Smith Nick: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19094. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 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 10000 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 Mapua 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 10000. 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! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: 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. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: 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.