Geraldine Public Meeting 03 October 2003
Geraldine Pavilion, Geraldine Domain, Hislop Street
7.30pm to 9pm
120+ Attended
Commentary
· Marginal reserves held for conservation purposes as well as recreational ones.
· Comment about whether Queen Victoria would have intended an esplanade reserve to move with the water.
· Brian Hayes: This was a noble idea, but not well implemented.
· Reference to 1877 and 1910 cases.
· The 1910 decision remains alive, but it is doubtful whether it is correct.
· Why isn't the Queen's Chain established as a customary right rather than a legal one?
- Brian Hayes: This is a concept in the report.
- These are only proposals, the Group is happy to receive others.
· The Queen's Chain cannot be extended; it is an amalgam.
· Jim Sutton: Access to higher education is now the way to advancement of access to and use of rural land in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
- This generation needs to address these issues.
- This exercise is in slower time to foreshore and seabed; it is not an ambush.
- Any later submissions will be considered.
· There is no legal right to walk up and down rivers.
- Would the committee look at applying the concept of public domain to open riverbeds?
- John Acland: Yes.
· If a river changed course and for example, a lake was formed, would access be required?
- Brian Hayes: A resolution would probably require legislation.
· This seems to be about private ownership, what about overseas owners?
- John Acland: There is a changing attitude.
- These people need to reflect our culture and maintain access.
- Access needs to be sorted out before purchase is allowed.
- Jim Sutton: The principle of nationalistic treatment goes to the heart of trade obligations.
- It is not only overseas buyers who constrain access, but also new rural landowners that are not recreationalist-friendly.
· An angler has sympathy with farmers regarding OSH requirements.
- These requirements need to be watered down.
- Jim Sutton: OSH was changed a few years ago.
- Explanation of the law.
- Agree that more may have to be done to clarify the law - it is very complex and people do not know their rights.
· Fish and Game: Complimented the Reference Group and the Minister on the report.
- Pleased that the report acknowledges that fisheries etc do not attach to the title.
- Accepts that access is being eroded.
- Wants to see responsible access and an acknowledgement of reasonable rights of the land occupiers.
- Fish and Game respects privacy and ownership and would support a legally based code of behaviour.
- Better information is required.
- Landowners should be exempted from OSH liabilities unless there are abnormal hazards.
- Supports an access agency that is responsible and accountable.
- Reference to exclusive capture.
- There is a sale of the heritage of New Zealand to the highest bidder.
- Fish and Game looks to the protection of this heritage.
· Tramping Club: In favour of proposals.
· Rafting Association: Rivers need to be looked after, otherwise access will not be an issue.
- Students/youth do not understand the code of ethics in rural land and the relationship with farmers.
- This is an education issue.
- There is no understanding of rural concerns and needs.
· What constitutes a river or waterway for access?
- Brian Hayes: This is a difficult question.
- A minimum width must be looked at.
· What permitted activities would be allowed on a Queen's Chain, such as shooting, especially if a landowner does not know that a person is there?
- The brief for the Group was walking access only, but Fish and Game's concern about firearms is acknowledged.
- Jim Sutton: Recognises that firearms, dogs and vehicles would need permission, but notes that rights are attached to legal roads.
- The great variety of legal situations adds complexity.
· Is it attitude rather than legal status that is the problem?
- What is going to be done to educate new landowners (and others)?
- Gottlieb Braun-Elwert: Property is an obligation to society and there is an opposite obligation.
Easier access to information about who owns the land is wanted, as well as the ability to contact landowners.· John Acland: Agrees.
· A farmer states that the present situation is not sustainable.
- Systems had to be put in place to manage 3000 new people.
- Having to charge for vehicles.
- Wants the right to reserve the right to charge for foot access and mountain bikes.
- DOC systems are not economically sustainable.
- Look at other models and ways to deal with increasing access pressures, including 4WD.
· Concerns about the definition of the width of rivers.
- It is not reasonable to have hunters without permission.
- Concerned about the education aspect.
- Would like to see the Group give consideration to the importance of `being Kiwi' and of having respect for the outdoors.
- There is a significant amount of land under DOC control (30% nationally), therefore plenty of land for recreation.
· Private property rights are important.
- Should a council have a right to compulsorily acquire land for a walkway?
- John Acland: The report talks about negotiation, not acquisition.
- Perhaps the right of way concept should come out of DOC and into the new agency.
· This is `institutional hypocrisy' - the Government is charging NGOs for charging for the use of DOC land (Mt Peel, Molesworth Station), yet the Government seems to want people to have free use of private land.
· Is the Government serious about funding for a new organisation, signage etc?
· Jim Sutton: What is the balance between public and private and rights and responsibilities?
- It is about ensuring certainty in peoples' minds about their rights and how to access them; it would inevitably require expenditure and public funding.
· Mention of the rateable value of rivers to landowners.
· An access agency needs local content and involvement.
· Information needs to be accurate.
· What sort of access is there to a DOC estate that is retired land and surrounded by farms?
- People want to get access if they are carrying firearms.
· It is important that farmers are able to have quiet enjoyment of their land.
· There is concern about the possibility of access being deemed as of right.
- Legislation deeming access could affect the relationship with landowners.
· Self-regulation of access by communities is important.
- Opposes government intervention.
· There is a subtle distinction between access through and access to.
- Negotiated rights very quickly become customary rights.
· Insurance liabilities: More access can result in the loss of property.
· Reference to the practicalities of increased access.
· Mention of the biosecurity risks from increased access.
- Jim Sutton: There has to be the ability to manage risks, including the ability to exclude people.
· There needs to be some ability to exclude people based on factors such as the seasons (e.g. fire risks).
- Any increase in public rights will be accompanied by protection for private rights.
· `Fair and reasonable access' versus `negotiated access'.
- What if negotiated access does not result in fair and reasonable access?
- Jim Sutton: Where does or should the balance lie in our society between public access rights and private property rights?
- This is the big question.
- Maori land is not excluded, but the Crown has some particular obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
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
