Walking Access Bill

I was sorry to miss the debate last evening. I was involved, actually, in talking about walking access, in Hawke’s Bay.

I will take a short call on Part 2. We looked at Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, at some previous time, but Part 2 is the nuts and bolts of how this Walking Access Bill is to work. It appoints a new Crown entity, which is to be called the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. Its responsibilities will be across a range of different areas. For a start, the Walking Access Commission will be responsible for negotiating access where there is some difficulty about access. This can arise in a range of ways. There can be misapprehensions on the part of landowners as to what they own or have—whether there is a marginal strip or egress there, or maybe some public land for which access across private property is required. There may be misapprehensions on the part of members of the public, who may think they have a right to have access in certain areas.

The Walking Access Commission will be tasked with negotiation. We need to stress, as we have done in other places, that this access is essentially determined by negotiation. The Walking Access Commission will also be responsible for setting out a code of conduct. One of the issues—it is probably the primary issue—that has seen a diminution of walking access rights has been the fact that many landowners have just got tired of dealing with the public. They have got tired of the ways in which the public have left gates open, and have not acknowledged common farming practice or landholding practice. Farmers have been concerned about the presence of dogs, the spread of Taenia ovis, and biosecurity issues.

It is interesting that the only access to some of the highland lakes in Otago, like the Upper Poolburn Dam, is by horse, a long walk, or four-wheel drive, but now right around the lake there are significant areas—

💬 Hon David Carter: Chopper!

—or chopper; Mr Carter’s chopper—of broom and gorse starting to spring up. How did that get there? It might have fallen off the vehicles that were there. But, no, most people who fish up there, or a significant number of them, actually fish with worms. They get a little bit of soil, gather up some worms, go up there, and when they have finished they tip their worms out. Worms are good in the high country. But people are putting contaminated soil there.

So a raft of things out there are happening, but at the end of the day the farmer is saying that that is enough. My own brother-in-law, who used to farm on the banks of the Mataura River—an area renowned for its brown trout, and where there has been goodwill and good access—has just said that he has had enough of people who do not respect what he wants to do. I ask members how we resolve that. We do so by setting up a code of conduct so that there can be a clear understanding of the responsibilities of people who want access to the land. The Walking Access Commission will be responsible for that.

There will also be a body that, as I understand it, will have a responsibility for holding a database of public land, where walkways exist and where public egress exists. That will be a developing thing. In some ways, this will be a rather arduous and time-consuming task. The amount of marginal strips that are laid down is somewhat different in the public’s impression from what actually exists out there. I quote Brian Hayes, who was on the first walking access panel with me, in saying that marginal strips may exist on only about 70 percent of the places where they are expected to be. The Walking Access Commission will have to identify those, and where there is a need, it will have to enter into negotiation and establish resolutions where there is conflict.

The Walking Access Commission also has a responsibility, as stated in clause 9, delegated to it to negotiate on things that are not entirely related to access but are associated with access. Those issues are the use of vehicles, firearms, dogs, bicycles, or whatever. Quite often, when people are wanting access—for example, in the duck-shooting season, or to the high country for hunting—there is the carriage of firearms or dogs, and sometimes there is the use of four-wheel drives. The commission also has a responsibility to be appointed to do those negotiations. Its role is quite a distinct and important one.

It is quite a significant step forward that we have a commission that can actually go and do the negotiation. The commission’s credibility and involvement in this will be an important part in actually securing those opportunities for New Zealanders to participate. As we have said in other places in this debate, it has been New Zealanders’ birthright and expectation that they have this opportunity to enjoy the public resources of New Zealand. For that they need access. The Walking Access Commission will be a significant step forward from what we have had in the past.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2