Walking Access Panel Recommendations Too Conservative

“The panel has simply not followed through with recommendations that match the panels own acknowledgement of public rights and access principles.”

As a member of the WACP, Bryce Johnson believes that the full packages of recommendations of the panel may not achieve the Government’s stated policy objective of completing the Queens Chain.

“While I support the vast majority of the individual recommendations, and indeed am heartened by the Panel’s endorsement of public rights and expectations, and high level principles, the package of recommendations is conservative, and takes focus away from completing the Queens Chain,” said Bryce Johnson.

Bryce Johnson is the only member of the Walking Access Consultation Panel with a CV that identifies an outdoor recreation advocacy background. All other panel members have identified “rural” connections identified in their CVs.

“The Queens Chain is a Kiwi icon. It is a distinguishing and extremely popular feature of New Zealand society that we allow walking access to waterways, the coast and to public lands rather than the private beaches, rivers and wild places found in other countries. However, the Queens Chain is incomplete, which makes the present Government’s policy commitment to its completion all the more significant.”

“While land owners undoubtedly have property rights, these are not absolute. Water, fisheries and wildlife are public resources, to which the public expects reasonable rights of access, and do not attach to land title. Similarly, the public expects access to public lands and along unformed public roads.”

“New Zealanders expect access to the great outdoors, especially those parts which are their own public resources. Giving one sector a veto right can allow them to capture public resources and exclude the public.”

Mr Johnson believes that the key issues is achieving a reasonable balance between private and public property rights, and to achieve this balance, the report should include stronger recommendations in the following areas:

• Powers of the new “access agency”
• Restoring and realigning ‘lost’ access
• New access

The recommendations include a new “access agency” but only require it to be an impartial adviser on access issues. Mr Johnson believes the public want an agency that will be, primarily, a ‘champion’ for public access, and that it should therefore have the authority to pro-actively initiate and settle, and an ability to make determinations, on new and ‘lost’ access rights.

“I agree with my panel colleagues that there is a need for strong national leadership on public access issues. However, the agency proposed by the majority of the panel lacks a strong mandate to do the full job. It cannot negotiate from a position of strength and cannot guarantee and outcome when other parties refuse to negotiate.”

“In many situations, previous public access along rivers has been ‘lost’, or is in the wrong place due to the river changing its course. In these circumstances, there is a clear understanding of the original public access rights and expectations, but physical access is no longer available, or practical, on the ground.

“To leave the restoration or realignment of ‘lost’ Queens Chain to a voluntary negotiation process is clearly insufficient. The issue should not be if the Queens Chain should be realigned, but how it should be realigned and under what settlement agreement, including compensation where appropriate.”

“Securing new public access to meet the Government’s objective of completing the Queens Chain will, in most cases, require more than a public agency keen to negotiate. A more pro-active approach would also include trigger mechanism and negotiation incentives for participation from all parties. For example, subdivision to lifestyle blocks of just over the four hectare limit avoids the mandated subdivision-derived esplanade reserves. The Panel majority recommended that the Minister “investigate the merits” of the arbitrary four hectare limit. This will simply delay the improvement of this flawed trigger mechanism, and further permanently exclude public access to waterways via esplanade reserves as these subdivisions continue to proceed through current loopholes.

“In a further example, the public of New Zealand now get better public access conditions if land is sold to overseas buyers than if it is sold to New Zealanders. The Overseas Investment Act 2005 established a useful provision specifically intended to protect public interest in public natural resources and access, but it only applies to overseas purchasers. In my view, who buys the land ought not to have a bearing on provisions to protect and provide for the public interest in recreational access.