Analysis of Written Submissions on the Report Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors
Foreword
Back in 2002 I was asked by the Hon Jim Sutton to chair the Land Access Ministerial Group (the Group). In August 2003, following extensive discussions, the Group produced its report “Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors” (and a companion report, “The Law on Public Access Along Water Margins” [Hayes]).
I was pleased, therefore, to be invited along with three other former members of the Group to facilitate a comprehensive nationwide consultation process in late 2003, assisted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), inviting public comment and feedback on the report.
Engagement in the topic was high and meetings and hui were constructive, with many issues debated at length. The consultation process subjected the report to open and rigorous critique and analysis. All participants had the opportunity to ask questions and take part in discussion with the facilitators and were invited to provide written submissions. These were received into January 2004.
I would like to thank the many individuals, groups and organisations that responded through written submissions with helpful and detailed suggestions, feedback and information, many based on their local knowledge and experience. I was very impressed with the quality, positive nature and comprehensiveness of submissions. Individuals and organisations put considerable effort into providing material, reflecting their depth of interest in the topic.
This document is an analysis of the submissions, rather than a critique of them. It provides an overview of opinions that emerged and an indication of the level of support for the five objectives in the report. Quotes give a “flavour” of the opinions voiced on a particular aspect and show how access problems might be overcome and/or access enhanced. Much detail was offered on the implementation of any policy that might eventuate.
I believe that there is broad support for change, although not all may agree on the extent of this change. I believe that the Group’s conclusions and report have been endorsed by most submitters. I consider that this analysis will be a major contribution to the promotion and reinforcement of the popular expectation of access to the New Zealand outdoors, including water margins and the back country.
John Acland
Mount Peel, Peel Forest
April 2004
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) received 1,050 submissions on the report, Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors (the report), prepared by the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group (the Group) in August 2003.
Most views fell into two categories:
Either: A. Protect and enhance the heritage of outdoor recreation for future generations
Vision for access
• Ensure that there is easier, more well promoted access to public land.
• Strengthen and increase the Queen’s Chain.
• Access to water margins and public land should be free, reasonable, certain and enduring.
• That access onto private land should be by negotiation only.
• That a reversal of liability from the landholder to the user is appropriate in some situations, as is a statutory code of conduct, if this means that more access will be made available to users.
• These submitters are keen to protect public resources from private capture.
Or: B. Retain the “status quo” relating to access
Vision for access
• There should be a right to say “no” to access to specific people.
• There should be no reduction in private property rights.
• That access to water margins and over private land to public land cannot be achieved without impinging on property rights.
• That the current situation should remain, however, most submitters recommend changes to legislation to reduce landholder liabilities.
• These submitters also desire an enforceable code of conduct.
• A programme to educate the public on their responsibilities when gaining access onto private land is important.
• Most Maori submitters consider that Maori land must be excluded from access because of Treaty of Waitangi rights (Article Two guarantees Maori “the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess”);
Category A and B submitters express their concerns relating to access based on previous experience:
• Category B submitters appear to be focused heavily on the possible introduction of the “right to roam” / “wander at will” concept (exemplified overseas), to which they are strongly opposed.
• Category B submitters refer to problems that have occurred when members of the public have access their land and, although they state that permission for access is largely granted, they are concerned that problems would proliferate if more people were able to access land.
• Category A submitters are concerned that public resources (especially freshwater fisheries) are being captured for commercial purposes and that the public is being denied access to them.
• Category A submitters feel that the majority of people should not be denied access because of a criminal-minded minority who would abuse privileges no matter how much or little access was made available to them. These submitters use examples of access having been denied on the basis of potential for criminal activity.
• Both categories are concerned that the New Zealand Walkways Act 1990 has not been implemented well by the Department of Conservation (DOC) and suggest that this is typical of the approach by DOC and local authorities (in respect of use of unformed roads and rivers) to the management of access, especially where it involves access over private land.
• Both categories feel that there is a lack of responsibility for the provision of reliable, accessible and useful access information to the public and that the Government should address this issue and review the order of priorities for Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).
A common vision for access
There are at least six areas that gain support from well over half of all submitters, whether it is direct support or support based upon suggestions and additions to existing proposals suggested in the report:
1. Retention of social conventions
The combined voice of submitters indicates that despite the differences in perception between the extent of private and public property rights, they are keen to embrace their rural connections and to create a heritage that is a source of pride and acceptable to all New Zealanders.
Many Category A and B submitters say that informal goodwill relationships between users and landholders are an important part of any access strategy and this tradition should be upheld where practicable.
2. The “right to roam”
Both categories show little support for pursuing the concept of the “right to roam” (or “as of right” access).
3. Clarity and certainty of information
There is overwhelming support for greater provision of information that is concise, free, regularly updated and easy to locate. This requires bringing together for the public information on the type and location of access that is available, mapping, signage, and contact information. This is information that needs to be available electronically and in hard copy. Both categories feel that many access problems could be resolved if this were addressed.
4. An access agency or an Access Commissioner
There is considerable support for the establishment of an organisation/entity to co-ordinate and take charge of all matters relating to access. Most Category A submitters feel that there has been too much de facto management of access by many government agencies and local authorities but no real leadership by most. In the view of these submitters, these bodies are reluctant to address their responsibilities for access.
5. The Queen’s Chain
The Queen’s Chain is a concept that is supported by almost all Category A submitters who feel that there should be permanent mechanisms in place to protect this concept for all New Zealanders now and in the future. Many, but not all, Category B submitters do not support any extension of the Queen’s Chain if it will affect private property rights.
6. Negotiated solutions
Both categories feel that there is a place for negotiated solutions. Category A submitters consider that compensation is necessary only for maintenance purposes and the provision of facilities, but should not be payable if no property is removed from private ownership.
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
