Roy Heather: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15657] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak in the first reading debate on the Walking Access Bill. I intend to take a fairly short call because the issues around this bill are very simple. There has been some talk of complexity but I think the matter is very simple. It can be summed up in two words: property rights. ACT will be opposing this bill for that very reason. We heard from the National Party speaker Colin King that it is the Kiwi way to seek permission and that is absolutely correct. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: No it’s not. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Woolerton has been very vocal in this debate chipping in here and there and sitting beside his new-found friend in the Labour Party whose only chance of sitting in a front-bench seat is today. Neither of them is standing up and having his say. But anyway we are here to talk about property rights which are much more important than the opinions of Mr Clayton Cosgrove. 
It is the Kiwi way to seek permission. This society is founded on the basis of property rights. People own property and they have the ability to do what they like with that property and by and large people take very good care of their own property—better care in fact than they take of anybody else’s. 
I grew up in a small rural community in Otago the township of Palmerston where my parents still live. They have a small 10-acre block that sits at the base of the hill that people see as they come into Palmerston both from north and south. It is called Puketapu Hill. On top is a monument to Sir John McKenzie who was responsible for the divvying up of large property rights so that locals were all able to afford a much smaller landholding but become owners of property themselves. Every day during the war the local constable Constable Kelly used to run up to the top of Puketapu Hill and look out from the monument to see whether any warships were coming. Fortunately they never did but that was a daily routine. Now once a year at Labour weekend there is a race up Puketapu Hill. People can get up and down within 20 minutes. 
My parents have a small 10-acre block that sits at the base of that hill. Running to the top and down is a popular thing to do not just at Labour weekend. People frequently climb to the top of Puketapu to get a very good view of the local area. I used to do that all the time as a child and I now enjoy taking my children up when we visit my parents. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: God bless them. 
HEATHER ROY 
: God bless them indeed. I thank Mr Woolerton very much for his kind words. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: That’s what I just said. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I know; I was saying thank you very much. People frequently knock on my parents’ door at home and ask whether they can wander through their property so that they can climb that hill. We always say yes as most farmers do when they are asked and my colleague from the Maori Party said that Maori very rarely refuse people access to Maori land when permission is sought. We always said yes when people came and knocked on the door. We would ask them of course to be wary of any stock that happened to be in the paddocks they would be going through and we would ask them to leave open the gates that were open and close behind them gates that were already closed. We would also give them directions as to the best way up to the top. There was a very steep route and a much more gentle one and we would point those out to people. That is the Kiwi way. We were property owners. We welcomed people on to our property as did the owner of Puketapu and people were given very good instructions about the best way to go and I would contend that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 
Mr Martin Gallagher said in his speech that this issue is about the financial value of property and the fact that people worry that if they have walking tracks through their properties they lose value. He has completely missed the point. The whole point of this bill is property rights. Those members on the other side of the House have a different view. They include Mr Woolerton who now sits with his Labour Party colleagues who had a very different view of these issues when he was in the National Party. He would be standing on this side of the House and vigorously opposing this legislation if he were still a member of the National Party. 
This issue is about property rights. It is about the fact that people have the ability to own property and they have the say over what happens on that property and who goes on to it. The people on the other side of the House think that private property belongs to everybody and that everybody should have access no matter what they want to do with it. They think that everybody should have to share. I have news for those members. People are very genuine and very good-natured about the fact that they will allow people to go across their land as long as due respect is paid to that land and to the stock or the crops that are on it. That is the Kiwi way. 
I am pleased to see that ACT members are not alone. All too often we are alone in this Parliament when we oppose bills but we are not alone this time. The Green Party is also opposing this bill. We have heard very little about that from the other side of the House. Green members made some very pertinent points as well about this legislation. It sees the development of a commission which they pointed out will be a complete waste of money and I could not agree more. If we had the Regulatory Responsibility Bill in place now—ACT’s bill—then certain questions would have to be asked about this bill. What will it achieve? How much will it cost? What will the cost of this commission be? Have we heard any talk at all today apart from the Green Party’s about the cost of this commission that will be put in place? No. 
What will the commission achieve? The Green Party said that it will be a bureaucratic monster with absolutely no teeth. I have to agree with that and actually thank goodness for that. There is no need for this bill which is why the ACT party is opposing it. If ACT’s bill the Regulatory Responsibility Bill had been passed those questions would have to be asked and answered. If it could not be proven that it achieved anything or that it was value for money the bill would not be able to proceed and that would be right and proper in this House today. But only two parties in this Parliament are prepared to say so in this election year. The other parties think that this bill is a good idea—that everybody who wants to should have the right to roam through land and that people should not have to seek permission from anybody to do so. 
I am proud to stand here today beside my Green Party colleagues because they are doing the right thing for the right reasons. ACT is opposing this bill because as I said at the outset this issue is a very simple one—it is about property rights. People have significant property rights and they should be adhered to. People should have to ask permission of the landowner before they wander across land and in most instances the landowner will give it as long as people treat that land with respect. That is the Kiwi way.