NZ Walking Access Bill - It WILL affect motorcycling

[Zukin]

Interesting reading

While there are good points, there are many ideas I dont like personally
The major one is I enjoy the many kms of paper roads (which you are legally entitled to ride on) I get to ride over to interesting far out places, why would they want to stop all users from using these??

I would like to see concerned motorcyclists put pen to paper and send in a submission. Please make it your own
Sending in someone’s work and just signing it to ‘Make up the numbers’ That is an old trick that now no longer has any value or credibility.
Now I for one are not normally passionate (or angry) about these sorts of things, but this seriously has the potential of ruining what I love the most about NZ and the interesting places that I get to ride to.


Copied from an email I received earlier (4wd National Body getting in behind it, but the same things will apply to ALL users of these legal roads)

The Rural Affairs Minister, Damien O'Connor has introduced a Walking Access Bill into Parliament. This Bill is supposedly to recognise the recommendations of the Acland Panel on Walking Access. There are aspects that could be useful to recreation generally but there are also big potential problems. Check www.nzfwda.org.nz and click on Walking Access Bill 08

The New Zealand Four Wheel Drive Association (NZFWDA) are of the view that there are two vital concerns to our recreation;

a) The need to remove any provision to establish walkways over public
lands & the public already have huge rights over public lands, and of course unformed legal roads (paper roads) are public lands & we could see roads become walkways very easily & subsequently of course closed under other legislation.

b) Any stoppage of any road should be subject to provisions found in
the tenth schedule of the Local Government Act 1974

Four wheeling needs your help please, to get this Walking Access Bill changed.

Talk with your Member of Parliament and ask for their help to change the two points above, or use this link to send an email to all or any MPs with your comments. Please be courteous and acknowledge that the Bill has some good aspects for walkers.

http://www.betterdemocracy.co.nz/email_mps.php

This part is important too¦write a submission to the Select Committee and post 2 copies by Wednesday, 21 May, 2008, to -

Committee Secretariat
Local Government and Environment
Parliament House
Wellington

Your submission/ comments can simply repeat the points above and must include your full name and address.

Thank you for getting involved.

[Zukin]

The Bill can be found here

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/...LM1244016.html

[Zukin]

The more I read and look into the more I dont like it

From NZ Fish and Game Council

I am currently filing an OIA request for any reports, Cabinet decisions etc, that relate to the decision to include the section in the Bill enabling walkways to be created over public land. I suspect there isn’t much I will get back which will indicate it is more a political move than one built on reasonable cause.

Personally I think it is a sinister (and naive) attempt to get rid on unformed legal roads (ULRs) in favour of the adjoining owner. So we all need to dump on this provision in the Bill big-time – especially any of the organisations and individuals who have an interest in recreational access with guns, dogs and vehicles (bike and motorized). The agricultural and local government sectors would love to get rid of ULRs.

We all need to make sure the hard won key points of ‘high principle’, from an angler / hunter point of view, that I got into chapter 6 of “Acland 2” (the panel I was on) are not fudged aside in the Bill and during the upcoming parliamentary debates and select committee process.

Already the pro-farmer attitude is emerging in the Explanatory Note to the Bill where it is stated on page 2 that…. “The Bill does not interfere with private property rights”…. yet the Bill currently seems silent on the explicitly recorded points in chapter 6 of the Acland 2 report on pages 16 and 17 that….”the public has rights to public resources”, and a bit further on….“Wildlife, freshwater fisheries and natural water are natural resources and do not usually attach to the land title” (and hence are deemed to be public resources forming part of the public estate) – where the reference to ‘do not usually’ was only inserted because of the uncertain legal possibility around ‘water ownership’ in relation to mining rights in places like Central Otago. So the proposition was generally accepted in Acland 2 that land ownership does not extend to the ‘wildlife, freshwater fisheries and natural water’ associated with the land upon which it exists – however it does not seem to have come through in the Bill – I wonder why?

What this all means is that the current Bill therefore effectively enshrines “exclusive capture”, where a land occupier can effectively grant themselves exclusive ownership of a public natural resource, such as wildlife, or freshwater fisheries, or natural water in situ, simply by (selectively) denying public access, for which they can then probably charge an access fee (which amounts to the sale of fishing or hunting rights in respect of those particular sports fish and game bird species managed by Fish and Game Councils). This needs to be strongly exposed by all of us in the up-coming parliamentary and select committee process.

One point in our possible favour however is that the Purpose statement of the actual Bill, at clause 3(a), states that….”The purpose of this Act is – (a) to provide the New Zealand public with safe, unimpeded walking access to the outdoors (such as around the coast and lakes, along rivers, and to public resources) so that the public can enjoy the outdoors….etc”. (my emphasis). However while “public resources” are not currently legally defined in section 4 of the Bill, we should be able to make a strong case for them to be, along the lines of the interpretation taken in Acland 2, noted above – ie. that ‘public resources’ means ‘wildlife, freshwater fisheries and natural water’. To this the marine recreational fishing NGOs need to add ‘marine recreational fisheries’ and big game NGOs need to add ‘deer, chamois, tahr and pigs’, and all the hunting NGOs (including Fish & Game) need to add ‘small game’ (such as hares, rabbits and possibly possums) – given that all three are what most hunters cut their teeth on en-route to becoming life-long recreational hunters.

We all therefore need to read this Bill very carefully, and contrast it against the Acland 2 report, including my ‘Alternative View’ minority report at chapter 21.

It will become an extremely important piece of legislation for the future of outdoor recreation in NZ, as it cuts to the fundamental heart of what the early English and European settlers sought to establish in NZ regarding the public ownership of and accessibility to natural resources.

[WRT]

Thanks for bringing this up Zukin! As a keen off roader and fisherman, I'll type something up to send in as soon as I get a free mo.

Just one note - your link to email MP's on the better democracy site has an extra full stop in it, can you fix that so others will find the site ok?

[tri boy]

I will take the time to read through this bill, and comment on it.
Thanks for the "heads up".

[MSTRS:Me]

Good stuff, Scott. My contribution...
I am most concerned to hear of moves by Damien O'Connor to legislate use of walking access on paper roads to the detriment of all other potential users. Is this to be another example of Govt pandering to one section of the public by over-riding the 'rights' of many others?
Whilst it is acknowledged that there can be safety issues surrounding walkers, those people using vehicles of many types, to also access such areas, are on the whole responsible and abhor the 'hoon factor' to the same degree as walkers do. Problem areas (such as certain beaches) soon come to the attention of local authorities and are policed until the problems are resolved. Do we really need legislation banning the legitimate recreational use of vehicles? Unimpeded access of public lands is one of the things this country was founded on, and it is my opinion that there are adequate areas set aside for walking-only already.
And recd this...
Thank you for your email regarding the Walking Access Bill.
National has supported the Bill to Select Committee, but has made no
commitment beyond that stage. We will certainly have to clear up the poor
way the Bill has been drafted.
National supports making publicly owned land more accessible, which is a
major concept of the Bill.
National also recognises sanctity of private property rights and therefore
supports the Bill's proposal that where access over privately owned land is
deemed desirable, it will only be achieved through a negotiated process with
the landowner.
We are committed to working with all interested parties at the Select
Committee stage to ensure that this Bill best reflects the wishes of the
public, yet respects private property rights.

Judy Cunningham
Electorate Secretary
Nick Smith MP Nelson

[SDU]

Thanks for the heads up Zurkin. Be good to get this bill stopped. bloody govt. regional councils have been sneakedly been closing paper roads except for walkers or MTB's around this area for awhile now, it is getting worse.

[Zukin]

Thanks for bringing this up Zukin! As a keen off roader and fisherman, I'll type something up to send in as soon as I get a free mo.

Just one note - your link to email MP's on the better democracy site has an extra full stop in it, can you fix that so others will find the site ok?

No problems, I thought that there were many others in the same boat as me

I have fixed the link, thanks for the heads up

[WelshWizard]

It will just go the same way as the the bill they introed into the UK , now only farm trafffic and foot sloggers can use a lot of the old roads, only way to stop them is to get rid of the government with voteing, time we got rid of this lot of dictotorial control freeks any way.

[twotyred]

It will just go the same way as the the bill they introed into the UK , now only farm trafffic and foot sloggers can use a lot of the old roads, only way to stop them is to get rid of the government with voteing, time we got rid of this lot of dictotorial control freeks any way.

some organisation needs to put together the numbers of pissed off voters envolved, much like the old bumper sticker that read something like: " 300,000 NZ'ers hunt,fish and vote " although the numbers affected here are probably much larger.

[Renegade]

what is it with this govt,they are driving me nuts!!!!!!!!

[WelshWizard]

what is it with this govt,they are driving me nuts!!!!!!!!

Ever thought its their personal mission to piss you off, and any other Motorcyclelist they can.

[tri boy]

Just been checking out NZ 4WD website, (Scott probably knows a bit more than me).
Peter Vahry traveled to the select committee meeting on the 10th June to submit against the walking access bill, and apparently the Bill received quite scathing replies from various interested parties, (fishing, hunting, 4WD clubs etc).
Hopefully this bill will be seen for what it is, (a rushed ramble with little consultation, presented by a "farmer friendly" MP).
Pressure will need to be maintained to protect kiwi's natural right to access THEIR mountains/streams/coastlines. MHO

[Dave Lobster]

Does this country have a requirement that if 'so many' people tell their MP to vote a certain way, he has to? (whether his party likes it or not)

[Grahameeboy]

Umm...sorry but don't Farmers and Land Owners have rights too. Why should they automatically let the public traipes across their land in 4WD's.

UK is a bit different because they have have historical rights of ways plus off course, unlike NZ there is an abundance of common land with footpath and bridleway access for the public so for eg mountain bikers can use bridleways unlike in NZ where in the main you only have access to private land that is made available for mountain biking, like Woodhill etc.....like there is private land where you can 4WD, Qyad bike etc...so you may have to pay...the Farmer pays for his land...you go to a restaurant and pay for the meal so why not pay to off road

In UK this works reasonably well and if necessary you ask permission from the farmer / land owner.

The land is for walking on and you cannot have walkers and vehicles side by side...bad enough on public highways!!

Sorry, I know I will get bagged but I don't see what the problem is.