Roy Eric: Walking Access Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Walking Access Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19214] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 It is good to have worked on the Walking Access Bill and to see an outcome that is quite positive. This bill is unique in many ways. The legislation started from a very polarised position yet it now has a high degree of agreement. It is unique in that on a night when we have had nine valedictories a good number of members in the House are being abstemious and are here to debate the merits of this bill when there are other attractions socially that might draw them away—which shows the degree of seriousness about this bill. The bill is unique in the context that as I said it started with quite a high degree of divergence of opinion and has gone entirely through the Committee stage without amendment nor with any amendments being tabled and lost. That is unique in the Committee stage. It is also unique in that through the various debates on the various stages of the bill I have imparted a bit of information about marginal strips the Queen’s Chain and the legislative process that has gone around the establishment of the rights of New Zealanders. 
There has been no substantial attempts to develop or enhance to this level the access opportunities for New Zealanders since 1891. John McKenzie was the Minister of Lands under the Ballance Government and was an interesting character in himself. He shares a lot of similarities to my grandfather whom I will get to in just a minute to show members my perspective on this. He came to New Zealand from Scotland he spoke only Gaelic and he wanted to develop a New Zealand for which there was a degree of utilitarian approach there was no favouritism and there were no riparian rights. He was Minister of Lands under Ballance. He broke up some of the great squattocracies of the South Island and did it in a way that created the family farm in 1891. There is a book that members who are interested in this should read called  
Lands for the People? 
. John McKenzie became a member of a school committee to learn about representation before he stood for Waihemo. Anyone driving through Palmerston will see a monument to John McKenzie on top of the hill on the seaward side of Palmerston. It is not since 1891 that there has been any substantial attempt to move access opportunities for New Zealanders forward. 
I said that John McKenzie had a lot of similarities to my grandfather and his expectations. When I was on the Walking Access Consultation Panel we had to introduce ourselves and I told this story which is true that my great-grandfather John Roy in Ballybogey in County Antrim about 1857 or 1858 just after the end of the potato famine was about to be apprehended by a gamekeeper for poaching rabbits and he shot the gamekeeper. He volunteered to leave at that stage went to Canada and when gold was discovered in Gabriels Gully he came to New Zealand. We all have stories like that. It is an intrinsic part of me as a landowner who wants fairness and recognition of property rights and also as a hunter-gatherer and as a person who enjoys recreation to say there is a balance. And that is the unique part of this bill: that after some reasonably extreme positions taken and lined up in the first instance there has been a lot of agreement in this House in recognising both property rights and the right and the heritage of New Zealanders to enjoy the outdoors and the public resources that are so special. 
New Zealand is unique in the world in that respect. There are very few countries that have the absence of riparian rights to the extent that New Zealand has. To my knowledge no other country has laid down so many opportunities for access. There is no other country with similar proportionality of national parks to New Zealand. We have that heritage but we have had this gap that no one has seriously attempted to resolve since 1891. That is a unique situation. 
Let us talk for a moment about those gaps. I have already mentioned my modest holdings in the district of Te Tipua. I am in the process of selling some of that land and I want to retain a wetland. When I bought that property I was told there was a marginal strip down that river. I said I wanted a survey of that wetland and want to retain ownership of a bit of my birthright—of where I started. It is a good place to shoot ducks as well but that is not the only interest. I said to the surveyor just last week I have an egress a marginal strip down the river. He looked up and said: “No you haven’t.” I had believed there was a marginal strip down the river. I have just bought another property and they said: “Hang on; there’s no marginal strip there.” I went to the surveyor searched the deed got the Land Information New Zealand report—hey presto there is a marginal strip on the river there! That is relatively typical of what exists out there. 
The bill locks in the responsibilities of the Walking Access Commission but we should not underestimate the job as easy or simple. There will need to be an ongoing process. At least we have set up the Walking Access Commission and it will have a role in determining what exists and it will negotiate those opportunities. There are indeed a lot of unique things about this bill. I should mention Jim Sutton’s role in the legislation. I have said before that I think he probably got it a little bit wrong at the start of the process when he mentioned the wander-at-will provision. It made everybody a bit fearful and some people became quite concerned. I think that comment was out of context with the property rights of New Zealanders. I mentioned that we have a greater proportion of national parks and other opportunities to go walking than other countries. We are not the UK or Europe and there is not a history of wander-at-will walking opportunities such as are enshrined in the history of those countries but we have something unique and special in New Zealand and this bill is quite a significant step forward in improving the opportunities for New Zealanders to participate in that way. 
It is proper to acknowledge again that the role of the Walking Access Commission will not be an easy one. The people who are appointed will need integrity and that goes without saying. I pick up on the point made by my colleague Hone Harawira who said there should be fair representation of tangata whenua. There are responsibilities that go with the property rights determined by the commission so tangata whenua will have to be involved. The people appointed will need wisdom and an ability to negotiate. They will need to get some runs on the board. The commission will not be a talkfest; it will have to get some resolution of the issues that exist. Maybe at some time in the future the House will have to address the issue of private capture if some landowners continue that habit. We need to sound a warning to any future landowner who reads the legislation or the  
Hansard 
 of the debate that the House is saying this legislation does not resolve that issue but if there is an ongoing problem then the House will address it. That is a cautionary note to anybody who is thinking of squeezing a dollar out of exclusive capture. There are reasons why access may not be freely available but if we are talking about exclusive capture to generate a dollar then I believe that this House at some stage in the future will address that issue and it will be quicker than the 117 years it has taken for this significant step forward. 
It has been a pleasure to go back on to the Local Government and Environment Committee which I have been on and off a few times in my life but to be appointed to deal with this bill— 
Metiria Turei 
: We missed you. 
ERIC ROY 
: I missed those guys too. It was good to get a resolution and without the tabling of even one amendment. That is unique. I am happy to support the third reading of the bill.