Carter John: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18858] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I will make two points in this debate. I say to members I may not necessarily take 5 minutes to make them either just so my colleagues are aware. The first thing is that it is interesting that Government members cannot be bothered making a contribution—none at all—on the Walking Access Bill which they have touted around the place for months and months. 
Eric Roy 
: This would have been a messy bill without us. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Unquestionably; and indeed I notice even the Green members have not bothered to take a call yet it was they who wanted the right to roam in the first place supported by the Labour Party. 
I noticed earlier on in the debate on the Waste Minimisation Bill that the Minister for the Environment stood up said “I move the bill.” and sat down again. That is disgraceful. I would have thought that Government members would want to show at least a little bit of interest. It just reflects where they are—dead in the water. That is actually what that is about. They are dead on the walking track dead on the purpose of this bill or dead on whatever part we are speaking about. It just shows their attitude now to the governance of this country. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What about the bill? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well a member over there is happy to interject but it would be nice if he took a call instead of asking those inane questions that he asks during question time which give everybody so much pleasure including himself. Let me talk about the bill for a minute or two. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Oh good idea. 
JOHN CARTER 
: If the member listens he might even learn something. One of the things that came out in this debate that goes right to the purpose of this bill is that initially the intent of it was to guarantee everyone’s right to roam. We have such a beautiful country that people do want to go and access all sorts of places—and so they should too. But the interesting thing is that the debate came down to the compulsion part of it. Landowners said: “Hang on a minute. We don’t want you thinking you can just walk right across our properties any time any style whatever you like however many people whatever it is.” 
The fact is that most landowners—and I am now talking about rural landowners—are fair-minded people. Part of that is reflected in the way they vote. Most of them are National supporters and of course National supporters are all good fair-minded people. 
Hon Member 
: Common sense. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is just a bit of common sense unlike a lot of the socialist people. 
The fact is that with a lot of this stuff if people go and talk to a farmer or a landowner and say to that farmer or landowner that they would like to have access please to get to a lake or whatever it may be most of them are pretty reasonable. Most of them will say: “Well just be aware that there is an issue here. We’ve got some stock in that paddock.”—or whatever it may be—“Would you mind making sure you shut the gates etc.” That is fair enough. People should be as responsible as that. Most farmers will allow people access across their properties but the point is that there are the odd one or two people who for whatever reason—maybe they have had difficulties in the past—need to be given some encouragement to do so. This bill moves that situation forward in that it allows the opportunity for people to sit down and negotiate and that is a good thing. 
This has turned out to be a good positive bill and as we move forward and this bill becomes law in our country and as people start talking and negotiating two things will happen. First we will make good progress and disagreements will be sorted out amicably. I think we will find that very rarely do we have to enforce the Public Works Act to take the land if that is what is required because some conclusion cannot be reached. 
The second thing that will happen is that people will become more educated too. There will be debates in the community about this whole thing; it will get publicity and that means the public will be better informed about the purpose of the bill and the reason a farmer may object to something. The public will become more learned and that in itself will be a good thing because what is asked for in this whole issue is that the people who might want to have access be responsible as they cross privately owned land. 
So I think some very good results will come about because of the way the Walking Access Bill has been finally drafted and by the way it will be implemented by this Parliament. It is certainly far better legislation than it was. It will certainly serve a far better purpose than it would have when it was first put down—because of course of the input from the National Party. Without the National Party input the legislation certainly would not have ended up anything like this bill—it would have been a negative bill instead of the positive bill that it has ended up as.