Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18590. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Walking Access Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1Preliminary provisions  ( 
continued 
)  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 National supports the Walking Access Bill. It is a good bill and the reason National supports it is that it is National Party policy and it has taken the Government only 5 years to come around to its position on access over private land. The key to why National supports this bill is that it does not impinge on private property rights. That is a position National has long held.  
When Labour first introduced the walking access issue—and it shows just how out of touch Labour is with the primary sector—it called for the creation of compulsory walking strips across private land. Compulsory walking strips bring to mind the proposals the Government made in relation to the new dog control laws. Do members remember that Labour wanted to have private fenced-off walking strips between the front gate and the home? When the Government was exploring that particular daft idea I had visions of people who like me live on State Highway 1. There is a long area from our front gate to our home. I could just imagine a fenced private walking strip to provide safe access to our front door and protect people from our lovely old Labrador who would have licked them to death. But I go back to the Walking Access Bill. The particularly daft idea of the Labour Government some 5 years ago has been dropped and we now have the Walking Access Bill in its current form which National does support.  
The Local Government and Environment Committee received a number of submissions—30 or 40 I think—on the Walking Access Bill. A number of people were very concerned that designating a public walkway across a paper road would then cut off vehicular access to the paper road. That was a huge concern of submitters and rightly so. But that was dropped from the bill—yet again at select committee—by National members advocating for people to have access. We have the most beautiful country in the world. The South Island is arguably the most beautiful part of the most beautiful country in the world and a number of people in the South Island are very keen on access to our beautiful lakes our beautiful rivers our beautiful fishing spots and our beautiful high country tracks. One could go on forever about access opportunities. This bill will negotiate access via the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. But the key for National is that nothing in this bill impinges on private property rights. That is sensible. That is a position that National can endorse and agree with. So from that point of view National supports this bill.  
The provisions of this bill establish the New Zealand Walking Access Commission and I will go into the commission’s role in more detail. Its members will be appointed by the Minister. I would be very disappointed to see any appointments made after this enactment of this bill because there is such a short time to go before the election. I would be interested in comments from the Minister on that. I would be extremely disappointed if long-held conventions of this House were disregarded as they were last weekend when the Minister of Conservation made up to 50 appointments to conservation boards. That is not in the good spirit of this Parliament and I hope it does not happen. I ask the Minister to take a call on that and give us some indication as to whether upon the enactment of this bill the Minister intends to make appointments to the Walking Access Commission. I invite the Minister to answer that query.  
Last week I attended a function for members of the Walking Access Consultation Panel. A number of people from around New Zealand sat on that panel and did an awful lot of good work. I must say that I think the work of John Aspinall of Wanaka was particularly useful because as a high country farmer himself he understands very well what it is like to own a beautiful part of New Zealand where people want to visit. It is a very very strongly held belief of his that access is by negotiation and not by compulsion—and compulsion is just typical of Labour. That is what Labour members want is it not? That is what they wanted when this bill was first introduced.  
I want to finish this thought because I think it is important. The Labour Government wanted to have compulsory walkways over private land. Not only is that impractical and expensive but it impinges on every private property right held very dear by people in New Zealand. High country farmers in the South Island and other private landowners have no problem with providing access to the most beautiful features of their properties. In fact it is a convention in New Zealand that if a fisherman a four-wheel driver a tramper or someone horse-trekking wants to go across private land he or she rings the landowner and asks for permission. That permission is given and away one goes. That permission might be withheld if lambing is going on or if the property is a deer farm and one wants to visit at a certain time of year. But in general there was no problem with access and nothing actually needed fixing.  
The good thing about this bill is that the Labour Government has come right round to the right position. It has taken it 5 years but the Government has come right round to National’s position of providing access by negotiation not compulsion.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Walking Access Bill and I am pleased to hear that National does. I just want to talk a little bit about property rights because in case Jacqui has not had a look around lately— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would prefer to be referred to by my correct name if that is alright with you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You are absolutely right. Mr Woolerton— 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I apologise Mr Chairman. I could not remember the lady’s proper name at the time so I had to refer to her as I did. If that gave offence I apologise.  
I wanted to say that the previous speaker probably does not recognise the changing face of the rural environment given that the National Party does not take the interest in that sector that it once did. My brother for instance has a property that encompasses the properties of 10 previous owners. One of them was the property of Bill Waring—Marilyn Waring’s father. Just to rock up to a farmer’s gate and ask for permission to go across the property is not what will be the case in many instances. One is more likely to be talking to the manager of a property who will be far more reluctant to give permission to anybody to wander across the property to access lakes streams or rivers.  
The setting up of a commission is an ideal way to go. I think this will be a start. I think walkways will become a part of the landscape in future and they will be surveyed and recognised. It will not be a grace and favour situation where a property owner says: “Yes I am in a good mood today so I will let you walk across my property.” or in the future the property of his or her employer. In New Zealand we need to respect the fact that there is not just one lot of property rights. There is private ownership and there is the public right to access rivers streams and so on. That is what makes us unique and different from the country that many of us or our forefathers hail from and indeed from the country in whose traditions this Parliament was established.  
In that country—in many parts of Europe and particularly in England—the landowner controlled the lakes streams rivers etc. and if one wanted to fish in the stream or on the lake then one had to pay the landowner. In this country we must protect those other sets of rights: the rights of people to have free and unfettered access to their lakes streams and rivers—not the landholder’s lakes streams and rivers. We in New Zealand First say that if a track needs to be surveyed across that property—not fenced but identified—we are more than happy that compensation be paid to the landowner. We are more than happy if that person has to be compensated in some way for any inconvenience whatsoever. We are happy for that to happen. We hope the commission established by this bill will look at these things into the future and we hope these things will be common practice in this country.  
I think the bill enhances our lifestyle; I do not think anybody who owns farms will have anything to fear from it. In saying this I acknowledge somebody who has been perhaps rather harshly treated in recent history on this issue and that is the Hon Jim Sutton who initially started this bill. The Walking Access Bill has been finessed out of a bill that he proposed. We would have had trouble supporting his original bill but that is the way democracy works and that is progress. We are happy to support this bill and happy to support Part 1. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move that the Committee report progress 
.  
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would have thought that we have another 5 minutes of debating time before we report progress.  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 If we have members rising to take a call and the motion cannot be moved by 6 o’clock we will be here from 7 o’clock onwards. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will report progress. [ 
Interruption 
] We could well be here until 7 o’clock—or longer—if that is repeated.  
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I make the next announcement I thank the staff. It has been a long time and people have been working really hard over these last few days.