Walking Access Bill

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.

💬 Hone Harawira: One that doesn’t go through the lounge!

One that goes through the lounge might be deemed culturally insensitive! I just worry that—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: The member’s slipped from being the green conscience of the National Party.

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.

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.

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—

💬 Chris Tremain: Shane Jones.

—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.

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—

💬 Sandra Goudie: It would be contrary to the negotiations.

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?

💬 Sandra Goudie: Oh, the enforcement officers.

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.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Honorary.

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—

💬 Sandra Goudie: Checking the hem of your walk shorts.

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’Connor: The bill!

I 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.

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.

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.

💬 Martin Gallagher: Here’s Part 2.

Has the member read it?

💬 Martin Gallagher: Absolutely.

Then he will be able to see for himself quite clearly. When I look at clause 10(1)(e) I see that it talks about the commission facilitating resolution of disputes processes.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)