Gallagher Martin: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15655] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It is with immense pleasure that I rise to speak with regard to the first reading of the Walking Access Bill. Unlike the Opposition speakers who as the saying goes look in their glasses and find them half empty like my good friend Doug Woolerton and other speakers also from this side of the House I see this bill as a glass that is not just full but is brimming over with potential. I do not think we should underestimate the historic significance of the bill we are debating in the Chamber today. I do not think we should do that at all. When we reflect back on history we will reflect back on an Opposition that was mischievous opportunist and very slippery. We know that there is a huge difference between the notion of a right to roam anywhere versus a right of negotiated access for future generations of our country. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Rome wasn’t built in a day. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Indeed as my good colleague Charles Chauvel said Rome was certainly not built in a day. The previous speaker said “10 years this” or “10 years that”. Well obviously the immediate question is what National’s record was when it was in Government in the 1990s. Having said that I will not waste any more time on the negative glass-half-empty aspects of the contributions of some members of the Opposition. Some of the contributions were OK. In that regard I have had very interesting and good debates and discussions with people like Eric Roy who I acknowledge has in the whole process made some constructive contributions. 
I will focus on some of the really positive aspects of the bill. Indeed it is part of a wonderful plan for the future for our children grandchildren and great-grandchildren to ensure that the thing that is special and precious about New Zealand—our great outdoors—can be enjoyed. It is part of the Government’s plan—and should be part of our plan as a country—to reflect the importance of preserving in perpetuity access to and enjoyment of the great outdoors which is so important to our national identity. This bill is about preserving our national heritage. 
Doug Woolerton gave a very very good address. I thank him for the very nice comments he made about me when I was deputy mayor of Hamilton. I praise Doug Woolerton too. He gave a very good example. Even in the urban area—albeit it was a Hamilton City Council matter—there were two issues. One was in regard to the Awatere Avenue section of the Waikato River walkway and the other was in regard to the Lake Rotoroa section of the walkway which completed it. In both cases those walkways met with strong opposition from property owners. I remember with great affection and fondness—and Doug will know him—our councillor Ted Armstrong. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Aye! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Does the member remember when someone had illegally put up a fence right down to the river edge? Good old Ted as a councillor took the old snippers and cut. Dare I say it he cut the fence. I think frankly he made a very valid point. We talk about the protection of private property rights but this situation was where a private property owner was taking over usurping public access rights and going on to public land. Ted made a stand. From that we now have the completed section of the Awatere Avenue section of the river walkway which was negotiated in the end by a bit of give and take between property owners. We also have the completion of the Lake Rotoroa section of the walkway. These are urban examples. Did those walkways have a dramatic negative impact on the property values of those surrounding properties? Absolutely not; it was quite the opposite. That was an issue when a council by negotiation avoided landing in the courts if you like and preserved and enhanced land. Again it is for future generations to enjoy. 
What is really good about this bill—and I have listened very closely to some of the comments by Metiria Turei in terms of her contributions; I do not quite agree with her perspectives I have to say—is that it achieves a proper balance between the rights and aspirations of the public in terms of access to the countryside the property rights of landowners and the practical needs of farmers and other land users to carry out their businesses without undue hindrance. 
I also pay a huge tribute—certainly on behalf of my Waikato Labour colleagues—to our rural community and to people like Bill Garland. We have had some very positive input also from members of Federated Farmers. Certainly there have been some reservations previously but we have some wonderful examples of farmers who allow reasonable access and want to see a process of negotiation. I also pay a big tribute to John Acland of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group who went around the country and came to Hamilton. I went to the meeting in Hamilton the other year and I was very impressed with the measured and mannered way in which he conducted that particular exercise and very depressed at certain forces affiliated with the National Party who tried to hijack the issue and use it for blatantly political opportunist ends and blatantly to sow fear and misinformation. 
In the end this issue is about the right of our children grandchildren and great-grandchildren to enjoy their heritage but it is also about the way New Zealand does it and that is by negotiations amongst fellow Kiwis to get a fair and reasonable outcome. Representing as I do the Waikato region I want to ensure that landowners are protected and that there is proper indemnity etc. 
There is one thing I want to focus on in the time I have left. I think that the select committee process will be a real opportunity to get into the detail of the bill and to improve it by amending it where need be. One of the things I am very enthusiastic about in terms of a Walking Access Commission is that it will have a strategic and policy focus that will look at if you like the patchwork quilt of the many walkways around our country and at walking access issues and hopefully it will take a strategic future view because for example north of Lake Taupo there are significant population pressures. Within 50 years there will be significant population increases in the Auckland Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions. There will be more and more pressure to have reasonable access to countryside waterways and lakes etc. Rather than wait for that pressure to build up and up in the years to come the Walking Access Commission will work with local government the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry etc and look at some sort of “greenprint” for the future to ensure that we can get a win-win situation. 
I believe that the roles of the proposed agency will be very important. It will coordinate and involve the key stakeholders including local and central government agencies help local groups with access issues and indeed be responsible for the mediation—I stress “mediation”—of disputes over access issues. A code of conduct will be introduced and it will build up a mapping database and develop a broad national access strategy. Those are very important tasks for this new agency. Also there is the contestable fund in terms of funding and that is also very important. 
Finally we have had the debate here today and I have to say I was a bit disappointed with some of the negative contributions I have heard in the House with the exception of the honourable Doug Woolerton and other members on this side such as Judy Turner. I acknowledge her contribution. I envy the Local Government and Environment Committee because its members will roll up their sleeves hear submissions on the bill and get into the minute detail of the bill. Believe you me when the history books are written this legislation will be of profound importance and significance to our great country.