This page created 29 January 2003 / last modified 18 September 2003
Public Access New Zealand
Thursday, 23 January 2003
NEWS MEDIA RELEASE
While welcoming Government's initiative to develop a strategy to improve public access to the countryside, Public Access New Zealand is most concerned about the terms of reference and the composition of the panel government has appointed for the task.
PANZ spokesman, Bruce Mason was responding to the announcement by Rural Affairs Minister Jim Sutton of a Reference Group to study land access issues.
Mr. Mason said that the terms are too broad, trying to encompass access over private land as well as over public land. The set of rights and values are vastly different, with the issues surrounding private land political dynamite. "There is a very strong private property right ethos surrounding private land in New Zealand, reinforced by draconian trespass laws. Whereas on public lands, the public have statutory and common law rights of use, without trespass".
A danger arising from the government exercise is that a common standard of access will be sought irrespective of land tenure. The public cannot expect the same sort of rights over private land that they currently enjoy over public lands. This is also politically unattainable. A common standard of access acceptable to rural landholders will inevitably result in loss of existing rights over public lands, including roads. This is already hinted at by the Group being confined to advocating pedestrian access only.
"The exercise is pie in the sky stuff with minimal prospect of workable outcomes acceptable to the wider community. We hope that it is not a ploy for Government to do nothing in a tangible sense to improve public access during its current term".
The Reference Group has a predominance of farming interests, and minimal recreational presence. The latter is most disappointing given its purpose. "We don't believe that, even given fine intentions by all involved, that there is the knowledge and skills present to adequately address this growing public issue. A public process is necessary to ensure that Government is properly advised on the current access situation and what might be needed to improve it.
PANZ is currently developing concrete proposals for improvement of the Queen's Chain and public roads that it will be putting before Government. This will enable Government, if it so wishes, to fulfil its election promises in the event that the new strategy comes to nothing.
Public Access New Zealand is a charitable trust formed in 1992. The objects are the preservation and improvement of public access to public lands, waters, and the countryside, through retention in public ownership of resources of value for recreation. PANZ is supported by a diverse range of land, freshwater, marine, and conservation groups (approximately 200) and 800 individuals. PANZ is committed to resist private predation of the public interest.
END
Press Release by New Zealand Government at 23 Jan 2003
A group has been set up to study issues around access to land, Rural Affairs Minister Jim Sutton said today.
Mr Sutton said the group had been set up in response to concerns over the need to clarify and enhance the legal situation pertaining to public access over private land and the foreshore of lakes and the sea and along rivers.
"The legal situation around the 'Queen's Chain' is sometimes confusing, public understanding incomplete, and access over such land sometimes discouraged. People have the impression that the Queen's Chain applies to all beaches and rivers and that simply isn't true. In significant parts of Banks Peninsula and the Marlborough Sounds, for example, there is no right of access to beaches.
"Braided river beds are another example of where there is a lot of confusion about the application of the Queen's Chain."
Mr Sutton said that, as well as the confusion about access rights granted through the Queen's Chain, there were other issues around access generally.
He said that it was important these issues be studied, so that solutions could be found before tensions made situations intractable.
"There are more and more examples popping up of landholders restricting public access to previously accessible rivers, beaches, and mountain land. Sometimes access is allowed in return for payment. Sometimes the new regime is established by an overseas purchaser, although often it is a new New Zealand owner. All this is anathema to a lot of New Zealanders."
Mr Sutton said access was a growing issue.
"What this group will do look at the issue, examining it from every angle, talk to as many people as possible, and work out whether there is a problem, what the nature of that problem is, and what successful solutions there may be."
The group is chaired by John Acland, and its other members are: Sally Millar, Penny Mudford, Claire Mulcock, Gottlieb Braun-Elwert, Bob Cottrell, Edward Ellison, Brian Hayes, Simon Kennett, Kevin Prime, and Eric Roy.
The purpose of the Reference Group is
to review:
* access to the foreshore of the lakes and the sea and along rivers;
* access to public land across private land; and
* access onto private rural land to better facilitate public access
to and enjoyment of New Zealand's natural environment.
The group is to focus on whether there is sufficient certainty, information, mechanisms and awareness of expected conduct to ensure responsible public access to waterways and private rural land while providing for private land use, both now and in the future.
Mr Sutton said the members of the group had a wide range of knowledge and experience, but were removed from advocacy responsibilities on this issue.
"We're really trying to bring some community wisdom to bear on this to see if anything we can do sensibly about it. The answer may be, at the end of the day, that it is all too difficult."
He said the group was looking at the issue with an open mind and had not been directed to any particular solution. It was expected to consult widely, and also to review practice in other democratic countries.
"I want to make it clear, however, that it is pedestrian access the Government is interested in clarifying. Landholders must retain the right to exclude motor vehicles, guns, dogs, etc.
"We are certainly not about to precipitate any invasion of the privacy of the family home. Also, we are not seeking to extend landowners' liabilities, but appreciate that these and perhaps biosecurity issues may need clarification in the light of any recommendation the reference group may make."
Mr Sutton said Mr Acland had a long association with the primary sector through holding office in Meat New Zealand, Federated Farmers and successful farming and adventure tourism enterprises.
"He is a well-respected member of the community and has the appropriate skills to chair the group."
Sally Millar (Hamilton) has a wide range of experience in the agricultural and horticultural sectors. She has also been involved on the Reference Group for Biodiversity on Private Land. Ms Millar is currently an environmental consultant.
Penny Mudford is currently chief executive of Arbitrators' and Mediators' Institute of New Zealand and director of the New Zealand International Arbitration Centre Limited. Ms Mudford is well recognised for her dispute resolution experience, both in commercial and community settings. She has been an active member of the farming community.
Clare Mulcock has a policy background, focussing on agriculture in the South Island high country and environmental issues. She was involved in the establishment of the Rural Futures Group Ltd and has strong personal connections with the rural community. Ms Mulcock is currently a resource management consultant.
Gottlieb Braun-Elwert is a professional mountain guide.
Bob Cottrell, from Taupo, is of Ngati Kahungungu, Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Awa iwi. Mr Cottrell is a retired farmer who has been heavily involved with various Maori Trusts and in particular Te Awahohonu Forest and Tarawera Station. He brings a central North Island perspective and recent experience as chairman of the Taupo Land Care group.
Edward Ellison (Otakou) is of Ngai Tahu and Te Atiawa decent, currently farming on the Otago Peninsula. He has represented Maori interests on a number of committees and trusts including the Otago University Council, the Otago Regional Council, the Otago Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority.
Brian Hayes has an extensive background in land law with 39 years experience in land registration, including as a former Registrar-General of Land. Currently, Mr Hayes is assisting Land Information New Zealand to amend the Land Transfer Act for the first phase of Landonline.
Simon Kennett is a keen mountain-biker and tramper, and has co-authored a guide to mountain-biking routes in New Zealand. He has worked closely with landowners on access. Mr Kennett is a member of the NZ Mountain Biking Association and organises a number of mountain-biking events.
Kevin Prime is of Ngati Hine decent; currently lives at Motatau (Northland) on the family farm. He is highly regarded for his conservation and environmental work, as well as social development of Maori. Mr Prime has worked on advisory groups including the Biowhat' project and Ngai Whenua Rahui.
Eric Roy, currently farming near Gore, was a National MP for nine years. He is familiar with parliamentary processes. He would bring a keen perspective of the primary production sector and recreation (especially angling and access to waterways).
Mr Sutton said the review of land access issues was a Labour Party manifesto commitment.
"This reference group is another example of Labour keeping its promises."
END
Public Access New Zealand
Tuesday, 28 January 2003
NEWS MEDIA RELEASE
Public Access New Zealand refutes an allegation that "PANZ would leap at a chance to carry a warrant which allows them absolute entry to private land". This was made by ACT MP Gerry Eckhoff*. He was speculating that Government will introduce a Public Access to Private Land Bill this parliamentary term.
PANZ believes that Government has no mandate for looking at public access onto private rural land, as some kind of general right to wander at will. There has been no call for this from national recreation groups. It would be highly invasive and confiscatory of private property rights.
PANZ spokesman Bruce Mason said that PANZ's objects are confined to protecting and enhancing public access to public lands and waters.
PANZ recognises a distinction between private and public land, and the different property interests these entail. The public does not have a right of recreation over private land, and cannot expect such. PANZ also does not seek such rights, preferring a healthy provision of public lands and rights of way for public needs.
ACT's confusion between public and private seems borne of an earnest desire that there should not be any public lands. This vision is not shared by the vast majority of New Zealanders.
Long and bitter experience has shown that only public lands provide a measure of certainty and security of access for the public. Mechanisms such as covenants and easements over private land have demonstrated that when an uncooperative landowner wishes, such agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. The public is entirely dependent on local or central government agencies to uphold the public interest. Unfortunately most do not, or have to be bludgeoned into action.
PANZ believes that Government efforts should be confined to access to the foreshore, lakes and along rivers, and to public land through private land via roads and public paths. That is where the priority is, along with dealing with rampant obstruction of roads by private interests. These are the biggest access issues needing Government attention.
Public Access New Zealand is a charitable trust formed in 1992. Objects are the preservation and improvement of public access to public lands and waters, through retention in public ownership of resources of value for recreation. PANZ is supported by a diverse range of land, freshwater, marine, and conservation groups and individuals. Visit www.publicaccessnewzealand.org for more information.
END
*ACT Press release 22 January 2003
Friday, 14 Frbruary 2003
NEWS MEDIA RELEASE
From the dismissive manner Jim Sutton continually refers to the Queen's Chain, it appears he is in denial that such an entity exists and that further provision needs to be made.
Public Access New Zealand spokesman Bruce Mason was commenting on the Minister for Rural Affairs' reported references to the "so-called Queen's Chain", now parroted by John Acland, the chairman of a reference group appointed by the Minister to "clarify access" to private as well as public land.
Such dismissive comment appears to be a denial of the existence of tens of thousands of kilometres of public roads, marginal strips and esplanade reserves along our seacoast, river banks and lake shores. These provide the heart of the Queen's Chain. They are all legal entities and public property. "It appears that the Minister has mentally privatised these, and has no intention of creating more", Mr. Mason said.
Rather than bemoaning the fact that "only" 70 percent of qualifying waterways have some form of Queen's Chain, the Minister should be focusing on the 30 percent that don't, and doing something about it. That is what the electorate expects of Labour, and what they were elected to do.
Since 1993 Labour has made specific commitments they would "extend the Queen's Chain", and at one stage introduced a "Queen's Chain Protection Bill". This can only be construed as meaning the party accepts the concept of a Queen's Chain and that it needs extension.
There is nothing in the 2002 Labour manifesto about enacting public "wander-at-will" over all land as some kind of substitute for public reserves. Mr. Sutton promoted this idea when in Opposition but it didn't gain traction. There was no popular demand then and there isn't now. It appears that Mr. Sutton has dusted off his old proposal and succeeded in substituting it for Labour's election policy.
Public Access New Zealand is a charitable trust formed in 1992. Objects are the preservation and improvement of public access to public lands and waters, through retention in public ownership of resources of value for recreation. PANZ is supported by a diverse range of land, freshwater, marine, and conservation groups and individuals. Visit www.publicaccessnewzealand.org for more information.
END
Jim Sutton 1993-
"People are right to mistrust National's plan to give the Minister of Conservation power to lease out the Queen's chain. Labour will protect New Zealanders' cherished access to seashore, lake, river and mountain. We will legislate for guardians of the Queen's chain with power of veto over any minister who seeks to sign away this access" Timaru Herald, 21 October 1993.Jim Sutton 1995-
Mr Sutton said public access issues, such as regulations covering * the Queen's chain, were now covered by several pieces of legislation..." Daily Post, 13 July 1995Jim Sutton 1996-
"... this cultural edifice [the Queen's chain] is constructed on legal foundations of sand.
* The Queen's Chain -- much relied upon and ostentatiously defended -- is nowhere to be found in our law"."I have come to the view that it is time to override this muddle by introducing a comprehensive, legislatively-backed code of public access to the countryside, embracing both rights and responsibilities. I propose that there be initiated a major public inquiry and consultation to that end". Freedom of the land, February 1996
"...public access emotions cloud a variety of other issues, such as the tenure of pastoral leases and overseas investment"..."it is necessary to override this muddle..." Timaru Herald, 2 March 1996
Jim Sutton 2003-
"The legal situation around the 'Queen's Chain' is sometimes confusing, *public understanding is incomplete...""We're really trying to bring some community wisdom to bear on this to see if anything we can do sensibly about it. The answer may be, at the end of the day, that it is all too difficult."
"Mr Sutton said the review of land access issues was a Labour Party manifesto commitment. This reference group is another example of Labour keeping its promises."
Press Release by New Zealand Government, 23 January 2003
Commentary by PANZ
Contrary to the claim by Mr Sutton, the Government's 2003 initiative is NOT in accord with Labour's 2002 election policy. This was specifically to:
"Develop a public access strategy, including extension of the Queen's Chain and the provision of urban and rural walkways, to ensure New Zealanders have ready and free access to our waterways, coastline and natural areas" (Outdoor Recreation Policy).
There is nothing about extension of the 'Queen's Chain' or enhancing public access, or about ensuring ready and free access. In fact there is no purpose to Mr Sutton's scheme, other than to "study access" (with a poorly equipped group to do that), and to "clarify and enhance the legal situation pertaining to public access". "Clarify" is a standard political weasel word for rewriting the law. With no specific access enhancement purpose for the study, and the predominant farmer and iwi composition of the Reference Group, it's fairly obvious what's likely to result. This assumes that the result has not already been determined by Government.
The purpose of the Reference Group is to review:
* access to the foreshore of the lakes and the sea and along rivers;
* access to public land across private land; and
* access onto private rural land to better facilitate public access to and enjoyment of New Zealand's natural environment.
The third purpose we could do without. To date, we are unaware of ANY recreational group calling for this. There certainly was no clamour for 'wander-at-will' or such like over private land in the lead up to the last election, but plenty of calls for practical steps to improve existing public access provisions.
In our view any government initiative should be confined to the first two objectives. There is no popular mandate for the third. There is plenty that is achievable under the first two purposes. Labour promised many useful actions last term but did not deliver.
The appointment of a poorly equipped group to come up with a grand strategy is either a ploy to avoid doing anything, or if any action eventuates towards a common right of access irrespective of tenure, will most likely result in a reduction rather than enhancement of public rights over public lands. This would be to achieve compatibility with new rights over private land.
PANZ is fearful that one simple statutory provision could wipe out common law rights of unhindered passage over (unformed) roads. Also access and use rights over publicly owned marginal strips could be reduced to those over privately owned esplanade strips - a mass of discretionary restrictions and closures, for foot access only, or no access at all.
There must be a clear separation of public from private land, with differing public and Government expectations for each.
'Freedom of the land' by Jim Sutton MP 1996
Public Access' No. 7 June 1996
Labour MP Jim Sutton has raised
the glittering concept of a legislatively-backed code of public
access to all of the New Zealand countryside, irrespective of
land ownership. This has the makings of a 'final solution' for
public access, sweeping aside what he describes as "the muddle
of public access emotions" on issues such as the tenure of
pastoral leases, overseas investment, and the Queen's Chain.
Mr. Sutton envisages a new order of codified rights and responsibilities for recreationists applying over all lands. He proposes that there be initiated a major public inquiry and consultation to that end. Unfortunately all that glitters is not gold!
Inevitably, the price of obtaining this new order will be restrictions on public access. The public cannot expect the same rights of access and use over private lands as they currently enjoy over public lands such as our national parks. The unspoken consequence of obtaining access over private land will be a reduction in public rights elsewhere. It could also result in the sale of public lands on the mistaken assumption that public management and control over natural and recreational resources is unnecessary; that all the public needs is 'access.'
Mr Sutton's proposals are founded on false premises that there are few legal rights of access in New Zealand, and that land ownership and management are incidental to public recreational needs. On both counts his proposals are gravely flawed.
Mr. Sutton claims for instance, in a manner
similar to arguments by the present Government, that the Queen's
Chain and other forms of public access are "constructed on
legal foundations of sand." And he goes further by erroneously
stating that the Queen's Chain "is nowhere to be found in
our law." Such argument plays on the lack of appearance of
the words 'Queen's Chain' in the statutes. This overlooks the
long-standing legal entities of marginal strips (and their predecessors),
esplanade reserves, and public roads, all components of the 'Queen's
Chain.' These public reserves date back to the commencement of
British settlement. The rights of public passage enjoyed over
roads are inherited from centuries of custom in England and are
well established in our Common law.
If real progress is to be made in improving public access then
a firm foundation must be first laid. This must entail recognition
of the full extent and different forms of legal public access
that exist now, and acceptance that recreation entails much more
than just the provision of 'access.'
It has long been recognised that the settings for recreational
activities, and the management of those resources, determines
the experience obtained by the visitor. For instance a recent
study of a 'wilderness' fishery in the Greenstone Valley reaffirmed
that for most anglers the experience they seek is much more than
just catching trout and 'access'. It extends to experiencing the
whole of the environment, including bush, mountains, and low encounters
with other visitors. Management of the fish, and of the physical
and social setting, requires direct Crown management. Otherwise
under private control this highly valued area could become the
exclusive preserve of the privileged and wealthy. Incompatible
developments may occur, or the increasingly rare wilderness experience
lost through overuse.
Wider, unspoken implications of Mr. Sutton's
proposals are that existing rights of access to and over public
lands and waters be swept aside, existing public lands disposed
of, and few, if any new public lands created. However that, for
instance, would fall well short of the expectation of most recreationalists
in regard to the South Island high country-they don't want to
see fish, scenery, and recreational opportunities privatised.
They certainly won't accept mass freeholding of mountain lands
with only a remote prospect that some form of public access may
be provided in the future. Public reserves and legally defined
rights of public access are needed as the quid pro quo for freeholding
of the better farmland. If Government does not insist on this
as part of current tenure reviews there will never be a future
opportunity to do so.
Mr. Sutton raises the non-statutory concept of Allemansrätt
or 'Every Man's Right' in Sweden as a possible model for New Zealand.
Allemansrätt
In principle the Swedish 'Right
of Common Access' includes the passage on foot over all types
of land. However, growing crops or the right to privacy of a house
owner are by no means unprotected. The rights of passage on foot
are similar to Scottish ones, also of Norse origin, that make
much of the countryside accessible, in contrast to a more restricted
situation in England.
The Right of Public Access ('Allemansrätt', meaning 'every man's right') is unique and provides the possibility for each and everyone visiting somebody else's land, to take a bath in and to travel by boat on somebody else's waters, and to pick wild flowers, mushrooms and berries.
The Right of Common Access is so firmly rooted in Sweden, that so far there has been no necessity to draft legislation to protect it. Only reference to the Right has been put into legislation, without defining it. This contrasts with Norway where pressures on customary rights of access resulted in statutory definitions and protections being enacted.
The reality that rights of access alone are insufficient to ensure continuing availability and suitability of land for public recreation, is reflected by extensive acquisition of lands by the State to counteract the loss of recreational opportunities through urbanisation. 'Nature reserves' now compliment a national park system in less populated regions. In addition Domän, the state forestry entity, supervises a fifth of the country's forests, with 2.9 million hectares of protected lands as public reserves and nature conservancies. Approximately 40 places of special natural value have arranged recreational activities in order to make areas of land more accessible.
Clearly there is not a total reliance
on 'Allemansrätt' for outdoor recreation within Sweden, as
Mr. Sutton's proposals imply.
The Scandinavian scene
Unlike most of Europe, Scandinavia
is generally well-endowed with natural or non-settled lands suitable
for outdoor recreation. However since the turn of the century
areas regarded as 'wilderness', being more than 5-6 km from roads,
railways, power lines and other major man-made changes or installations,
have reduced dramatically under increasing pressure through urbanisation
and closer settlement. In response to such
pressures most governments have embarked on the acquisition of
land for public parks so as to actively maintain the amenity values
and opportunities for recreation.
Common law or customary rights of access were not designed to
protect the land resource. These long-cherished rights of access
have value for recreation for so long as the land is maintained
as pleasant rural or natural open spaces. Public ownership has
become necessary over areas of natural amenity value to maintain
that value. A differing approach has been possible and acceptable
over cultural landscapes where there is continuing settlement.
Planning controls and public rights of way, rather than public
ownership, have been the prevailing means of maintaining amenity
values.
In Norway the total area of wilderness territory has greatly reduced over the past 100 years. The largest change has occurred in the lowlands of southern Norway, where larger areas of wilderness are now virtually non-existent. The reduction and fragmentation of wilderness territory characterises most mountainous areas as well. Wilderness areas represents 12% of Norway's total land area.
As more and more wilderness is lost to
human expansion and development, the need to preserve representative
areas for future generations has become increasingly important.
National Parks have been established in both Norway and Sweden
to protect such areas.
Allemansrätt
In Sweden everyone has the right:
- to take a walk, a bicycle, go horse riding, or to
go skiing on all land not cultivated, and on such
land that can not be damaged by your visit, this is
provided you do not cause any damage to crops,
forest plantations or fences. However, you are not
entitled to cross or stay on a private plot without
permission. The plot, which is not always hedged
or fenced in, is the area closest to a dwelling house.- to take a walk, a bicycle, go horse riding, or to
go skiing on private roads. Motor vehicles may be
used if the owner has not forbidden such traffic.- to pick wild flowers (excluding those protected
by law), berries, mushrooms, fallen cones, acorns
and beechnuts on land that is not a building site, a
garden or a plantation, to bathe or go by boat on
most natural watercourses.- to take water from lakes and springs.
- to put up a tent, or park your caravan, or trailer,
for twenty-four hours. For a longer stay you have to
have the permission of the owner.- You may make a fire, as long as you do not
cause any damage, however there are restrictions
during periods of drought when there is immediate
liability for a forest fire. You may use fallen
branches and or twigs as fire wood. Never light a
fire on bare rocks as they will crack and split,
resulting in ugly irreparable scars.- to bring your dog and let it loose as long as you
have full control. Restrictions are listed in local
statutes and regulations.You are prohibited:
- to cause damage to, and/or pollute the land.
- to ride on a motor vehicle on private property, so
that damage may be caused, or on a private road,
when the owner has forbidden such a state. Restricted
areas are also gardens, cultivated sites, or
constructions made by the owner.- to break branches and twigs, to take the birch,
bark, leaves, bass, acorns, nuts or resin from
growing trees and bushes.- to pick wild flowers protected by law.
- to park a caravan or trailer in such a place where
the land could be damaged.- to make fire so that the environment could be
damaged or endangered.- to let dogs run freely on private hunting-grounds.
Indigenous solutions needed
New Zealand has much to learn
from overseas experience, but a danger is that the grass always
looks greener elsewhere. What New Zealand needs is a stock-taking
of what we have now, and what is likely to be needed in the future,
before hiving off in quest of a glittering 'final solution'.
There are also huge implications for private property rights in Mr Sutton's proposals that have the potential to block any progress, or to gravely weaken public property rights, as the trade off for obtaining access over private lands. PANZ believes that there is plenty to do to improve the protection and management of public lands and access such as public roads and the Queen's Chain, before embarking in a bold new direction.
The New Zealand settlement/land tenure culture is quite different from that of Scandinavia and Britain, where centuries-old customs of public passage over private land have developed into traditions inseparable from the societies in which they arose. Particularly in Scandinavia, rights of access are matched by reciprocal social responsibilities which have become well-ingrained in those societies. In New Zealand we do not have anything like the well-developed traditions of Europe.
What we have, to the envy of many countries, is a major estate of lands specially reserved for public purposes. Unlike our European cousins we had the luxury of determining which lands were privatised and which retained in Crown ownership from the outset of British colonisation. That was the essence of Queen Victoria's instructions to Governor Hobson in December 1840. Those instructions gave rise the unique New Zealand concept of the Queen's Chain - reserved lands beside waterways that were supposed to forever remain free of private occupation.
Mr. Sutton observes that "access rights are most secure where they have long been embraced in legislation - once lost, they are difficult to reclaim."
The irony in his proposals is that most of New Zealand's access rights are already secured by statute, rather than by custom. His advocacy of a European solution would reverse that situation, substantially weakening the security we currently enjoy.
Surely it is more befitting our culture and traditions to reinforce our public open spaces law than to try to supplant it with foreign mechanisms. A very different culture has arisen in New Zealand, such as the Crown guaranteeing the title and boundaries to private land. This has given rise to strong territorial instincts and a well-entrenched private property rights ethos that is highly defensive of private ownership. As the South Island high country debate illustrates, the (tenant) runholder culture is actively promoting greater private property rights which threaten to overwhelm the community interest in Crown pastoral leasehold lands.
New Zealand Walkways
The Walkways Act was enacted in 1975 with much the same objects
as espoused by Mr Sutton, but has failed to make a significant
improvement to public access over private lands.
There are only a handful of Walkways over private lands despite much initial goodwill from Federated Farmers and concerted effort by all concerned. The reality is that there are very few landowners prepared to formally accommodate public use on their land, even when there are exhaustive statutory remedies against abuse of the privilege by the public. Twenty years of experience trying to achieve, by voluntary means, greater walking access to the private countryside has achieved very little. Most progress was achieved on public lands, which did not, for the most part, require Walkways to provide rights of access for the public-these already existed. The alternative approach for private land is to compulsorily impose public rights of use through legislation. PANZ believes however that this would be counter-productive and politically unobtainable.
Inquiry unnecessary
PANZ does not support an inquiry with the narrow, predetermined
outcome suggested by Mr. Sutton. We would support a future
inquiry into improving legal rights of public access to public
lands, waters, and the countryside in general, with no predetermination
of outcomes.
Why in the future? Because most Government actions over the last decade have been access-hostile. There would have to be clean sweep, under a new access-friendly Government, before we could have any faith that New Zealand's outdoor heritage would be given the respect its users deserve.
Mr. Sutton's proposal is however a welcome
recognition that 'access issues' are worthy of political attention.
A large constituency of voters are watching what parties are doing
and offering. As a result of their attacks on the Queen's Chain
the last Labour Government, followed by the present government,
can be thanked for politicising outdoor recreation. Public access
to the outdoors was an election issue in 1993-so too will it be
in 1996!
Open countryside and Rights of Way
in Britain
Press Release by Public Access New Zealand 17 September 2003
While the Government-appointed Land Access Reference Group has provided welcome reiteration of what recreationists have been saying for decades - that public access to the countryside is becoming more difficult and something has to be done about it - several of the group's recommendations are unsupported by its research.
Public Access New Zealand (PANZ) spokesman Bruce Mason was commenting on an announced series of public meetings over the next month to consider the reference group's proposals. The group found that the current law and institutional arrangements are inadequate to meet public expectations for access to the outdoors.
However PANZ says this was concluded because the group ignored most existing access mechanisms and thereby avoided considering improvements to existing law. PANZ identified to the group 41 actions that government could take to greatly improve access. Most of these actions could be achieved with minimal or no change to the law. However the reference group has largely ignored these suggestions, instead favouring sweeping new powers to compulsory establish public access over private land. "There is plenty of law about access already on the books. What's needed is better performance by local government in particular", Mr. Mason said.
While PANZ welcomes the group's conclusion that the "ethos" of the Queen's chain should be embraced, it appears that in reality they are advocating it's abolition. This is through redefining what the Queen's chain is. The Group's research clearly records that successive governments have established public reserves along water margins for a variety of recreation, conservation, and public utility purposes, not just for "access" as the Group now imply.
By claiming that the Queen's chain is solely about "access" the reference group asserts that public reserves are no longer necessary. This view ignores encroachment and development along privately-owned water margins that obstructs public use. Just by "deeming" access to exist, as the group proposes without establishing public ownership of river banks and shores, does not secure access, Mr. Mason said. Active steps also have to be taken to manage water margins for recreational use and riparian protection.
A crucial flaw in the reference group's thinking is demonstrated by their admission that there is no point in providing public access to the edge of rivers if waterways remain in private ownership. In law, whoever owns the bank also owns the riverbed. That was a prime reason colonial authorities insisted that riverbanks become public reserves. "The true ethos of the Queen's chain is public reserves at least a chain wide along water margins, not "whimpy access" that is liable to be overturned by obstructive landowners and un-enforced by the authorities".
If Government adopts the Group's proposals, it appears that no new marginal strips and esplanade reserves will be created in the future when land is subdivided, and tens of thousands of kilometres of existing reserves and unformed roads will become liable to privatisation due to an erroneous belief that these are not needed. That is not what the public expects and not what the Government was elected to do, Mr. Mason said.
For government to adopt the Group's proposals would be in contradiction of Labour's 1993 Queen's Chain Protection Bill, and successive election promises to extend the Queen's chain.
PANZ is considering running its own public meetings around the country so that the implications of the reference group's proposals, and PANZ's alternatives, can be properly considered.
A "pros and cons" analysis of the reference group's report will be provided on the PANZ web site www.publicaccessnewzealand.org