King Colin: Walking Access Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Walking Access Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19221] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 In speaking to the Walking Access Bill I take comfort in the comments of support from my colleagues. 
John Acland is present in the gallery and I acknowledge his work sincerity and commitment to this process. As the member for Kaikoura I feel that it would be appropriate to tell the House a little bit about the background of this bill and the angst that developed in Marlborough. It all originated from a candidate who was standing for selection for the Labour Party. His name was Brendon Burns. He took it upon himself to challenge the farmers and the local community saying that this approach was the right way forward and that there should be a right to roam. Unfortunately starting from that position did not build good trusting relationships. 
What happened in the end—and it was one of my first experiences as a candidate—was that at a forum in Blenheim David Carter and I spoke to a crowd of 200 very angry farmers. We got the message very early on that the community of Marlborough especially the rural community would not wear that approach. Sadly as things unfolded and John Acland came around with the Walking Access Consultation Panel he ran into the tail end of that suspicion. On that basis I apologise to John for that lack of trust and confidence in his sincerity in wanting to find a way forward. It was born out of deep-seated suspicion and a lot of aggro that had happened over some period of time. So it is heartening to see that we have found a way through. 
I acknowledge also the input of Eric Roy. Members appreciate the mana of the man when he speaks here. He has a very balanced and reasonable view of things and one would say that he can see both sides of the story. 
I point out to the House that New Zealand is one of the most urbanised countries in the OECD. In New Zealand 88 percent of people live in urban areas and 12 percent of people live in rural areas. I mention that from the point of view that I am one of those rural people. People get up and talk about romantic notions of wandering around in the hinterland enjoying their birthright and suchlike. When I have been snow-raking outside in cold weather I have wondered why on earth I decided to do it. When I have had to pull a beast out of river or a creek I have thought who in his or her right mind would want to do this. When I start to hear some of these romantic notions I say that we have to temper them with common sense—which I believe is what we have come to. 
The National Party’s 2005 policy on walking access is to ensure that public access is achieved through negotiated agreement with landowners. I am very comfortable with that although I pick up on John Carter’s comments during the Committee stage. I say to the members on the other side of the House that that policy will work under National but I have grave fears about how it would work under Labour. We are talking about a budget of $2 million. 
Something that has not been discussed during this process is the abdication of responsibility by the Department of Conservation. The Walking Access Commission will have to go into bat on behalf of those people who have been walking the many iconic tracks that have fallen into total disrepair. I refer to one particular iconic walk called the Three Passes. When I was a young fellow of about 19 we used to be able to walk over the Three Passes out through the Arahura River across the Styx Saddle and then down and out the Styx River but now that track has slipped away and it is becoming incredibly dangerous. People walk this track carrying 20 kilogram packs. The Walking Access Commission will have to have a serious talk to the Department of Conservation about maintaining those tracks. Or will it? 
I draw members’ attention to Part 3 which talks about administering authorities. Administering authorities either will give the Walking Access Commission permission to create a walkway on public land or they will not. We have been talking so much about private property rights which are very very important. We have been talking about access across privately owned land to get to public land but there is every opportunity that when this bill is passed today—obviously the House is supporting it—the Department of Conservation will abdicate its responsibilities to maintain its tracks. If the department says that it is not interested and it will not give away its right to control conservation estate this commission can effectively do nothing to bring it to heel. We have to be very mindful that this is an enormous issue and with a budget of $2 million I cannot see how the commission will be able to address this situation fully and adequately. 
It is all very fine that we have the commission and the controlling authority that will be appointed by the commission. That will probably be the local authority and I bet it will be tearing its hair out and not thanking us a great deal. There is a code of conduct. My wife said something very interesting the other day—she says a lot of interesting things—and I think it is worth repeating: “When people start talking about their rights they have generally done something wrong.” My real concern around this code of conduct is that we must instil into it that access is in fact a responsibility. Respect is to be shown and we must get that message through. Unfortunately in this whole process of things with the euphoria of access and suchlike we lose the real importance of respecting that right of access. 
Another thing that needs to be raised is that the Minister of Agriculture will have oversight of this and therefore the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will have oversight. It has to be very careful that it does not take its eye off its core responsibilities. We know that it is stretched beyond its limits at the moment. One has only to sit on the Primary Production Committee to see that its members are wrestling with such things as the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the hazardous substances legislation. The ministry also has challenges with biosecurity and it does not have its import health standards up to the standard they ought to be. We have seen just today around biosecurity that it has had to remove funding to deal with the varroa bee mite and it is wrestling with the clover root weevil issue. Such things as this are of huge concern. 
I put on notice that we are supporting this bill. This bill will work when it is in law under National but I have grave concerns about how it would work under Labour. Labour no longer has connections with the provinces. Labour does not have experience of farmers or the rural community and it has proven that it does not have respect for property rights. Thank you very much. 
Bill read a third time.