Fairbrother Russell: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18860] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 The Walking Access Bill does not justify such a pedestrian speech from the last speaker John Carter. He limped through the history of this thing. As I read the bill—I was looking for something to do while he was speaking—it struck me that the Court of Appeal that handed down the decision for Ngati Apa in 2003 has a lot to answer for as the genesis of this bill. When the Court of Appeal determined that the foreshore and seabed may no longer be public property it took away our assumption of rights to use what we commonly understand to be public spaces. At that time we thought that all of us could walk along the area between high tide and low tide on the beach. Many of us thought it was what is known as the Queen’s Chain. We all had an uncertain understanding of its legal status but we were all dead sure in our heart of hearts that this was New Zealand and we could use the beaches as long as we respected the environment. 
Well the Ngati Apa decision brought us into the 21st century—it woke us up to indigenous rights. A collateral of that was that people started to ask what the rights are for the public over areas of land what the riparian rights are along private land; and whether one can walk up the riverbed of a private property go fishing wherever one wants put up one’s tent alongside a river and camp there as long as one respects the environment. No longer could we assume that one could climb over a strainer post to cross a fence to go on to a piece of land to get to the river. It was a reminder that we had to ask. 
Then we saw instances predating the Ngati Apa case along the east coast of the Wairarapa where a landowner—who lived in Carterton of all places and made leather jackets—decided that public access along the road to the beach over his property should not be widely open because four-wheel drive vehicles were abusing that right. So he had the temerity to erect a gate which was locked. That brought a howl of protest. That demonstrates that as we have become more mobile in this country and our enjoyment of the open spaces is no longer restricted to moderate passive use—people engage in more intrusive forms such as four-wheel drive vehicles and people understand their rights such as indigenous rights and their property rights—it has become necessary to have a clearer definition of just where the public may go what our public spaces are and what our private spaces are. 
I do not think it is a bad thing that this debate was highlighted by Ngati Apa because Ngati Apa brought us to the indigenous rights law the aboriginal law that has been developing around the world and it put it fair and square on New Zealand’s plate. I think the consequences of that are still being digested and it is seen frequently in the debate about the issue of tino rangatiratanga. I think that debate has not yet been fully explored in this country. So the Walking Access Bill as I see it is part of the unintended consequences of earlier ground-breaking—if I can use the term without it being a pun—legislation which was designed to settle differences over what had proved to be a very emotional issue causing much reaction and overreaction from many people and some say from certain Government sources. 
So the Walking Access Bill is one that I think most members of the Committee clearly welcome and its objectives are set out in the purpose clause clause 3. I remind members of the public who may be listening that that purpose is “to provide the New Zealand public with free certain enduring and practical walking access to the outdoors”. 
We in New Zealand grow up believing we are an outdoor country. We in New Zealand grow up believing we have the right to go fishing and the right to go hunting. I think that is an inherent right that is part of the New Zealand character. It has to be carried forward so that those who have the privilege of private property can be informed when those rights are going to intersect and so that there is a degree of negotiation and a degree of clarity. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.