Turner Judy: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15652] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future is pleased to support the Walking Access Bill to select committee and we are very grateful to the walking access panel for the work its members have done in preparing the report that has led to this bill. United Future can take some satisfaction out of the process as we lobbied very hard for Mr Bryce Johnson from the New Zealand Fish and Game Council to be included on the panel as a representative of the recreational community. We support many of the comments that he made in his minority report. 
There are some very positive aspects to this bill. We are pleased to see the issue of public access finally addressed. A lot of misinformation and antagonism exists surrounding the rights of the public to access public resources versus the property rights of landowners. An important feature of the bill is that the New Zealand Walking Access Commission is established. This will be a Crown entity with the status of a Crown agent under the Crown Entities Act 2004. This will allow it to report directly to Parliament as well as being subject to the Official Information Act. 
We are pleased to see a provision included for the development of a code of responsible conduct. United Future proposed the development of the code in its submission to the panel and also proposed the establishment of the Walking Access Commission. We are glad that this code will focus on standards of behaviours for both users of walking access areas and for landowners. Throughout this whole process it has become clear to us that many disputes between landowners and those who wish to walk over private land to access public resources or public land arise because of a lack of information and guidelines. We believe a code of responsible conduct will go some way to mitigating this. 
It is also positive that stated in the purpose of the bill is that it is to provide access to public resources. However there seems to be no definition of what public resources are. One assumes that the definition is the same as is found in chapter 6 of the panel’s report where public land and public resources are both defined. The bill’s purpose does not mention access to public land and in our view public resources and public land are two very different things; both demand inclusion but a clear distinction needs to be made between them. 
There are some things in the bill that concern us. We are concerned that the New Zealand Walking Access Commission to be established by the legislation is as the Green member previously mentioned basically toothless. Although it can negotiate with landowners to acquire an easement or lease over the land for use as a walkway it has no formal power to actually resolve any disputes over access which is particularly important when negotiating over private land in order to gain access to a public resource such as a lake or river. We envisage that for 90 percent of cases this will not be a problem. The commission will effectively be able to negotiate access across private land with the least bit of hassle to landowners. However in the few cases where access is difficult to negotiate the commission has no formal power to resolve the dispute and provide public access to a public resource by way of a walkway or through enforcing access by way of an unformed legal road. 
The regulatory impact statement within the explanatory note for the bill states that “Changes in land ownership and accompanying changes in landowner attitude have meant that there has been a trend away from the tradition of landowners permitting or tolerating public access across their land. There is a concern that this trend will continue and result in long-term deterioration in recreational access opportunities.” It is difficult to understand this aspect of the bill because the intention is there to resolve the issue surrounding the public’s right of access. However the commission that this bill sets up has no powers to actually do this. The whole bill is built around new access being implemented by negotiation and agreement rather than access actually being resolved. 
Another disappointing aspect to this bill is the lack of urgency given to securing better more accessible mapping information to the public and to landowners about the location and scope of public walking access. United Future sees this as a fundamental flaw in the present system. It is very difficult for people to get geographical information linking legal information land ownership and unformed legal roads with topographical maps and aerial photography. In our opinion this should be the first and most important step in the whole process. Providing people with better information is crucial to resolving disputes over access and it may also prevent many misunderstandings over certain access issues especially across private land. 
It is very curious that included in this legislation is such a large section on the establishment of walkways across public land which is a topic barely touched on by the walking access panel. We ask whether the establishment of such walkways downgrades the public’s right to use unformed legal roads. Presently public land has few restrictions. However walkways administered by local government under the Walkways Act are much more restrictive. For example there are no vehicles guns or dogs permitted along those walkways—all of which are the equipment of fishermen hunters and trampers at some time. The fact that there is an inflexible provision with the Walkways Act is of concern to us. We understand the worries that that can provide if it is allowed in a free and unfettered way but we are concerned that that is a very tight provision. The establishment of walkways over public land administered by regional and local councils could serve to displace unformed legal roads as a legal entity. Under the Walkways Act a regional council can apply to stop a legal road by selling it and de-gazetting it which means that this legislation may well succeed in stymying public access rather than enhancing it. 
Finally the bill sets out that after 10 years the Minister will consult with the Walking Access Commission and review the legislation. This will cover whether it is still needed what amendments might be necessary and also a review of its effectiveness and the operation of the commission. United Future supports the reason for a review but we are concerned that 10 years is too long to wait. Surely any problems in the implementation of this legislation will be clear after a much shorter time—perhaps 5 years. We are worried that a 10-year wait will possibly allow a flawed process ample time to become entrenched and thus very hard to accurately review and amend. This is a point that is crucial for the select committee to consider. 
United Future will support this bill to select committee but we believe the committee will have its work cut out to amend the bill sufficiently to protect and indeed enhance the public’s right to access. We are happy to support this first reading.