Walking Access Bill

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.

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 Coleman: You’re sounding like Blumsky.

Well, 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.

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.

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.

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.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 New Zealand Walking Access Commission