Carter John: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter John: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19089. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The best way to describe the Walking Access Bill and its history is probably to look at Part 1 and at clause 3 the purpose. Members should look at the subclause that is actually struck out which stated: “(b) to provide for walkways to be declared over public and private land;”. That sentence says it all. It was the Government’s intention when it first introduced this bill a good while ago to actually affect property rights—to a limited extent it still does. But in its raw stage as it was first introduced it certainly would have had a major impact on property rights in this country. I say as an aside that what interests me with this is that there was a huge uproar about property rights around this bill yet there was only a muted response when the Government introduced its seabed and foreshore legislation which also was about property rights. It surprises me that there was not the same furore from the public right across New Zealand in regard to that legislation as there was over this bill. However that is an aside.  
It seems to me that the difference between where the Government started from and where it has finished up has been a real smack in the face for it. It started off saying basically that people in this country can walk pretty much where they like. If it is deemed that that is in the interests of the community they can walk across people’s farms they can walk across parks they can walk across multiply owned Maori land they can walk across someone’s backyard and potentially they can even walk through someone’s lounge although that is unlikely. Nevertheless that was the thrust of the bill. It has been brought back to being sensible legislation that the National Party having worked as hard as it did during the select committee process can now support. It brings some common sense to an issue that needed to be addressed and now will be when this bill passes. Basically it says that we recognise that there is need for people’s recreation and for some places where the public can walk but we must also recognise the rights of the property owner and where there is suggestion that a walking access be established it should be done by way of negotiation. There are a number of rules around the way in which that negotiation is to be done which will be debated as we progress further through the legislation.  
The other interesting aspect is that as my colleague Nick Smith spoke about this bill also establishes the Walking Access Commission. I think that is a good positive step forward as well because it means that we have a body of people who will take responsibility to ensure that the interests of the individual as well as the community are taken into account. The interesting issue that came before the select committee was when we started talking about the matter of walking access. We then got into the issue of the paper roads that there are so many of across this country and the right that New Zealanders have to use those. Of course that brought in the fact that there is not just pedestrian traffic but also vehicular traffic and how that was to be dealt with as we went through the issue of deciding which of the roads may be used as walking tracks. As there was debate around that a number of clubs came forward and said they were concerned about the paper roads they use by way of their four-wheel drive club or gun club for access—for those who are interested in the sport of shooting or whatever it may be. Motorcyclists often use these sorts of facilities for their enjoyment. It meant that it would bring conflict between vehicles and people who walk for recreation. The purpose of the commission is to resolve those conflicts. Given that often common sense can and does apply and people come to compromises there is no reason why that will not be achieved; this legislation sets parameters for that to happen.  
But as I say it was an interesting debate because it brought to the attention of New Zealand and certainly to the attention of Parliament the fact that as our population grows as demand for recreation spreads and as various forms of it develop we need to take great care to ensure that we do not establish something that detracts or interferes with the rights of others or causes conflicts. So I think it was a learning curve for the select committee members who had to get their heads around some issues that prior to looking or delving into the issue one would have thought was not such a difficult subject to consider—that we will just develop some walking areas for the public to have a nice Sunday stroll on a warm afternoon or maybe somewhere where they might lead their dog their pet duck or whatever happens to interest them. But of course as one delves into these things they are never quite so simple.  
Part 1 as set out here confirms the fact that we have moved away from interfering with private land in a compulsory manner and that we have allowed for voluntary giving of land but under certain conditions. It gives recognition of the rights of the property owner and it also sets up the commission as we have said. I think the bill as structured in Part 1 has actually ended up being good legislation.  
The Local Government and Environment Committee worked well and constructively on this legislation. This is another example of Parliament actually working together on an issue that was contentious; it has to a large extent solved that problem. It does show that as so often we can work together on a problem but the public do not know it. The sad thing is that the media should be out here reporting that Parliament is working constructively on legislation but of course that does not interest them very much. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: You’re sounding like Blumsky. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well it is true though. My colleague says I sound like Mark Blumsky—I hope I do for the very reason that often we do not promote ourselves enough as a structure that can work together and that we often do so more than we actually fight. The sad thing is how the media portray it.  
In concluding I draw the Committee’s attention to that point—that we have worked constructively together. This is a good bill. The National Party will support it—I understand that most of the other parties in the House are now doing so as well—and we should allow this bill to move on to its third reading so it can be concluded.