Helensville Public Meeting 19 November 2003
Helensville
7.30pm to 10pm
90 Attended
Commentary
· John Aspinall (Federated Farmers): Wants to retain the right to move people if they cause damage to stock and property.
- This right is rarely used.
- Feels confident that the right to roam has been `put to bed'.
- Do not want to stir up an issue where there is not one.
- 8% of Federated Farmer members surveyed state that they will not give access.
- 4% of high country farmers say that they deny access.
- There is a lot of New Zealand available for access, DOC manages a large amount of land and there are regional parks.
- There are huge areas of braided riverbeds, easy to walk/drive to.
- Can people get access to these areas?
- This should be negotiated.
- Loss of access is anecdotal - there is no data.
- Access on properties goes through cycles.
- Access gains have been made, e.g. through tenure review.
- Very concerned about the deeming option - would strongly challenge the notion of no loss of property rights.
- Should first identify where access clearly exists.
- Use a nationally recognised symbol to identify gaps.
- Concerned about animal welfare, security, OSH and disturbance of farming operations
- Sell paper roads and gain alternative access.
- Can create conflict through a knee jerk reaction.
- Use access agreements based on goodwill/compensation/purchase/subdivision.
- Reasonably supportive of a code of conduct (reference to Federated Farmers/NGO code).
- Much goodwill would disappear if legislation were used - this would be a huge loss in the long-term.
- Nature Heritage Fund analogy - to fund access or a QEII model picking up the walkways concept.
· Section 6 of the RMA refers to a `maintenance of access', not its promotion or enhancement.
- What would be meant by a river/lake etc - how would it be defined?
- Auckland Regional Council Air, Land and Water Plan (draft) - refers to permanent/perennial and empheral streams.
· Supports the removal of the right to roam.
- Would oppose the sunset clause option mentioned in the report.
- How would it be done; who would pay?
· Former representative on the Walkways Commission - looked at Scotland and England.
- Biggest problem was access across Crown land.
- Walkways provide certainty - the Group is just `reinventing the wheel'.
- Reinvoke it but not with DOC because it would be a low priority with them.
- There are a lot of problems from unimpeded access, such as poachers.
- People here respect nothing.
- Walkways can be marked with legislation to support them.
- The model worked.
· Question about finding out about the Queen's Chain - where/who has this information?
· Forest and Rural Fires Act/liability of landowners.
- OSH liability.
- Compensation.
· There are many ways to access land and the foreshore - more access will lead to stripping of the foreshore.
· John Acland and Brian Hayes are misleading you, saying that they `just want access', not the right to roam.
- Quoted from report a reference to the amount of land in public ownership.
- "Did not find a big demand for access".
- This will create the Land Access `Police', not an agency.
- How would the code of conduct work?
- Negotiation on access would probably be harassment.
- What is `reasonable' for access to be turned down?
- This is the promotion of information - telling people what you have.
- Should not have to provide signage for access.
- The Scottish code is for the right to roam.
- Want to change property rights.
- The Group favours access over private land because it would be free.
- The Group expects you to share your title.
- What about the potential environmental impacts on the agricultural sector and the economy?
- The report overlooks properties as an investment.
- The Crown should purchase significant sites.
- Grave concerns with the report.
· Supports the previous speaker - it is our right not to allow trespassers.
· Access over private land creates uncertainty for all - use the subdivision rules to create access.
- We do not need access all at once.
- Local councils have a responsibility to clarify access.
- Councils need to provide leadership.
- Councils should take leadership if paper roads are to be shifted.
- This should be a public process.
· Problems here are quite different to those in the South Island.
- It is very intensively farming here, high fire risk.
- There must be some form of control.
· Size of river/stream/lake - needs a definition otherwise it is a right to roam.
- How would this be policed?
- If so much of New Zealand is in public ownership, then access to that needs to be improved first.
· There seems to be a consensus and an agreed view that people should not have to give a reason to deny access.
· Credibility/accountability/common sense.
- People have to ask.
· This area s very different to the Auckland area - people from cities have no idea how to treat rural land/remoteness causes problems.
· Need to preserve existing access.
- Does not support the right to roam.
- Exclusive capture.
- Need reasonable/conditional access.
- Need national guidelines and predictability in identifying solutions for local problems.
- Losing access because of the actions of local councils which do not include access arrangements when leasing public land.
- Supports information databases.
- Supports changes to OSH obligations.
· OSH situation/marijuana growing.
- Any new access rights require OSH liabilities to have been reversed.
· If access is given, the public will walk through contaminated areas.
· Lack of publicity - called MAF/the Minister's office many times before he could get information.
- Farmers are not aware of what is happening.
- Always let people onto the property.
- Crime and theft/rubbish/stock management problems/toilet waste.
- Who will pay for the cost of the bureaucracy?
- Access onto rural land should also allow access onto urban land.
- What about houses built on the Queen's Chain?
- Lifestyle blocks are small.
- Definition of a river?
· Why should ports and wharves be excluded, not farms - farms are businesses.
· Security is very important, as well as education.
· This issue is similar to the `fart tax', creating a problem where nothing exists.
- Access should not be an assumed right.
· The council is responsible for access - why doesn't the council open access to Mosquito Bay?
· The policing of Kaipara Harbour is difficult - how would access be enforced?
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
