Carter David: Walking Access Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: Walking Access Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17938] 
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.