Carter John: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter John: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I will talk about something that no other member at this stage of the debate has alluded to. There has been discussion about bureaucracy and about the possibility of increased bureaucracy. My colleague Sandra Goudie mentioned issues around local government. Nick Smith talked about the expanded bureaucracy and about there being 15 extra acres of bureaucrats in Wellington which is an extraordinary way of putting numbers together but I guess it makes the point. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to Subpart 2 “Code of responsible conduct” in Part 2. If members read it they will see that it makes very interesting reading indeed. Clause 15 states that the code’s purpose is “to provide for the development and issue of a code of responsible conduct in relation to walking access for the general guidance of—(a) users of walking access; and (b) landowners of land on which walking access is located;”. Clause 16 “Contents of code” states: “(1) The code may include all or any of the following:” and it goes on to give a number of different things that can be included. Then Clause 17 talks about the preparation of a draft code. It establishes that “The Commission must prepare a draft code …”. The commission then has to let the public know so it has to give notice of the draft code. It then has to invite members of the public to make comments on it. The commission must ensure that the notice is widely published and that the draft code is readily available to members of the public. Under clause 19 “Matters to be considered” the commission must consider the content of a draft code—this is before it issues a code under clause 20. It must be satisfied that the recommendations on standards of behaviour if any are appropriate. And so it goes on and on. Finally when all that is done the code is issued. 
What interests me is what happens then. We have a code— 
Sandra Goudie 
: It would be contrary to the negotiations. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well it may be contrary to a whole lot of things but the point is who will administer the code. Who will police the code?  
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh the enforcement officers. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well I cannot read it in here. There may be a reference to enforcement officers; I have not found it although it may well be there. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Honorary. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes but the point is this: are we going to end up like taxi drivers? Taxi drivers as members know have to get a certificate of fitness. They do not get just a warrant of fitness; they actually have to go a step up. I have recently discovered that Land Transport New Zealand now has a fleet of Holden utes with jacks and all sorts of equipment that drive up beside taxis in the middle of the street pull them over and inspect them. They do spot inspections of those vehicles. Taxi drivers have gone through a higher level of certification that than just the normal warrant of fitness but these taxi police are out there checking up on them in the same way that truck drivers are checked up on. 
What worries me is that if we follow down that line we will have walking police who pull people up to look them over— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Checking the hem of your walk shorts. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes absolutely. They will be making sure the hems of people’s shorts are right or making sure the soles of their shoes do not have too much rubber on them or do not have pointy spikes. I can just imagine the bureaucracy that could develop. People with little pointed hats and funny big sleeves with pens and paper stuffed up their sleeves and goodness knows where else could be hiding behind trees waiting to spot-check people. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: The bill! 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am talking about it. This is what it could lead to. It is actually frightening when we start thinking about it. The problem is the flow-on effect. The Minister in the chair is saying I should come back to the bill but I am in the bill—right in it. My mind is right in where it is likely to lead us. Within the next 10 or 20 years there will be a socialist Government saying it now has an opportunity to employ more people and create more bureaucracy. It will have people hiding behind trees spying on people looking through binoculars down the track to see whether people are coming along the track with their trousers on the right way round. All sorts of things could happen. 
If we really think about this sort of thing we realise that we have to be concerned. Here we are talking about a code of conduct but if we cannot police it why have it and if we are going to have it how are we going to police it? Parliament should be seriously concerned about that issue because sooner or later we will be in a situation where people walking their dogs down a walkway somewhere in New Zealand are pulled over because the dog’s tail is too long or too short or because the dog did something that doggies do that it should not have done right there because the code of conduct says “You can’t do doo-doo right where you did do the doo-doo.” All those sorts of things could happen. I just make the point that we need to actually understand when we are passing legislation like this—particularly when we are doing it in the dead of the night and as we move towards the end of this session—what possibly could happen if it goes forward as it is. 
I ask the Committee to have a look at Subpart 2 of Part 2 read it and digest it. It has serious implications. As I have said we now have taxi police out there jacking up taxis all over the place. We have other police—and I cannot think of the right name for them; they are not actually police—who go around looking at trucks taking logs off lorries and doing all sorts of things because some truck driver’s load is two or three kilos overweight. We will have the same thing here—you can bet your bottom dollar on it. Somebody will be walking down a track somewhere and some little guy will squirt round the corner and say: “Sorry you’re too big to be on this track. Off you get. You’re overweight.” Well that is the reason why the guy is out walking in the first place—he is trying to get underweight. But he will not be allowed to get underweight because he is overweight. 
I say to members that we seriously need to be concerned about the sorts of implications that this measure could have. Members can imagine the members of the Parliamentary Rugby Team deciding to use a walkway for a training run and they are halfway through their training run jogging along getting fit to take on the French in the next world cup and what happens? Someone says the track is not a jogging track but a walking track. “You can’t do this Parliamentary Rugby Team. It’s not in the code of conduct. You’re outside of it. Take your trousers off and your socks.” The team members would have to walk home with just their shoes on. Members can imagine the implications of it. The mind starts boggling. The more I think about it at this time of night at five to 12 on whatever the day is—yesterday—the more my mind starts wandering all over the place. 
I am thinking about Damien O’Connor. Can members imagine him jogging down the walking track then being stripped of his gear because he was running too fast? It would be the only time he ever did run fast; he cannot run fast on the paddock but he could be running fast down one of these tracks and one of these code of conduct police could say to him: “Sorry Minister. You’ve got it wrong here. You should have tied your shoes together so you could not run so fast.” That is the sort of idiocy that we could be passing at this time of night. 
None of us understands enough about it because when we look at this bill we see that it does not actually give us enough details. I start getting concerned at 5 to 12 on a Tuesday which is actually Wednesday that we actually are debating things we do not understand. I really start getting anxious. I think Parliament needs to be concerned when we debate these bills that we look at these things. The Local Government and Environment Committee has gone through them but all of a sudden we find that goodness gracious there are some implications beyond them. I can just imagine that the code of conduct walking-track policeman will have to share a ride with the taxi policeman guy because the taxi driver could not take someone to the walking track because he could not drive his car there and the guy could not get there because he could not walk there because the taxi driver could not get him there. Try to figure that out! I cannot and I just said it. I do not understand what I just said. So how in the world will some member of the public be able to understand what was said when we are passing this bill at 5 to 12 at night and we do not even understand what we are saying. 
So I say we should beware. Mark my words as a result of this bill there will be walking police all over the place in times to come and we need to be worried about that.