Analysis of Written Submissions on the Report Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors
1 Introduction
Key points made in submissions
• There is a high degree of consensus among submitters who commend the work of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group and state that the report is balanced and focused.
• The Minister for Rural Affairs is complimented for addressing the increasing difficulties and conflict around access to the outdoors.
• Several submitters expect that publication of this report means that the Government will address the access issues referred to in its outdoor recreation policy.
• The interpretation of access as applying to pedestrians (walking only) is queried and some submitters feel that it should include vehicles and bicycles.
• There is some concern expressed as to whether there are sufficient access problems to warrant government intervention.
• A few submitters express concern that the report appears to be “biased” in favour of the recreating public.
Background from the report
The principles, values and concepts established by our Maori and Pakeha forebears continue to shape a uniquely New Zealand identity. Maori concepts involving land, water and resources have a particular set of values and concepts that are bound in whakapapa (genealogy) and customs relating to place, resources and tradition. This gives rise to the term “tangata whenua” or those who hold the customary rights to a given place and its natural resources.
[…] Active participation in outdoor recreation brings personal, community, economic and environmental benefits. Many New Zealanders believe that their opportunity to freely visit these areas is synonymous with being a New Zealander. New Zealanders view themselves as a free, rugged, independent, outdoors people. The annual migration in the summer to the beaches, lakes, rivers, bush and mountains reflects this culture. The outdoors provide opportunities to explore new places, and experience solitude, challenge, adventure and new perspectives on space and time. It is this image that is celebrated and promoted around the world, helping to create a thriving tourist industry. (Page 2)
1.1 Commend the work of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group
Most submitters strongly advocate the work of the Group and its report. These submitters feel that the report is very informative, well-researched and well-put together and compliment those involved in its production.
“Well done! In my opinion this is an icon of commonsense and clarity unlike some other papers I have read.”
“The report of the Land Access Reference Group cannot fail to become a document of great historical significance to New Zealand.”
“I must admit to the relative novelty of writing a submission that so completely supports a proposal.”
According to these submitters, the report states the case relating to walking access in the New Zealand outdoors clearly and concisely. The report clarifies the situation with respect to the rights and responsibilities of land owners and the general public with respect to access to private and public lands. Submitters consider that the report will provide a sound basis for deciding on how to ensure access to the coast, rivers, reserves, historic sites, conservation land, national parks and outstanding landforms in the future.
“[The] report focused on most of my concerns for public access and also fairly represented the subject from a landholder point of view.”
“I am impressed that a report has finally identified so many issues of important to so many New Zealanders. These issues are fundamental to what I and my children, identify as ‘The Kiwi way of life’. I am impressed with the report’s acceptance that we are all guardians of our natural resources and not ‘owners’ […] The report, if followed through, allows us to restore the harmonious relationship between land owner/occupiers and recreational users that operated in my youth.”
1.2 Compliment the Minister of Rural Affairs on this initiative
Submitters writing in support of the report feel that the Minister for Rural Affairs has shown initiative by testing the validity of the problem “whether there is sufficient certainty, information, mechanisms and awareness of expected conduct to ensure responsible public access to waterways and private rural land while providing for private land use, both now and in the future”.
“I would like to start by complimenting the Hon. Jim Sutton on recognising that there is a growing public access problem in New Zealand and on his initiative to do something about it before it gets out of hand.”
“I wish to compliment Jim Sutton for recognising and bringing the issue of land access into the public forum for review.”
Many submitters, both landholders and users, consider that enjoying the outdoors should be cherished and protected for future generations. The report has generated much discussion and debate on the best way to maintain this national heritage.
“I agree with the idea of the Queen’s Chain developed and extended, since assured access to the coastline, lakes and rivers is one of the great benefits of the New Zealander.”
“Federated Farmers sees no reason why the underlying ethos of the Queen’s Chain should not be embraced, while at the same time maintaining property rights.”
1.3 Labour Party’s outdoor recreation policy
Many references to the New Zealand Labour Party’s outdoor recreation policy are made by submitters hopeful that the publication of the report means that the Government will address its statement that New Zealand's unique natural heritage offers a wide range of exciting recreational opportunities from the mountains to the sea, opportunities that must be accessible to New Zealanders of all ages and lifestyles.
“It is expected that the current government will honour its commitment to their outdoor recreational policy by making the appropriate legislative provisions within this term of government.”
“Labour stated that they would develop a public access strategy, including the extension of the Queen’s Chain and provision of rural and urban walkways to ensure New Zealanders have ready and free access to our waterways, coastline and natural areas.”
1.4 Focus on ‘walking’ access in the terms of reference
Some submitters interpret access more broadly to include access by other means, such as vehicles and bicycles. Several submitters do not indicate their support of additional modes of access, yet feel that they should have been considered in the terms of reference to properly investigate all matters relating to access. Chapter 11 covers non-walking access in greater depth.
“[C]onsider the larger picture and adopt an access strategy for all forms of access including walking, horse riding, biking and 4WDing. I consider that it is not appropriate to just consider walking access and put these other legitimate recreational people in the “Too Hard Basket”. You must look at access in its entirety once and for all.”
“Proposals are confined to walking access only. A full spectrum of access must be considered at local levels to suit local needs.”
1.5 The extent of access problems
A few submitters do not believe that there is a general need for greater access and are unaware of access problems in their region. These submitters are reluctant, therefore, for government intervention or statutory solutions. In most cases, these submitters feel that problems can be addressed at a local level using existing landholder and user groups. Chapter 10.1 covers local solutions in greater depth.
“It is our thesis that the demand for access to the outdoors is vastly over-stated […] But over all and by almost all overseas comparisons, New Zealand has more than adequate open space resources”.
“We do not believe that there are sufficient access problems to warrant such a top down approach.”
Some user submitters assert that there is a growing divergence between the expectations and understanding of those providing and those demanding public access.
“In total, the Council has identified and mapped 69 coastal areas with local or regionally significant values – this covers approximately 33% of the Taranaki coastline. In terms of the quality of access to these areas it is noted that 42% of these areas were ranked as having poor public access.”
1.6 Perceived bias in the report
Concern is expressed by a few submitters who feel that the report seems to be “biased” in favour of the recreating public. Several of these submitters also consider that the report based the conclusion over loss of access to land largely on anecdotal comment from a “relatively small” number of situations. A few submitters stated that the report does not quantify the perceived loss of access nor does it balance losses against known gains.
“[I] am disappointed by the heavily one sided approach to the issues regarding private land.”
“Federated Farmers is strongly critical of the report. The Federation believes that many of the conclusions drawn from the submissions are not balanced or valid […] No attempt has been made to verify the reported access problem whilst other comments relating to the extent of available access have been ignored”.
Some user submitters do consider, however, that access opportunities in New Zealand are finite resources under continually increasing pressure. This, inevitably, will lead to problems and these submitters consider that the report has accurately portrayed concerns relating to access.
“Access problems seem [to be] on the increase both from the viewpoint of those seeking access and from the viewpoint of those supplying it. To some extent these problems may be cushioned by the goodwill of landholders, but this is also a finite resource which is becoming used up.”
Many user submitters consider that the report is balanced and focused. A few submitters, including landholder submitters, believe that the issues relating to walking access covered in the report are being unfairly represented by some landholder organisations.
“I wish to give my support to the Land Access Review Group, considering, as I do that their report is balanced and constructive. I agree with their findings”.
“I would like to see some genuine discussion of the [topic] by Federated Farmers and a few positive suggestions. The current attitude is hard-line denial of any problem, demand for commercialisation, talk of property rights etc. All this sounds like right wing America, and I don’t think [it] really reflects the attitudes of most members […] There is room for genuine dialogue on this subject. It may well be that those farmers most used to providing access are the most receptive to positive moves which clarify the situation for both sides.”
Contact for Enquiries
Mark Neeson
Manager, Land and Water Policy
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526, Wellington
Phone: +64 894 0703
Fax: +64 4 894 0745
