Greymouth Public Meeting 29 September 2003
Ashley Hotel, 74 Tasman Street, Greymouth
7pm to 9pm
33 Attended
Commentary
· The comment regarding `legal foundations of sand' - does this refer to private land or just the Queen's Chain?
· Who is creating the `hardening of attitudes'?
· Landowners would like to give people the right to access their land, but they also have responsibilities.
· Is the Government now going to have to legislate to cover already existing legislation? (OSH)
· A landowner might let fishers go on his property, but they may also cross four other farms along the way.
· The people doing the walking must be educated, not landowners.
· The Crown has a responsibility to Maori.
· If they have done something to disadvantage Maori, they should rectify it; landowners should not have to fulfil this.
· In the West Coast there is enough Crown land for the public to have access to.
· What is the difference between the Walkways Commission and DOC walkways?
· Claire: Walkways are registered on the title of the land.
· The Commission was not properly funded.
· If land comes under new title, can the landowner get rid of the walkway?
· With handheld GPs there is not the same trouble accessing land as there used to be.
· Slide of Oreti River shown. An individual who had previous lived in the area stated that there is no problem in Southland with access to the river.
· In the Waikato people may be confronted with a rifle if they want to walk across land.
· Who is going to be held responsible if someone leaves the gates open and a loss is incurred?
· DOC effectively charges for access.
· A question on the difference between marginal strips and esplanade reserves.
· There is a 1987 amendment to the Conservation Act to marginal strips to make them moveable.
· Further discussion on public roads and the situation regarding compensation for river movement.
· Did the report find out why there is a reduction in traditional access opportunities?
· Thirty to forty years ago the number of fishers was much less than today, which is one of the changes.
· If access is opened up, what mechanisms is the Crown going to employ to protect resources?
· Currently landowners can use access to ration the natural resource.
· The Government is so strong on sustainability, but will there be the resources to deal with increased numbers?
· The right to roam was discussed.
· There was a question of how this might impinge on household security etc.
· Clarification was given from a meeting attendee who had travelled in Europe.
· Can people go into the backyard of anyone in town?
· The small demand for the right to roam shows that people are reasonable.
· Overseas there is the right to roam, but not the right to access what is obviously private property.
· When regarding the situation overseas, you need to put this into the context of the subsidies from the public put into farming.
· Who is responsible for bridges and other structures on paper roads?
· There should be an option included on the overheads that landowners should be compensated if access is required.
· The Crown is not going to spend money on roads to make them more accessible.
· A code of conduct is important.
· The first rule in such a code should be to ask the landowner.
· What recourse will there be if the code is broken?
· Discussion around a code that has legislative backing.
· The RMA has a provision for controlled activity, which means that councils cannot refuse the right of people to request access, but conditions can be implemented.
· Permitted activities can occur as of right.
· Currently the situation for access is the former; any change would create the latter.
· Specific cases were discussed including the Wangapeka River and Crooked River.
· In regard to asking permission, if something goes wrong, at least landowners know where people are.
· People must make sure that they have good maps and know whom to ask.
· The new provision in the Local Government Act makes it difficult to find out information on owners.
· This is an opportunity for people to approach the issue with a clean slate.
· Claire's summary of the key points raised by audience members: "That negotiated solutions are important"; "Compensation where property rights are lost"; "Local authorities are not to sell off paper roads".
· The closure of paper roads must be advertised.
· An agency could close/open roads in a strategic manner.
· What is required today for access may not be what is required in the future.
· In 5-10 years the needs will be different and who is going to take responsibility then?
· What do New Zealanders want?
· This is really a question of whether New Zealanders should have access to public resources.
· If so, in some cases it will be across private land.
· Then the question of how New Zealanders gain access to what is a public resource must be considered.
· Landowners do not trust the Government.
· The coast has had its forests taken away and carbon credits removed.
· The Government is eroding basic private rights.
· It should be looking after the rights of individuals.
· There needs to be an area of compromise.
· There could be a national programme, like angler access signs, coding, therefore upholding private property rights while indicating places to go.
· The agency means more bureaucracy, when there is already enough.
· Will the landowner have the right to say no?
· Local territorial authorities should not be able to sell off paper roads.
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
