12 Versailles St.
Wellington 6005
Tel/Fax (04) 934 2244
Email : hugh@infosmart.co.nz

14 April 2008

Walking Access Bill - designed to reduce and limit public access.
Labour hangs recreational users out to dry.

Summary: The Bill lets down the public, 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 is a deliberate Government policy to restrict and downgrade public access to the countryside. The Bill is a shocker in almost every respect. It should no proceed. A similar Walkways Commission was tried between 1975 and 1990, was ineffective, and was abolished by the fourth Labour Government. Walkways are not the answer to better public access to the countryside.

The Bill is promotes the Commission providing walkways across public conservation land. This is DOC’s responsibility, and 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. 

This appears a deliberate ploy by Government to cut DOC’s recreational spending. The Walkway system probably costs DOC some $1 million a year to maintain. This is transferring already allocated expenditure to this small new agency, putting these tasks at risk.

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

Siting the Commission under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is very unsatisfactory as it creates a major conflict of purpose. MAF is there to serve rural landowners, not recreational users. The farcical nature of this Bill highlights the need to place any Access Commission that is to have any neutrality and integrity somewhere else.

There is no guarantee the Board of the Commission will have any recreational representatives. Judging by the way that recreational professionals have been excluded from the two Acland panels, the intention is to lock recreational users out of the Board.

The concentration too on 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. Administrative matters such as this have no place in the Bill.

A more appropriate name for this Bill is Labour’s Anti Access Landholders Commission. No minister is specified for overview of this Bill or appointment of the Board

1 Bill severely downgraded in terms of providing public access, or showing Access “leadership”: 
This is clear (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. It is not necessary to re-legislate this unsatisfactory piece of legislation already on the Statutes.

2 NZ Walkways aren’t needed - a very unsatisfactory type of access:
Prior to 1990 there was a Walkways Commission, 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, and nothing much has happened because it is too hard.

In its 15 years the Commission had set up only 1400 km of NZ Walkways. Some 90% of these were on Public Conservation Land, where the public can go freely anyway. This was an easy and costless option. Many were already tracks used by the public, simply renamed Walkways. Only 10% crossed 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.

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. The high cost walkway to the top of 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 – legal roads and Tenure Review:
The most secure form of public access is legal roads. These allow the public on a cycle, 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 highly restricted NZ Walkways.

Public access in South Island Tenure Review is almost never provided by NZ Walkways, because of this 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 this agency in MAF. MAF’s role is to serve rural landholders, and because of this usually has an antagonistic attitude to both rural and urban public’s access desires. This conflict of interest is apparent in the farcical way the Access Commissioner has been hijacked away from influence by recreational users. Parliament must resolve this major conflict of interest by placing the Commission under a Government department that is more neutral than MAF.

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 was the major reason for the only recreational professional on the second Acland Panel, Bryce Johnson, being forced to come up with a minority report. It is unusual for a Labour Government to let Federated Farmers come up with their own wish-list, as in this legislation. 

5 Walkways over public land: The goal of these seems to be to restrict the public’s use of tracks on 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. This is typical DOC approach of wanting to lock the public out of public land. It also seems that DOC sees a new source of funds for building tracks on land it is responsible for being this new Commission. 

6 Should have a wider role on public Access generally: Walking access is only part of the major issues recreational users have with access to water bodies, coasts and the countryside. 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, there is a clear need 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  Labour betrayal of the recreational public: 
The Public Access issue has become a farce, with Federated Farmers and DOC, two of the most vociferous anti-recreational access lobbyists, having apparently gained control of the Bill. The issue now is can Labour find the strength to put the Commission back on track to be a guardian of public access, before it gets booted out of office for incompetence.

9 Need to re-focus and rewrite this Bill: There is a lot wrong with this Bill from just about every recreational access viewpoint. It is highly unlikely the Bill can be changed to make it effective, and address the full range of access matters it should have done 

Here are some suggestions:
1 Leave NZ 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. 
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, with a Minister other than the Ministers for MAF, Rural Affairs (the present Minister) or DOC.
6 Ensure at least three members of the Board are nominated by outdoor recreational interests.

My reading of the Bill is still incomplete. No doubt other major changes will be required.

10 Conclusion:
Without at least 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 these major detrimental changes. 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