Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs) Link to this
I move, That the Walking Access Bill be now read a third time. I thank the Opposition members in the House for that comprehensive debate on what is a short but important bill. I appreciate and acknowledge the support of the vast majority of members in this House.
This is an important bill, as it goes to the heart of what most New Zealanders regard as their fundamental birthright—that is, the right to walk in, and enjoy, the great outdoors. The bill builds on the legacy of public access established over the last century and a half, and it creates the New Zealand Walking Access Commission to clarify, promote, and extend walking access in New Zealand. Hundreds of New Zealanders have shared their views on walking access issues over the last 5 years, and this bill is a significant milestone.
The process began with my predecessor, the Hon Jim Sutton, who as Minister for Rural Affairs took the issue of walking access to heart. Jim pushed the project forward when he set up the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group in 2003. The group canvassed public opinion far and wide on how best to promote walking access to our rivers, lakes, coastline, forests, mountains, and countryside. The reference group’s efforts laid the groundwork for the Walking Access Consultation Panel, which was set up in 2003 after a change in policy placing greater emphasis on the negotiation of access over private land.
One person, Brian Hayes, a former Registrar-General of Land, played a quiet but valuable role in supporting the work of the reference group and the consultation panel with his in-depth legal research. Mr Hayes’ knowledge of such things as water margin access, the ownership of riverbeds, and the status of unformed legal roads in New Zealand is without equal. His body of research is enshrined in a book that was launched in the Beehive last month, and I encourage anyone who is interested in this area to buy that book. It soon became clear that although existing water margin reservations were extensive, they were far from complete. Extending water margin reservations and remedying the effects of erosion were going to affect property rights and therefore was best done through negotiation with affected landowners. Creating new cross-country access to the coast, lakes, rivers, and other public land was also deemed necessary in order to uphold the expectations of New Zealanders who enjoy the outdoors.
Eventually it became apparent that extending access and remedying the effects of erosion, while respecting private property rights, would be achieved, where needed, through a robust process of negotiation. In coming to this conclusion the Government also recognised landholders’ concerns about vandalism, damage to plants, fences, gates, and stock, and the threat to security posed by strangers crossing their land. That was the clear perception of many, many rural dwellers.
A fundamental issue was the conflict between public aspirations and private and public property rights. This bill extends opportunities for the public to enjoy walking access to the countryside while protecting the rights of private property owners. Some people may think the bill puts too much weight and reliance on the negotiation of walking access over private land. I disagree, as did the Walking Access Consultation Panel. The select committee also disagreed by a clear majority, and its report back on the bill supported the process of negotiation. Forcing people to give up their rights flies in the face of natural justice and would only antagonise those who were happy to give permission in the past.
Access to the outdoors is a fundamental aspect of our culture as New Zealanders. It is a source of exercise, of recreation, and of inspiration. As well as providing for the negotiation of new walking access, this bill provides for enhanced provision of information about what already exists. It will be easier for people to find out where they can legally go to enjoy the great outdoors under existing agreements and easements. What has been missing is a single point of reference for the leadership, coordination, extension, and improvement of walking access. By establishing the Walking Access Commission, this bill provides the structure and mechanisms needed to advance walking access in New Zealand. Currently it has a budget of $2 million a year, which is modest but we think it will be an efficient and effective amount to undertake all the tasks, which was a question that was asked in the Committee stage.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR Link to this
It is $2 million.
The commission will need to develop strong collaborative relationships with allied agencies. It will also need to build and maintain a solid and trusting relationship with recreation, farming, and local government stakeholders. As a new Crown entity the commission will have its hands full in the early stages as it comes to grips with its roles and with public expectations. Once it is up and running I expect the commission to turn its attention quickly to developing a national strategy on walking access, identifying existing access, and deciding its priorities for the negotiation of walking access over private land where that is necessary.
Important tasks will be to develop a code of responsible conduct for walkways, to develop its research and education capacity, and to establish processes for resolving disputes over walking access. The extension and improvement of walking access will bring long-term benefits to our country in terms of increased social capital and an enhanced sense of national identity, along, of course, with a healthier and more active nation.
Before concluding, I express my gratitude to the members of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group, those on the Walking Access Consultation Panel, and those on the Walking Access Advisory Board for the experience and hard work they put in to bring this policy to a conclusion. I acknowledge in particular the contribution made by John Acland, who has had to spend a couple of days longer in Wellington to see this bill through, in his commitment to the principles of walking access and his expertise as the chair of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group, the chair of the Walking Access Consultation Panel, and on the interim advisory board for the commission. I say thank you to John. He has been the vital glue that held the various strands together. His competent leadership gave the process credibility during the two extensive rounds of consultation, sometimes in the face of extreme provocation, I have to say, particularly during an incident in Marlborough.
I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to Gottlieb Braun-Elwert for his contribution as a member of the former reference group and as an outstanding mountaineer and guide. His sudden death was a blow to all outdoor enthusiasts. Although not everyone agreed with his vision on public access, no one could doubt his sincerity and enthusiasm for the principles and outcomes that this legislation will deliver for all New Zealanders into the future.
I thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their work on the bill. They listened to recommendations through submissions made to the select committee, and they made the changes necessary. I would like in particular to thank Moana Mackey for her skill as chair of the committee, and Martin Gallagher for his enthusiastic and patriotic contribution to this debate and at the select committee.
I also acknowledge the contribution of my parliamentary colleague Eric Roy, who served as a member of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group in the first place while not a member of Parliament. Eric helped the group understand the implications of the policy for landholders, and brought a pragmatic approach to the group’s work. I say kia ora to him. I am grateful to all the submitters who took the time to make their views known during both consultation processes. They helped influence and shape the policy and the bill in ways not always obvious to those on the edge of the policy process. Finally, I acknowledge the support that the officials have given to this process. They have faced some challenging times over a process of 5 years. I thank Jim Sutton for his vision in raising this issue early on. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this
National supports the third reading of the Walking Access Bill. We do so because we finally see common sense prevail in what has been a very difficult and emotive debate. I acknowledge also the contribution of John Acland, who has been involved in this for a long time, and has certainly at times incurred the wrath of many of our farmers. My thanks also go to Eric Roy for his involvement in the process. He was an inspired choice by Jim Sutton, the predecessor of Damien O’Connor as the Minister for Rural Affairs, because when he was not a member of Parliament he was able to be on the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group and provide the very good common-sense perspective of a landowner.
The reason this debate has been so destructive is that it threatened the sanctity of private property rights. It threatened to create a real divide between rural New Zealand and urban New Zealand. I am pleased today that finally common-sense legislation has been presented by the Labour Government. In my mind, this became a personal crusade of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. I have no idea why she developed this personal crusade, but there is a strong rumour around the high country of the South Island that on one of her regular expeditions around the high country she and her tramping group were denied access to a farming property. I suspect she was denied access not because the farmer did not want them on the land enjoying his farm, but because the group never bothered to ask the farmer for permission in the first place. That is a strong rumour. It is hard to prove, but it is certainly one that one picks up every time one goes through Tekapō. This argument should be all about respecting private property rights, something that Ms Moroney finds very, very difficult to do.
Today we finally see a good way of delivering better public access to our public estate. But what this bill does—and it does it well—is that it finally respects the private property rights of farmers. They like people enjoying access to their farms. I say to Sue Moroney that the only thing they want is the privilege of being asked first. That is all that was required in this debate. That is what John Acland and his reference group finally found when they went and spoke to the thousands of landowners throughout the country who found the original proposal by Jim Sutton and Helen Clark absolutely abhorrent to private property rights and to democracy. What we see today is a strategic back-down. It is a big back-down for the Labour Government.
Lesley SoperMs Soper has not been here long enough to actually understand the issue and know the derision and division it caused throughout rural New Zealand. Tonight we have a pragmatic solution. The important thing Ms Moroney needs to realise is that it is actually the policy that National advanced at the very outset of this debate. We said that this is what we wanted to do. One has to respect private property rights and at least have the ability, the common sense, and the decency to ask permission if one wants to go on private land.
Christopher FinlaysonIt is very easy to upset them over the Prime Minister. It is also quite a lot of fun.
The other thing this bill does is acknowledge that in some cases access to a public resource is denied because it is effectively encompassed by private land. Legislation has finally said that in those circumstances we need to do what National always said we need to do: enter into good-faith negotiations with the landowner and find a solution. Finally, after 5, 6, or 7 years of acrimony and division, we have the solution that National advocated in the first place, and that is why it is with pleasure that National finally supports this legislation.
But the question that Sue Moroney can answer when she next takes a call is why Helen Clark caused all this angst. Why did the farmers throughout New Zealand tie orange ribbons round their gates, their trees, and any other structure they could attach a ribbon to in order to signal to New Zealanders that private property rights were important? Where Helen Clark went wrong, and where Sue Moroney is now going wrong, is that it did not become a debate between rural New Zealand and urban New Zealand, because urban New Zealanders also had a respect for private property rights. They knew that what the Government, Jim Sutton, and Helen Clark originally proposed was wrong, and they joined in supporting the farmers of New Zealand. It is with the support of farmers and all common-sense New Zealanders that tonight we are getting the sort of legislation that is required to address this issue.
I am pleased the stupid fight is now over. I am pleased that Labour and Helen Clark have finally seen common sense. I am pleased to be part of a debate that sees the legislation passed in the dying days of a Labour Government—there are 6½ weeks to go before the general election—and it will be good to get this one off the agenda. But most important, I support the Walking Access Bill because it finally recognises the importance of private property rights.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. For us in the Māori Party this bill goes back to June 2005 when Labour, flush from having stolen the foreshore and seabed from Māori, thought it would take a shot at the rest of the country by opening up access to rivers, lakes, and conservation lands in its walking access report. Farmers, however, saw it as a blatant attack on their private property rights, and the rural heartland said: “Hell, no, we will not be having all and sundry traipsing through our farms, leaving gates open, scaring the animals, endangering lives, and leaving the blame at our back door.” Although the Māori Party was just new at that time, Tariana Turia nailed it in the House when she said that this bill would have been the death knell for Labour’s embattled Māori MPs if they allowed it to go through. She said it would be a case of another theft by a Government that clearly does not care about whom, in the end, it is upsetting—a Government that is obviously counting the votes and must think that more people are willing to walk over other people’s properties and to claim waters that do not belong to them.
What followed is history now, but Federated Farmers ran a successful campaign about the protection of property rights, enabling many hapū and iwi to again challenge the Government theft of Māori lands. The Government backed down—for a while at least—then, hello, a few months ago it sneaked it in again through this new bill, by establishing the New Zealand Walking Access Commission to oversee public access to the coast, lakes, and rivers. The bill has some good bits in it, like requiring the commission to have at least one member with knowledge of tikanga Māori, although we would rather it required at least one member who is Māori, to negotiate with private landowners, and with the appropriate Māori landowners.
There are some good ideas there, but a number of submissions raised major concerns for us, such as the one from Waikato that said: “Once again, I see blatant legislative theft creeping up on the last 6 percent of land we have in this country.” Another one from Taupō said: “The big issue for us is that this absolutely targets Māori land for access for New Zealanders.” And a submission from Ngāi Tahu said it would not support opening up land if it meant possible desecration of taonga and damage to significant sites. All of the Māori submissions on this bill refer to the fact that Te Tiriti o Waitangi had actually guaranteed “te tino rangatiratanga … o rātou whenua o rātou kainga me o rātou taonga katoa,”—the full and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, fisheries, and other properties.
Māori submitters also called on sites of cultural importance to Māori to be respected, recognised, and protected, with Ngāi Tahu going further by recommending that permission be given before information on significant sites is published, or that those sites be exempted from the bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee, of course, ignored all of those requests. Ngāi Tahu also recommended that the code of responsible conduct include mandatory consultation with tangata whenua, and appropriate standards of behaviour. But all the bill does is require the code to include information on Māori relationships with land and waterways.
Māori also made other recommendations that were ignored, like putting a Treaty clause into the bill, and increasing Māori representation on the commission. Last week, Angeline Greensill, Māori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato, told me a simple home truth: we are given two ears and one mouth for a very simple reason—to listen twice as much as we talk. This bill turns that truth upside down because it is all talk and no ears. There were 136 submissions on this bill, but what we have ended up with seems to be just another template from the Government’s policy shop.
The philosophy behind this bill is sound; the kaupapa of enabling New Zealanders to have access to Aotearoa is sound. But the detail is sadly lacking. In the same way that this Labour Government refused to listen to the tens of thousands of Māori who marched to Wellington to try to stop the theft of the foreshore and seabed, so, too, has this Labour Government refused to heed the call from Māori about proper negotiation for access to their ancestral lands and waters.
In the same way that the Māori Party was born out of a determination to defend Māori rights and advance Māori interests, so, too, will we refuse to support this bill today. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare.
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) Link to this
Firstly, I want to congratulate the Minister in charge of the bill, Damien O’Connor, and his officials, whom I know to be good practical people, not carried away with ideology and working in dreamtime. I congratulate him on bringing together a bill that even Opposition members say is sensible and workable. I acknowledge also Mr Eric Roy, who worked over many years to bring a bill like this to fruition, and the other people who have worked on it, including, I might add, Mr Bryce Johnson of the New Zealand Fish and Game Council.
We in New Zealand First believe that the enviable lifestyle New Zealanders see as their right should be preserved. I said in the opening speeches that I have a brother who has a farm under family ownership, just him and his son, that covers 10 farms, which was the norm when I was a—well, I am still a reasonably young man—younger man. Things are changing out there in the rural community. The days have gone when people could go to several farmers down one road and if access was refused to a river, stream, or lake for some reason or another, they could go to the next farmer to get access. Those days have gone, because in many cases a number of farms are covered by one owner, and it could be an owner who does not live anywhere near the property—which is not my brother’s case, I hasten to add.
When we look at private rights—and I know I am going to get picked up for this—it is a fact that we must also look at public rights. We must look to where many of us came from, and we do not want to go back there. We must not go back, and we cannot go back, to the days of grace and favour, where those in an enviable position, or were wealthy or were huge landowners, gave their favour to people to go on to their land or whatever. I for one—and I am moving a little bit ahead of my caucus, and I acknowledge that, and I am also moving ahead of this bill—look forward to the day, and I think we will get there, when access is given to iconic places around New Zealand that are registered, surveyed, and marked, with its own rights and with relevant trespass provisions and rules on what people can do and carry on those access ways. I think that we will get there, but I am not whipping the cat over that. This is an amazing first start, which is why I congratulated the Minister in my first speech.
I acknowledge the former deputy mayor of Hamilton Martin Gallagher, who fought long and hard, in quite an acrimonious atmosphere, to have public access around one of the very few waterways we actually enjoy in Hamilton. If members wants to have a laugh that is OK, but we have a peat lake in Hamilton, which we are pretty proud of, are we not, Mr Gallagher? He fought to have a walkway. Even today there are a couple of places where agreement could not be reached, and the wooden walkway actually extends out on to the waterway and then comes back on to land. I do not know of any problems surrounding that. I do not think the burglary rate has increased. I do not think those local people suffer any problems because that walkway is there. But what I do know, and what is important as far as this bill is concerned, is that thousands upon thousands of Hamiltonians walk around that lake, and enjoy that lake, which they could not do so before.
That is the case here. It is not about arguing about private property rights. It is about—and this bill sets up the New Zealand Walking Access Commission—reaching agreement in a modern world so that the increasing urban society and the decreasing rural society in this country can both reach their mutual aims. It is not about one group being pitted against the other. I am sad if some people tend to see it that way. I think we should look on these things as a modern approach to something that in the past was taken for granted when our population was far more biased towards the rural environment, and our population was far smaller. A bill such as this was simply not needed in those days, but just because it was not needed then does not mean to say that it is not needed now. So that is where I would like to see it go to.
I think that there is little danger that this will turn into a bureaucracy. Mr Roy said it is a bit light on saying who will go on the Walking Access Commission, but I would like to say from my farming experience that I have confidence that they will be practical people versed in the ways of the community that they serve, and who have the common interest at heart. I am keen to see boards, be it Department of Conservation or any other board around the country, taking a closer interest in the people who will be on the commission, whether they be from fish and game, forest and bird, whether they are hunters and that sort of thing, and to encourage those sorts of people to be on the commission so that there is a wider perspective. It is not just about conservation, it is not just about hunters; it is about serving the needs of our community in the widest possible sense. We believe this bill goes a huge way towards that.
We had critics in my own caucus who raised the sorts of questions that are being raised here, but this bill—as we went through it—satisfied them that this actually was a modern way forward and something that was absolutely necessary. This is the last speech New Zealand First intends to make on this bill. We heartily applaud this bill, and look forward to supporting it into law.
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this
It is good to have worked on the Walking Access Bill, and to see an outcome that is quite positive. This bill is unique in many ways. The legislation started from a very polarised position, yet it now has a high degree of agreement. It is unique in that on a night when we have had nine valedictories, a good number of members in the House are being abstemious, and are here to debate the merits of this bill when there are other attractions socially that might draw them away—which shows the degree of seriousness about this bill. The bill is unique in the context that, as I said, it started with quite a high degree of divergence of opinion, and has gone entirely through the Committee stage without amendment, nor with any amendments being tabled and lost. That is unique in the Committee stage. It is also unique in that through the various debates on the various stages of the bill I have imparted a bit of information about marginal strips, the Queen’s Chain, and the legislative process that has gone around the establishment of the rights of New Zealanders.
There has been no substantial attempts to develop or enhance to this level the access opportunities for New Zealanders since 1891. John McKenzie was the Minister of Lands under the Ballance Government, and was an interesting character in himself. He shares a lot of similarities to my grandfather, whom I will get to in just a minute to show members my perspective on this. He came to New Zealand from Scotland, he spoke only Gaelic, and he wanted to develop a New Zealand for which there was a degree of utilitarian approach, there was no favouritism, and there were no riparian rights. He was Minister of Lands under Ballance. He broke up some of the great squattocracies of the South Island and did it in a way that created the family farm in 1891. There is a book that members who are interested in this should read called Lands for the People?. John McKenzie became a member of a school committee to learn about representation before he stood for Waihemo. Anyone driving through Palmerston will see a monument to John McKenzie on top of the hill on the seaward side of Palmerston. It is not since 1891 that there has been any substantial attempt to move access opportunities for New Zealanders forward.
I said that John McKenzie had a lot of similarities to my grandfather and his expectations. When I was on the Walking Access Consultation Panel we had to introduce ourselves, and I told this story, which is true, that my great-grandfather John Roy in Ballybogey in County Antrim about 1857 or 1858, just after the end of the potato famine, was about to be apprehended by a gamekeeper for poaching rabbits and he shot the gamekeeper. He volunteered to leave at that stage, went to Canada, and when gold was discovered in Gabriels Gully he came to New Zealand. We all have stories like that. It is an intrinsic part of me, as a landowner who wants fairness and recognition of property rights, and also as a hunter-gatherer, and as a person who enjoys recreation, to say there is a balance. And that is the unique part of this bill: that after some reasonably extreme positions taken and lined up in the first instance, there has been a lot of agreement in this House in recognising both property rights and the right and the heritage of New Zealanders to enjoy the outdoors and the public resources that are so special.
New Zealand is unique in the world in that respect. There are very few countries that have the absence of riparian rights to the extent that New Zealand has. To my knowledge no other country has laid down so many opportunities for access. There is no other country with similar proportionality of national parks to New Zealand. We have that heritage, but we have had this gap that no one has seriously attempted to resolve since 1891. That is a unique situation.
Let us talk, for a moment, about those gaps. I have already mentioned my modest holdings in the district of Te Tipua. I am in the process of selling some of that land and I want to retain a wetland. When I bought that property I was told there was a marginal strip down that river. I said I wanted a survey of that wetland and want to retain ownership of a bit of my birthright—of where I started. It is a good place to shoot ducks, as well, but that is not the only interest. I said to the surveyor, just last week, I have an egress, a marginal strip, down the river. He looked up and said: “No, you haven’t.” I had believed there was a marginal strip down the river. I have just bought another property and they said: “Hang on; there’s no marginal strip there.” I went to the surveyor, searched the deed, got the Land Information New Zealand report—hey presto, there is a marginal strip on the river there! That is relatively typical of what exists out there.
The bill locks in the responsibilities of the Walking Access Commission, but we should not underestimate the job as easy or simple. There will need to be an ongoing process. At least we have set up the Walking Access Commission, and it will have a role in determining what exists and it will negotiate those opportunities. There are, indeed, a lot of unique things about this bill. I should mention Jim Sutton’s role in the legislation. I have said before that I think he probably got it a little bit wrong, at the start of the process, when he mentioned the wander-at-will provision. It made everybody a bit fearful and some people became quite concerned. I think that comment was out of context with the property rights of New Zealanders. I mentioned that we have a greater proportion of national parks and other opportunities to go walking than other countries. We are not the UK or Europe, and there is not a history of wander-at-will walking opportunities such as are enshrined in the history of those countries, but we have something unique and special in New Zealand and this bill is quite a significant step forward in improving the opportunities for New Zealanders to participate in that way.
It is proper to acknowledge again that the role of the Walking Access Commission will not be an easy one. The people who are appointed will need integrity, and that goes without saying. I pick up on the point made by my colleague Hone Harawira, who said there should be fair representation of tangata whenua. There are responsibilities that go with the property rights determined by the commission so tangata whenua will have to be involved. The people appointed will need wisdom and an ability to negotiate. They will need to get some runs on the board. The commission will not be a talkfest; it will have to get some resolution of the issues that exist. Maybe at some time in the future the House will have to address the issue of private capture, if some landowners continue that habit. We need to sound a warning to any future landowner who reads the legislation or the Hansard of the debate that the House is saying this legislation does not resolve that issue but if there is an ongoing problem, then the House will address it. That is a cautionary note to anybody who is thinking of squeezing a dollar out of exclusive capture. There are reasons why access may not be freely available, but if we are talking about exclusive capture to generate a dollar, then I believe that this House, at some stage in the future, will address that issue, and it will be quicker than the 117 years it has taken for this significant step forward.
It has been a pleasure to go back on to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which I have been on and off a few times in my life, but to be appointed to deal with this bill—
I missed those guys, too. It was good to get a resolution, and without the tabling of even one amendment. That is unique. I am happy to support the third reading of the bill.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
It gives me huge pleasure, and it is something of a privilege, to be able to speak to the third reading of the Walking Access Bill. I think history will record this bill as one of the more significant achievements of this Parliament, and certainly of this Government. I acknowledge the previous speaker and his contribution over a number of years on this bill.
We had an interesting Committee stage last night, and I will see whether the Hansard Office can circulate Mr Roy’s speech and give it to my good, dear friend and colleague Sandra Goudie, a Waikato MP, whom I am very close to, and also to John Carter from the far North, whom, in reality, I am much closer to. We had an interesting interchange about some rules and regulations, but that has been a very good summary. I think that Eric Roy and others have acknowledged the history of the bill, and this is a very historical process.
I acknowledge Doug Woolerton and thank him. Doug and I love the Waikato, and we have seen the dangers whereby some of our recreational access ways along rivers and lakes are potentially being blocked off. We believe that a proactive Walking Access Commission, working with local government and our conservation boards, will start to play a part.
One of the challenges for the new commission will be the kind of budget it has and the kind of leadership role it can take, because we have to start looking very seriously in terms of negotiations with private-property owners, particularly in terms of covenants across private land. Hopefully, the Walking Access Commission will engage in some long-term strategic thinking about a network of walkways and access ways across our nation. That may take some time to achieve.
I have already alluded to my dream that one day we will have a Pacific to Tasman walkway that will go from the Bay of Plenty, over the Kaimais, through the pristine farmlands of the Waikato, and out to the wonderful Kāwhia/Raglan area on the Tasman Sea. Again, this is about a legacy for our grandchildren. I have just received a note, and I say to the Hon Michael Cullen: “Who knows? But life will tell.”
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the fact that many hands have been involved in the process of this bill. I particularly acknowledge Damien O’Connor. There has already been mention of Jim Sutton, and I acknowledge his great role, but I also acknowledge the many people within the Minister’s office.
In particular, I take the opportunity, if I may, to acknowledge Peter Coburn. I do not want to embarrass him, but he is a very good West Coaster, and I know the Minister would want me to acknowledge him. He works in the Minister’s office, and he has always been exceptionally enthusiastic and passionate. If he is listening tonight—and I believe he is in the gallery—I say to him that working for this place is something of a challenge, but this bill is one exercise on which I think he will look back in later life and say: “Job well done. This is a bit of a legacy I was part of.” I want to acknowledge particularly his role. The Minister asked me to do that, and I am delighted to join with him in doing that.
I also briefly mention my own patch and some wonderful people, such as councillor Ted Armstrong, whom my good colleague Sue Moroney knows well. Do members remember the days he got the old tin snippers out and used them along the Awatere Avenue walkway because private property owners at the time had fenced off our river access way? Doug Woolerton will remember that; he will remember old Ted getting the old snippers out and making the point. Those were not private fiefdoms, and they were not Miami-style beach reserves; they were public access ways for the people of our city.
I also mention Bill Featherston, who is the director of our parks and gardens in Hamilton. He has come to me time and time again and said we have to make sure the Queen’s Chain becomes a reality, because in some places it is actually quite a myth. Certainly, we have to work with local government to ensure that those access ways are available.
Finally, let us get on and pass this bill. I know that the junior Government whip will be very keen to do that. I know that Leslie Soper will be keen. She has made me well aware of the wonderful heritage opportunities in her area of Southland, and of what an incredible area it is. This bill will be a win-win for us throughout the country. In essence, the bill raises the profile of walking access and provides a very strong foundation for the improvement and extension of walking access for our families—Kiwi families, young and old. That is a wonderful legacy for this Parliament to gift and leave.
The bill will also 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 be able to carry out their businesses without undue hindrance. I acknowledge the contribution of Waikato Federated Farmers, Bill Garland, and the people in the Waikato, who have been very constructive in helping on this bill.
Finally, I acknowledge that the bill does not undermine private property rights. Public access to private land, including Māori land, remains subject to negotiation. That is the key, and that is the point Eric Roy was making before. It is about negotiation and agreement with landholders. It is a huge pleasure and privilege to speak in support of legislation that, I think, our grandkids and great-grandkids will thank this Parliament for. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
I rise to support the Walking Access Bill as the best possible bill we could have in this area in the current political climate, but we have some misgivings about some aspects of the bill, particularly those regarding the balance of public and private rights inherent in it. The Greens’ position has been adequately conveyed in previous speeches, so in the final speech on this bill, we will focus on four specific matters that we have been investigating in recent weeks.
I point out that the bill as it stands still does not give the commission the ability to arbitrate—it can only negotiate—so it still cannot actually deal with the really hard questions. Where there are really difficult issues, this legislation will not help, so I think that we should not over-egg it as to what it will achieve. I would also just encourage Eric Roy to connect with the poacher within himself. I tell him that he should go back to the poacher within himself.
Ha, ha!
The first thing is the Overseas Investment Office. The Federated Mountain Clubs wrote to us, raising the very good point that access opportunities are sometimes missed when the Overseas Investment Office negotiates conditions for the sale of sensitive land to overseas parties. Due to commercial sensitivity, Ministers have refused to notify stakeholder groups like the Federated Mountain Clubs about such sales. Recreational stakeholders would obviously like the chance to identify and advocate for access opportunities, and we agree. Obviously it would be preferable if we were not selling land to overseas owners, but given that we know that it happens, we think that this opportunity should be given.
We raised this matter directly with the Minister. We are pleased to advise the House that the Minister has agreed that formalising the relationship between the Walking Access Commission and the Overseas Investment Office is possible without an amendment to either the Overseas Investment Act or the Walking Access Act, and will be established via an exchange of ministerial letters. We thank the Federated Mountain Clubs and the Minister for undertaking constructive engagement to resolve this issue.
Second, the Green Party remains concerned with a definition in this bill—that of “private land”. Part of the definition is “any land that is held by a person under a lease or licence granted to the person by the Crown;”. This definition is only for the purpose of this bill, but even so, the inclusion of types of Crown land, public land, and conservation land in the definition of “private land” should ring alarm bells on principle. This part applies to two specific areas, which are pastoral leases, and leases and licences more broadly. Crown pastoral lease land is very attractive in its own right for recreation. However, it has often been a barrier for access between public roads and the conservation estate. Some runholders have been able to effectively capture public areas and unreasonably deny access by assuming the authority of the Trespass Act.
The Local Government and Environment Committee heard that the Fish and Game Council was contemplating making an application to the High Court for a declaratory judgment on whether Crown pastoral leases grant an exclusive possession of the land to the lessee. This application has now been lodged and it will be heard soon. If the High Court finds in the Fish and Game Council’s favour, the present definition of “private land” may need to be reconsidered. It is important that Parliament is made aware of this possibility now, so that there are no surprises later.
Additionally, the definition of “private land” in this bill applies to land held under any lease or licence, so it includes things like a grazing lease or mining licence on conservation land. Generally, areas like these are closed to public access only where there is a specific reason to do so—for example, during mining operations or lambing. The Greens have been assured by the Minister that this definition will not lessen any current access rights to Crown land. The official advice is that it is significant only where there is a licence or lease that grants exclusive possession.
The Green Party wishes to make it quite clear that we are voting for the bill on the understanding that the bill does not lessen current access rights and that it does not establish a principle that Crown leases and licences are in any way private land. The whole idea that public land is defined as private land is rather illogical, members must admit. If any lessening of access rights transpires, or if this legislation is used to confiscate access rights to public land, the Green Party will fight to ensure that the current access rights on public land are restored.
Third, it is important that a Crown entity such as the Walking Access Commission, which has responsibility for an area of intense public interest, is transparent in its operations. Crown entities are required to establish their own operational procedures within the bounds of the Crown Entities Act. The Green Party votes for this bill in the hope that the commission will be transparent. The panels and consultation process that have led to this bill have been transparent, and the commission is expected to continue the trend. We hope that means it will, in general, allow the public to attend its meetings and that it will publish its minutes, notices, and reports, preferably on a website for ease of access. It is incumbent on an access commission to allow maximum public access to its decision making.
Finally, we have raised the issue of the rather long review period of 10 years in previous speeches and in the select committee. Despite the support of United Future on reducing this to a more sensible period, we have not convinced the Government or the National Party to agree to a reduction. The Minister is confident that there will be ample chance for Ministers to identify and resolve problems with the legislation through the annual reports of the Walking Access Commission and through public interest and scrutiny of the commission’s activities. If problems or inefficiencies arise, we sincerely hope that it is not necessary to wait for 10 long years to address them. With these points noted, I say that the Greens will be voting for the bill.
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this
I rise on behalf of United Future to support the third reading of the Walking Access Bill. At the beginning of this legislative process United Future was concerned that the proposal would serve only to displace unformed legal roads as legal entities. Much has been done to address this concern, and all those who worked on this bill need to congratulated on tidying that up.
It is an especially 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 they are part of the public estate owned by everyone in general. As a consequence of that, it is not unreasonable that the general public should be able to expect, and to have, fair and reasonable access to that which is theirs, and although respecting the property rights of landowners, they want to have access for recreation and for things as basic as food-gathering—as in the case of fishers and hunters. There are other forms of food-gathering, such as shellfish and Māori customary food-gathering issues.
A further consequence of this, therefore, is that there are 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 it has its origins in the wish of the early settlers to not see a replication of the landed gentry’s owning and exclusively controlling the fish and game animal resource. Therefore, it is good and important that clause 3 of the bill specifically refers to these public resources, and the Hansard record needs to show that Parliament intended for 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 actually resolve any disputes of access. This is particularly important when negotiating over private land in order to gain access to a public resource such as a river or lake. We envisage 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 powers to resolve the dispute and provide public access to a public resource by way of a walkway or enforcing access by way of unformed legal road.
It is difficult to understand this aspect of the bill. There is in the bill the intention to resolve the issue surrounding the public’s right to access. However, the commission that the bill sets up has no formal powers to actually do that. It is of concern that this whole bill is built around new access being implemented by negotiation and agreement rather than access actually being resolved.
Public access to the South Island high country and Crown pastoral lease lands is of high public interest for outdoor recreation. United Future is disappointed to see that this bill still includes Crown leases and licences in the definition of private land when clearly they are not. These lands are owned by all New Zealanders, and are a part of the broader public estate over which the lessees hold only a right to graze pasture. It is therefore important that this Parliament notes that the Fish and Game Council currently has before the High Court an application for a declaratory judgment on the question of whether Crown pastoral leases grant exclusive occupation of leased land. United Future understands that recent legal and public policy research on the special statutory nature of these leases suggests Crown pastoral leases do not carry exclusive occupancy, which means that if the court agrees with Fish and Game, then this definition in the bill will require amendment to remove all reference to Crown pastoral leases.
Finally, we want to recognise the efforts of Fish and Game in causing this bill to happen. It began back in 1999 when Fish and Game convinced the then Labour Opposition, which then made a manifesto commitment, that there was a growing issue around access and that New Zealand was seeing the beginnings of a privatisation of—
Chris TremainI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the matter that is being spoken about at the moment is sub judice, and is still before the courts.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this
Could somebody clarify for me, because I do not know of everything that is before the courts. Is it before the courts?
There is a High Court application before the courts on behalf of Fish and Game, I understand, but I would also make the point that there is a breach of the sub judice rule only if it is likely that discussion of that proceeding is likely to cause prejudice to the outcome of the case. That is the test in the Standing Orders.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this
The advice I have just heard, and I take it as sound, is that the House sets a high standard. Anything that is before the courts is not discussed by the House, just as one does not expect the courts to comment on the work before us.
Can I just clarify that. My only reference was that the outcome of that case—and I was not making any comment on what the outcome would or could or should be—may require future investigation of definitions within this bill.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this
If the member could continue without making any further reference to it, it would be helpful.
All right. I was just saying that I recognised that Fish and Game has had a huge input into where we are today in that it convinced the Labour Opposition back in 1999, which then made a manifesto commitment. The concern was that there was a growing issue around access, and that New Zealand was seeing the beginnings of 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, and game found on private land.
Like the Greens, we have some concern about the current review provisions of this bill. We think that 10 years is far too long, and the concern we have is that if problems develop, they could well have become entrenched and very counterproductive by the time this law is reviewed. However, United Future is happy to support the third reading of this bill.
METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to get some clarification around that rule, because it does concern me a little bit that the bar might be set too high. Standing Order 111 states, as you have pointed out: “Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to determine its own matters, matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to … (b) in any debate, … if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” I am asking for clarification: is it, then, your ruling that the Speaker has automatically made a decision that in every case any matter that is being adjudicated by the court poses a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial, without hearing the specifics of that case?
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this
The most recent supplementary sub judice ruling was made by the Speaker on 27 August, and I will read it, or parts of it, to the member: “The sub judice rule is set out in the Standing Orders, and it is the Speaker who determines its application”—the member accepts that. “It is not for individual members to waive the application of the rule. The rule is not intended to inhibit discussion of the law in general. … However, nothing said in the House should prejudice, however slightly, the decision of any court.” I think that is where we are erring on the safety side. I make the point that particularly when I was a Minister, I knew that a first reading speech I made, or what I said about potential rules, affected what judges thought. So we have to be very careful about what we say in the House.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) Link to this
In speaking to the Walking Access Bill I take comfort in the comments of support from my colleagues.
John Acland is present in the gallery and I acknowledge his work, sincerity, and commitment to this process. As the member for Kaikoura, I feel that it would be appropriate to tell the House a little bit about the background of this bill and the angst that developed in Marlborough. It all originated from a candidate who was standing for selection for the Labour Party. His name was Brendon Burns. He took it upon himself to challenge the farmers and the local community, saying that this approach was the right way forward and that there should be a right to roam. Unfortunately, starting from that position did not build good, trusting relationships.
What happened in the end—and it was one of my first experiences as a candidate—was that at a forum in Blenheim David Carter and I spoke to a crowd of 200 very angry farmers. We got the message very early on that the community of Marlborough, especially the rural community, would not wear that approach. Sadly, as things unfolded and John Acland came around with the Walking Access Consultation Panel, he ran into the tail end of that suspicion. On that basis, I apologise to John for that lack of trust and confidence in his sincerity in wanting to find a way forward. It was born out of deep-seated suspicion and a lot of aggro that had happened over some period of time. So it is heartening to see that we have found a way through.
I acknowledge also the input of Eric Roy. Members appreciate the mana of the man when he speaks here. He has a very balanced and reasonable view of things, and one would say that he can see both sides of the story.
I point out to the House that New Zealand is one of the most urbanised countries in the OECD. In New Zealand, 88 percent of people live in urban areas and 12 percent of people live in rural areas. I mention that from the point of view that I am one of those rural people. People get up and talk about romantic notions of wandering around in the hinterland, enjoying their birthright, and suchlike. When I have been snow-raking outside in cold weather, I have wondered why on earth I decided to do it. When I have had to pull a beast out of river or a creek, I have thought who in his or her right mind would want to do this. When I start to hear some of these romantic notions, I say that we have to temper them with common sense—which, I believe, is what we have come to.
The National Party’s 2005 policy on walking access is to ensure that public access is achieved through negotiated agreement with landowners. I am very comfortable with that, although I pick up on John Carter’s comments during the Committee stage. I say to the members on the other side of the House that that policy will work under National, but I have grave fears about how it would work under Labour. We are talking about a budget of $2 million.
Something that has not been discussed during this process is the abdication of responsibility by the Department of Conservation. The Walking Access Commission will have to go into bat on behalf of those people who have been walking the many iconic tracks that have fallen into total disrepair. I refer to one particular iconic walk, called the Three Passes. When I was a young fellow of about 19 we used to be able to walk over the Three Passes, out through the Arahura River, across the Styx Saddle, and then down and out the Styx River, but now that track has slipped away and it is becoming incredibly dangerous. People walk this track carrying 20 kilogram packs. The Walking Access Commission will have to have a serious talk to the Department of Conservation about maintaining those tracks. Or will it?
I draw members’ attention to Part 3, which talks about administering authorities. Administering authorities either will give the Walking Access Commission permission to create a walkway on public land, or they will not. We have been talking so much about private property rights, which are very, very important. We have been talking about access across privately owned land to get to public land, but there is every opportunity that when this bill is passed today—obviously, the House is supporting it—the Department of Conservation will abdicate its responsibilities to maintain its tracks. If the department says that it is not interested and it will not give away its right to control conservation estate, this commission can effectively do nothing to bring it to heel. We have to be very mindful that this is an enormous issue, and with a budget of $2 million I cannot see how the commission will be able to address this situation fully and adequately.
It is all very fine that we have the commission, and the controlling authority that will be appointed by the commission. That will probably be the local authority, and I bet it will be tearing its hair out and not thanking us a great deal. There is a code of conduct. My wife said something very interesting the other day—she says a lot of interesting things—and I think it is worth repeating: “When people start talking about their rights, they have generally done something wrong.” My real concern around this code of conduct is that we must instil into it that access is, in fact, a responsibility. Respect is to be shown, and we must get that message through. Unfortunately, in this whole process of things, with the euphoria of access and suchlike, we lose the real importance of respecting that right of access.
Another thing that needs to be raised is that the Minister of Agriculture will have oversight of this, and therefore the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will have oversight. It has to be very careful that it does not take its eye off its core responsibilities. We know that it is stretched beyond its limits at the moment. One has only to sit on the Primary Production Committee to see that its members are wrestling with such things as the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the hazardous substances legislation. The ministry also has challenges with biosecurity, and it does not have its import health standards up to the standard they ought to be. We have seen just today, around biosecurity, that it has had to remove funding to deal with the varroa bee mite, and it is wrestling with the clover root weevil issue. Such things as this are of huge concern.
I put on notice that we are supporting this bill. This bill will work when it is in law under National, but I have grave concerns about how it would work under Labour. Labour no longer has connections with the provinces. Labour does not have experience of farmers or the rural community, and it has proven that it does not have respect for property rights. Thank you very much.