Whangarei Public Meeting 28 October 2003
Forum North, Rust Avenue
7pm to 9pm
50 Attended
Commentary
· Support for turning OSH responsibilities on its head and make the recreationalist responsible.
· What are riparian rights?
- What is the relationship between a reclamation and the Queen's Chain?
· Say quite simply that the Queen's Chain does not exist everywhere - cannot assume that it exists and need to ask permission.
· DOC is not looking after land well, would welcome better access.
· A property owner should have absolute control - negotiate access - a fundamental property right.
- If exclusive access exists then bad luck.
· Oppose any changes etc which affect the rights of tangata whenua.
- How does it affect the foreshore and seabed?
- How would it affect control of Maori resources?
· Report along the right lines.
- Need to clearly identify who owns what.
- Agree about OSH misconceptions.
- Do not let the proposal get tied up in bureaucracy.
- Perhaps an Ombudsman or some of `Order in Council' which says where access has been granted and on what conditions would be appropriate.
- A licence?
· If the Queen's Chain were fenced off, who would pay for it?
· Never refused anyone access who asked for permission.
- What is meant by `water access' (meaning riparian rights)?
· What is the size or magnitude of a waterway?
- Has a minimum size been addressed?
- The existing definition in the RMA is `farcical' and needs to be changed.
· What rights attach to riparian rights?
· Security and theft are a concern because of accessways.
· Support the statutory trust idea.
- Would the idea recognise environmental impacts?
- If owners have use of the land on the right of way, would owners have to provide stiles?
- Prefers to recognise the term `guardianship' of the land rather than `ownership'.
· Agree with the idea of guardianship, but concerned about the impacts of 4WD use.
· A farmer is no different from an urban landowner - it is about wanting access to someone else's land and it is also a business.
· How much of the Group's brief was to look at foreign ownership of the land and blocking of access?
· Is the task identification of the issues then a report back to government?
· Supports the report and its position on exclusive capture.
- There should be an equal duty to respect the rights of owners.
- Would support a legal code of behaviour so long as access is respected.
- Why should OSH responsibilities attach to the landowner?
- Hunters and anglers would need to seek reasonable access even if there is a right of access.
- Wants the Government to move with urgency to stop the loophole regarding the sale of hunting and fishing rights.
- Thanked farmers for access to their land.
- Need more than a 20 metre strip to hunt and fish successfully.
· The report is very meticulous in identifying the issues.
- Support more investigation of a body to replace the former Walkways Commission, walkways are a low priority for DOC.
- Would question DOC being an appropriate body to manage access (and recreation) because it is weighted to conservation.
- Farming is a food business, there are biosecurity and stock management issues.
- There is a big issue in the area.
· Having to ask for access is a deterrent because people do not want to disturb the landowner.
· There are problems of increased rubbish, dogs etc and it is difficult to imagine the problems if people feel that they have a right of access.
· Giving a right of access required a legally enforceable right to enforcement.
· The Queen's Chain or access to it would still give the right to roam along that Chain.
· The Auckland Regional Council is proposing that a 10-metre strip be fenced off, which will create weed problems.
- Access could affect the equity of a landowner.
· Why have farmers' attitudes changed - because they have been abused?
· Government/society can change rules relating to access, discussion and debate can arrive at a conclusion.
- The Government should compensate if it says that access has to be granted.
- Would be happy with subdivision as a trigger point.
· Oppose land sales to overseas bidders.
· Reference to English footpaths, perhaps local authorities could negotiate access if asked by those interested.
· Local authorities cannot afford to fund access because it would be for those people that are not ratepayers.
· Problem regarding dogs.
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
