Eckhoff Gerrard: General Debates 
Eckhoff Gerrard: General Debates 
[Volume:606;Page:3578] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have listened with complete and utter disdain to the hollow men—and that is the only way they can be described—of the Labour Party as they have criticised in this House the party that I am a member of and which I am very proud to stand and represent. We are the party that is totally upfront with the public. If there is a problem it is out in the open so that the public can determine for themselves what is not appropriate. In fact we have risen in the polls because we are upfront and honest with the public. But I have not come to this House to talk about the personality assassinations that are all that the Labour Party seems to indulge in. I want to talk about some issues.  
In question time today Jim Sutton stated that he does not know anything about the treaty. He said: “I can’t understand where property rights are involved in article 2 of the treaty.” Let me just read a short line for a Minister of the Crown. It states in article 2 of the treaty that the Queen of England confirms and guarantees full exclusive and undisturbed possession of lands estates and forests. What is it that the Minister does not understand about “exclusive and full use”? Perhaps the Attorney-General who is sitting in the House could inform that Minister as to exactly what it means.  
I really want to talk about an extremely serious issue regarding article 2 and the guarantee of property rights. Just prior to Christmas I received a reply from the Minister of Rural Affairs to a question of mine which asked whether this Government would introduce any legislation during this term that would allow public access to private land. The Minister replied no. Within 3 short weeks over the Christmas break we had an announcement from the Minister of Rural Affairs that a reference group was being set up to look into the issue of public access to private land—surprise surprise! I ask whether the Minister of Rural Affairs lied to me whether he was trying to mislead this House in his reply or whether he was totally honest in his reply.  
It seems to me that this Minister does not understand the difference. He wrote a reply to me stating: “No. This Government is not proposing any form of public access to private land.” Then hoping that nobody would notice he announced the reference group 3 weeks later during the Christmas break. Is Jim Sutton not the Minister of Rural Affairs? Is he not in this House to represent rural people?  
A recent poll done by one of the major websites—I think it was Fencepost.com—indicates that 91 percent of rural people are totally opposed to that concept. Yet the Minister of Rural Affairs is driving this issue—or is he? When one looks at the make-up of the reference group and at the names of its members one will see the sticky little fingers of the Prime Minister all over the project. The group has been cherry-picked; there is no question about that. Its members have not been picked for their expertise on the matter. If one really wanted an expert from the recreationists one would have picked somebody like Bruce Mason. If one wanted an expert on the issues surrounding public access to private land one would have involved people from the Magna Carta Society or a high-country farmer who would actually know and understand the issues for goodness’ sake! But no. The name of Gottlieb Braun-Elwart leapt out of the paper and who is that individual? Perhaps the House can correct me if I am wrong but is he not a mountain guide? Is he not the Prime Minister’s favourite tramping companion? Is he not a personal friend of the Prime Minister? Perhaps members can tell me whether I am wrong here. I think I am right.