Norman Russel William: Walking Access Bill — Second Reading 
Norman Russel William: Walking Access Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17939] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be voting in favour of the Walking Access Bill. The bill moves towards Green Party policies in a number of ways—the establishment of a code of conduct; additional focus on and resourcing for negotiating access; a commission to build relationships with landowners and land users; and improved mapping and information. These are all positive things and the Green Party will be supporting the bill for those reasons. However we have to say we are disappointed that what we thought was an opportunity to enshrine in legislation public rights of access has been missed with this bill. The valuable and well-meaning objectives of the bill and the functions of the commission are thereby limited because of that failure. Fundamentally we remain unconvinced that we have the right balance in this bill between private property rights and the rights of public access to public land and public resources. 
As we stated in our minority report the Green Party has long advocated for a commission with powers beyond mere voluntary negotiation. If the public has rights to land and to public resources then there must be an authority with the ability and the power to uphold those rights against unreasonable exclusion and exclusive capture. This bill establishes a commission to facilitate and negotiate but not to arbitrate. 
We are unconvinced that the public rights of access are sufficiently enshrined in law relative to the well-entrenched private property rights. This bill was a chance to enshrine public access rights and public rights but it has failed to do that. The statement of public rights of access in this bill is confined to the purpose clause of the bill which states that the intent of the legislation is to “provide the New Zealand public with free certain enduring and practical walking access to the outdoors …”. It is quite obvious that private property rights in our country are thoroughly clear and entrenched in New Zealand law whereas public access rights are significantly less entrenched in law. This includes both access to public lands—such as the coast lakes along rivers—and access to public resources. 
The bill defines public and private land but it does not define public resources which include wild game wildlife freshwater fisheries and natural water. Such resources do not attach to land title and belong to the public. The public has rights to them and therefore rights to fair and reasonable access to them. It also includes public access to customary resources be it Maori access to eels or pounamu or general public access to whitebait trout or deer. It also includes public access to recreational opportunities on rivers and beaches and in public recreation and conservation lands. Too often unreasonable landowners have blocked access to exclusively capture public resources for their own ends—personal or commercial. I certainly acknowledge as previous speakers have that the vast majority do not do that but we do know that it happens. We certainly hope this bill will put an end to this exclusive capture but given the weaknesses of the bill only time will tell whether it achieves that. 
We welcome the establishment of an access authority albeit limited by an inability to exercise that authority in access disputes and a continued lack of clarity as to the extent of public access rights. The commission will have quite a bit to do. We certainly hope it will not lose sight of the main policy problem that the legislation is trying to solve—that is the thorny access obstacles in specific places. The commission is faced with mandates to do work on strategies glossy brochures mapping information education advice provision and administration. These are all important aspects to access provision but they do not resolve the real and very difficult and growing problem of access—access of the public to their own public resources right across New Zealand. 
The Green Party also believes that the bill is a back-track on early Government policy of enshrining public rights in completing the Queen’s Chain. Given the significant change in access policy with this bill compared with previous Government policy and even aspects of the Acland Walking Access Consultation Panel reports it is outrageous that the bill has a review period of 10 years. We think that 10 years is a long time to see whether this will work and whether it will prove that it will give people access to their own resources—resources owned by the public that the public does not have access to. For that reason we support a shorter review period of 5-yearly reviews. 
We will be seeking continued progress on public access in New Zealand through this bill in complementary ways. I would just like to touch on one of those which has been raised by Federated Mountain Clubs and Fish and Game New Zealand. Currently the Government is a bit reluctant to notify or engage with access stakeholders when overseas land sales occur. Sales of significant land to overseas buyers are approved by the Overseas Investment Office—some would say rubber-stamped—and conditions can be placed on sales including conditions of access. There have been examples where that has been done to good effect and access has been increased during the process of going through the Overseas Investment Office but there have also been examples where opportunities have been missed to use that process to improve access. It seems perfectly reasonable to the Green Party that the office should liaise with the Walking Access Commission—which this bill will establish—in these situations so that we can identify and set conditions for public access if these sales go ahead. The commission will have the expertise and contacts with the appropriate stakeholders. We will continue to work with the Government and other parties to achieve this. 
I would like to end by thanking the members of the public and organisations that have been key to driving these access issues and have contributed along the way. Fish and Game New Zealand is a crucial advocate both for environmental protection and for public access to public resources as is Federated Mountain Clubs which has a long and proud history of advocating for New Zealanders’ rights to recreate in our mountains and rivers.