Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
Part 1 of the Walking Access Bill establishes the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. I think the first thing to do is to give some context to the broader debate that has occurred in the development of this legislation.
At the core of New Zealanders’ unique sense of being Kiwis is having access to the outdoors, and, increasingly, having access to the unique lakes, rivers, and mountains that make up this beautiful country. Alongside that is a tourism industry that has become increasingly dependent on those overseas visitors, who contribute over $8 billion a year to our economy, also being able to have access to our wild places. In this Walking Access Bill, Parliament is seeking to set up a commission that will provide leadership on, and have the capacity to negotiate, the facilitation of walking access. I think it is also proper that in this health-conscious age we acknowledge that more and more New Zealanders want to get outside, go outdoors, and have the opportunity to walk this stunning country of ours.
I think it is also important to recite the history. New Zealand had a body very similar to the Walking Access Commission that was abolished in 1990 by the previous Labour Government. When the Department of Conservation was established, it was intended that this role would be a function of that department, and a decision was made then to get rid of what was seen as an ineffectual body.
National members at the Local Government and Environment Committee—and I am talking specifically on the purpose clause—are of the view that we need to do more to improve public access. However, that requires a careful balancing of private property rights—people purchasing freehold property and having a reasonable expectation of being able to have the enjoyment of that property—versus the tension that exists in spots around New Zealand where people who own property can, effectively, gain a monopoly right to access to a public good, such as a lake, river, or mountain, as a consequence of other people not being able to have access to it. We believe that this commission will have a useful function in terms of negotiating solutions.
I have dealt with a vast number of these examples, as a constituency MP. I have to say that this issue is quite regionally based. If we go right back to when Queen Victoria gave her instructions for a Queen’s Chain to be set aside alongside water bodies—lakes, rivers, the ocean—we see that there was quite a lot of variance in the degree to which the Queen’s Chain was provided. Quite a narrow view was taken in my own area of Nelson about the areas where the Queen’s Chain would apply, and, as a consequence, I have large amounts of riparian rights adjacent to many streams, much of the coastline, and a few of the lakes in the Nelson region.
The view of National members is that providing for a commission that does not override the right of private landowners but can negotiate is the right way forward. When the Government first proposed its more radical proposals under Jim Sutton, National opposed them. We said that they went too far, we said that they had lost balance, and we said that negotiation was the right answer. We are pleased that what we see in the purpose of this bill is a reflection of that approach of negotiation. We believe that, in relation to the vast bulk of access problems that develop in corners of New Zealand, with good faith and some sensible resourcing from the Government the negotiated approach proposed in the purpose of this Walking Access Bill will take us forward.
I would be interested in getting from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, some feel for the resources that will be made available to back up this commission. It seems a little bit strange that the administration of this bill will fall under the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Previously this issue has been a responsibility of the Department of Conservation. If we look back to the commission that was abolished by Labour in 1990, under the Lange-Palmer-Moore Government, we see that one of the key reasons that it failed was that it did not get the resources it required. So I am very interested to hear from the Minister what sorts of resources will back up this bill in order to make the commission worthwhile. The truth is there will be practical issues like providing fences, stiles, and signage, and if we are going to make some practical progress on these issues of access, then providing some budgetary allocation for this new commission will be critical to its success.
The National Party is saying that the bill takes a good approach—far better than that previously put forward. We have got rid of compulsory acquisition and got rid of the “walk at will” ideas that had been advanced and that caused such furore amongst the farming and rural communities. But if this voluntary approach is going to work, then we need to provide some cash to pay for the practical fencing, practical stiles, and signage that will make this bill workable. I would be very interested in a contribution from the Minister to outline what commitments the Government has made in that respect.
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this
The best way to describe the Walking Access Bill and its history is probably to look at Part 1, and at clause 3, the purpose. Members should look at the subclause that is actually struck out, which stated: “(b) to provide for walkways to be declared over public and private land;”. That sentence says it all. It was the Government’s intention, when it first introduced this bill a good while ago, to actually affect property rights—to a limited extent, it still does. But in its raw stage as it was first introduced it certainly would have had a major impact on property rights in this country. I say, as an aside, that what interests me with this is that there was a huge uproar about property rights around this bill, yet there was only a muted response when the Government introduced its seabed and foreshore legislation, which also was about property rights. It surprises me that there was not the same furore from the public right across New Zealand in regard to that legislation as there was over this bill. However, that is an aside.
It seems to me that the difference between where the Government started from and where it has finished up has been a real smack in the face for it. It started off saying, basically, that people in this country can walk pretty much where they like. If it is deemed that that is in the interests of the community, they can walk across people’s farms, they can walk across parks, they can walk across multiply owned Māori land, they can walk across someone’s backyard, and potentially they can even walk through someone’s lounge, although that is unlikely. Nevertheless, that was the thrust of the bill. It has been brought back to being sensible legislation that the National Party, having worked as hard as it did during the select committee process, can now support. It brings some common sense to an issue that needed to be addressed, and now will be when this bill passes. Basically, it says that we recognise that there is need for people’s recreation and for some places where the public can walk, but we must also recognise the rights of the property owner, and where there is suggestion that a walking access be established, it should be done by way of negotiation. There are a number of rules around the way in which that negotiation is to be done, which will be debated as we progress further through the legislation.
The other interesting aspect is that, as my colleague Nick Smith spoke about, this bill also establishes the Walking Access Commission. I think that is a good positive step forward, as well, because it means that we have a body of people who will take responsibility to ensure that the interests of the individual, as well as the community, are taken into account. The interesting issue that came before the select committee was when we started talking about the matter of walking access. We then got into the issue of the paper roads that there are so many of across this country, and the right that New Zealanders have to use those. Of course, that brought in the fact that there is not just pedestrian traffic but also vehicular traffic, and how that was to be dealt with as we went through the issue of deciding which of the roads may be used as walking tracks. As there was debate around that, a number of clubs came forward and said they were concerned about the paper roads they use by way of their four-wheel drive club or gun club for access—for those who are interested in the sport of shooting, or whatever it may be. Motorcyclists often use these sorts of facilities for their enjoyment. It meant that it would bring conflict between vehicles and people who walk for recreation. The purpose of the commission is to resolve those conflicts. Given that, often, common sense can and does apply, and people come to compromises, there is no reason why that will not be achieved; this legislation sets parameters for that to happen.
But, as I say, it was an interesting debate, because it brought to the attention of New Zealand, and certainly to the attention of Parliament, the fact that as our population grows, as demand for recreation spreads, and as various forms of it develop, we need to take great care to ensure that we do not establish something that detracts or interferes with the rights of others, or causes conflicts. So I think it was a learning curve for the select committee members, who had to get their heads around some issues that, prior to looking or delving into the issue, one would have thought was not such a difficult subject to consider—that we will just develop some walking areas for the public to have a nice Sunday stroll on a warm afternoon, or maybe somewhere where they might lead their dog, their pet duck, or whatever happens to interest them. But, of course, as one delves into these things, they are never quite so simple.
Part 1, as set out here, confirms the fact that we have moved away from interfering with private land in a compulsory manner, and that we have allowed for voluntary giving of land, but under certain conditions. It gives recognition of the rights of the property owner, and it also sets up the commission, as we have said. I think the bill, as structured in Part 1, has actually ended up being good legislation.
The Local Government and Environment Committee worked well and constructively on this legislation. This is another example of Parliament actually working together on an issue that was contentious; it has to a large extent solved that problem. It does show that, as so often, we can work together on a problem, but the public do not know it. The sad thing is that the media should be out here reporting that Parliament is working constructively on legislation, but, of course, that does not interest them very much.
Dr Jonathan ColemanWell, it is true, though. My colleague says I sound like Mark Blumsky—I hope I do, for the very reason that often we do not promote ourselves enough as a structure that can work together, and that we often do so more than we actually fight. The sad thing is how the media portray it.
In concluding, I draw the Committee’s attention to that point—that we have worked constructively together. This is a good bill. The National Party will support it—I understand that most of the other parties in the House are now doing so, as well—and we should allow this bill to move on to its third reading so it can be concluded.
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this
I rise to take a call in the Committee stage of the Walking Access Bill. It is a bill that sets out what I believe is the inalienable right of Kiwis to access key parts of New Zealand: our lakes, our rivers, our seas, and our mountains. That right represents who we are and provides us with part of our identity as New Zealanders. Nowhere do we find that to be more so than when we look at Māori, who on entering a marae or any meeting place will conduct a mihi, and within that mihi they will whakapapa back to their maunga, their awa, and their beach.
In my own mihi I say “Ko Tūtaekurī tōku awa.”, and I relate back to the Tūtaekurī River at the bottom of Taradale. I say “Ko Ōtātara tōku maunga.” Ōtātara is the mountain, the maunga, just behind Taradale, to which I personally relate. And I say “Ko Waipātiki tōku one ki te tai Tokerau.” Waipātiki Beach, north of Napier, is the beach that my family particularly relates to. I think this bill is immensely important to all New Zealanders as we increasingly, through the generations, relate back to the land and what that land means to us as Kiwis. I can certainly say that when one is sitting in a pub on an overseas journey and thinking about New Zealand, one thinks back to the mountains, the lakes, the sea, and the rivers around the place where one grew up.
Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, sets out the purpose of the bill, which is to give us the ability to continue to have access to those important areas. Clause 3(a) states that the purpose of the legislation is “to provide the New Zealand public with free, certain, enduring, and practical walking access to the outdoors (including around the coast and lakes, along rivers, and to public resources) so that the public can enjoy the outdoors;”.
I will take up a point made by my senior colleague Nick Smith, who talked about his electorate and some of the issues he has had within it with regard to accessing areas such as the ones he was speaking about tonight. In Hawke’s Bay we have not had such issues, but I think about some of the wonderful aspects of Hawke’s Bay where the public want to get access—particularly in the area where my new electorate, which I will be standing for at the upcoming election, has grown to. The Napier electorate boundary has now moved north to include Māhia and Māhanga Beach, but it also includes Lake Waikaremoana. If there is a more amazing walk in the North Island of New Zealand than the one at Lake Waikaremoana, then I am yet to find it. The public access to that lake is, at this point in time, quite accessible through certain entry points, and it will remain that way. I certainly have not had any complaints about the access to the lake.
As we move down through Hawke’s Bay to Māhia and some of the amazing beaches that are there, we find the access to those beaches is an inalienable right and people have that access. We have not had any complaints about access there. If we go down to the beautiful Mōhaka River, which wends its way through the province of Hawke’s Bay, we find there is amazing trout fishing and white-water rafting. There is access to that river along the waterway and I have not had any complaints in that regard from the public either. Moving down to Waipātiki Beach and various other beaches, we find there are no real issues there in terms of access for the public, which is good.
On moving out of the electorate and further south of Napier we are in Craig Foss’s electorate of Tukituki, an electorate I am confident he is going to do well in at the next election. If we think about Tukituki, we realise there are a number of potential issues around the subdivision of Ocean Beach and also around access to Cape Kidnappers. Access is currently available along the beach, the land above which is currently owned by the very well-to-do Julian Robertson, who has developed the cape and is turning it into an amazing wildlife sanctuary. That will do amazing things for Havelock North and for the wider native bird community. But I guess over time people may want access to that area, and there could be issues around the fact that it is private land now.
But those are examples of people who are prepared to negotiate access, and that is the experience that the National Party has had. That is why we have reached a good position with the removal of clause 3(b), which originally stated that a purpose of the legislation was “to provide for walkways to be declared over public and private land:” There were always going to be issues there in terms of property rights, with the Government coming along, putting its foot down, and saying it would allow people to get across private land, when it is our experience on many occasions that where people want to get access, most farmers or people who own private land are happy to work with the public to provide access in one way, shape, or form. They do not want to allow carte blanche access, without their knowledge, to various lakes and rivers, but they will certainly work in conjunction with the community to provide access.
I think this is a good bill. The National Party will be supporting it through the Committee stage and through the next reading. I think the purpose clause outlines an excellent way in which we can work towards improving the access to our lakes, to our rivers, to the seashore, and to our mountains. Thank you, Mr Chair.
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this
National is supporting this bill, but it is interesting that there is no provision for any funding for any walkways that might actually be established. If we look at the definitions around “authority”, we see that councils will be required to make some decisions and maybe even to take on the responsibility of being an authority for the establishment of a walkway. And, quite patently, not everybody wants to have people traipsing over his or her property as part of a walkway, even if it is round the coast, for example. If a council is going to go down that path and set itself up as an authority, it then has to consider how it will meet those costs.
That raises the question of whether such a council will put its hand up to become an authority in the first instance, manage a walkway, and have responsibility for any of the costs associated with that walkway. There is also the associated cost of enforcement in terms of the number of police who will be required to act as enforcement officers if someone is stepping outside the codes—they will be developing codes, as well.
When people go for a walk along a walkway they will not necessarily be aware that there is a code of conduct they will have to adhere to, so the enforcement officer will have quite a job to make sure that people comply with a code they know nothing about but that does exist on a shelf somewhere. Those people may be happily walking over the walkway and may not necessarily be acting in accordance with that code. I can see that there will be one or two issues along the way.
There are costs to these walkways, as well. There is the cost, perhaps, of fencing. There is the cost of enforcement, and there is the cost of some associated requirements that adjacent landowners may require in negotiating a walkway across their property, or on public land through their property, because it may encompass paper roads. It was quite good to see that the wider issue around paper roads was taken out of this legislation, and I think that is in large part due to the excellent work done by Eric Roy and the National members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Some very good work was done there.
What happens in essence is that if a person has some private property, is in the middle of two parts of a walkway, and does not want to negotiate, fortunately there is nothing within this legislation that compels that person. It would have to be done under negotiation, and a person cannot be compelled to even enter into negotiation if that person decides he or she does not want to. I think that is a good aspect of this bill.
Right now, any council, any regional council, any conservation department, or any conservation board can get around the table and negotiate. There is nothing to stop that. There is nothing to stop any party from participating in the negotiation process to establish a walkway. But that is OK—we will still develop and support this bill, which puts lots of words and bureaucracy around all that just to make it a little bit more problematic, rather than just leaving it up to the free negotiation processes that already exist.
One of the other things that I found interesting is the definition of “controlling authority”. In actual fact, a controlling authority can be anybody; it can be a council, and it can be an individual. I thought it was quite interesting that if a walkway is negotiated, a controlling authority could be an individual, but I could not see why an individual would want to be one, because he or she would then incur the responsibilities and the costs that accrue to that. Maybe the Minister would like to take a call and outline some of the matters I have raised. It would be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say with regard to those sorts of things.
One of the other issues that came up was the naming of walkways where priority is given to one sector of the community without the rest of the community having any input into the naming. Priority was given to Māori naming of walkways, without any reference to any other member of the community, which I thought was unacceptable, frankly. I am not sure whether there have been any amendments to change that so that everybody has an opportunity to participate equally.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
I rise to speak on the Walking Access Bill. [ Interruption] I actually compliment members opposite on their contributions, so a little bit of graciousness from Dr Nick Smith would not go amiss at this time of night. As this is a fairly wide-ranging debate in terms of the Committee stage, I will talk a wee bit about the New Zealand Walking Access Commission in the context of this bill and its intention.
Sandra Goudie talked a wee bit about bureaucracy, but I do not think her fears will be realised. The Walking Access Commission potentially has a very important role for a bit of strategic thinking. Speakers have spoken previously on their parts of New Zealand—for example, Coromandel. One of the things that I hope that the commission could do in the Waikato with the Department of Conservation and other agencies is to start developing a bit of a strategic framework of where future walkways may go. There may be long-term planning objectives.
For example, there could be great potential for a walkway from, say, the Pacific Ocean at the Bay of Plenty and right across to the Tasman Sea. I know that Metiria Turei would certainly agree with that, as would Barbara Stewart. If we look at the links we already have with walkways in the Te Aroha mountain area, we see there are a series of rail trails, such as the Hauraki rail trail. There is a whole range of things. It may take 30 years, but I am saying that one of the great things that the Walking Access Commission could do is to start scoping some of those long-term visions—for example, Te Araroa, the North Cape to Bluff walkway. Hopefully the commission will be looking at these other ideas.
I say that because in 20 to 30 years our population may be 5 million to 6 million, and the bulk of the population will live north of Lake Taupō, for example. There will be increasing population pressures in that area, and there has to be some strategic thinking now about the ability of people to get out of urban areas, to enjoy the countryside—particularly with the development of peri-urban walkways—and to enjoy walking access. The key thing about this bill, which I think is a really good thing, is that it will be done by a process of negotiation. It is not just drawing a line across a map; it is actually negotiating that line across a map. It may be, if we are being really lateral in our thinking—and I know that the member Sandra Goudie from Coromandel was extremely lateral in her thinking—that we would be looking at a negotiation process.
I take the point from members opposite and from other members in this Chamber who talked about the protection of the rights and interests of property owners. It may be that one negotiates an access strip across the back part of a property. One may not pick it up immediately, but one may do so further down the track, subject to budgets and financial incentives. But having a caveat against the title initially means that it can be used in years to come.
One of the issues that I have noticed in my area is that on the route from Ngāruawāhia on the Tūrangawaewae side to Hamilton through to the eastern suburbs of Hamilton, previously one could drive right down River Road, from Ngāruawāhia to Hamilton City, and one could see the beautiful Waikato River. Over the years the views of the Waikato River from the road have being gradually obliterated by some very expensive housing. That has not been matched with adequate walking access from Ngāruawāhia township through to Hamilton. Hence again, strategically, we could have the Walking Access Commission working with the Waikato District Council, Hamilton City Council, and other agencies on this issue. Frankly, we are losing views bit by bit on some of the road along New Zealand’s premier river, and that is a noticeable aspect. Those are the kinds of strategic things that the Walking Access Commission could also be looking at, and this bill gives scope by a process of negotiation to ensure that.
The prediction I have concerning some of those property owners, as is the case in Hamilton, is that technically there can be provision for a walkway, but people build right up to the boundary of a river. Then when one tries to retrofit a walkway, there is opposition to it.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
Part 2 of the Walking Access Bill sets out the establishment of the New Zealand Walking Access Commission as a Crown entity. The first question that National would have of the Minister in respect of this part of the bill is where walking access should sit in the bureaucracy of Government. There are those of the view that the Department of Conservation is the dominant agency, with responsibility for recreation activities. It manages about 10 million hectares of the public estate, and in many respects when we are talking about public access it is about getting to and from the conservation estate. A second possible candidate, which it seems the Government favours, is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The concern that many would have is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is—rightly so—a very commercially focused ministry; it is about supporting New Zealand’s biggest export industry. We are all aware that about $20 billion a year is generated from those primary industries, and National is concerned about whether there is a comfortable fit between the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and this new Walking Access Commission.
There are those who argue that this commission actually fits more comfortably with the work of Land Information New Zealand. The reality is that many of these issues are around land title. It is interesting, if we reflect on the history of this Parliament—and it is actually a real success story of our forebears—to realise that the Minister of Lands used to be one of the most important and one of the most contentious roles in Governments of the past. But the law has become so well settled there is little area of contention, albeit this issue of walking access, which is a debate around land law, around the areas where people can have walking access, and within what legal parameters it can happen.
We are a bit concerned. Yes, the commission is a good idea, but where should it sit? We are not convinced that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is necessarily the right place for it. I suspect the reason the commission has ended up there is that in the process of the debate on the forerunner to this bill, the previous agency, the Department of Conservation, and the Ministers who led that agency have so alienated the rural community that if the Walking Access Commission is in the framework of the Department of Conservation, it will automatically get a negative reaction from many farming communities, such that it will not be able to perform its task. But that does not necessarily take away the fact that the Department of Conservation may be a more comfortable fit, given the level of recreational interest that comes with the role of the Department of Conservation and because it manages such a large area. Over $100 million a year of the department’s budget is, indeed, for provision of recreational facilities—the huts and the tracks. We have over 10,000 kilometres of Department of Conservation tracks on public land, which this bill is designed to extend.
I would be interested in the Minister’s explaining where this commission will sit within the bureaucracy of Government, and why the Government is sitting in that particular spot. It is our view that that decision will have a significant impact on whether the commission, as it is established under Part 2 of this bill, will be able to successfully carry out the functions that are being set out for it. I also think that we need to note the amendments that were made by the select committee to Part 2. It is my view, and it is National’s view, that these issues of access are best resolved at the local level. These issues are inherently local by nature, and, to some degree, central government agencies will always be handicapped. I commend my colleague Eric Roy for his announcement, as National’s spokesman on outdoor recreation policy, that the conservation boards need to have a greater focus of people with an outdoor recreation involvement and that they should have a role in the interaction with the commission.
The amendments that National successfully advocated during the select committee process provide for walking access to be developed in close collaboration with local authorities. I give a good example in my own constituency: the proposal to develop a walkway along the Waimea estuary between the communities of Richmond and Māpua, which is a magnificent and beautiful area. But one of the difficulties is the interaction between the local authority—the Tasman District Council—the Department of Conservation, and the Land Information New Zealand. That is why in the select committee there was a push to include in clause 10(b) the words “in collaboration with local authorities:”. If we are going to have this nationwide body, we do not want it running roughshod over the local authority; we want it working in partnership with the local authority.
I also think we need to give some thought about the Walking Access Commission in respect of Sport and Recreation New Zealand. We have this other agency, and I think all members of the House would be aware of the level of concern amongst the public about the growth of bureaucracy. Bureaucratic numbers have expanded by about 10,000. It is unbelievable that we have had another 15 hectares of bureaucrats in Wellington during the term of this Government, and there is a legitimate concern that this bill is just going to add more bureaucrats. I would like to hear an explanation from the Minister as to how, when we have the Department of Conservation with a recreation focus, when we have Sport and Recreation New Zealand receiving taxpayers’ money and having a heap of bureaucrats working in this area, the Minister will make sure that we do not end up with just more bureaucrats. How will the Minister make sure that the role of the Walking Access Commission is clearly defined and is not going to clash with that of Sport and Recreation New Zealand?
The last point I make in speaking to Part 2 is on the issue of defining the degree of walking access and what we mean by it. Are people going to be able to carry firearms, are they going to be able to have dogs, and what are the issues in respect of motor vehicle access? I think most New Zealanders would view a huge difference. It is the business of the New Zealand Transport Agency—it used to be Transit, it used to be the Roads Board, we keep changing the names of these things—which is responsible for looking after access for motor vehicles for commercial, agricultural, and other purposes. This is about walking, but where does “walking” end—are there going to be generic rights around walking access provisions to be able to carry firearms, and to be able to have a dog? There are implications for landowners from those issues. Will there be clear provision in that regard?
The last point I make is in respect of clause 10(2), which ensures that walking access is culturally sensitive. Now I have to worry that we are getting awfully politically correct. I have difficulty in sorting out what is a culturally sensitive walkway and what is a culturally insensitive walkway.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
One that goes through the lounge might be deemed culturally insensitive! I just worry that—
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
The member’s slipped from being the green conscience of the National Party.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The member David Cunliffe worries about the Bluegreens and our very clear philosophy about how we deal with these issues. I have to tell the member that the Bluegreens have, as one of their key founding principles, support of public access. But I tell members another very important principle: good quality law, not this mushy law, not this woolly law. We would just like some definition around what is culturally sensitive because we worry the lawyers are going to have a field day and we are going to be none the wiser about that access.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
I want to talk about the functions of the Walking Access Commission in Part 2. I would have thought, just briefly on the issue of cultural sensitivity, that we do not need too much debate to know that we do not put a walkway through, say, a grave site or an area of archaeological significance. I think these things, frankly, are taken as read and I am sure that other members may take a call on that issue. Again, this is something of a chilling reminder to some parties, should they ever entertain even the thought of engaging with those people, if the numbers stack up in terms of post-election, to please take note. It is but another warning signal.
I am sure the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, may or may not want to take a call around some of the points that Dr Nick Smith has made in terms of the role of the Department of Conservation and in relation to the functions of the commission. I do not want to turn this debate into one of antagonism, but I do personally think that all the hard-working people who are public servants, who have suddenly been likened to so many hectares of bureaucrats on the Wellington foreshore, or whatever, by Dr Smith could take some offence. Just the other day I visited the Department of Conservation and met with the Waikato Conservation Board. I do not know that our wonderful, hard-working, heroic department staff, who are wonderful New Zealanders, should be somehow classified and demeaned as one of those extra hectares of bureaucrats. Are they the people whom Dr Smith is talking about? When he talks about bureaucrats, I would say that it is an invitation to members opposite to please identify the people whom they are demeaning by using this term.
In regard to the functions of the commission, I commend the Local Government and Environment Committee for its work. I think that the functions of the commission are well laid out, in very plain, simple English, in Part 2. Again, I note that it provides national leadership on walking access by preparing and administering a national strategy, coordinating walking access among relevant stakeholders and central government organisations, including Sport and Recreation New Zealand, and providing local and regional leadership on, and coordination of, walking access in collaboration with local authorities.
I think reference was made to the role of conservation boards. Personally, I would see the Walking Access Commission working very, very closely with conservation boards throughout New Zealand. As I mentioned, it was my privilege to sit in on the Waikato Conservation Board meeting the other day and see the incredible, wonderful work it is doing in conjunction and collaboration with the excellent Department of Conservation staff in my area. I think they would certainly have a degree of expertise and vision that would work with the commission in this way.
I also note that local authorities, as the level of government closest to the people, will also have a key role. I compliment the local authorities in my area on some of their visionary work, particularly the Waikato District Council and the Waipā local authority. With no disrespect to Dr Nick Smith—because I obviously do not question his sincerity—I say that I think he is possibly looking for issues and problems that do not exist. Mr Chair, I know that you and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, are listening intently to my contribution, but the Minister may want to take a call in regard to some of the issues that Dr Smith has raised.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Tēnā koe, uncle. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. In response to the comments made about cultural insensitivity, I would just like to say that we consider those comments about the Māori Party possibly jumping into bed with the party that wants to get rid of the Māori seats to be highly culturally insensitive. In the same way, we consider comments made on this side of the Chamber that we might want to jump into bed with the people who just stole our foreshore and seabed to be equally culturally insensitive. We are already there; it is just a case of who wants to jump in with us.
In respect of this particular Walking Access Bill and the regular comments from the Government side of the House about how pro-Māori those members are and how supportive they are of Māori endeavour, and given the number of Māori MPs in the Labour Party, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mita Ririnui, Mahara Okeroa, Dover Samuels, Dave Hereora—
—Shane Jones, and others, I wonder why, in clause 8, “Board of Commission”, instead of stating: “The Minister must, after consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs, appoint at least 1 member who has a knowledge of tikanga Māori …”, the Government did not just put “the Minister must appoint a Māori”. I wonder why the Māori members of the Government have not said boo about this at any time during these proceedings. I wonder why they do not say it, and I wonder whether it is one of only two options—they have been told they cannot say it, or they believe that it should not be there.
As a member of the Māori Party, I would have thought absolutely that the role of Māori MPs, and particularly Māori MPs pretending to represent Māori seats, and, therefore, Māori voters, on something as important as the Walking Access Bill, which will have a huge impact on Māori land right throughout Aotearoa, would be to say that it would not hurt for the Māori members of the Government to call for one of the members of the board of commission to actually be Māori, and to accept that this is simply not a position that any Māori member of Parliament should be agreeing to. The fact that the Government Māori members of Parliament can accept this suggests that this Government is not nearly as pro-Māori as it makes out.
Furthermore, given how pro-Treaty this Government has been claiming it is and will be over the next few weeks, I wonder why it did not take up the submission from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and other Māori people to include a Treaty clause in this bill. I ask that because I understand that it is Labour policy not to include the Treaty clause in non - Treaty-related legislation. Well, one could hardly assume that legislation referring to lands owned by Māori right throughout the country is not Treaty-related. Again, I am wondering why, given how many Māoris there are within the Labour Government, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, Mahara Okeroa, and others, the Treaty clause has again been voted down. I ask that because I know that it was not just Ngāi Tahu who recommended that that Treaty clause go into this bill; other Māoris recommended also that the Treaty be included in this bill, and most of the Māori submitters were concerned that the Treaty was not in the bill.
Here again was an opportunity for this Government to back up all of its talk about the Treaty by including the Treaty itself, or a reference to the Treaty, in this legislation. That it has chosen not to do so is, in my view, the clearest statement of its Treaty intentions. Kia ora.
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this
I will talk about something that no other member at this stage of the debate has alluded to. There has been discussion about bureaucracy and about the possibility of increased bureaucracy. My colleague Sandra Goudie mentioned issues around local government. Nick Smith talked about the expanded bureaucracy and about there being 15 extra acres of bureaucrats in Wellington, which is an extraordinary way of putting numbers together, but I guess it makes the point.
I draw the Committee’s attention to Subpart 2, “Code of responsible conduct”, in Part 2. If members read it, they will see that it makes very interesting reading indeed. Clause 15 states that the code’s purpose is “to provide for the development and issue of a code of responsible conduct in relation to walking access for the general guidance of—(a) users of walking access; and (b) landowners of land on which walking access is located;”. Clause 16, “Contents of code”, states: “(1) The code may include all or any of the following:”, and it goes on to give a number of different things that can be included. Then Clause 17 talks about the preparation of a draft code. It establishes that “The Commission must prepare a draft code …”. The commission then has to let the public know, so it has to give notice of the draft code. It then has to invite members of the public to make comments on it. The commission must ensure that the notice is widely published, and that the draft code is readily available to members of the public. Under clause 19, “Matters to be considered”, the commission must consider the content of a draft code—this is before it issues a code under clause 20. It must be satisfied that the recommendations on standards of behaviour, if any, are appropriate. And so it goes on and on. Finally, when all that is done, the code is issued.
What interests me is what happens then. We have a code—
Well, it may be contrary to a whole lot of things, but the point is who will administer the code. Who will police the code?
Well, I cannot read it in here. There may be a reference to enforcement officers; I have not found it, although it may well be there.
Yes, but the point is this: are we going to end up like taxi drivers? Taxi drivers, as members know, have to get a certificate of fitness. They do not get just a warrant of fitness; they actually have to go a step up. I have recently discovered that Land Transport New Zealand now has a fleet of Holden utes, with jacks and all sorts of equipment, that drive up beside taxis in the middle of the street, pull them over, and inspect them. They do spot inspections of those vehicles. Taxi drivers have gone through a higher level of certification that than just the normal warrant of fitness, but these taxi police are out there checking up on them in the same way that truck drivers are checked up on.
What worries me is that if we follow down that line, we will have walking police who pull people up to look them over—
Yes, absolutely. They will be making sure the hems of people’s shorts are right, or making sure the soles of their shoes do not have too much rubber on them, or do not have pointy spikes. I can just imagine the bureaucracy that could develop. People with little pointed hats and funny big sleeves, with pens and paper stuffed up their sleeves and goodness knows where else, could be hiding behind trees, waiting to spot-check people.
Hon Damien O’ConnorI am talking about it. This is what it could lead to. It is actually frightening when we start thinking about it. The problem is the flow-on effect. The Minister in the chair is saying I should come back to the bill, but I am in the bill—right in it. My mind is right in where it is likely to lead us. Within the next 10 or 20 years, there will be a socialist Government saying it now has an opportunity to employ more people and create more bureaucracy. It will have people hiding behind trees, spying on people, looking through binoculars down the track to see whether people are coming along the track with their trousers on the right way round. All sorts of things could happen.
If we really think about this sort of thing, we realise that we have to be concerned. Here we are, talking about a code of conduct, but if we cannot police it, why have it, and if we are going to have it, how are we going to police it? Parliament should be seriously concerned about that issue, because sooner or later we will be in a situation where people walking their dogs down a walkway somewhere in New Zealand are pulled over because the dog’s tail is too long or too short, or because the dog did something that doggies do that it should not have done right there, because the code of conduct says “You can’t do doo-doo right where you did do the doo-doo.” All those sorts of things could happen. I just make the point that we need to actually understand, when we are passing legislation like this—particularly when we are doing it in the dead of the night, and as we move towards the end of this session—what possibly could happen if it goes forward as it is.
I ask the Committee to have a look at Subpart 2 of Part 2, read it, and digest it. It has serious implications. As I have said, we now have taxi police out there, jacking up taxis all over the place. We have other police—and I cannot think of the right name for them; they are not actually police—who go around looking at trucks, taking logs off lorries, and doing all sorts of things, because some truck driver’s load is two or three kilos overweight. We will have the same thing here—you can bet your bottom dollar on it. Somebody will be walking down a track somewhere, and some little guy will squirt round the corner and say: “Sorry, you’re too big to be on this track. Off you get. You’re overweight.” Well, that is the reason why the guy is out walking in the first place—he is trying to get underweight. But he will not be allowed to get underweight, because he is overweight.
I say to members that we seriously need to be concerned about the sorts of implications that this measure could have. Members can imagine the members of the Parliamentary Rugby Team deciding to use a walkway for a training run, and they are halfway through their training run, jogging along, getting fit to take on the French in the next world cup, and what happens? Someone says the track is not a jogging track but a walking track. “You can’t do this, Parliamentary Rugby Team. It’s not in the code of conduct. You’re outside of it. Take your trousers off, and your socks.” The team members would have to walk home with just their shoes on. Members can imagine the implications of it. The mind starts boggling. The more I think about it at this time of night, at five to 12 on whatever the day is—yesterday—the more my mind starts wandering all over the place.
I am thinking about Damien O’Connor. Can members imagine him jogging down the walking track, then being stripped of his gear because he was running too fast? It would be the only time he ever did run fast; he cannot run fast on the paddock, but he could be running fast down one of these tracks, and one of these code of conduct police could say to him: “Sorry, Minister. You’ve got it wrong here. You should have tied your shoes together so you could not run so fast.” That is the sort of idiocy that we could be passing at this time of night.
None of us understands enough about it, because when we look at this bill, we see that it does not actually give us enough details. I start getting concerned at 5 to 12 on a Tuesday, which is actually Wednesday, that we actually are debating things we do not understand. I really start getting anxious. I think Parliament needs to be concerned, when we debate these bills, that we look at these things. The Local Government and Environment Committee has gone through them, but all of a sudden we find that, goodness gracious, there are some implications beyond them. I can just imagine that the code of conduct walking-track policeman will have to share a ride with the taxi policeman guy, because the taxi driver could not take someone to the walking track because he could not drive his car there, and the guy could not get there because he could not walk there because the taxi driver could not get him there. Try to figure that out! I cannot, and I just said it. I do not understand what I just said. So how in the world will some member of the public be able to understand what was said, when we are passing this bill at 5 to 12 at night, and we do not even understand what we are saying.
So I say we should beware. Mark my words, as a result of this bill there will be walking police all over the place in times to come, and we need to be worried about that.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
The previous speaker, I have discovered, was the deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee when this bill was considered. I ask members to tell me where in the commentary on the bill there is any talk about the code. I have to talk to my colleagues on this side of the Committee. I ask them to tell me what issues and what concerns the member raised during the hearings on this bill.
I would be very afraid if that member was anywhere near any form of outdoor recreation policy, as he does not understand about the code. The code is very simple and very clear—it is to protect the rights of adjacent landowners and the rights of walkers who need access. There is no rocket science here. That is really all I have to say.
I am amazed that that member, as the deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, did not raise these issues at the select committee. Where is the minority report? I cannot see it.
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this
How can we have a code of conduct when we are meant to be negotiating agreements to create these walkways and the agreement could be quite contrary to what is in the code of conduct? How on earth can we have a code of conduct that will apply generally to all these walkways when the negotiated agreements between adjacent landowners or private property owners could have matters quite contrary to whatever we have in the code of conduct? The whole thing is a load of nonsense.
There will be negotiated agreements of parameters of the conditions that will be set on a walkway, and when we are talking about cost, there certainly is a cost to the commission, which will be a Crown entity. There certainly is a cost to the establishment of walkways, because the very nature of a walkway is that people are able to walk on it, and most of the terrain will have to be level so that they can walk on it. Will that be accessible to people with disabilities? Will they be able to use wheelchairs on it? People with a disability need to be able to use a wheelchair—that is their idea of being able to have access—on those walkways. The cost of establishing a walkway and establishing the right sort of terrain to walk on will be an additional cost.
This code of conduct will go on ad infinitum, just as John Carter said. We only have to look at Part 2.