Flavell Te Ururoa: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15650] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe. Kia ora tatou e te Whare i tenei po. It should be no surprise that the Maori Party takes an active interest in any legislative change proposed around the concept of safe unimpeded walking access to the outdoors—to our coasts our lakes and our rivers. We do so driven by the knowledge that the Crown as a Treaty partner has an obligation to actively protect the interests of Maori in land. This is a historic partnership relationship that is unique and involves the Crown and its agents giving full recognition to the Crown’s duty of active protection. We note that the Federation of Maori Authorities articulated that view clearly in its submission on the Government’s outdoor walking access consultation document: “Article two of the Treaty granted ‘te tino rangatiratanga … o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’ or the ‘full and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates fisheries and other properties’. This article therefore guarantees Maori the right to determine access to their land.” 
So when the Hon Parekura Horomia the current Minister of Maori Affairs announced in March 2007 that: “Maori land was special and it was important to note that the proposals would not threaten the existing rights of owners of Maori land or individual Maori who hold land in general title.” we were pleased—if a little cautious. It seemed as though in direct contrast to the Foreshore and Seabed Act Maori landowners were to be afforded protections alongside private owners. Mr Horomia went on to say that public walking tracks across Maori land will be created only if Maori landowners agree and follow a process of negotiation. So that was pretty pleasing. 
Clause 30 of the bill deals specifically with Maori freehold land. It requires that the New Zealand Walking Access Commission negotiate with the appropriate landowners whether they are trustees a Maori corporation a sole owner joint tenants or owners in common. There are two key words here: “agree” and “negotiate”. Let us remember that Mr Horomia had said that public walking tracks across Maori land will be created only if Maori landowners agree. That was spelt out with unmistakable clarity again by the Federation of Maori Authorities when it said: “The Federation wishes to make it clear that we oppose land access across Maori land and general land owned by Maori including the extension of the Queens chain to the coastline and waterways on Maori land or general land owned by Maori without negotiation and agreement from the landowners concerned.” The federation concluded its submission by reinforcing the view that “access should be negotiated and agreed upon by owners or managers and that the access is only for recreational purposes.” 
The catch for us is that we do not see very much evidence of the word “agree” in the bill until we get to the references related to public access over private land. The bill proposes that “Public access should be enhanced where private land is involved through voluntary negotiation and agreement with landholders.” 
A key point raised in the consultation was the proposal that iwi or hapu should be empowered to authorise rights of access. The hapu or iwi will protect its own rights and hold those rights and they must be made clear in any guidance to the public. I return again to the Minister of Maori Affairs’ words: “public walking tracks across Maori land will be created only if Maori landowners agree.” In order that the House understands just how strongly tangata whenua the people of the land feel about this issue let me share two further comments from the submissions: “It is most important that this principle be carried over in relation to any public access to our waterways. Any legislative access without our consent would cause massive damage to our relationship and we cannot imagine that the Crown would contemplate such a course.” The following comment reminds us of some history. “I suspect and hope that the authoritarian socialist confiscatory approach is no longer acceptable to New Zealanders. When carried out against Maori land in the 19th century this caused grievances which still persist and show little signs of going away.” 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I do not think we are doing that now. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I hope not. 
The word “consent” of course implies that which is freely given and not coerced. But the bill’s purpose to open up all lands for public access raises the very real and serious concern that once again a Government’s plan will be pursued in such a way as to obliterate any opposition. We have been there before as my bill to amend the Public Works Act reminds us. We are also extremely concerned about any proposal to amend the Resource Management Act to establish esplanade strips over Maori land or general land held by Maori. Unmanaged strips and esplanades may increase pests and diseases and may consequently create additional costs and concerns for Maori landowners. 
Maori landowners have never denied access to the public without good cause. I say that again because as was raised by Metiria Turei this was a cause of great concern in the past. Maori landowners have never denied access to the public without good concern. That was at the hub of the issue around the foreshore and seabed legislation. The hysteria that was whipped up around access to the foreshore and seabed presupposed the existence of a mythical time in which Maori were denying Pakeha access to the beaches. The reality of course was quite different from that. 
If there have been prohibitions on access to areas for any New Zealanders it has actually been because mana whenua will have had good cause or good reason to prohibit access. That good reason may be the result of access having been abused in the past or of concerns over safety or the protection of the environment. There may well have been cultural reasons for the protection of taonga wahi tapu wahi tupuna urupa pa marae and papakainga sites. Those sites are of cultural significance for Maori as part of our heritage nga taonga tuku iho. The sites are associated with important events that give meaning to our status as whanau hapu and iwi and they are literally windows to the past. Access may have been prohibited in keeping with the kaitiaki roles of tangata whenua to be custodians protectors and guardians of the taonga associated with our area. The practice of rahui to conserve or replenish a resource will be relevant here. When a rahui is placed upon an area it means that people are effectively banned from taking or using any resource in that area. Those are the things that tangata whenua take into consideration when considering the issues of access. 
One of the concepts we support in this bill is the development of a code of responsible conduct for users and landholders. Most of the submitters to the outdoor walking access panel agreed that a code of responsible conduct should apply to both public and private land. The code of conduct should address issues specific to Maori land including provisions relating to respect for sacred land and compliance with local rahui. It should give a standard to provide guidance to people and also to return to as a basis for clarification if the code is breached in any access situation. 
The key to the successful implementation of the bill will be the way in which communication opportunities are taken up. There is inevitably and this has already been mentioned the concern that the proposed commission will compel Maori landowners to negotiate access despite any opposition that may be raised to that. The Maori Party also has concerns about the negotiation of walking access over land subject to Treaty claims. What say will mana whenua have over those lands and what provisions will be made for that communication to take place? 
The bill establishes the commission as a Crown entity with the status of a Crown agent. The commission will be responsible for declaring and administering walkways and for encouraging and coordinating the improvement of walking access. The bill recommends that at least one of the five to eight board members of the commission is to have knowledge of tikanga Maori. On the current walking advisory board Peter Brown is affiliated with Turanganui a Kiwa Ngati Porou Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa. The difficulty of course with having one Maori member on the commission is that enormous expectations are always placed upon his or her shoulders in terms of being able to carry the aspirations of whanau hapu and iwi into all decision-making matters. It is also very easy to be marginalised. It is obviously helpful therefore that the views expressed in the submissions such as the one from the Federation of Maori Authorities are able to be accessed in order to gauge views widely held in the Maori community as well as by a majority of the Maori landowners within the federation’s membership. 
In order to assist the process for Maori to be heard we will allow this bill to go to the select committee so that we receive feedback on some of the outstanding and persistent concerns about Maori land. Those concerns are about issues such as what is to happen in the case of the 16000 unmanaged titles—Maori land with no legal management structure in place—or how Maori economic development such as tourism ventures will be affected by public access. There is one word that we say that might sum up our reaction to this bill and that is “caution”. We look forward to the debate on the bill. Kia ora tatou.