- Objective: To Strengthen Leadership
- Objective: To Provide Certainty
- Objective: To Embrace the Queen's Chain Ethos
- Objective: To Encourage Negotiated Solutions
- Objective: To Improve Current Legislation
Objectives for Enhancing Access
Participants raise many issues and concerns in relation to access to the New Zealand outdoors. In this section, there are many measures suggested by participants that they feel could, to a large extent, resolve the problems and provide a solid framework for any future approach to walking access. Most people support an access strategy that makes concessions to the requirements of both landowners and landusers and see merit in a co-ordinated approach with local involvement.
Some Maori participants state that the Treaty of Waitangi must be factored into an access agency and a code of conduct. The two cultures must be understood and interwoven.
Objective: To Strengthen Leadership
Access agency
Most participants feel that a responsible and accountable access agency has the potential to resolve many of the problems and concerns surrounding walking access, as well as clarifying information for landowners and landusers.
Those participants who support the concept believe that this could be a separate agency, either lead by a Commissioner with recourse to an Ombudsman for resolution of serious issues; in the form of the Nature Heritage Fund, the QEII National Trust or Landcare Trusts; or based on the former Walkways Commission. The level of feeling of participants seemed to be against DOC because of its poor promotion of walkways. Some participants recommend that a contestable fund be established to create accessways.
Participants suggest that the functions of an access agency could be to:
- Develop a national plan for access with emphasis on regional/local components;
- Administer any access legislation;
- Assist local authorities with their access responsibilities;
- Provide for and support the dissemination of information on access to the public;
- Ensure that useful and enforceable codes of conduct are developed in conjunction with landowners, landusers, tangata whenua and central and local government;
- Negotiate for the provision of access across private land;
- Promote local solutions for the provision of access;
- Build a relationship with tangata whenua; and
- Provide a mediation service where problems associated with access arise.
Few participants state that they do not support the concept of an agency. Those who oppose an agency feel that it would be unnecessary, additional bureaucracy is not desirable and that they do not want central government to advise on local solutions. A few participants state that they would like Public Access New Zealand or Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) to lead an access agency.
Objective: To Provide Certainty
Provision of accurate information on location and type of access
It is clear from the majority of participants that the provision of information on the location and type of access is important for removal of uncertainty regarding the availability of access and the rights of both landowners and land users. Land information must be drawn together.
Participants state that better information systems are required to indicate the availability of walkways in their region and outside and for people to check whether and where there are unformed roads on rural land. Participants state that ideally access should be marked on topography maps or be in a readily available document. There is concern that cadastral maps are not legally definitive as well as being difficult to access. In addition, people are not necessarily able to read maps.
Participants feel that it is essential to have a central repository of information on land titles, regularly updated to changes in land ownership. Some participants mention that it is a cost to the ratepayer to access the LINZ website, when it is a requirement of it to provide land information. There is a general concern that local authorities are not fulfilling the service of providing access information. Participants add that foreigners and tourists should have details on the location and type of access made available to them at information centres.
Landowner contact information
There is a concern raised by landusers that there is a lack of information about whom to ask in order to obtain access to a property. Landusers therefore request easier access to information about who owns the land, as well as the ability to contact landowners. A common view expressed was that having a list of landowner names and contact details before landusers access the land can maintain the convention of goodwill, participants believe. Participants state also that most people now carry a cell phone with them when going fishing. Some participants note that an access agency could provide information in relation to absentee landowners.
Signage
Many recreational participants state that signposting is important where access is available. Providing better and useful signage would be of great benefit to all parties. Signage is essential for recreationalists who are not used to being in the outdoors or who are accessing a different region. Participants feel that people are more likely to adhere to a well-marked accessway.
Participants note that existing Fish and Game signage and angler access signs are useful and set a precedent for future marking of access. Several participants suggest fenced access in some cases to enable a clear division between public access and private land. In general, participants believe that information and signs could be tailored to suit regional and local differences but identifiable as being official access.
Concerns raised regarding signage relate to maintenance - some farmers do not believe that it should be their responsibility to provide signage or to maintain markers. A few participants mention that signs can be torn down in some cases, requiring ongoing maintenance.
Code of conduct
There is solid support from most participants for an enforceable, adequately policed code of conduct including a programme of education on rural land and expected social conventions.
Suggestions of what a code of conduct could include were:
- A request landowner permission before access onto private land;
- Legal enforcement, such as fines for landusers who break the code;
- No horses, guns, dogs or camping (unless with landowner permission);
- Specified hours of access;
- The right to close land for up to 28 days, for reasons such as farm management, conservation purposes, drought and other occasions where public safety is under threat;
- An environmental care code;
- Maori landowner exemptions from provision of access, such as for cultural reasons; and
- An access licence; and.
Education is considered by participants to be the most important part of a code of conduct. Participants who refer to education feel that this should be done at different levels, including education in school curriculums on the importance of safe conduct and of respect for the outdoors; and education for new landowners on rural social conventions. Rural social conventions must include protection of Maori resources and cultural considerations. New immigrants and tourists must also be educated on access to land. A participant recommends that practical models are important in order to get the messages across.
Objective: To Embrace the Queen's Chain Ethos
There is clear support from most participants that the public should have legally certain and practical access to New Zealand's waterways, lakes and coastlines. Participants state that access to the Queen's Chain should not be further eroded and that there is public expectation surrounding the concept of the Chain.
A small number of participants consider that the Queen's Chain should not be expanded, believing it to be a myth that the public should not continue to promote. Participants are also concerned that if the Queen's Chain were opened up, a lot land that is currently not accessible would be damaged, when it would be easier for the public to accept the 70% of the Queen's Chain that exists. Several landowner participants feel that the Queen's Chain can be used as an excuse by fishers to access land.
Participants would like clarification about the rules of erosion and accretion in terms of applying a Queen's Chain. Most participants note that any access strips or reserves should be moveable as the riverbed shifts. It is generally agreed that there should be a rule for the minimum width of waterways designated to have the Queen's Chain on their margins as well as a rule for its measurement from the water's edge.
Maori participants support the principle of access as long as it does not disadvantage Maori. The Queen's Chain is a good idea because it has no ownership, but it must be managed. Some Maori participants state that they do not mind giving access to form the Queen's Chain, as long as all other landowners do too. Other participants see the Queen's Chain as providing the potential for further alienation of Maori land. Some of these participants state that they will resist the imposition of a Queen's Chain for that reason. Concerns were raised that increased access may result in impacts on sensitive sites such as waahi tapu.
Deeming/right of way
Landowner participants are uncomfortable with the concept of providing a right of way. They perceive that using this method the Crown wants to acquire valuable land without paying for it, that it is confiscation of land. These participants oppose any trigger clause deeming the Queen's Chain to exist at some point in the future where no other trigger has been activated. Participants state that homesteads and other buildings on a right of way would have to be excluded and more suitable access sought.
Some Maori participants regard both deeming and statutory trusts as confiscation of land.
Statutory trust
There is support by landuser participants and more support by landowners for a statutory trust holding land for the benefit of the public with the property owner retaining full title. Participants feel that priorities should be established regarding access versus land use, recognising environmental impacts.
Objective: To Encourage Negotiated Solutions
Most participants refer to the importance of negotiated solutions, in particular regarding access onto private land. People consider that negotiated solutions are essential to continuing with the tradition of goodwill as well as fair and reasonable access.
Many landowner participants state that there should be compensation where access is required or land is taken for access. Compensation could include rates relief. However, several landuser participants do not think that people should get compensation for the public to get access to its own resources.
Maori participants indicate that they will oppose giving any more land unless there is compensation (not necessarily financial) or some other form of recognition.
Role of roads in negotiations
Many landowner participants state that they would consider using unformed roads as a tool in negotiating practical, secure access. There are unformed roads through private property that are unidentifiable or not useful, that participants feel could be traded for more suitable access. Participants indicate that they would expect this negotiation to be included in the role of an access agency.
New technologies
Some participants state that hand-held global positioning systems could be used with the guidance of landowners to follow map co-ordinates. However, several participants are concerned that with this technology people could access and use unformed roads that can be located on private property. These participants are therefore supportive of an exchange of unformed roads for practical access or walkways.
Development of marked routes
Several participants suggest that marked or poled informal routes can be useful, in particular when it is important to consider the appearance or conservation values of land. This idea has raised the question of maintenance with some participants, who consider that an access agency would have to provide guidance on this matter.
Waymarks
A participant states that it could be possible to use a graded scale to indicate the type of access available, using waymarks, signage or code, as the angler access code.
Objective: To Improve Current Legislation
Public Works Act 1981
A few participants state that the Public Works Act is not an appropriate compulsory acquisition tool in the case of walking access to land.
Resource Management Act 1991
A few participants seek strengthening of the provisions for esplanade reserves under the RMA. Several participants believe that the definition of a minimum river size should be changed under the Act. Participants also believe the responsibility of councils for access under the Act is badly defined and prevents them from promoting access. Participants feel that councils need access strategies for the Act to be managed effectively.
Conservation Act 1987
Several participants recommend that the Conservation Act be amended to close the access loophole and prevent exclusive capture of public resources. A participant states that section 26ZN of the Conservation Act be amended to make it illegal to charge for freshwater fishing and that section 26ZL be amended to give Fish and Game the power to have the Minister of Conservation close a section of the river.
Trespass Act 1980
There are two avenues raised by participants in relation to the Trespass Act. Some participants would like the Act repealed as they believe that it is contrary to the egalitarian culture of the past 150 years and causes de facto private ownership over public resources. On the other hand, some participants would like the Act to be redefined with more rigorous provisions to control malicious access.
New Zealand Walkways Act 1990
Several participants state that the New Zealand Walkways Act should be better administered by DOC or transferred to another agency, to expand its role and reflect the increasing public focus on access. Many participants state that it was sad to witness the demise of the Walkways Commission after its absorption into DOC.
Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
Most participants who refer to the HSEA state that there should be clarification for landowners of their responsibilities following amendments to the Act. There has not been adequate dissemination of information to both landowners and landusers surrounding liability for accidents.
Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977
Landowner participants feel that liability for fires should be the responsibility of landusers when they irresponsibly cause fires or cause fires without the landowner being made aware of their presence on private property. It can be difficult to identify who has caused the fire and arsonists will not necessarily admit to their liability.
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
