Walking Access Bill — Second Reading 
Walking Access Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17932] 
Walking Access Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Walking Access Bill be now read a second time 
. In speaking to this reading I will take the opportunity to extend my thanks to the Local Government and Environment Committee for its careful and very prompt consideration of this bill. The bill is the culmination of a lengthy process of public consultation. The committee received 136 submissions resulting in a number of very useful improvements to the bill. I am pleased the committee was able to report that all changes were agreed to unanimously. This will give the many people who have expressed an interest in the bill and in the policy a real sense of surety for the future. 
The primary purpose of the bill is to establish the New Zealand Walking Access Commission with the aim of providing the public with free certain enduring and practical walking access to the outdoors. In addition to setting up the commission the bill re-enacts with appropriate amendments the provisions of the New Zealand Walkways Act 1990. At the same time it transfers to the commission the present roles of the Minister of Conservation the Director-General of Conservation the New Zealand Conservation Authority and conservation boards in respect of walkways. 
The commission is to be established as a statutory entity with the status of an agency of the Crown under the Crown Entities Act and will be funded largely by parliamentary appropriation. It will be governed by a board of up to eight members and have all the usual powers available to a Crown entity. It is appropriate that the functions and powers of the commission as a Crown entity are broadly defined in the bill as this will allow the commission sufficient flexibility to develop its policies and priorities within the purpose and objective of the bill. The commission will lead and provide a central point for the coordination of walking access. It will support the negotiation establishment maintenance and improvement of walking access. Key tasks will include the improvement of existing access opportunities and the negotiation of new access across private land including access to public resources. 
The term “public resources” has not been defined in the bill. The committee did not consider this necessary as the bill clearly provides that the commission give priority to access to conservation land to local authority parks and reserves to sports fish and game habitats and most lakes and rivers. Sports fish and game are often referred to as public resources. Access that is negotiated over private land may take the form of a walkway a lease or easement for walking access or some other legal form. The commission will provide authoritative information which is hard to obtain at present on the location of public land that is open to walking access. 
An important task will be to develop a code of responsible conduct in order to provide a guide on appropriate behaviour and conditions of use in relation to walking access. The code will also provide a vehicle for the dissemination of information on the powers of enforcement officers culturally sensitive sites and other useful information. 
The committee did not consider that there was a need to change the provision for a review of the bill to take place after a period of 10 years. Clearly the commission will have its work cut out during its start-up phase in developing its statement of intent and in establishing relationships with relevant agencies and stakeholders to achieve its objectives and complex issues will need to be worked through over a period of time. 
The bill affirms the high value that we as New Zealanders place on access to the outdoors and to our natural heritage. In providing a focal point for walking access the bill fosters an appreciation of the environment and is well-aligned with wider Government priorities and initiatives that enhance New Zealanders’ sense of identity and promote healthy lifestyles. In providing for the negotiation of walking access across private land the bill upholds landowners’ right to make decisions about public access to their property and acknowledges their need to go about their business without threat to their safety and security. 
It is a fundamental principle of the bill that such access will remain subject to negotiation and agreement with the landholders concerned. The committee supported that principle. Arbitration of disputes or compulsory acquisition of land for access is likely to be counter-productive as it would destroy the goodwill that currently exists and escalate demands for compensation. I note that although a minority report in the commentary on the bill takes the opposite view that position was not pursued in the bill itself as reported back to this House. 
I point out that there was considerable public support for the general approach taken in the bill and the committee did not question the need for a walking access commission or change its primary functions. Two main areas of public concern were identified however. The first was that greater provision needed to be made for the inclusion of other forms of access in addition to walking access such as access with dogs bicycles or vehicles or with firearms for hunting purposes. Although the negotiation of rights in addition to walking access was already provided for in the functions of the commission the purpose of the bill and the objective of the commission have now been amended to specifically include the types of access associated with walking access. 
The issue that attracted most concern was the provision carried over from the current New Zealand Walkways Act for walkways to be created on unformed legal roads. Many submitters were concerned that this would remove existing rights of access and restrict activities such as access with firearms dogs bicycles or motor vehicles that would otherwise be lawful on the road. There seems to have been an assumption that the provision would result in the widespread creation of walkways on unformed legal roads although this has rarely occurred in the past. The committee agreed that the fundamental purpose of the bill would not be affected if the provision for creating walkways over unformed legal roads was removed and recommended that in view of the level of opposition to it this provision be deleted. I agree with that recommendation. The extensive network of unformed legal roads that exists remains a valuable resource for public access even if walkways are not created over them. 
I will briefly mention some of the other changes agreed to by the committee. A few changes have been made to the interpretation clause in the bill. The definitions of “private land” and “landholder” have been clarified and a clearer distinction is made between “walking access” and “walkway” which is only one form of walking access. In response to submissions the bill now includes improved procedures for the public to be notified about the creation naming and revocation of walkways and here is also a greater focus on collaboration with local authorities. 
The need for a list of priorities to guide the commission in negotiating access over private land has been reconsidered. The committee noted that the list of priorities set out in the bill was not ranked in any particular order and that a list of priorities may be too limiting in any case. Instead the bill now identifies the matters that must be taken into account by the commission when considering its priorities for negotiating access over private land. These matters now include the development of walking access that is continuous over land adjoining the coast rivers or lakes; access to conservation areas or access to areas of scenic or recreational value; and access to sports fish and game. 
The bill has been amended to take account of the views of Maori and representatives of other persons who may have an interest in the naming of walkways. There is a new requirement that the commission consider the appropriateness of publishing maps that show the location of culturally sensitive sites. In addition provision has been made for information on tikanga Maori Maori relationships with the land and waterways and sites of cultural significance to be included in the code of responsible conduct. 
I am grateful to the Local Government and Environment Committee for these amendments and for a number of other minor technical amendments which have improved the bill considerably. In establishing the New Zealand Walkways Access Commission the bill raises the profile of walking access and it provides a strong foundation for the improvement and extension of walking access opportunities in New Zealand. I have no doubt that the bill will result in the enhanced public enjoyment of our natural heritage and will make a significant contribution to our national identity and I am very pleased to support it. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I have to say that I do not have any significant points of disagreement with the Hon Damien O’Connor who led this debate. 
I am not normally a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee but I did ask our whips whether I might be associated with that committee for the purpose of dealing with the Walking Access Bill. I did that for several reasons. The first is my own personal situation. I am a keen tramper hunter gatherer and boater—I have an inflatable boat with which I navigate rivers that may or may not have marginal strips on them—so I have a whole range of reasons to be associated with the select committee dealing with this legislation. I am also a landowner. On my rather modest landholding I think I have almost every land type that this bill may or may not be about. I have streams with marginal strips streams without marginal strips and wetlands without marginal strips. I have paper roads. I have formed roads that are not legal roads. I also have some pylons that are 70 metres high. So I am aware of quite a number of the issues surrounding the debate about what is quite a significant bill. 
We need to understand that New Zealand is a unique country in a lot of respects. One of them is just the very nature of our country. We think of ourselves as having a sort of conservation estate and a rural landscape yet we are one of the most urbanised countries in the world. A quarter of our population lives in one city another quarter lives in another four cities and in fact very very few people reside in a rural environment. I would not say that we have a conflict but we have this ongoing issue about access. 
Another interesting thing about New Zealand is that it had laid down by instruction firstly from Queen Victoria a whole range of mechanisms of access that overlay a whole lot of property rights that exist. For various reasons as I mentioned when this bill was introduced some of the provisions that were laid down—particularly marginal strips or what is known as the Queen’s Chain—were incomplete. In most cases there is a reasonably amicable interface between the public and the landowner. In some cases it is not so amicable. In some places there has been private capture of some unique public resources and this bill does not actually deal with that. At some stage in the future this Parliament may have to address those issues if they escalate or if some of the issues that exist now cannot be resolved. That may be an issue for the future but this bill does not set out to resolve those issues. 
New Zealand is a unique place and another unique thing about New Zealand is the participation factor. If we look at the figures from Sport and Recreation New Zealand which was the only agency I found to have these kinds of figures we see that about half our population is involved in outdoor recreational pursuits that cross private land or the conservation estate or that need to cross private land in some instances to get to the conservation estate. Camping hunting tramping walking—there is a whole range of things out there. We are unique in a whole lot of ways. 
The first instruction came from Queen Victoria in 1841 I think and there have been a number of times in history when we have tried to look after the uniqueness of this access situation. The last major attempt was made by McKenzie of the Ballance Government in around 1891. This bill is another step forward so we are doing quite a significant thing here. The interesting thing is that this legislation acknowledges the property rights that exist. The bill acknowledges a lot of the difficulties out there but it sees negotiation as the methodology by which these things need to be resolved. That is what it does. 
I will talk a wee bit now about the purpose clause of the bill because I think it is important. Some things around the bill’s purpose need to be amplified a little for the benefit of the House. There is another issue now because of today’s technology. Today we can buy little items like this global positioning system device that I have here at a starting point of $150. We can download a cadastral map and it can have a much more accurate description of what may or may not be out there than what the landowner has in a lot of instances. In a way that also creates an issue that needs to be resolved. 
Let us look now at clause 3 “Purpose” in Part 1. Some bits need amplification. If we look at clause 3(a) we see mention of public resources. The bill does not define what a public resource is. A public resource is many things. It is our conservation estate our vistas our mountain scenery and our access to them. It is the acclimatised fish and birds that exist out there and it is the right to do whatever is necessary to be able to capture and hunt them. It is the right to go tramping. It is the right to do all those things that are intrinsically a part of the New Zealand psyche. It is the birthright that was first laid down essentially by our forebears who wisely created some of the walkways and unwisely acclimatised a lot of birds and animals that probably should not have been here in the first instance but they are here now and are part of our birthright. The public resource is all of those things and this bill enshrines some negotiation powers that are important in relation to accessing it. 
The second thing is that clause 3(c) talks about “responsibility for leading and supporting the negotiation establishment maintenance and improvement of—(i) walking access …”. So negotiation is enshrined in the purpose clause. I hope that when the Walking Access Commission—which this bill sets up to resolve some of those issues—goes about the process of negotiation there is an element of goodwill. Those parties that might be a wee bit recalcitrant need to note that the House has resiled from enshrining definite leverage points in recognition of property rights but the expectation is that there will be good-faith bargaining and that some goodwill will come to the table in terms of that negotiation. 
Further down in clause 3(c) is an interesting little subparagraph that captures something that is not otherwise in the bill. It gives the Walking Access Commission the right to deal with things that are outside walking access and they include the carriage of firearms and crossbows and anything else that might be needed. 
Hon Member 
: Dogs. 
ERIC ROY 
: Yes. The Walking Access Commission is allowed to take part in negotiating those things. 
Let us have a word now about the Walking Access Commission. It is quite clearly set out in the bill that it has a role to negotiate—one needs just to read the commentary and the purpose clause—and that is the key thing that it does. So the bill sets up a Walking Access Commission and its No. 1 job is negotiation. 
It also needs I guess to collect a database of what actually does exist now and I guess that that information will be on a website somewhere so that people can get it. That will be an ongoing process. Brian Hayes who was on the first Walking Access Committee did some work on some specific properties and in some cases it took 1 or 2 hours to actually identify what did and did not exist. In the first reading debate on this bill I raised several issues relating to why that is such a complex matter. 
As Minister O’Connor said another important function of the Walking Access Commission is to set up a code of practice because there is a reluctance by some landowners to allow access where there is no acknowledgment of the kinds of activities that take place on the land and the kinds of things that are appropriate. Once upon a time everybody had a relation who was on a farm and actually understood all of that. As I mentioned at the outset we are now an urbanised country and we have lost some of that institutional knowledge about respect for land use. So there needs to be a code of practice. 
In all National members are supportive of this bill we look forward to its progress through the House and we think it is a step forward. It is not a complete answer but it is a big step. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand in support of the Walking Access Bill in its second reading. As chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee I want to thank all the submitters who wrote to us emailed us and came along to the select committee to express their support for or their concerns about the bill. I think that we as a committee managed to incorporate without too much difficulty most of the issues that were raised. 
I also want to thank the officials who advised us on the bill. Certainly the advice we received was very timely and of a very high quality. There is no doubt that there was a lot of passion amongst the officials for this legislation and it was a pleasure to work with them on the bill. I especially want to thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee—both the permanent members and the members who were subbed on including the member who has taken his seat. It was clear that the members had a wealth of knowledge and the select committee was able to tap into it. As a little thankyou to the honourable member Eric Roy we made sure that his crossbow was covered by the legislation. 
Eric Roy 
: My longbow! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh the member’s longbow. We had that discussion many many times. It was a small price to pay for the wealth of knowledge and experience that that member brought to the select committee. I thank the walking access panel which did a huge amount of work on this legislation and this policy that the select committee was able to add to. Of course the numerous groups that had gone before it had also done a lot of work. 
I am sure members in this Chamber are well aware of the history of this particular legislation. I am very pleased that we are able to stand here in the Chamber today with what I hope will be very strong support amongst this Parliament for a very important step for walking access in New Zealand. 
Certainly I agree with what the previous member said. Sometimes the perception and the reality can be quite different and in New Zealand we have a number of areas where we need to face up to some of the realities when they do not match the perceptions. We need to do this when it comes to the environment when it comes to our own sustainability as a country and also when it comes to walking access. New Zealanders pride themselves on having open access to the great outdoors. I suspect that if one polled people about it of those who would say that they used those rights probably fewer would actually use them. But the reality is we pride ourselves on being a country that does have that access. 
I think this Parliament needs to step up and do what we can to make that more of a reality because as we have seen land use change as we have seen our agricultural and horticultural sectors become stronger and as we have seen urban sprawl I suspect that many of the rights that people naturally assume are there and will always be there have been eroded away. That might not be because the people who own the land that some of these access ways are on do not believe they should be there; it might be that they do not realise they are there. It might be that they do not believe that the access ways are appropriate any more. I think this country has come to a point where we need to address this issue through Parliament and I believe that the Walking Access Commission is a very good way to do that. 
I come to some of the changes that the select committee made. We wanted to make it quite clear that the Walking Access Commission is able to deal with forms of access other than just walking access. The select committee looked at this issue quite closely. Unfortunately it became clear that changing the name of the commission which seemed the simplest thing to do to make sure that people were aware that it was not about just walking access—although that is clearly the main focus—was outside the scope of the bill given that the bill is called the Walking Access Bill. Changing the name of the commission would have been quite a substantial change and outside the scope. So we shifted to the purpose clause something that was already in the bill in order to make it clear that other types of access associated with walking access such as access with firearms dogs bicycles and motor vehicles are included. We also made it clear that wheelchairs and other mobility vehicles are included as are companion dogs that are used for example to help blind people. We wanted to make it clear that those things are part of the commission’s work and that we believe them to be important. People should not read into the legislation that it is only about walking access and not about any other form of access at all. That was one of the changes that the committee made. 
Probably the next most significant change that we made was around an issue that a number of us had received numerous emails on and that was the concern of four-wheel drive groups in particular but other groups as well about the creation of walkways over unformed legal roads. It seems there was perhaps a bit of misinformation out there about what the bill was doing. In order to be completely clear that the intention was not to get rid of these access ways we simply deleted the clause that people had concerns about. We removed it entirely. I do not think we could be any clearer about the fact that that was certainly not the intention of the Government and certainly not the intention of the select committee as one can see from the bill that has been reported back. 
A number of the submitters raised concerns about the level of involvement that they may have or that may be required under the bill in terms of public notification of and public consultation on the creation naming and removal of walkways. So we have bolstered that part of the bill a little bit and made it clearer who needs to be involved who needs to be consulted and who should be informed when these kinds of changes are taking place. It was the will of the select committee that people be as involved as they possibly could without causing onerous stress on the Walking Access Commission local authorities and other groups. Once again we expect that common sense will be used when these matters are being considered. 
We wanted to leave the bill as flexible as possible because of course this Walking Access Commission is going to be covering a variety of different parts of the country different types of access and different levels of access. We certainly did not want to tie it up in a whole lot of processes that mean that significant projects require far too little consultation or public involvement or to go the other way—that relatively simple matters require far too much. So we tried to leave the bill as flexible as possible whilst ensuring the basic public right to be consulted on what is happening. Issues about safety and security were also raised with the select committee and we clarified the liability of those involved. 
I think this reported-back bill is a very good piece of work done by the select committee. I am pleased to hear the National Party is supporting it and I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I want to start by thanking the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Moana Mackey for keeping me informed and inviting me to attend as a participant on that committee. Unfortunately I was not able to attend very often but I have a significant interest in this public access issue. 
I want to pick up on a comment made by my colleague Eric Roy when he said that this bill goes a long way to solving an ongoing issue of access around rural New Zealand. From my point of view it became an issue because of the way it was poorly handled by the Labour Government. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Prior to the dinner break I was discussing Eric Roy’s contribution. My colleague said that there has been an ongoing issue with public access to rural land. I said that I did not think that was true historically but that it had certainly become a major issue over the last few years and I think some people are to blame for the fact that it has become a major issue. I accept Mr Roy’s argument that New Zealand is going through a process of urbanisation and there may be some ignorance of common courtesy and rules amongst some people who are tempted to access private land. 
I have to say that my attitude to this issue was summed up fairly well last Friday when I met with a man called Ed—who is actually my hairdresser. He is a very keen hunter and fisherman. He spends most of his weekend with his children including his 10-year-old daughter out hunting—often with dogs used for pig hunting. Ed said that in his 25 years of passionately pursuing that particular hobby he had never been refused access by any farmer apart from over lambing time—and he accepted that during lambing time it is simply not appropriate to be on some of those farm properties. 
Ed summed it up for me: there has not been a significant issue with most New Zealand farmers over most rural land. I think Helen Clark and the Labour Government did huge damage to this debate by suggesting that there had been issues. In fact the feeling I picked up from many of my farming friends throughout New Zealand was that the very goodwill that had existed for perhaps 150 years would be put at serious risk if any hunter or recreationist thought they could assume the right to wander over privately owned land without simply asking for permission in the first place. 
Again I acknowledge that Eric Roy has been involved in this issue for a long period of time. He acknowledges that on some occasions there is private capture of a public asset. I agree with Eric that that becomes an unacceptable situation. As he pointed out this legislation does not actually resolve those particular circumstances—and I might add I think they are relatively few in number. But what this legislation does is to set up a process of identifying where there is potential for private capture of a public asset. It then sets up a process whereby people having identified those particular situations at least attempt to negotiate solutions with private landowners that recognise those property rights. For me that is a significant advance in this debate. 
The final thing I want to mention is the issue around the paper roads that exist in many parts of New Zealand—they cover my Banks Peninsula farm property extensively. I never purchased those particular parcels of land in the first place. As a custodian I have grazed them and I have had the use of the grazing. I have also looked after them and kept them free of weeds and pests but they have never been my private property. What is interesting in these debates particularly in respect of Banks Peninsula with which I am particularly familiar is that those pathways created—and I understand they were surveyed perhaps in London before the first four ships even arrived—in many cases do not provide practical access. 
I look forward to the day when there will be a sensible discussion between myself as a landowner and the commission presumably involving the now Christchurch City Council where a better way can be established that gives the people—particularly of Christchurch—access to the beautiful Banks Peninsula. As a landowner I would certainly cooperate fully with that process and I suggest to the House that nearly every farmer on the Banks Peninsula that I know would also quite happily be involved in that process. 
Incidentally there is a walkway that has been voluntarily created around a particular block that I own. There is public access to the Packhorse Hut. My farm property surrounds the Packhorse Hut. Access to the hut to the top of Mount Herbert could be achieved by quite impractical paper roads but a track has been established and marked on the land with the consent of myself and other landowners. We enjoy going up there in the weekends when we enjoy our own property and watch many other New Zealanders out there enjoying the outdoors of Banks Peninsula. The only time that it is closed is over the current month and a half when farmers in Banks Peninsula are involved in lambing. 
I think that typifies what can occur in this debate. Most farmers enjoy the public of New Zealand accessing their property. They simply want the courtesy of being asked. They certainly want the courtesy of non-access being observed at times of calving and lambing where it clearly interrupts farming operations. They want to know where people are so that in the event of an emergency or accident they are at least semi-informed of where people might be. 
I am pleased that this legislation has progressed to this stage and I am certainly pleased to see that it will be passed before the election. It has been a difficult debate over the last few years; a debate that I think has been created by a few vested interests and by some politicians who are ignorant of the true facts out there in rural New Zealand. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be voting in favour of the Walking Access Bill. The bill moves towards Green Party policies in a number of ways—the establishment of a code of conduct; additional focus on and resourcing for negotiating access; a commission to build relationships with landowners and land users; and improved mapping and information. These are all positive things and the Green Party will be supporting the bill for those reasons. However we have to say we are disappointed that what we thought was an opportunity to enshrine in legislation public rights of access has been missed with this bill. The valuable and well-meaning objectives of the bill and the functions of the commission are thereby limited because of that failure. Fundamentally we remain unconvinced that we have the right balance in this bill between private property rights and the rights of public access to public land and public resources. 
As we stated in our minority report the Green Party has long advocated for a commission with powers beyond mere voluntary negotiation. If the public has rights to land and to public resources then there must be an authority with the ability and the power to uphold those rights against unreasonable exclusion and exclusive capture. This bill establishes a commission to facilitate and negotiate but not to arbitrate. 
We are unconvinced that the public rights of access are sufficiently enshrined in law relative to the well-entrenched private property rights. This bill was a chance to enshrine public access rights and public rights but it has failed to do that. The statement of public rights of access in this bill is confined to the purpose clause of the bill which states that the intent of the legislation is to “provide the New Zealand public with free certain enduring and practical walking access to the outdoors …”. It is quite obvious that private property rights in our country are thoroughly clear and entrenched in New Zealand law whereas public access rights are significantly less entrenched in law. This includes both access to public lands—such as the coast lakes along rivers—and access to public resources. 
The bill defines public and private land but it does not define public resources which include wild game wildlife freshwater fisheries and natural water. Such resources do not attach to land title and belong to the public. The public has rights to them and therefore rights to fair and reasonable access to them. It also includes public access to customary resources be it Maori access to eels or pounamu or general public access to whitebait trout or deer. It also includes public access to recreational opportunities on rivers and beaches and in public recreation and conservation lands. Too often unreasonable landowners have blocked access to exclusively capture public resources for their own ends—personal or commercial. I certainly acknowledge as previous speakers have that the vast majority do not do that but we do know that it happens. We certainly hope this bill will put an end to this exclusive capture but given the weaknesses of the bill only time will tell whether it achieves that. 
We welcome the establishment of an access authority albeit limited by an inability to exercise that authority in access disputes and a continued lack of clarity as to the extent of public access rights. The commission will have quite a bit to do. We certainly hope it will not lose sight of the main policy problem that the legislation is trying to solve—that is the thorny access obstacles in specific places. The commission is faced with mandates to do work on strategies glossy brochures mapping information education advice provision and administration. These are all important aspects to access provision but they do not resolve the real and very difficult and growing problem of access—access of the public to their own public resources right across New Zealand. 
The Green Party also believes that the bill is a back-track on early Government policy of enshrining public rights in completing the Queen’s Chain. Given the significant change in access policy with this bill compared with previous Government policy and even aspects of the Acland Walking Access Consultation Panel reports it is outrageous that the bill has a review period of 10 years. We think that 10 years is a long time to see whether this will work and whether it will prove that it will give people access to their own resources—resources owned by the public that the public does not have access to. For that reason we support a shorter review period of 5-yearly reviews. 
We will be seeking continued progress on public access in New Zealand through this bill in complementary ways. I would just like to touch on one of those which has been raised by Federated Mountain Clubs and Fish and Game New Zealand. Currently the Government is a bit reluctant to notify or engage with access stakeholders when overseas land sales occur. Sales of significant land to overseas buyers are approved by the Overseas Investment Office—some would say rubber-stamped—and conditions can be placed on sales including conditions of access. There have been examples where that has been done to good effect and access has been increased during the process of going through the Overseas Investment Office but there have also been examples where opportunities have been missed to use that process to improve access. It seems perfectly reasonable to the Green Party that the office should liaise with the Walking Access Commission—which this bill will establish—in these situations so that we can identify and set conditions for public access if these sales go ahead. The commission will have the expertise and contacts with the appropriate stakeholders. We will continue to work with the Government and other parties to achieve this. 
I would like to end by thanking the members of the public and organisations that have been key to driving these access issues and have contributed along the way. Fish and Game New Zealand is a crucial advocate both for environmental protection and for public access to public resources as is Federated Mountain Clubs which has a long and proud history of advocating for New Zealanders’ rights to recreate in our mountains and rivers. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou i tenei po. As I understand it a key statement appeared throughout some of the 136 submissions received from the public about this bill and I note that the submission from Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu stated it pretty clearly. It stated: “The Crown has a duty under article 2 of the Treaty to protect Maori in use of their lands and waterways to the fullest extent practicable.” I note that the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board and the Federation of Maori Authorities were united in their position which was: “Article two of the Treaty granted ‘te tino rangatiratanga … o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’ or the ‘full and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates fisheries and other properties’. This article therefore guarantees Maori the right to determine access to their land.” I have to say that it is a view that the Maori Party absolutely supports. We know that iwi Maori have a special relationship a partnership relationship with the Crown that is separate from that of general citizens. We also know that a consequence of the unique Treaty relationship involves the duty of the Crown and all agents of the Crown to undertake the active protection of the rangatiratanga rights under article 2. 
So when the Local Government and Environment Committee finished its report without so much as even the word “Treaty” included in its brief we thought there must have been some huge mistake. We will therefore be representing the views of hapu and iwi and during the Committee stage we will introduce the Treaty clause that submitters asked to be inserted in the bill. 
It makes for interesting analysis that the first two bills on our Order Paper today—the Walking Access Bill and the Policing Bill—have both suffered from minuscule vision when it comes to the most critical issue of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We are trying not to read too much into it: that in both cases Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu has been instrumental in coming forward recommending to the Crown that a Treaty clause would improve the overall effectiveness of this legislation. 
So we might ask why the Crown is not prepared to listen to the wisdom of Ngai Tahu at least in helping this nation move forward. My understanding is that Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu’s submission outlined what a Treaty clause could do in effect. A Treaty clause would ensure that the rangatiratanga and mana of tangata whenua over customary land and sites of significance were respected and protected. A Treaty clause would enable our kaitiaki responsibilities to be recognised in decision making. A Treaty clause would demonstrate that public access to private land and Maori land remained subject to negotiation and agreement with landholders. If not through the bill then one would expect at the very least that the New Zealand Walking Access Commission would include such a clause as both the Federation of Maori Authorities and the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board recommended—namely a Treaty clause being an important provision enshrined in their constitution and rules. 
This is for us a very important bill and the federation confirmed that for us. Any bill that threatens to impact on “te tino rangatiratanga … o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa” we in the Maori Party take very very seriously. Maori have already been and continue to be deprived as we have seen over our history the deprivation of our people of most of our lands and do not want to see the continuation of any more plans to alienate or confiscate in the name of the Crown. 
The Maori Party holds true to the challenge laid down so many years ago by Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana that the Treaty should be embodied in statute that legislation should ensure the protection from sale of our lands that there should be no more land confiscation and that there should be compensation for land that has been stolen. This was the challenge represented I believe through the placement before a former Labour Prime Minister of four objects. This will be a bit of a history lesson for us Madam Assistant Speaker. They were a potato a broken watch a huia feather and a greenstone tiki. As I have heard about and read about T W Ratana explained to Michael Joseph Savage that the potato was the ordinary Maori needing his or her land; the broken watch was the broken machinery of law relating to the lands of Maori—only the law could repair the law; the tiki stood for the mana of Maori people; and the huia feather a sign of a chief would be worn by Mr Savage if he would look after his Maori people. Yet as history and  
Hansard 
 record that huia feather would not be worn the tiki would be discarded—indeed we believe that those original four objects to be would all be lost in the legacy of broken promises and unfulfilled dreams. 
For us this bill would have been a great opportunity to address those expectations. This bill could have signalled a commitment to enshrine the Treaty in legislation. It could have been used to repair the law itself and to guard against further alienation. We ask why this Government is not prepared to insert a Treaty clause into the legislation. Why did it not support the Maori Party amendment to insert the Treaty clause into the Policing Bill? The numbers on that evening indicated the amendment would have passed in this House with 60 Ayes and 58 Noes. Instead what we have is a “yes but” bill. 
Clause 8 deals with the composition of the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. Submitters recommended that Maori representation the capacity for the sharing of knowledge of tikanga Maori on the commission’s board be increased from one. The select committee included that view in the report yes but no amendments were included to address it. Then we turn to the protection of sites of Maori cultural significance. Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu advised that permission should be sought from tangata whenua before information relating to mahinga kai wahi tapu and other sites of cultural significance be published. Yes the committee agreed it was important but it was not so much significance but cultural sensitivities that the commission should take account of. 
Clause 10(2) minimises the advice of Ngai Tahu by suggesting that the commission should consider any cultural sensitivities of which it is aware without actually explicitly requiring it to gain the permission of tangata whenua. 
Then there is the concept of the code of responsible conduct for users and landholders. Again Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu came up with robust advice specifying that the code should include information on tikanga Maori Maori relationships with land and waters and desirable standards of behaviour to be observed when accessing sites. Yes but we will take it on the first part of this thinking of the select committee so clause 16(1)(bb) was inserted to include reference to guidance about tikanga Maori. The Federation of Maori Authorities has spoken for so many in endorsing the principle of the code of conduct as a benchmark standard to which the users must adhere. It was hoped that such gold standards would include information and understanding of Maori land à la rahui negotiated permission wahi tapu all those sorts of things as part of the desirable standards of behaviour to be observed. So it was pretty disappointing that the select committee has continued to be a little bit half-hearted about this in its recommendations to simply include a reference to guidance about tikanga Maori rather than a stronger statement of support such as adherence to tikanga Maori. 
This bill has some very positive features as it has emerged from the select committee process. We are pleased that there are new clauses to require the commission to take into account the views of local hapu and iwi in the naming of walkways over either public or private land. We are pleased too with the amendments to clause 29 to allow the commission to purchase private land as a means to provide public access. The word “acquire” has been removed from this clause to remove the implication of the compulsory acquisition of private land a concept that Maori shudder even to contemplate. But in summary our position on this bill is influenced by the prevailing “yes but” mentality. We do not believe that it is acceptable to minimise to trivialise or to compromise the guarantee of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to protect Maori in the use of their lands and waterways to the fullest extent practicable. Throughout this bill every attempt is made to dilute and diminish the mana of the arguments put forward by mana whenua and because of that we cannot possibly support this bill at its second reading. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the Walking Access Bill. United Future considered it very worrying that included in the bill that went to the Local Government and Environment Committee was such a large section on the establishment of walkways across public land. This topic was barely touched upon by the Walking Access Consultation Panel. Presently public land has few restrictions. However walkways administered under the New Zealand Walkways Act by local government would be much more restrictive with for example no vehicles guns or dogs being permitted along these walkways—all of which are often used by keen fishermen hunters or trampers. 
The establishment of walkways over public land administered by regional and local councils would have served to displace unformed legal roads as a legal entity. Under the New Zealand Walkways Act a regional council can apply to stop a legal road by selling it and de-gazetting it which means this legislation may well have succeeded in stymieing public access rather than enhancing it. United Future is far happier with this bill now that the select committee has identified that “the power to create walkways over unformed legal road is not critical to the success of the walkways regime” and has since deleted this clause from the bill. 
It is a special and crucially important feature of New Zealand that wildlife freshwater fisheries and natural water do not attach to land title under New Zealand law but rather are part of the public estate owned by everyone in general. As a consequence it is not unreasonable that these notional owners—that is the general public—should be able to expect and have fair and reasonable access to that which is theirs while respecting the property rights of landowners for recreation and for something as basic as food gathering in the case of fishers and hunters but also other forms of food gathering such as shellfish and Maori customary food gathering. 
A future consequence of this is that there are therefore now two sets of property rights in New Zealand—private property rights in land and public property rights in public resources. This is what makes New Zealand special and has its origins in the wishes of early settlers to not see a replication of the landed gentry owning and exclusively controlling the fish and game animal resource. It is therefore good and important that clause 3 specifically refers to these public resources. However the  
Hansard 
 record needs to show that Parliament intended public resources to include wildlife freshwater fisheries and natural water. 
United Future joins with the Green Party in voicing our ongoing concerns over a couple of aspects of this bill. The New Zealand Walking Access Commission established by the bill remains basically toothless. Although it can negotiate with landowners to acquire an easement or lease over the land for use as a walkway it has no formal power to resolve any disputes over access. This is particularly important when negotiating over private land in order to gain access to a public resource such as a lake or a river. We envisage and agree with the National Party that for 90 percent of cases this will not be a problem. The commission will effectively be able to negotiate access across private land with the least bit of hassle to landowners. However in the few cases where access is difficult to negotiate the commission has no formal power to resolve the dispute and provide public access to a public resource by way of a walkway or enforcing access by way of an unformed legal road. It is difficult to understand this aspect of the bill. The intention is there to resolve the issues surrounding the public’s right of access. However the commission that the bill sets up has no formal powers to do that. 
The bill sets out that the Minister after 10 years will consult the Walking Access Commission and review the bill. This will cover whether it is still needed what amendments may be necessary and also a review of its effectiveness and the operation of the commission. United Future supports the reasoning for a review but we are concerned that 10 years is too long to wait. Surely any problems in the implementation of this legislation will be clear after a much shorter time—perhaps 5 years as the Green member suggested. We are worried that a 10-year wait will possibly allow a flawed process ample time to become entrenched and thus very hard to review accurately and amend. 
Finally we want to finish this second reading by recognising the efforts of the Fish and Game people in causing this bill to happen. It began back in 1999 when they convinced the then Labour Opposition which made a manifesto commitment. Fish and Game were able to convince them that there was a growing issue around access and that New Zealand was seeing the beginnings of a privatisation of public resources through the misuse of the Trespass Act to exclusively capture public resources that were on public land—for example rivers running through private land game found on public land and things like that. We congratulate Fish and Game on being so alert to this so many years ago and we are very pleased to support the second reading and progress this bill through the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in support of the second reading of the Walking Access Bill. I first acknowledge the members of the Walking Access Consultation Panel who were behind the design of this solution. It was chaired by John Acland and members were Eric Roy; Brian Hayes former Registrar-General of Lands; John Aspinall a farmer from the Mount Aspiring area; John Forbes a local government representative from up north; and Bryce Johnson from Fish and Game who is in the gallery. I apologise to anyone I have missed out—those are the members I can recall. 
This bill has an interesting history. Our forebears in New Zealand were very wise when it came to the provision of public access. Queen Victoria through her agent instructed the administrators of New Zealand when subdividing land prior to settlement by settlers who were purchasing land or settling land upon colonial occupation of New Zealand to lay off access strips alongside all rivers lakes and foreshore and that there be access strips reserved at regular intervals through the land that was being freeholded. The mechanism that was used was paper roads. Paper roads are Crown land over which people have rights of access. It was the mechanism that was commonly used not just for what are now called paper roads but also around lakes rivers and the foreshore. 
That requirement was generally honoured but occasionally it was not. A lot of the access ways were created for the future public access of New Zealanders. They were never intended to be formed—indeed these were organised before there were cars. Where they were intended to be used it was by people on foot and people on horses. Sometimes there was maybe no active expectation that they would be used in the foreseeable future but there was recognition that some time in the future there would be a need for public access. So these paper roads have been created all around New Zealand. Over the succeeding 100 years a lot of them have fallen into disuse and there have been changes in occupation of the surrounding land. 
I was very pleased to hear David Carter’s acknowledgment that despite that change in historical use of the surrounding land he and the National Party now acknowledge that there should be public rights of access along those public strips. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Always did. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well it is true that some of her party always did. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Don’t make it up. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Actually I am not. I will actually quote a meeting that I was at earlier in this debate a few years ago when this issue was raging. I am not putting this on the National Party but I was at a meeting where Federated Farmers representatives were speaking. They were saying: “Well yes we’ve got private rights.” and I said: “Well the public have got public rights in respect of these paper roads.” The response— 
Jacqui Dean 
: You’re making it up. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I am not. I will name the gentleman to the member later but I will not publicly shame him now. He said: “But there’s been change of land use. We’ve got the right to control access along these paper roads.” That of course is the fiction that developed until we had this debate in the last few years: that there were no public rights in respect of those paper roads. This debate and the very good work that was done—particularly by Brian Hayes setting out the history of paper roads but generally by the Walking Access Consultation Panel—has illuminated this issue and forced there to be an acknowledgment in Parliament that the public has public rights in respect of paper roads. This is the mechanism through which we are in a practical sense enabling people to exercise their rights of access through these public strips to rivers lakes foreshore and conservation areas. 
One further aspect I would like to just touch on before I sit down is that the large exception to the laying down of proper paper roads is in the South Island high country. The reason why that occurred is laid out in Cabinet papers for people who want to search through the Internet. Essentially when the South Island high country was settled no long-term tenure was being granted to the farmers—they had non-renewable pastoral occupation licences limited to a term of years. At the end of the term that land would have reverted to the Crown and any access issues could then have been resolved. For good reason those non-renewable pastoral occupation licences were turned into perpetually renewable leases and the reason that happened was that without security of tenure no one had a long-term interest in the land. Their value in the house they built could be lost and any fences or paddock and pasture improvements they did could be lost to them so they did not do it. It was not economic for them. 
So the Government of the day turned the licences into perpetually renewable leases but recognised that there were historical deficits in access alongside lakes and alongside rivers. Those properties are enormous properties and are sometimes still not surveyed—they were defined by way of mountain ridge and river so the river was in the lease. We are slowly fixing those things but there are other rights under the Land Act to fix those things so in terms of Judy Turner’s concern that there are no powers to fix some of these areas where there is no access—in fact there are. There are powers under the Land Act and there are powers that councils and central government can exercise under the Public Works Act if there are areas where there is no access but access is needed. Those powers already exist; there is no need to state those powers again in respect of this legislation. 
This legislation is primarily concerned with regulating and ensuring that people can exercise their public rights of access over public roads or unformed paper roads as they are sometimes called so that they can access rivers lakes foreshore conservation areas and public areas that we as a birthright in New Zealand all feel that we should have access to. 
This is very good legislation. I compliment the Minister Damien O’Connor on charting what have been difficult waters at times and getting to a practical solution that I think will enable all New Zealanders to march forward with pride as we move through this in a non-confrontational way and improve access. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Oh! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In terms of Jacqui Dean’s laughter this issue is relevant to her electorate. She pretends to be supportive of these issues now but the reality is that she had been one of those people who have been I think a little bit too willing to undervalue the public’s rights over public roads and suggest that other people have rights that should outweigh them because of changing land-use practices on the adjacent properties. Having said that I am pleased that we have reached an accommodation across this issue and I value Eric Roy’s wise words on this issue. I recommend the legislation to the House. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 To echo the words of the previous speaker the Hon David Parker former MP for Otago this is good legislation. The reason this is good legislation is that it has come full circle over the past 6 years or so to mirror the position of the National Party on the issue of public access. I say that because in the course of my 3-year tenure as the MP for Otago—and being a constituency MP who actually gets out into the electorate and talks to my constituents—I know that many of those very same farmers have long held the view that is encapsulated in this bill. So let us get off our high horses I say to Mr Parker and stop talking about the grand scheme of the Labour Government because this bill is nothing more than the National Party’s position. The bill has come full circle. It is nothing more than what the farmers particularly of the high country have welcomed with open arms. 
Is it not ironic that the Minister for Land Information Mr David Parker is the very Minister who is closing off access during the course of his negotiations with Crown pastoral lessees? I think that is one of the greatest ironies I have seen in this House. 
Hon David Parker 
: That’s absolutely wrong. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: It is absolutely true. No wonder high country farmers to a man are implacably opposed to this Labour Government to the point where the Minister David Parker does not even venture anywhere near high country farmers because he just knows that his reception will be no more than what he deserves. Just as a point of clarification I tell Mr Parker to take off the rosy spectacles. I do not believe that the Government came to an agreement with Crown pastoral leases in order to provide security of tenure which it is now doing everything it can to erode. Rather it was because the high country land was so infested with rabbits and gorse and other introduced pests and diseases that the Government sought a way to manage that land and turned to those farmers who were prepared to take on that burden. It is interesting is it not that the lessons of history have not been learnt by this Labour Government. 
Returning to the Walking Access Bill I say again and I reiterate the position of my colleague David Carter that this bill really encapsulates something that effectively was not broken. As far as I am aware in my large electorate of Otago it can be argued and I think I can argue it very successfully some of the greatest opportunities to explore the outdoors can be found. I have not had one incidence of somebody coming into my office or stopping me in the street wherever I am in the electorate and saying: “I cannot get into the high country; I cannot get to a stream because I have been denied access.” Actually there was one gentleman who I understand did—and he was a bit of a curmudgeon who has now moved on from ownership of that land; I think he sold it—in a rather mean-spirited way deny access. 
What happens is that farmers and private landowners are incredibly proud of the land they have either stewardship over or access to. They are incredibly proud of the fact that their land may be adjoining a good fishery or hunting spot and they enjoy good relations with many of the recreational hunters fishers and trampers who wish to get out into the beauty that is the Otago electorate and the lower part of the South Island and indeed all of New Zealand. 
The New Zealand Walking Access Commission has many roles and responsibilities but I think it is important to note that its role is to negotiate with private landowners. It does not have powers other than that and that is the way it should be. It reinforces yet again that this Walking Access Bill very neatly comes round to National’s position as it has always been on this issue. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee had a number of excellent submissions on this bill but there was one that to me was the most telling. I will paint the picture for members. We heard submissions from a number of interest groups: the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society; the New Zealand Fish and Game Council which gave good submissions; four-wheel drive enthusiasts; and tramping and mountaineering clubs. All gave their views which were accepted and welcomed by the select committee. But it was the submitter who talked about being able to have access to New Zealand’s beautiful back country because it was great for the submitter’s family—that was the submission that said to me this bill is a good bill. 
I will close there but I want to thank members of the select committee and the submitters who all brought something to the bill and whose views have all been catered for. We support this bill. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I listened with some interest to the previous speaker Jacqui Dean. She is very much like the traditional conservative. When a progressive and visionary Government introduces legislation—and I believe the Walking Access Bill will be seen as one of the great achievements of this Government and this Parliament—she runs with it eventually then tries to claim some credit and claim that it was her policy all along. Certainly I can see Peter Brown laughing at that and acknowledging that that is how conservatives run. In her heart of hearts even Jacqui Dean knows that to be true. 
I want to pay huge tribute to people such as David Parker who has been an incredible advocate for his area. He has reminded colleagues on this side of the House of the incredible heritage and gift that Central Otago as a region is to the rest of the country and of the need to ensure that in the long term for our children and grandchildren we have adequate access to the treasures of our nation. I also want to compliment Damien O’Connor an incredibly hard-working Minister who has stewarded this bill. 
I believe I should also pay tribute to Jim Sutton who did a lot of work. There was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing and many submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The committee chair Moana Mackey did a very good job as well. I want to be gracious and I will be gracious and acknowledge Lesley Soper. I was in Invercargill earlier this year and she was doing a very good job down there and again she was very supportive of this legislation. But let me also acknowledge Eric Roy and his work in helping us get to where we are today. 
For me as a Waikato member of Parliament this is very important legislation. I will give the House a very practical example of one of the worries I have. A few years ago if one was to turn off and take a scenic route into Hamilton from Ngaruawahia down the Turangawaewae side into Hamilton East one would have seen splendid views of the beautiful Waikato River from River Road. Now bit by bit inch by inch month by month that view is being obliterated by the building of some very expensive houses that come between us and our view of our wonderful heritage. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not understand why members opposite are interjecting at this point. I am simply trying to explain why it is critical to have an environment in which we build a series of walkways and access routes to our heritage so that our children and great-grandchildren can still enjoy the view of that beautiful precious resource and treasure our Waikato River. 
We have to ensure that this does not become like some kind of Miami-style Florida-style beachfront whereby the beaches and riverways are blocked off by the wealthy and the public cannot get access to them. I say to Opposition members that they should listen to the wise words of Eric Roy. They should not laugh as this is a very serious problem in this country. It is becoming increasingly serious. Parts of our heritage could be locked away and that is why I am delighted by the Walking Access Bill. 
I believe that this bill will go down as one of the more visionary Acts of Parliament. It will be a great achievement not just by this Government but by Parliament as a whole. It is about ensuring that New Zealanders enjoy their natural heritage and that we gift to our grandchildren the right of access around this country. The important point—and it is a good aspect of the bill—is that the bill will achieve a proper balance between the rights and aspirations of the public in terms of access to our beautiful countryside the property rights of landowners and the practical needs of farmers and other land users to carry out their business without undue hindrance. I acknowledge some very good input from Federated Farmers in the Waikato. Some very very good farmers and other people in our rural communities have shown real leadership and wonderful support with regard to this bill. 
Finally I want to express a debt of gratitude on behalf of this Parliament to people like John Acland and his team who worked around the country. I attended some of the consultation meetings that he undertook and I thank him. His legacy and that of those who worked with him will go way beyond this Parliament and indeed way beyond this generation. As I said earlier on I do not think we should underestimate the significance of this legislation in preserving the wonderful treasure that is New Zealand and the New Zealand countryside. I look forward to the Committee stage and third reading of this bill. Hopefully before this Parliament rises this bill will become the law of this country. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Walking Access Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.