Eckhoff Gerrard: General Debates 
Eckhoff Gerrard: General Debates 
[Volume:619;Page:15030] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Clearly after listening to that speech one can only come to the conclusion that Phil Goff is a woman not to be trifled with. He reminds me of a blowfish trying to puff himself up into far more importance than he actually has. The blood pressure was rising the rhetoric was pouring but there was nothing worth listening to. 
During the general debate I want to talk about an issue of huge importance to rural New Zealanders. About 2 weeks ago they were dismayed to get  
Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors 
 which is a discussion paper from the office of Jim Sutton. Just in case anybody is unsure of who Jim Sutton is he is the advocate within Cabinet for rural New Zealand. He is the advocate for rural New Zealanders. What did he do? He put out a discussion paper about how the Government can trample over the rights of every New Zealander who lives in the rural sector and who happens to have a waterway. 
I ask what Jim Sutton has in common with Robert Mugabe. I will answer my own question: they both take property rights away from white farmers. I emphasise “white farmers” because what is proposed in the document will not apply—shock horror as though it might come as a surprise—to Parekura Horomia who is sitting over there or to his lands. It will apply only to people of European origin. That is simply an outrage. 
But why should we be surprised? I must add this little bit in too; this is a little pearler. In one of the discussion documents that he sent back to Cabinet the Minister said: “This issue around Maori lands needs more work. The rest of it is not a problem but around Maori land it needs more work.” What is more disturbing about this—and I totally agree with a Treasury paper that I have here in which Treasury stated and as I have said—is that this question is not about access but about a thing called property rights. I tell the Minister that one either has property rights or one does not. It is a bit like being pregnant: one either is or is not. One cannot have it both ways. This is about property rights. 
I would like the Minister to take a call and answer this question. Why is he not taking the land around the Avon River in Fendalton for example? There is no access for anybody including any member of this House or any member of the public to at least one-third of the properties on the Avon River. Why does this right apply only to rural land? If one wants to be fair about it why does this Government not apply access to all waterways in this country? Those waterways include the Avon the Heathcote and the Styx where one cannot get access to one-third of the properties—but the Minister has ruled that out. 
I am all for access. The ACT party is all for access to anywhere but we have to face a certain reality including in this very place here. Members of the public cannot walk around this home of democracy—this very House this very Parliament. Access is strictly controlled. That is for an extremely sensible and valid reason. These days we cannot given matters of security—both internal and external—have people wandering all over and anywhere just because they feel like it. Yet this Minister for Rural Affairs says it is OK because it is only farmers. There are only 40000 farmers in this country. The Government does not get their votes and is not going to get their votes so it will take their property rights and give them to what is known as the recreational lobby—350000 votes. 
That is the purpose behind this paper. It is not about some great notion of ensuring the continuity of access which is given by 92 percent of the farmers in this country. They give access freely and regularly. They do not hinder access at all but this Government comes along and asks how it can “appropriate”. That is a nice word for “thieve” or for “steal”.