Roy Eric: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15644] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am quite pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments on the Walking Access Bill. I do not really want to claim a pedigree in this regard but I am a property owner and I understand property rights. On my property I have both paper roads and marginal strips. I am also a hunter-gatherer and a large part of my recreation is involved in doing that. I also spent some time on the first access panel with John Acland about 5 years ago. So I think I can make some sort of a contribution on this bill. 
In my view the bill is a bit of a curate’s egg; it is both good and bad. I think there are issues that need to be dealt with and they have been becoming increasingly common in recent times as a number of issues have come up. I hope that members who have an interest in this topic will look at the history of New Zealand—it is unique in the world. We have enshrined in a whole lot of ways property rights and that is the basis upon which business operates and we have to understand all of that. Yet in New Zealand we also have a public right in terms of access for recreation that is quite different from the situation in most other countries. A whole lot of riparian strips are not laid down; there are not the sorts of regulations that there are in other places. So New Zealand is quite distinct in the world. 
The first attempt at providing for public access was made even prior to the Treaty of Waitangi. That fell over and it was in 1841 when it happened. Another effort was made in the 1850s and then Ballance in the 1890s again tidied the situation up. A range of things has occurred and I think the comment has already been made in this debate that it is virtually impossible to find out very easily where there is a marginal strip whether that marginal strip is actually in the right place. There is a whole lot of reasons why people have certain expectations both as property owners and as recreationalists. So there is a bit of interface about this situation and it needs to be tidied up. That is why National is supporting the bill; we recognised the issues that are there. 
I just say that my major concern about this bill which David Carter has already commented on is the question of where it might lead us to in terms of bureaucracy with the establishment of a Walkways Commission. Yes in this bill we are going to create a commission with a membership of five to eight members. But it certainly does not stop there. Brian Hayes in determining what actually existed on some properties on the Banks Peninsula found that per property it took up to 2 hours to determine that. The chairman of the access panel John Acland had lived for a number of years on the Rangitata River believing it was a marginal strip on his property. He found out subsequently there was no marginal strip because when each one of the provisions was put in if there was a fee simple freehold landholding before that happened that access provision was not recognised. We have an absolute mixture in terms of what is out there so it will be no simple thing to resolve. 
I want to make a couple of comments about setting up the commission. I see Part 4 of the bill talks about enforcement officers. They are not numbered we do not know what their role is—that is not specifically defined— 
Nathan Guy 
: Walking police! 
ERIC ROY 
: Ha ha! Nor are there penalty provisions laid down in relation to what they may or may not do. Then there will be a whole raft of people out there doing up to 2 hours research per property in order to find out where the access is all going to go. This is just terrifying in terms of what it might all cost. It is just a great shame that we cannot rely on the goodwill of both parties to get through this issue. I think the comment has been made that the nature of their relationship is changing. Certainly our exclusive fisheries our high country fisheries are under more pressure than they ever have been under so there is an opportunity to make money like never before by a bit of capture. That has occurred with a bit of pressure on those landholders to turn a dollar by just being a bit difficult about access. There is a whole range of issues out there. 
It also worries me a little about this bill that designated walkways may become the only form of access. We have to be very very careful that we do not destroy whatever fabric of goodwill is actually there. I also concur with David Carter when he said that when the word came out that the access panel was to look at “wander at will” it was a way just to slap property owners in the face by saying: “We don’t trust what you are doing. We might just want to assume some rights that no one ever really wanted.” That is what raised the hackles. So we are not starting from a good point in terms of the goodwill aspect. For example we are going to put down designated walkways which is a great opportunity. In my view there can be some trading between a paper road and what is an easement in a place where it is suitable to the landholder and to the recreationalist. There are those opportunities to make some good progress there but we need to protect the goodwill; that is an important point. 
I think that structures exist now that could actually do that without setting up another commission and the conservation boards would be one example of such a structure. I say that because it will be very important to have local knowledge in each area as to what the issues are. For example on the Southland plains the local authority—and I do not know which authority it was—in 1890 went out and physically surveyed every single river. The only place where the marginal strip is beside the rivers now is where there is a bridge and the river has been contained. In some places on the Oreti River the marginal strip is up to 1½ kilometres away from where the river actually is. So there will be a distinct set of problems there. In terms of actually giving access what would a commission—based somewhere in the country—know about the times and behaviour that are pertinent on farms? Lambing in Northland will be at a different time from lambing in Southland. So I think that the logical thing to do is to engage the great deal of knowledge that exists on the conservation boards that are already there. 
The other thing is that I am pleased this bill is basically about walkways because I think that the behaviour of motorcyclists and of some other four-wheel drive people has done a lot to damage the relationship that existed before when people just walked. Now every second person who is a recreationalist has a powerful cross-country machine in one form or another—a quad bike motorbike four-wheel drive from Japan or whatever—which has damaged the relationship. So that is important. But again there is no mention in this bill of provisions for dogs and guns; in fact it is mentioned that they are excluded. So by omission that might rule out any kind of negotiation with landholders and again that fabric of understanding between the participants is an important factor. 
I could say a number of things but I look forward to this bill going through the select committee process. I look forward to reading the submissions and I look forward to making a contribution at various times too. I think there are some common-sense answers we can adopt on this issue and let me repeat again we should look after those things that are enshrined and important in New Zealand: property rights and public rights in terms of where they match together. I will support the bill to go to the select committee.