Turner Judy: Walking Access Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Walking Access Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19219] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the third reading of the Walking Access Bill. At the beginning of this legislative process United Future was concerned that the proposal would serve only to displace unformed legal roads as legal entities. Much has been done to address this concern and all those who worked on this bill need to congratulated on tidying that up. 
It is an especially and crucially important feature of New Zealand that wildlife freshwater fisheries and natural water do not attach to land title under New Zealand law but rather they are part of the public estate owned by everyone in general. As a consequence of that it is not unreasonable that the general public should be able to expect and to have fair and reasonable access to that which is theirs and although respecting the property rights of landowners they want to have access for recreation and for things as basic as food-gathering—as in the case of fishers and hunters. There are other forms of food-gathering such as shellfish and Maori customary food-gathering issues. 
A further consequence of this therefore is that there are now two sets of property rights in New Zealand: private property rights in land and public property rights in public resources. This is what makes New Zealand special and it has its origins in the wish of the early settlers to not see a replication of the landed gentry’s owning and exclusively controlling the fish and game animal resource. Therefore it is good and important that clause 3 of the bill specifically refers to these public resources and the  
Hansard  
record needs to show that Parliament intended for public resources to include wildlife freshwater fisheries and natural water. 
United Future joins with the Green Party in voicing our ongoing concerns over a couple of aspects of this bill. The New Zealand Walking Access Commission established by the bill remains 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 of access. This is particularly important when negotiating over private land in order to gain access to a public resource such as a river or lake. 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 powers to resolve the dispute and provide public access to a public resource by way of a walkway or enforcing access by way of unformed legal road. 
It is difficult to understand this aspect of the bill. There is in the bill the intention to resolve the issue surrounding the public’s right to access. However the commission that the bill sets up has no formal powers to actually do that. It is of concern that this whole bill is built around new access being implemented by negotiation and agreement rather than access actually being resolved. 
Public access to the South Island high country and Crown pastoral lease lands is of high public interest for outdoor recreation. United Future is disappointed to see that this bill still includes Crown leases and licences in the definition of private land when clearly they are not. These lands are owned by all New Zealanders and are a part of the broader public estate over which the lessees hold only a right to graze pasture. It is therefore important that this Parliament notes that the Fish and Game Council currently has before the High Court an application for a declaratory judgment on the question of whether Crown pastoral leases grant exclusive occupation of leased land. United Future understands that recent legal and public policy research on the special statutory nature of these leases suggests Crown pastoral leases do not carry exclusive occupancy which means that if the court agrees with Fish and Game then this definition in the bill will require amendment to remove all reference to Crown pastoral leases. 
Finally we want to recognise the efforts of Fish and Game in causing this bill to happen. It began back in 1999 when Fish and Game convinced the then Labour Opposition which then made a manifesto commitment that there was a growing issue around access and that New Zealand was seeing the beginnings of a privatisation of— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that the matter that is being spoken about at the moment is sub judice and is still before the courts. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Could somebody clarify for me because I do not know of everything that is before the courts. Is it before the courts? 
Metiria Turei 
: There is a High Court application before the courts on behalf of Fish and Game I understand but I would also make the point that there is a breach of the sub judice rule only if it is likely that discussion of that proceeding is likely to cause prejudice to the outcome of the case. That is the test in the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The advice I have just heard and I take it as sound is that the House sets a high standard. Anything that is before the courts is not discussed by the House just as one does not expect the courts to comment on the work before us. 
JUDY TURNER 
: Can I just clarify that. My only reference was that the outcome of that case—and I was not making any comment on what the outcome would or could or should be—may require future investigation of definitions within this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: If the member could continue without making any further reference to it it would be helpful. 
JUDY TURNER 
: All right. I was just saying that I recognised that Fish and Game has had a huge input into where we are today in that it convinced the Labour Opposition back in 1999 which then made a manifesto commitment. The concern was that there was a growing issue around access and that New Zealand was seeing the beginnings of privatisation of public resources through the misuse of the Trespass Act to exclusively capture public resources that were on public land; for example rivers running through private land and game found on private land. 
Like the Greens we have some concern about the current review provisions of this bill. We think that 10 years is far too long and the concern we have is that if problems develop they could well have become entrenched and very counterproductive by the time this law is reviewed. However United Future is happy to support the third reading of this bill.