ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this
I understand that this debate is a continuation of the debate on Part 1 that I was not here for, so I do beg the indulgence of the Committee if I canvass some matters that have already been presented in debate. Part 1 sets out the purpose of the bill, which is followed by some matters of interpretation that are quite significant. Essentially, though, I want to focus my comments on the purpose of this legislation.
It is probably appropriate to discuss some of the history behind the establishment of this bill. I am not sure how far back we want to go but we can go back to about 1839, when the first instruction came from Queen Victoria. That actually pre-dated the Treaty of Waitangi. The instruction was to embrace a chain, 22 yards, along every waterway in New Zealand. At that point the instruction was rejected. Queen Victoria again gave the instruction, sometime early in the 1840s—I think it was about 1843—which became part of the fabric of New Zealand. The instruction was that New Zealanders should have rights of access along waterways. That was the beginning of it.
This bill is a continuation of several pieces of legislation and of instructions that have occurred both in local government and in the Government itself. It was John MacKenzie, whose statue is on top of a hill near Palmerston, who, under the Ballance Government in 1891, moved this whole area significantly forward again. Not only did he break up the large squattocracies of the South Island and institute what became the symbol of New Zealand farming—the family farm—but he again attempted to extend the walking access of New Zealanders. As well, overlaying a great part of New Zealand is a series of paper roads. There are various calculations as to how much of those exist in New Zealand. The smallest figure I have come across is about 56,000 kilometres, but the figure rises to about 76,000 kilometres. The amount is significant. So that is the history of what we have had in New Zealand.
The reason we have this history, of course, is that New Zealand has a resource in terms of its rivers, its mountains, its scenic vistas, and its conservation land. All of these are part of the birthright of New Zealanders to enjoy, and no one shall own access to them. However, there are some issues of difficulty. In some places we have conservation land, marginal strips, the Queen’s chain, or whatever, for which there is no point of access except by crossing private land. So this bill sets out some steps involving a negotiation process by which access can be gained across private land.
The bill also sets up a Walking Access Commission, which will have the responsibility for this negotiation. It will have the responsibility for compiling a database of what actually does exist in terms of private land, and of establishing a code of conduct. It is important that where we have negotiated access, the public adheres to a code of conduct that is in keeping with the land use in the area. That will be the role of the Walking Access Commission. The commission, having been set up by this bill and coming into existence after the bill has been passed, will look after and conduct the affairs of those people who are seeking to walk across private land in New Zealand. I need to just make these points; this has been a bit of a tortuous process.
Initially, Jim Sutton, Minister for Rural Affairs, back in about 2003, I think, set up a ministerial committee to look at the issue of walking access. I think that perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in the stellar career of the Hon Jim Sutton was to say: “I want you to have a look at the wander-at-will provision.”, because this immediately raised the hackles of every single private landowner in New Zealand. It is important to note that while on one hand we talk in this bill about what the public resource is, and how important it is that New Zealanders have access to it as their birthright, we also have enshrined in the fabric of New Zealanders, property rights. So just to lay down a wander-at-will provision certainly would be contrary to the expectation of every property holder in New Zealand, and this suggestion, in terms of the public, has raised considerable ire. There was the yellow ribbon—
Oh, orange ribbon, was it? Yes, it was. Well, anyway, there was the ribbon parade where all the landowners got quite upset about the proposal that walking access would be freely available under the wander-at-will provision.
I also need to say that I was actually on that first ministerial panel, so I have some understanding of that process. In the just over 400 submissions that the walking access reference group received, only 1½ of them wanted that wander-at-will provision: there was a vague reference in one submission, and another clearly came out and said it. So there is no great desire in the New Zealand public to have that provision, but there is clearly a desire to have a body like the Walking Access Commission sit down and do the negotiation, in a way that allows access in and around New Zealand.
This bill is primarily about walking access, but there are also some other issues in the purpose clause for which the Walking Access Commission will have a responsibility to negotiate. In some instances it is not only about just walking; walking is a means to achieve other interests that New Zealanders have, whether they be hunting, fishing—
—well, yes—and it is not only about just shooting with firearms. Also mentioned here are other means of propulsion, so that people who are archers can be catered for, for example, and the Walking Access Commission will be the body that does the negotiating for that.
There were a huge number of submissions, and probably of most concern to a lot of the people who submitted was the fact that they could see that this bill would impinge upon other rights of access. One part in the bill suggested, for example, that the paper roads would be a point where walkways could be put in, and the assumption was that this would impact upon the rights of four-wheel drivers to be able to use the area as it was originally.
Well, I tell Mr Carter that I am not sure whether it would or would not. But the select committee, in its discussions, said: “Well, look, there is an access guaranteed along a paper road; there is no need to designate a walkway on a paper road.” So I just want to assure those four-wheel drivers who are out there in drive-time right now—and I still, almost every day, get emails from people concerned about what this bill might mean to them—that their rights are in no way impacted by the Walking Access Bill.
Furthermore, under the purpose clause, clause 3(c)(ii) states that the Walking Access Commission can negotiate for “motor vehicles”, as well. So there is a whole raft of things that this panel will do. Primarily, this legislation, as set out in the purpose clause, is about providing access across private land to conservation land, marginal strips, or whatever. Wherever there is a public resource the bill is about negotiating on that, and it is about a code of conduct, and the compilation of the database. So I think this bill is an important step forward.
I need to say, also, that this legislation will not resolve every single issue that exists out there, but I believe that it is another step forward. It is a logical step forward, and it is a very reasoned step forward. National is happy to support the bill during the Committee stage.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) Link to this
It is a pleasure to follow my learned colleague Eric Roy, who very clearly articulated the basis of National’s support for the Walking Access Bill. In dealing with Part 1, I just make the comment that I can remember being at Meat and Wool New Zealand’s office when I heard that John Acland was asked by Jim Sutton to conduct a process that would take walking access within New Zealand one step further forward. I can remember talking to the chief executive officer, Mr Taylor, and we both agreed then that there would not be an easy way to go forward. It is interesting that we have now had a pretty torrid sort of a journey, but we have got to this Committee stage, where we are looking at Part 1 of the bill, which includes the purpose and interpretation clauses.
I will dwell for a moment on the code of responsible conduct, because there is still the need for the Walking Access Commission, when it is set up, to develop a code of conduct. That is effectively what clause 4, the interpretation clause, deals primarily with. It takes us right through a whole range of things and gives us the meaning of what is referred to by way of interpretation under the bill. It talks about the administering authority, it talks about the Crown, and then it talks about the code of responsible conduct. That code is very important, because although we hear very often in New Zealand about people’s rights, we do not often hear enough about people’s responsibilities. There is no doubt about the fact that this code of responsible conduct will talk about those responsibilities. At the end of the day it is best to treat these things with respect and as a privilege, because that denotes a responsible standard of behaviour.
I will concentrate for a moment on the minority report from the Green Party. I believe that that report represents the remnants of what caused so much grief regarding the previous bills around the right to roam that were introduced into this House. The Green Party talks about enshrining the right of public access to land, and it talks in such a way as to suggest that this bill does not give the Walking Access Commission sufficient teeth. That enshrining in the law of a right of access is something that has to be balanced against other people’s rights, and that is why it is very important that we talk in terms of privilege and responsibility. We look forward to those concepts being developed within the code of responsible conduct, the development of which will be one of the fundamental responsibilities of the commission.
Another aspect of the interpretation clause that has come about through the progress of this bill through its second reading concerns firearms. Once upon a time it would have been inconceivable that we would have a negotiated outcome around access and the use of firearms. However, we see that clause 4 talks about the use of firearms. It also defines an honorary enforcement officer as being “an honorary enforcement officer appointed under section 48 and warranted under section 49;”. Those officers will have responsibility for ensuring that the code of conduct is adhered to, and if there are any issues, those people are the ones with whom someone can make first contact in order to sort the issues out.
There is a fair amount of information in Part 1. Comments about the landowner would have come up, but during the second reading and in the select committee process that term was changed to “landholder”. That seems to be quite sensible to me, because, largely speaking, there is a whole range of tenure of land. One can have leasehold land, and one can have freehold land. Basically, the term refers to the person who occupies the land. In this case it is very appropriate that we refer to “landholder”, because not all land is freehold. From that point of view we can move forward and actually keep the interpretation of the bill quite clear.
The interpretation clause refers to the Minister who is ultimately to be in control and accountable under the legislation. That Minister will be the Minister for Rural Affairs, and that raises a point that concerned many of us on this side of the Chamber originally. This bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is interesting to see that the advice that was given to the select committee came from the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. That still leaves me wondering why the bill was not originally sent to the Primary Production Committee.
Of significance too are the efforts to accommodate as many people as possible in having access to the outdoors. Of course, the interpretation clause refers to personal mobility devices. That pertains explicitly to people with disabilities, and to the fact that they should have the opportunity to be able to access walkways, whether on unformed roads or on formed roads.
There is a lot of work to be done by the commission, and that will be quite an exercise, because the commission has to look after aspects of structure and maintenance. It has to be able to manage the walkways in a constructive way over private land and over public land, and it has to constantly be aware that there is a high level of accountability back to the Occupational Safety and Health Service, and to other such organisations. The maintenance of tracks will need to be kept up. When we stop and think about the structures involved, we realise that we are talking about bridges, fences, gates, shelters, stiles, boundary markers, hoarding markers, and notices. That being the case, there will be a restraint on the commission, in the sense that it will not want walkways to fall into disrepair.
The maintenance issue was highlighted quite early on when the bill went to the select committee. The comment was made that, effectively, the Department of Conservation, because of its huge landholding, was actually starting to lose its focus on, as well as its funding for, the maintenance of tracks appropriately. When we look at Part 1, we see that the responsibility for access to public land will be transferred across to the Walking Access Commission. On that basis we will be looking forward to a much better performance. We will be looking forward to having much better public access to public land held by the Department of Conservation, and we will be looking forward to seeing a higher standard of maintenance, signposting, and mapping of walkways.
When we look at Part 1 we see that things are very positive. It is important that we do not lose sight of the purpose of this bill and of the fact that we are pleased to be able to support it. It has been a long journey. The interpretation of aspects within the bill relating to the landholder and the responsibilities and privileges of access is borne out in clause 16, “Contents of code”. We look forward to seeing that code come to fruition. It will be advertised publicly and will be out for consultation. No doubt that, in itself, will bring about the expression of a certain level of ire, and there will be a lot more input made into the code. It is a pleasure to speak in support of this bill. Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson.
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this
I will make two points in this debate. I say to members I may not necessarily take 5 minutes to make them, either, just so my colleagues are aware. The first thing is that it is interesting that Government members cannot be bothered making a contribution—none at all—on the Walking Access Bill, which they have touted around the place for months and months.
Unquestionably; and, indeed, I notice even the Green members have not bothered to take a call, yet it was they who wanted the right to roam in the first place, supported by the Labour Party.
I noticed earlier on, in the debate on the Waste Minimisation Bill, that the Minister for the Environment stood up, said “I move the bill.”, and sat down again. That is disgraceful. I would have thought that Government members would want to show at least a little bit of interest. It just reflects where they are—dead in the water. That is actually what that is about. They are dead on the walking track, dead on the purpose of this bill, or dead on whatever part we are speaking about. It just shows their attitude now to the governance of this country.
Well, a member over there is happy to interject, but it would be nice if he took a call, instead of asking those inane questions that he asks during question time, which give everybody so much pleasure, including himself. Let me talk about the bill for a minute or two.
If the member listens, he might even learn something. One of the things that came out in this debate that goes right to the purpose of this bill is that initially the intent of it was to guarantee everyone’s right to roam. We have such a beautiful country that people do want to go and access all sorts of places—and so they should, too. But the interesting thing is that the debate came down to the compulsion part of it. Landowners said: “Hang on a minute. We don’t want you thinking you can just walk right across our properties any time, any style, whatever you like, however many people, whatever it is.”
The fact is that most landowners—and I am now talking about rural landowners—are fair-minded people. Part of that is reflected in the way they vote. Most of them are National supporters, and, of course, National supporters are all good, fair-minded people.
It is just a bit of common sense, unlike a lot of the socialist people.
The fact is that, with a lot of this stuff, if people go and talk to a farmer or a landowner, and say to that farmer or landowner that they would like to have access, please, to get to a lake or whatever it may be, most of them are pretty reasonable. Most of them will say: “Well, just be aware that there is an issue here. We’ve got some stock in that paddock.”—or whatever it may be—“Would you mind making sure you shut the gates, etc.” That is fair enough. People should be as responsible as that. Most farmers will allow people access across their properties, but the point is that there are the odd one or two people who, for whatever reason—maybe they have had difficulties in the past—need to be given some encouragement to do so. This bill moves that situation forward in that it allows the opportunity for people to sit down and negotiate, and that is a good thing.
This has turned out to be a good, positive bill and, as we move forward and this bill becomes law in our country, and as people start talking and negotiating, two things will happen. First, we will make good progress, and disagreements will be sorted out amicably. I think we will find that very rarely do we have to enforce the Public Works Act to take the land if that is what is required because some conclusion cannot be reached.
The second thing that will happen is that people will become more educated, too. There will be debates in the community about this whole thing; it will get publicity, and that means the public will be better informed about the purpose of the bill and the reason a farmer may object to something. The public will become more learned, and that in itself will be a good thing because what is asked for in this whole issue is that the people who might want to have access be responsible as they cross privately owned land.
So I think some very good results will come about because of the way the Walking Access Bill has been finally drafted, and by the way it will be implemented by this Parliament. It is certainly far better legislation than it was. It will certainly serve a far better purpose than it would have when it was first put down—because, of course, of the input from the National Party. Without the National Party input, the legislation certainly would not have ended up anything like this bill—it would have been a negative bill instead of the positive bill that it has ended up as.
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this
The Walking Access Bill does not justify such a pedestrian speech from the last speaker, John Carter. He limped through the history of this thing. As I read the bill—I was looking for something to do while he was speaking—it struck me that the Court of Appeal that handed down the decision for Ngāti Apa in 2003 has a lot to answer for as the genesis of this bill. When the Court of Appeal determined that the foreshore and seabed may no longer be public property it took away our assumption of rights to use what we commonly understand to be public spaces. At that time we thought that all of us could walk along the area between high tide and low tide on the beach. Many of us thought it was what is known as the Queen’s Chain. We all had an uncertain understanding of its legal status, but we were all dead sure in our heart of hearts that this was New Zealand, and we could use the beaches as long as we respected the environment.
Well, the Ngāti Apa decision brought us into the 21st century—it woke us up to indigenous rights. A collateral of that was that people started to ask what the rights are for the public over areas of land, what the riparian rights are along private land; and whether one can walk up the riverbed of a private property, go fishing wherever one wants, put up one’s tent alongside a river, and camp there as long as one respects the environment. No longer could we assume that one could climb over a strainer post to cross a fence to go on to a piece of land to get to the river. It was a reminder that we had to ask.
Then we saw instances, predating the Ngāti Apa case, along the east coast of the Wairarapa where a landowner—who lived in Carterton, of all places, and made leather jackets—decided that public access along the road to the beach over his property should not be widely open, because four-wheel drive vehicles were abusing that right. So he had the temerity to erect a gate, which was locked. That brought a howl of protest. That demonstrates that as we have become more mobile in this country and our enjoyment of the open spaces is no longer restricted to moderate, passive use—people engage in more intrusive forms such as four-wheel drive vehicles, and people understand their rights such as indigenous rights and their property rights—it has become necessary to have a clearer definition of just where the public may go, what our public spaces are, and what our private spaces are.
I do not think it is a bad thing that this debate was highlighted by Ngāti Apa, because Ngāti Apa brought us to the indigenous rights law, the aboriginal law that has been developing around the world, and it put it fair and square on New Zealand’s plate. I think the consequences of that are still being digested, and it is seen frequently in the debate about the issue of tino rangatiratanga. I think that debate has not yet been fully explored in this country. So the Walking Access Bill, as I see it, is part of the unintended consequences of earlier, ground-breaking—if I can use the term without it being a pun—legislation, which was designed to settle differences over what had proved to be a very emotional issue causing much reaction and overreaction from many people and, some say, from certain Government sources.
So the Walking Access Bill is one that I think most members of the Committee clearly welcome, and its objectives are set out in the purpose clause, clause 3. I remind members of the public who may be listening that that purpose is “to provide the New Zealand public with free, certain, enduring, and practical walking access to the outdoors”.
We in New Zealand grow up believing we are an outdoor country. We in New Zealand grow up believing we have the right to go fishing, and the right to go hunting. I think that is an inherent right that is part of the New Zealand character. It has to be carried forward so that those who have the privilege of private property can be informed when those rights are going to intersect, and so that there is a degree of negotiation and a degree of clarity.