then Labour Opposition, which made a manifesto commitment. Fish and Game were able to convince them that there was a growing issue around access and that New Zealand was seeing the beginnings of a privatisation of public resources through the misuse of the Trespass Act to exclusively capture public resources that were on public land—for example, rivers running through private land, game found on public land, and things like that. We congratulate Fish and Game on being so alert to this so many years ago, and we are very pleased to support the second reading and progress this bill through the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) Link to this

I am very pleased to speak in support of the second reading of the Walking Access Bill. I first acknowledge the members of the Walking Access Consultation Panel, who were behind the design of this solution. It was chaired by John Acland, and members were Eric Roy; Brian Hayes, former Registrar-General of Lands; John Aspinall, a farmer from the Mount Aspiring area; John Forbes, a local government representative from up north; and Bryce Johnson, from Fish and Game, who is in the gallery. I apologise to anyone I have missed out—those are the members I can recall.

This bill has an interesting history. Our forebears in New Zealand were very wise when it came to the provision of public access. Queen Victoria, through her agent, instructed the administrators of New Zealand, when subdividing land prior to settlement by settlers who were purchasing land or settling land upon colonial occupation of New Zealand, to lay off access strips alongside all rivers, lakes, and foreshore, and that there be access strips reserved at regular intervals through the land that was being freeholded. The mechanism that was used was paper roads. Paper roads are Crown land over which people have rights of access. It was the mechanism that was commonly used, not just for what are now called paper roads, but also around lakes, rivers, and the foreshore.

That requirement was generally honoured, but occasionally it was not. A lot of the access ways were created for the future public access of New Zealanders. They were never intended to be formed—indeed, these were organised before there were cars. Where they were intended to be used it was by people on foot and people on horses. Sometimes there was maybe no active expectation that they would be used in the foreseeable future, but there was recognition that some time in the future there would be a need for public access. So these paper roads have been created all around New Zealand. Over the succeeding 100 years a lot of them have fallen into disuse, and there have been changes in occupation of the surrounding land.

I was very pleased to hear David Carter’s acknowledgment that, despite that change in historical use of the surrounding land, he and the National Party now acknowledge that there should be public rights of access along those public strips.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) Link to this

To echo the words of the previous speaker, the Hon David Parker, former MP for Otago, this is good legislation. The reason this is good legislation is that it has come full circle over the past 6 years or so to mirror the position of the National Party on the issue of public access. I say that, because in the course of my 3-year tenure as the MP for Otago—and being a constituency MP who actually gets out into the electorate and talks to my constituents—I know that many of those very same farmers have long held the view that is encapsulated in this bill. So let us get off our high horses, I say to Mr Parker, and stop talking about the grand scheme of the Labour Government, because this bill is nothing more than the National Party’s position. The bill has come full circle. It is nothing more than what the farmers, particularly of the high country, have welcomed with open arms.

Is it not ironic that the Minister for Land Information, Mr David Parker, is the very Minister who is closing off access during the course of his negotiations with Crown pastoral lessees? I think that is one of the greatest ironies I have seen in this House.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

I listened with some interest to the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean. She is very much like the traditional conservative. When a progressive and visionary Government introduces legislation—and I believe the Walking Access Bill will be seen as one of the great achievements of this Government and this Parliament—she runs with it eventually, then tries to claim some credit and claim that it was her policy all along. Certainly I can see Peter Brown laughing at that and acknowledging that that is how conservatives run. In her heart of hearts, even Jacqui Dean knows that to be true.

I want to pay huge tribute to people such as David Parker, who has been an incredible advocate for his area. He has reminded colleagues on this side of the House of the incredible heritage and gift that Central Otago as a region is to the rest of the country, and of the need to ensure that in the long term, for our children and grandchildren, we have adequate access to the treasures of our nation. I also want to compliment Damien O’Connor, an incredibly hard-working Minister, who has stewarded this bill.

I believe I should also pay tribute to Jim Sutton, who did a lot of work. There was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, and many submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The committee chair, Moana Mackey, did a very good job as well. I want to be gracious, and I will be gracious and acknowledge Lesley Soper. I was in Invercargill earlier this year and she was doing a very good job down there and, again, she was very supportive of this legislation. But let me also acknowledge Eric Roy and his work in helping us get to where we are today.

For me, as a Waikato member of Parliament, this is very important legislation. I will give the House a very practical example of one of the worries I have. A few years ago if one was to turn off and take a scenic route into Hamilton from Ngāruawāhia down the Tūrangawaewae side into Hamilton East, one would have seen splendid views of the beautiful Waikato River from River Road. Now, bit by bit, inch by inch, month by month, that view is being obliterated by the building of some very expensive houses that come between us and our view of our wonderful heritage. [Interruption] I do not understand why members opposite are interjecting at this point. I am simply trying to explain why it is critical to have an environment in which we build a series of walkways and access routes to our heritage so that our children and great-grandchildren can still enjoy the view of that beautiful, precious resource and treasure, our Waikato River.

We have to ensure that this does not become like some kind of Miami-style, Florida-style beachfront whereby the beaches and riverways are blocked off by the wealthy, and the public cannot get access to them. I say to Opposition members that they should listen to the wise words of Eric Roy. They should not laugh, as this is a very serious problem in this country. It is becoming increasingly serious. Parts of our heritage could be locked away, and that is why I am delighted by the Walking Access Bill.

I believe that this bill will go down as one of the more visionary Acts of Parliament. It will be a great achievement, not just by this Government but by Parliament as a whole. It is about ensuring that New Zealanders enjoy their natural heritage and that we gift to our grandchildren the right of access around this country. The important point—and it is a good aspect of the bill—is that the bill will achieve a proper balance between the rights and aspirations of the public in terms of access to our beautiful countryside, the property rights of landowners, and the practical needs of farmers and other land users to carry out their business without undue hindrance. I acknowledge some very good input from Federated Farmers in the Waikato. Some very, very good farmers and other people in our rural communities have shown real leadership and wonderful support with regard to this bill.

Finally, I want to express a debt of gratitude on behalf of this Parliament to people like John Acland and his team who worked around the country. I attended some of the consultation meetings that he undertook, and I thank him. His legacy, and that of those who worked with him, will go way beyond this Parliament, and indeed way beyond this generation. As I said earlier on, I do not think we should underestimate the significance of this legislation in preserving the wonderful treasure that is New Zealand and the New Zealand countryside. I look forward to the Committee stage and third reading of this bill. Hopefully, before this Parliament rises this bill will become the law of this country.