Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations
of New Zealand Inc
P O Box 1876 Wellington
Tel&Fax +64 4 934 2244
hugh@infosmart.co.nz
15 April 2008

Walking Access Bill - designed to reduce and limit public access.

Summary: The Bill lets down the public’s desire for better public access provision, being focussed primarily on replacing public roads, the strongest form of access, with one of the least satisfactory forms of public access namely Walkways. Walkways across private land hardly exist, and in any case are adequately looked after by DOC. Walkways can be readily closed, and deny access to people with dogs, recreational firearms, cyclists, horse-riders, all of whom can use formed or unformed public roads, the normal means of access.  

This Bill sets up a Walking Access Commission focussed primarily on Walkways. It will restrict and downgrade public access to the countryside. The Bill is bad in many areas. It will be difficult to amend to be acceptable. A similar Walkways Commission was tried between 1975 and 1990. It was ineffective, and was abolished by the fourth Labour Government. Walkways are not the answer to better public access to the countryside, coasts water bodies etc. Stronger access mechanisms are essential.

The Bill promotes the Commission providing walkways across public conservation land. But this is and should remain DOC’s responsibility. There is no need for this small Crown agency to be saddled with providing “Walkways”. DOC has been funded $349 million over ten years to build and maintain these and other facilities. The Walkways system probably costs DOC some $1 million a year to maintain. 

The Commission also can replace the guaranteed public access provided by unformed public roads by changing them to insecure limited access Walkways. This is a major downgrading of public access through private land.

This Bill has been developed under Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF).  The Bill’s unsatisfactory nature comes partly from a major conflict with MAF’s purpose. MAF is there to serve rural landowners, not recreational users. If the Access Commission is to have any neutrality and integrity it must not be in MAF, as currently proposed. LINZ with a changed brief, and the Minister of Lands are a much more appropriate home, given the Minister of Lands is often the decision maker on protection of access on legal roads, marginal strips etc.

There is no guarantee the Board of the Commission will have any recreational representatives. Recreational professionals have been excluded from the two Acland panels. To be workable, at least three of the Board members should recreationists with public access knowledge.  

Including the Government Super Fund (Clauses 12-14) shows the Bill is about providing jobs for the boys in MAF as it is with public access. These admin matters have no place in the Bill.

More detailed comments:
1 Bill severely downgraded in terms of providing public access, or showing Access “leadership”: 
This is clear from page 2 first sentence: “The Bill re-enacts in large measure the provisions of the NZ Walkways Act 1990.”

The Commission should not be weighed down with administering walkways, when they are adequately looked after the Department of Conservation. A range of recreational views and ideas also need to be guaranteed a place on the Commission’s Board, if it is to have any credibility.

2 Walkways aren’t needed – they are a very unsatisfactory type of access:
Prior to 1990 there was a Walkways Commission (WC), established in 1975, composed primarily of farming and rural landowner interests, for providing public walkways across private, usually rural, land. The legislation was administered by Lands and Survey Department, and was transferred to DOC in 1987. The Walkways Commission was an absolute failure. It was abolished by the 4th Labour Government in 1990, by Geoffrey Palmer’s Quango Hunt. Responsibilities were then passed to DOC, where they now are.

In its 15 years the WC had set up only 1400 km of Walkways. Some 90% of these were on Public Conservation Land, where the public can go freely anyway. This was an easy and costless but pointless option. Many were already tracks used by the public, simply renamed Walkways. 

Only 10% of the Km were across private land, and very few of these were registered, ie were permanent. Most rural landowners did not want a permanent public Walkway on their title. It was an encumbrance significantly lowering their property’s value. 

As anyone agreeing to a Walkway across their property gets no compensation, ie it is a cheap deal for the Crown, and depends on the generosity of the landowner, this is understandable. Walkways should not be used to downgrade already existing public access.

Walkways are one of the least satisfactory types of public access across private land. They can be closed for “lambing” or “fire risk” on the owner’s say so. For example the controversial walkway up Mt Hikurangi on the East Coast can be closed arbitrarily for Maori cultural purposes for 14 days/year, and for lambing and farm management for 21 consecutive days a year, and for up to 50 days/year in total. There is no certainty one will be able to walk it when one gets there.

3 Better methods of public access across private land – legal roads and Tenure Review:
The most secure form of public access is by legal roads. These allow the public on a bicycle, with a dog or gun, on a horse etc to pass and repass. The Acland Panel proposed that these be identified on the ground, and used more for public access to the countryside. The Acland Panel identified 45,000 km of unformed legal roads as being potentially available to enhance public access. This Bill aims to destroy the unformed public road system, by turning such general access-ways into these highly restricted Walkways.

Public access in South Island Tenure Review is almost never provided by NZ Walkways, because of their uncertainty. Nor can the public cycle, take a dog, or take a firearm on them. They are a very restricted type of access, quite unsuited for providing adequate public access to the countryside, or to coasts, rivers, lakes or public conservation land. One sees the hand of the anti-access faction, namely Federated Farmers.

4 Commission should not be under MAF:
A major conflict of interest, apparent from the start of this process, is having the Access Commission in MAF. MAF’s role is to serve rural landholders. Because of this it usually has an antagonistic attitude to both the rural and urban public’s access needs. This conflict of interest is apparent in the farcical way this Access Commissioner Bill has been hijacked away from influence by recreational users. Parliament must resolve this major conflict of interest by placing the Commission under a more neutral department eg LINZ and the Minister of Lands.

Under MAF, recreational user representatives were largely excluded from the Acland Access Panels, as were their concerns and ideas from the Panel’s proposals. Landholders and rural representatives, and their views have dominated. This sidelining of legitimate recreational access concerns led to the only recreational professional on the second Acland Panel, Bryce Johnson, being forced to come up with a minority report. 

5 Walkways over public land: As discussed above, these aren’t attractive forms of access. On public land they would restrict current access ie the public’s use of tracks on Public Conservation Land (PCL)  to only that subsection of the public that is permitted to use walkways ie to exclude people with a gun or dog, on a cycle or horse, who can use unformed legal roads. Locking public stakeholder groups out of PCL should not be an aim of this Bill.

6 Commission should have a wider role on public Access generally: Walking access is only part of the major issues recreational users have with access.. This was clearly put and recognised in Acland Access discussions. However, it is clearly excluded in the Bill (Clause 3). This sidelines the Commission to minimal access usefulness.

7 Recreational users need assured representatives on the board: 
Given the sidelining of recreational representatives in the Acland Panel, it is essential to have legitimate recreational representatives on the Commission Board. Otherwise  the Commission should have its name changed to the Anti Walking Access Landholders Commission.

8  Betrayal of the recreational public: 
This Bill makes Public Access a farce, favouring Federated Farmers, the most vociferous anti-recreational access lobbyists. The issue now is can Labour find the strength to put the Commission back on track to be a guardian of public access. This looks improbable.

9 Need to re-focus and rewrite this Bill: There is a lot wrong with this Bill from almost every recreational access viewpoint. To be acceptable, the following changes must be made: 

1 Leave Walkways with DOC, and don’t rewrite the 1990 Walkways Act into this legislation.
2 Prohibit Walkways across Public Conservation Land.. Walkways are aimed at provision of low quality public access across private land, based on the generosity of the landowner. 
3 Prohibit walkways replacing legal roads and downgrading them to walkway status.
4 Ensure that the Public Access Commissioner can consider access issues other than just walking without a gun or a dog.
5 Site the Commission in a department other than MAF or DOC, reporting to a Minister other than MAF, Rural Affairs (the present Minister) or DOC. Eg LINZ and Min of Lands
6 Ensure at least three members of the Board are nominated by outdoor recreational interests.

10 Conclusion:
Without all six of these changes there is no advantage to having this Bill passed. It is better to continue with the present unsatisfactory situation, than to greatly downgrade the public’s access rights with the major detrimental changes proposed in this Bill. Concentrating on replacing sure and secure forms of public access, such as legal roads, with much less secure and certain Walkways is unacceptable to the recreational community. 

There is also no point in a Board, tasked with improving public access, being almost wholly stacked with rural landowner advocates, set on reducing and controlling public access to the countryside.

Best Regards

Hugh Barr   04 934 2244 hugh@infosmart.co.nz