For more information
on this process, click
here.
Access
to the great outdoors, especially our beaches, rivers, and lakes, is
part of
New Zealand tradition
Till a few years ago, most people assumed the Queen’s Chain covered all waterways – that everyone could walk, drive, or take dogs along a roughly 20 metre strip of public land alongside beaches, lakes, and rivers. Unfortunately, because of erosion or a failure of early provincial governments, coverage is only about 50 per cent now, and there is no clear way that someone can tell whether there is Queen’s Chain access on a particular piece of land.
The walking access policy did not affect
the title of property nor the use of land, Associate Rural Affairs
Minister Jim
Sutton said today.
Mr Sutton rubbished opponents’ claim that the proposal to have a
five-metre
walking accessway along significant waterways was a “landgrab” or
“confiscation”.
He emphasised that the policy dovetailed with the principles and
objectivess of
Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which were to retain Maori land and to ensure
Maori
could use and develop their land. It did not breach the Treaty of
Waitangi.
“The title to the walkway remains in the landowner’s possession, and
farmers
can carry out whatever farming or other land use they might wish to do.
Pretty
odd sort of landgrab!”
Mr Sutton said the policy, announced in December, had been quite clear
– it is
not right to roam, wander at will, or access across privately owned
land.
“To say so is simply scaremongering and wrong. You cannot walk across a
paddock
to get to the waterway. The policy does not change current access
provisions
through esplanade strips and other mechanisms, nor does it change
access
provisions in settlements with iwi, such as that at Lake Taupo as
decided in
the settlement with Tuwharetoa.”
Mr Sutton said the Labour Government has worked hard since being
elected to
forge a strong cultural identity for all New Zealanders.
“Part of that identity – Maori and Pakeha - is our relationship with
the land,
and important features such as lakes, rivers and beaches.
“Under New Zealand law, water and the animals living in it are
commonly-owned
assets. We believe that all New Zealanders should have access to these
assets,
and this has been part of our manifesto for the past two elections.
This policy
is to ensure the New Zealand way of life is maintained in the future.
Access to
the publicly-owned resources of water is something most New Zealanders
see as
important.”
The core principle of the Government’s
walking access policy is that people should have access to their
commonly-owned
assets of water and the animals living in it, Associate Rural Affairs
Minister
Jim Sutton said today.
Mr Sutton said the walking access policy had been worked on for about
three
years, and had been in Labour’s manifesto for the past two elections.
The
framework of the policy was announced in December, and work is
continuing in
preparation for a bill being drafted.
“There has been a lot of public consultation, and that feedback has
been
incorporated into the policy’s formulation.”
Mr Sutton said it was clear from what the Government was proposing that
there
would be little or no impact on farming operations from the policy, and
the
costs of signage, etc, was to be borne by the proposed access
commission.
Farmers could continue to use their land as they wanted.
“If you are a deer farmer, you can keep your big fences all the way to
the
waterway.”
He said personal safety has been taken into account.
“This is not willy-nilly access, it's keeping people to the publicly
owned
resources of waterways. It does not go near homes or farm buildings. We
do not
want people near homes or farm buildings. What Federated Farmers are
proposing
drives people up to farmhouse doors - a real boon for any criminals.
Our policy
keeps legitimate walkers away, and highlights any misbehaviour -
something Feds
should back.
“As for biosecurity risk, roads run along many paddocks now, providing
far more
access than the proposed walking access policy along rivers.
“There is no evidence that personal safety or biosecurity is
compromised by the
existing Queen’s Chain access, existent throughout the country.”
Mr Sutton said it had been liability law for many years now that you
are not
responsible for someone you do not know is on your land. As well,
compensation
for demonstrable loss had not been ruled out, contrary to what
Federated
Farmers was saying.
He said that in New Zealand, water and the animals living in it were
public
property, owned by all.
“This policy is about access to the publicly-owned resources of water
and the
animals that live in it. Why don't Feds just come out and say they
believe that
only the people who own the land should be allowed to walk on it - that
they
want the Queen's Chain abolished? They need to stop opposing the Govt's
plan to
expand the national park network in that case.”
10 June 2005 PR 088/05
Press Release: Federated Farmers
Federated Farmers
is asking all farmers and other land owners to close off public access
over their farms in a week-long protest at the government's access
reforms, said Tom Lambie, President of Federated Farmers of New Zealand
(Inc).
"The government
wants to give members of the public, no matter their character or
intent, the right to walk on private land along waterways. Farmers are
absolutely opposed to this confiscation of their property rights, and
alarmed at the increased risk posed to their security and livelihoods,"
he said.
The 'Action Orange'
protest will begin at 1pm on Thursday, June 16 and last until the same
time on Thursday, June 23.
"We ask farmers to
show their opposition to the access reforms by tying an orange ribbon
to their closed gates for the entire week," Mr Lambie said.
"Our provincial
network has called for this protest after the government disregarded
farmers' concerns. We are absolutely opposed to the public being
allowed to walk on private land without the permission or knowledge of
the landowner."
Details of the
campaign are outlined in a letter to all 18,000 Federated Farmers'
members, each of which represents an individual or family, or a rural
enterprise. The letters will be arriving in members' letter boxes early
next week.
"I have also
written to national recreation groups asking them to respect
landowners' rights to protest, and asking their members to stay off
private land for the week," Mr Lambie said.
"During June 16-23,
the federation's land access petition will traverse the country, adding
to its already 25,000 signatures. As it moves through each province,
local Federated Farmers' members will be carrying out their own protest
actions. Other actions are also planned.
"Then, on the 23rd
June at 1pm, I have invited Helen Clark on behalf of all political
parties to accept the petition at Parliament.
"Most New
Zealanders respect others' rights to manage access to the homes and
businesses. I hope all New Zealanders will agree with landowners'
concerns and stay off private land for the week, and instead walk on
the public estate."
ENDS
20 June 2005
Mackenzie farm dogs will be
served their breakfast in "government legislation" boxes this morning
as property owners air their views on the proposed property access
legislation.
The special "dogs' breakfast" is being held to coincide with a Federated Farmers-sponsored petition opposing the new legislation which is making its way through South Canterbury today.
"The access reforms are ill-considered and unnecessary, South Canterbury Federated Farmers' Vice-President David Williams said yesterday.
Mr Williams said the Government was yet to produce evidence that the public has difficulties accessing waterways. Neither has it justified jeopardising the safety and security of rural homes and businesses by removing farmers' right to manage who comes on to their land.
Mr Williams said for months the Government had been intimating certain measures would be included in the legislation, but has refused to debate them on the grounds that legislation had not yet been drafted. It had been thought the legilsation would be tabled before the election but it now appears uncertain whether that will happen.
The whole things a dog's breakfast, Mr Williams concluded.
To show what Mackenzie farmers think of the process so far, they will be feeding their dogs breakfast from 'government legislation' boxes when the petition reaches Ruataniwha, near Twizel, at around 8.30am.
The Federated Farmers' petition has attracted some 28,000 signatures throughout the country, including 2500 collected at Mystery Creek last week. More signatures are being collected as four 'road trains' carry the petition to Wellington. Prime Minister Helen Clark has been invited to accept the petition at 1pm on Thursday.
Following this morning's 'dogs' breakfast' at Ruataniwha, the petition forms will travel on to Tekapo at 9.45 am, and then to a civic function in Fairlie at 11 am. They will be handed over to Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers at the Arundel Bridge this afternoon to continue the journey north.
Timaru Herald
20 June 2005
By JOHANN VANNISSELROY and GLENN CONWAYOtago farmers are confident their petition aimed at changing the Government's public access policies will be successful.
"I'm sure it will have an effect, especially when other political parties are putting the issue at the forefront of their election campaigns," Otago Federated Farmers president Grant Bradfield said.
Mr Bradfield and four other members of the organisation marched through Balclutha, Milton, Mosgiel and Dunedin on Saturday to raise awareness of the campaign.
The Government proposes setting up an access commission which will publicise or negotiate public access to 5m-wide walkways alongside significant waterways.
Eventually, the commission will negotiate access with landowners to areas such as hills, native bush or to Crown-owned conservation land.
Farmers nationwide are opposing the policies, which they feel result in a loss of property rights and a risk to their security.
"People have been pretty supportive of what we are doing," Mr Bradfield said.
"The issue has been in the media a bit lately, so most know what's going on.
"There has been good support from people who don't live in farming areas but still know what's going on.
"There's definitely strong feelings about it."
Earlier in the day, dozens of Federated Farmers members and supporters gathered in Balclutha to demonstrate their support.
Mr Bradfield told those gathered Federated Framers had attracted about 26,000 signatures so far and he was heartened at the support from the wider public.
The mock coffin, which suggested land access rights were being buried by the proposed changes, was loaded on to Mr Bradfield's utility and driven through the main retail area.
Other members walked the street to collect signatures for the petition.
The petition was then taken to Dunedin and then handed on to North Otago Federated members in the afternoon.
The petition and coffin is due to arrive in Wellington on Thursday to be presented to Prime Minister Helen Clark.
ODT
13/06/2005
NewstalkZB
Waikato farmers are behind a nationwide
campaign against the Government's access reforms blocking access to
their land
for a week.
A petition with more than 5,000 Waikato signatures is also circulating
the
country.
Waikato Federated Farmers President Peter Buckley says as of Thursday,
farmers
will be tying their front gates shut with orange ribbon.
He says farmers are being reasonable and it is not too much to ask.
He says farmers generally do give access when asked, so they can
identify any
hazards to people who come on to their land and make sure that they
follow
rules such as closing gates.
Peter Buckley says the campaign is being officially launched at
Fielddays.
21 June 2005
By TERRY TACON
Problems Taranaki Federated
Farmers is having getting traction for the protest against the
Government's
proposed land access legislation were evident yesterday when fewer than
20
vehicles turned up for a demonstration in New Plymouth.
This compared with more than 60 that took part in a similar cavalcade along Devon St in 2003 when farmers opposed the 'Fart Tax' a proposed levy on emissions by sheep and cattle.
Provincial president Bryan Hocken has raised concerns about the lack of support for the land access protest, saying that so far there are not enough names down to fill one bus on Thursday, when farmers from Taranaki travel to Wellington to march on Parliament to present a petition opposing the plans.
For the Fart Tax march more than 100 travelled to the capital in three buses.
Yesterday's demonstration was led by 'Myrtle', the Ferguson tractor that hit international headlines in 2003 when Taranaki-King Country MP Shane Ardern drove it up the steps of Parliament at the end of the protest march.
Two other tractors were in the small Devon St convoy behind Myrtle yesterday, the numbers being made up by farmers in utes and cars.
Many of them carried orange ribbons, which Federated Farmers has asked farmers to tie to closed gates in a show of solidarity against the plan to pass a law they say will allow the public to enter private land without seeking permission.
Also in evidence were signs opposing the access reforms as a 'land grab'.
Taranaki Daily News
21 June 2005
Farmers fear proposed extensions
of land-access rights will increase crime and stock losses in rural
Hawke's
Bay.
About 100 people turned up to yesterday's lunchtime rally in Hastings, organised by Hawke's Bay Federated Farmers as part of a national protest.
Anger simmered at the rally, and at a separate protest in Waipukurau, over the Government's proposed public land access changes.
Napier-Taihape Road farmer Jack Roberts said the only thing that got him more angry than the land-access issue was the murder of Puketitiri farmer Jack Nicholas on his farm in August.
He feared more crime and stock losses, saying he knew of a woman living outside Hastings with a loaded gun by her bed.
"The basic policy the Government intends is wrong – it is a basic right for farmers to decide access to their property," Mr Roberts said. "If the land access law goes ahead there is a law for the urban people and a law for the rural people. The police are already understaffed and under-resourced, who is going to enforce the new restrictions and who is going to prosecute them?"
Hawke's Bay Federated Farmers spokesman Kevin Mitchell said the worst result would be the loss of good will.
Farmer and Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule has private access to a river on his land and said during the rally he, too, had experienced numerous problems. They included illegal entry, gates being left open and thefts of sheep and firewood.
Also at the rally was Sensible Sentencing Trust chairman Garth McVicar, who said he feared more crime, such as the Nicholas murder. The legislation would increase illegal dope growing on farmland, which was already a concern.
The Dominion Post
21 June 2005
Farmers throughout the Ruapehu
district closed their gates to public access last Thursday, as part of
a
week-long protest at the Government's proposed land access reforms.
The action called by Federated Farmers, comes as a direct result of what they say is the Government taking private property rights and not listening to the legitimate concerns of rural people.
National Federated Farmers President Tom Lambie said the government wants to give members of the public, no matter their character or intent, the right to walk on private land along waterways.
He said: "Farmers are absolutely opposed to this confiscation of their property rights and alarmed at the increased risk posed to their security and livelihood."
Tokirima farmer Lynn Neeson was keen to take part in the protest, but found difficulty in getting orange ribbons. Feeling passionate about the cause, and not one to be put off, Lynn decided to buy 45 metres of bright orange plastic rain coat material, cut it into two inch strips, and post a metre to every farmer she could find in the Ruapehu district. She sent out 237 in total.
Lynn said the protest is a good idea and a visual one. She said their property provides access to the river and Nui poles, and in the past, they have given permission for access to people who have asked.
However over the Christmas period while checking on lambs, Lynn said she found people wandering around a paddock trying to get access to the river.
She said they were going in the wrong direction and she felt they believed they could just wander. When she checked the paddock later on, wanting to put newly weaned lambs in it, she found a hardly used gate had been pushed open and the bottom rail broken. This had to be repaired before the paddock could be used.
Lynn said this was her first experience of people going onto the property without permission, and it wasn't a good one.
She said the Labour Government is just not listening. She also found it ironical that the government is expecting farmers to give public access when DOC is looking at closing public access to the Tokirima Walkway.
She wondered why they are expected people to give public access through their farm.
The Action Orange protest lasts until 1pm Thursday June 23, when a petition brought by farmers from the Far North, East Coast, Stewart Island and the West Coast will arrive at Parliament.
Ruapahu Press
20 June 2005
By SOPHIE SMITH
Federated Farmers started Action
Orange last week by asking urban and rural communities across the
country to
support them by placing something orange at their gates or windows, to
protest
against the Government's proposed land access reforms.
The Government wants to give members of the public the right to walk on private land along waterways.
Wendy Clark, chairperson of Franklin Federated Farmers says the concerned rural community has been shut out from the discussion for months, and they are opposed to the alarming risks to their security, property and livelihoods.
"We want to continue the current relationship that land owners have with the public, the courtesy tradition of asking for access, for which farmers have always been generous.
"Farming is a hazardous business, like any factory, we need to know who is on the property, and where."
As part of Action Orange, Federated Farmers has organised a week of protests throughout the country, which will see a petition of more than 25,000 signatures make its journey to be presented at parliament in Wellington by delegates from every province next Thursday.
The Franklin protest will come up King St, Pukekohe, tomorrow June 17, at 12.30pm, led by 'Murtle' the famous fart tax tractor.
Mrs Clark stresses that the New Zealand economy is dependent on agriculture, so this is not just a rural issue.
"Bio-security is threatened by tourists introducing disease, dogs can carry the Neosporin disease causing animal abortions and the Government says no guns or dogs but who is going to police that," says Mrs Clark.
"We don't believe that the New Zealand public supports this legislation. We're frustrated from being frozen out, we want debate on this."
"Our surveys tell us that 92% of farmers don't deny access without good reason. If access to the public is denied to significant sites, we believe legislation already exists to facilitate access through negotiation or the Public Works Act."
Franklin County News
21 June 2005
By GREG WYNNE
Myrtle, the tractor that was
driven up the steps of Parliament in protest ploughed its way through
Thames on
Friday towing an orange coffin.
It was part of the Federated Farmers Orange Ribbon campaign, which started last Thursday seeking support against the Government's proposed land access legislation.
Processions left from both ends of the country and are travelling through the provinces to collect signatures for their petition that will be handed to the Prime Minister Helen Clark this Thursday.
Federated Farmers vice-president for the Hauraki-Coromandel Mike Morrison is right behind the movement.
"The Orange Ribbon campaign is about making the public aware of what's going on in rural New Zealand and what the Government's planning to impose on us. They just roll over the top of us," he says.
"In regards to the status quo where people ask before they go on farms, 95% of farmers surveyed said they had no problem with that at all. We're just concerned that they will be able to bring in dogs or guns without farmers' knowledge.
"Having Myrtle lead the way is special. Any tractor that's been up the steps of Parliament is famous," says Mr Morrison. On Saturday morning Myrtle went through Paeroa, then on to Waihi before heading to Katikati and the Bay of Plenty.
The Government is planning to complete the Queen's Chain.
"The Queen's Chain is part of our national identity and every kiwi's birthright," says Fish and Game New Zealand spokesperson Bryce Johnson, "and here we have one segment of society trying to deny it.
"Seventy percent of the Queen's Chain already exists and 30% of it remains to be completed. The proposal will not remove landowner's title, it will provide protection for the privacy of landowners and will increase access to rivers, streams and lakes for all New Zealanders.
"Ever since Federated Farmers drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament they think they can pull off a stunt like this and dictate their own views to the rest of the community.
"Public access to the outdoors is in need of urgent reform," says Mr Johnson. "The current laws governing access are a confusing mish-mash."
Hauraki Herald
20 June 2005
By JOHANN VANNISSELROY and GLENN CONWAY
Otago farmers are confident
their petition aimed at changing the Government's public access
policies will
be successful.
"I'm sure it will have an effect, especially when other political parties are putting the issue at the forefront of their election campaigns," Otago Federated Farmers president Grant Bradfield said.
Mr Bradfield and four other members of the organisation marched through Balclutha, Milton, Mosgiel and Dunedin on Saturday to raise awareness of the campaign.
The Government proposes setting up an access commission which will publicise or negotiate public access to 5m-wide walkways alongside significant waterways.
Eventually, the commission will negotiate access with landowners to areas such as hills, native bush or to Crown-owned conservation land.
Farmers nationwide are opposing the policies, which they feel result in a loss of property rights and a risk to their security.
"People have been pretty supportive of what we are doing," Mr Bradfield said.
"The issue has been in the media a bit lately, so most know what's going on.
"There has been good support from people who don't live in farming areas but still know what's going on.
"There's definitely strong feelings about it."
Earlier in the day, dozens of Federated Farmers members and supporters gathered in Balclutha to demonstrate their support.
Mr Bradfield told those gathered Federated Framers had attracted about 26,000 signatures so far and he was heartened at the support from the wider public.
The mock coffin, which suggested land access rights were being buried by the proposed changes, was loaded on to Mr Bradfield's utility and driven through the main retail area.
Other members walked the street to collect signatures for the petition.
The petition was then taken to Dunedin and then handed on to North Otago Federated members in the afternoon.
The petition and coffin is due to arrive in Wellington on Thursday to be presented to Prime Minister Helen Clark.
ODT
Thursday, 23 June 2005,
Press Release: Federated Farmers
Federated Farmers today launched an initiative which should solve the impasse between farmers and the government over land access.
The federation launched its Visitor Access Protocol to assist land owners manage visitors who want to access private land, and clarify the responsibilities of both owners and visitors.
"This protocol is important as it offers the government and land owners a way to work together on improving access," said John Aspinall, the federation's spokesman on land access.
The protocol was launched as the federation and supporters presented a petition with approximately 29,000 signatures to Parliament. The petition has spent the past week travelling on four 'road trains' throughout New Zealand.
"We hope this protocol marks a new era in relations between farmers and recreationalists. Farmers have said they want to retain the status quo, while the government wants to use the heavy hand of legislation to allow free access over private land along waterways. The access protocol could be described as a 'Third Way' forward, and should be taken seriously.
"We ask the Minister of Agriculture to work with farmers and recreationalists on further developing this 'Third Way'," Mr Aspinall said.
The launch of the protocol and presentation of the petition marked the end of a week long protest, dubbed Action Orange. Farmers up and down the country have been protesting against the theft of their property rights, and the heightened dangers to their families and businesses from legislated "right-to-roam" along waterways. A significant number of farmers closed their gates to visitors and tied an orange ribbon around those gates as a sign of solidarity against the reforms.
"After our very successful protest, the Visitor Access Protocol reopens farm gates to public access, but on terms which are best for both land owners and visitors," he said.
The protocol clearly sets out the understanding between land owners/managers and visitors. It also sets a benchmark of expectation on both parties.
It is available as a duplicate pad -- a copy for the visitor, a copy for the landowner. There are 50 in each pad. These will be made available to members of Federated Farmers.
The federation has also printed more than 80,000 "ASK FOR ACCESS" stickers for farm gates.
The most important part of the protocol is the logo which says: ASK FOR ACCESS".
But the protocol also places obligations on land owners.
"They must explain the implications of possible hazards, such as unstable structures and aggressive animals, or the location of poison baits. Landowners may provide alternative routes if they are appropriate, and we urge them to give reasons to explain why if access is declined," Mr Aspinall said.
To see the protocol, or for more information on Action Orange, go to www.fedfarm.org.nz
ENDS
23 June 2005
By VIV TROUNSON
Northland Federated Farmers and
the national Federated Farmers organisation have very different views
on
proposed law changes providing access along significant waterways.
Last week Federated Farmers of NZ launched a week-long campaign which included urging farmers to tie orange ribbon across their gates to declare their land off limits. It also and set road trains heading for Parliament, carrying a petition and a casket symbolising "death of farmers' rights to control access to their farms."
But Bill Guest, operations director of the separate Northland FF, says his organisation has been fully informed and supports major parts of the proposed legislation, which he describes as timely.
"It will assure continued access to significant areas. And that's pretty important in the light that overseas purchasers and developers have shut off access to large tracts of Northland coastal areas. It will also include situations where Maori have tried to lock out people from beaches."
He said freehold title would not be affected.
"There is a lot of hype but a lot is based on falsehoods and political point scoring rather than ensuring all New Zealanders will have continued traditional access to beaches and significant areas."
"Contrary to what NZ FF say it is not the theft of private land. A lot of farmers forget that there are already paper roads on properties which people have a legal right to use."
Denis Anderson, president of FF of NZ's Far North/Whangarei/Kaipara District says said the issue has gained a lot of support and signatures in Northland. He was unable to say how many farmers were closing their farms with ribbon but had heard of a few.
He said there was concern at "farmers losing the right to veto access to their properties," with the attendant risks of some people gaining access.
However, he said Northland is less affected than many areas.
"I don't think the issues are as significant here as we don't have the number of waterways qualifying or the trout fishing, mountain access or kayaking rivers they have further south. Also we have hundreds of miles of coast with pristine beaches that people can walk on."
While Northland already had potential for problems with areas like paper roads, he was not aware of any occurring. However they did occur closer to Auckland.
Dargaville & District News
23 June 2005
By STEVE EDWARDS
Elstow farmers joined colleagues
around the country last Thursday in protesting against the Government's
land
access reforms.
A group, led by Elstow Federated Farmers' chairman Stuart King, showed their support for the cause by helping to tie orange ribbons on to his front gate and closing the Ngutumanga property for a week.
Farmers do not oppose public access outright, he said, but question the public's "right to roam" over private property.
"We want to know who's on our property and why," said Mr King.
Those farmers who currently protect areas of bush on their properties voluntarily may be "put off" from doing this if unlimited public access is allowed.
Mr King said the public may also choose to cross farmland - "the quickest way" - to get to a particular stretch of waterway, rather than walk along the riverbank.
Fellow Elstow farmer Jeff Bolstad said he annually has three duckshooters who get permission to use the river on his property. "That's fine. It's just common courtesy to ask permission."
Neighbour Gavin Fisher, a certified organic farmer, said unlimited public access would also increase biosecurity risks. Other farmers at the King property, including Gordon Wood, John Gledhill and Klaas Groen said they had no problem with allowing their properties to be used for activities such as eel fishing and duckshooting as long as permission was sought first.
Mr King suggested people are probably more likely to use public land along riverbanks than on farms anyway. Federated Farmers has initiated a land access petition which had 25,000 signatures before the protest, known as Action Orange Week, started.
National president Tom Lambie has invited Prime Minister Helen Clark, on behalf of all political parties, to accept the petition at Parliament tomorrow.
"The Government wants to give members of the public, no matter their character or intent, the right to walk on private land along waterways," said Mr Lambie.
"Farmers are absolutely opposed to this confiscation of their property rights, and alarmed at the increased risk posed to their security and livelihoods."
In a letter to Federated Farmers' members, he said legislating to allow the public free access to private land, without compensation to the landowner, can only be described as theft.
"It's the kind of theft we expect the Government to protect us from," said Mr Lambie.
However, Fish & Game New Zealand said the proposals will not remove landowner's title, provide protection for the privacy of landowners, and it will increase access to rivers, streams and lakes for all New Zealanders.
"Public access to the outdoors is in need of urgent reform," said Fish & Game director Bryce Johnson.
"The current laws governing access are a confusing mish-mash."
He said the land access reform proposals are "pretty moderate" and achieve a balance between the public and landowners' rights.
Piako Post
23 June 2005
By KATE TRINGHAM
A eulogy to the death of
property rights took place in the centre of Blenheim yesterday as part
of the
Federated Farmers nationwide protest against the Government's proposed
land
access legislation.
The action drew the attention of curious onlookers, who gathered along the main streets to watch as a group of Marlborough farmers marched in funeral procession across town to the Forum, bearing an orange coffin.
The coffin has travelled the breadth of the South Island over the past week, collecting signatures in opposition to the legislation, which plans to guarantee public thoroughfare across farms to waterways.
It was to be carried up Parliament's steps with its North Island counterpart today and presented to the Government.
About 50 people gathered at the Forum, where Federated Farmers Marlborough branch president Pat O'Sullivan, dressed in priest's robes, opened the coffin and added signatures and messages of protest collected from the West Coast and Marlborough.
In his "eulogy", Mr O'Sullivan said the proposed legislation was a blatant disregard for property rights, and noted the eighth commandment which states "thou shalt not steal".
"Helen Clark's Government is attempting to overturn the constitutional foundations of this country by stealth," he said.
"If the access policies are allowed to be promulgated into law, Helen Clark and her Government will be turning Parliament into a common thief."
He urged landowners not to back down in their fight against the access proposals.
National Kaikoura electorate candidate Colin King said the opportunity for rural crime would greatly increase under the proposed legislation.
This was a real concern for the elderly, mothers and children living in rural areas, he said.
Marlborough farmer Gary Barnett told the gathering that landowners didn't want people to stop using the outdoors.
"We want you to use and enjoy the waterways," he said. "But we want you to ask first. Or, if access is forced upon us, we want appropriate compensation."
Associate Minister of Rural Affairs Jim Sutton has assured farmers that land would not be taken by the Government as part of the walking access policy and title would not be affected in any way.
He said water was a publicly owned resource in New Zealand and the policy was to ensure the public had access to their resource in an appropriate way in certain circumstances.
The Marlborough Express
Thursday, 23 June 2005
Farmers up and down the country have been protesting against the Government's proposal to have a five-metre walking accessway along significant waterways. Today Federated Farmers launched its Visitor Access Protocol and handed over a petition protesting against the Government’s land access proposal. The protest was colourful but rather small.
ACT and National Party MPs spent more time engaging in verbal altercations with each other than any Government MP’s. ACT’s Rural Affairs spokesperson Gerry Eckhoff was particularly vocal in abusing the absent National Party MP Nick Smith, and Dr Smith's proposals for rural access. National Party associate spokesman for Agriculture, Shane Ardern attempted to ingratiate himself with the discontented rural masses by assuring them National was on their side. Most of the ACT Party MPs, some wearing orange fright wigs assured the protestors the National Party was very definitely not on their side.
A number of the discontented rural protestors were themselves a tad grumpy with the ACT Party. Some expressed to Scoop their indignation that the ACT Party had hijacked their protest. Maori Party Leader Tariana Turia who had last week attacked the Government’s land access proposals was not spotted by Scoop at the protest. Last week Federated Farmers confirmed Ms Turia had contacted them and was encouraging Iwi to attend the protest. No visible Maori Party presence was observed by Scoop during the protest however.
A small minority of the
protestors were from outdoor recreational groups who seemed to think a
third
way was possible between the Governments proposals and the farmers
desire to
shut their gates and leave them tied up with orange ribbons.
24 June 2005
By TIM CRONSHAW
Moves to mend a rift between the
Government and farmers ended yesterday in a tirade of personal abuse
hurled at
Agriculture Minister Jim Sutton.
In a noisy gathering outside Parliament, North Canterbury's Harry Schat presented a 26,000-signature Federated Farmers petition against plans to take 5m-wide strips of farmland to create river walkways throughout New Zealand.
The petition also proposed a compromise in the form of a protocol that would allow public access to farmland, if farmers were asked for permission, and set out the responsibilities of both parties.
Federated Farmers says the signatures gathered in the Canterbury-initiated petition prove New Zealanders support farmer opposition to Government-imposed public access.
But Sutton dismissed the petition and protocol after his efforts to speak to the 200 to 300 protesters were shouted down by cries of "Jim's a wanker".
He later complained that those who had dished out the abuse should have been prepared to take it in return.
He described the petition as "not one of the great petitions of all time" and said that though the federation's proposed protocol could be a part of a final plan, it would not change the Government's focus.
The idea for a nationwide petition came from Cheviot sheep and cattle farmer Jeff Wilkinson who was critical of the looming intrusion on farmers' property rights.
Schat, the North Canterbury Federated Farmers chairman, said the many thousands of signatures collected justified the protest.
"It is about landowners keeping their property rights and that there is nothing wrong with the status quo of ask and you will be granted access."
The support for the campaign could be seen by the trail of orange ribbons supporting the protest from Christchurch to Blenheim, he said.
Schat said farmers would, however, carry on applying pressure during an election year to uproot the access plan.
The farmers say that their land will be taken without compensation and the walkways will leave them open to increased rural crime.
Agnes Nicholas, widow of Hawkes Bay farmer Jack Nicholas, whose murder last year remains unsolved, took part in the protest, saying the Government's plans to place a 50m no-go boundary around homes would not have saved her husband.
The farmers' march from Wellington railway station to Parliament carrying two orange coffins containing the petition ended a week-long orange-ribbon closure of farms to the public.
The symbolic orange ribbons came off the gates yesterday.
Talking to reporters, Sutton inflamed the debate further by pointing out that farmers did not pay rent for the paper roads crossing their land and warning that they could not expect to continue to keep people off them.
Federation president Tom Lambie said paper roads were a separate issue.
"The Government should be retiring paper roads where they are not appropriate or using them to create new public access."
He said he was concerned at Sutton's reaction to the noisy protest.
"He was extremely dismissive. We need the Government to listen. We came here to deliver them a message."
Among other politicians who turned up to talk to the protest were National Party leader Don Brash and United Future leader Peter Dunne.
After Sutton gave up trying to make himself heard, Brash told the gathering National believed protecting private property rights was fundamental for protecting democracy.
Money to implement the access law had been included in the Budget.
"You will lose the right to decide who will go on to your farm," Brash said.
During the protest at Parliament about 10 placards appeared at the back of the gathering from anglers and the Federated Mountain Clubs carrying messages such as "Public Access to Rivers 4 Recreation".
A man with a sign carrying the message "Say Yes to Public Access" had to move as his efforts to have his sign seen were continually blocked by someone with a sign expressing the opposing sentiment.
The Press
24 June 2005
By NATASHA HOLLAND
Federated Farmers launched a new
land access protocol yesterday as it wound up its nationwide Action
Orange
campaign.
Hundreds of farmers marched on Parliament to deliver a petition against the Government's proposed land access reforms.
For the past week farmers have tied orange ribbons to their gates and blocked public access to their land.
Federated Farmers national member John Aspinall said it was disappointing but not surprising to hear the Government intended to go ahead with the land reforms despite the protest.
Farmers say allowing people on land without asking for permission is a theft of their property rights.
The federation would now wait until after the election before taking further action, Mr Aspinall said.
"Mr Sutton (Associate Rural Affairs Minister) has said the draft would be completed before the election, but there is certainly no evidence that will happen.
"I don't think he would have the numbers to pass the legislation anyway," Mr Aspinall said. Land access would become a major political issue leading into the elections in rural areas, he said.
In the interim, the federation has launched a new visitor protocol for recreational groups accessing farm land.
"This protocol is important as it offers the Government and land owners a way to work together on improving access," he said.
"We hope this protocol marks a new era in relations between farmers and recreationalists.
"Farmers have said they want to retain the status quo, while the Government wants to use the heavy hand of legislation to allow free access over private land along waterways. The protocol sets out the understanding between land owners/managers and visitors, he said.
"Farmers must explain the implications of possible hazards, such as unstable structures and aggressive animals, or the location of poison baits.
Landowners may provide alternative routes if they are appropriate, and we urge them to give reasons to explain why, if access is declined," Mr Aspinall said.
The
Southland Times
23 June 2005
By BRYAN HOCKEN
In
response to last week's article by New Zealand Fish and Game Council
director
Bryce Johnson, my land title starts with the following words: "In fee
simple."
My interpretation of this – and also that of others – is that I have unrestricted right of ownership. All land titles begin with these words. If Mr Johnson or others would like to change the way I own my property they should be lobbying Parliament to change the wording on my title.
While I have unrestricted right of ownership I do abide by the Resource Management Act and council interpretations over my land, but at the end of the day I have the opportunity to make final decisions as to how the property should be managed and others should respect this.
There are no waterways in Taranaki with the Queen's Chain registered on them. The nearest is the north bank of the Mokau River, which is not in Taranaki. The closest is the Stony River, which has a protection order placed on it, so where does Mr Johnson get the idea that 70% of waterways are subject to the Queen's Chain?
The RMA introduced the right of councils to place riparian strips on waterways when subdivision takes place. Perhaps Mr Johnson is confused as to what is actually taking place. It would also seem by his article that he is impatient with the processes placed in law by the RMA. There can be little deviation by landowners on the RMA so why should it be changed to satisfy his demands?
Farmers have proved in the past that they will allow entry on to their land to people who front up and ask. Would any landowner allow unlimited access to four-wheel drive enthusiasts as Mr Johnson stated, and why should they?
Mr Johnson is not comparing apples with apples when he compares paper roads to waterways. Why should landowners who have paper roads through their properties advertise them? If one wants to find a paper road one should consult with the council. Paper roads are clearly defined on land titles, so why would a landowner claim ownership as he has implied?
If landowners have effectively captured public resources for private commercial use, why not name them? And why hasn't there been a hue and cry when regional councils have granted water rights?
We would agree with you that there is no private property right to freshwater fisheries, wildlife, natural water or paper roads, but there are property rights that every New Zealander enjoys and will not give up and this also includes farmers.
Bryan Hocken is the provincial president of Taranaki Federated Farmers.
Taranaki
Daily News
Bruce
Mason, of Public Access
NZ, is an experienced commentator and respected researcher on land
access
issues. Tomorrow: Alternative approaches.
ACCESS
TO New Zealand’s outdoors has been to the forefront of public attention
over
the past two years. Apparently, an extreme polarisation of views has
developed
between town and country.
But has
it? Is it the Government’s approach that is the real source of
friction? Its proposals have an air of recklessness about them that is
unlikely
to result in recreational needs being met or private property being
respected.
The Government is ignoring the distinctions between public and private
land,
endangering both.
A
convergence of views is emerging between
farming and recreation advocates that alternative approaches would
improve
public access
to the outdoors, without all the aggravation.
Since
1999, there have been high
expectations among the recreational community. Labour’s outdoor
recreation
policy promised to develop a strategy for the extension of the Queen’s
chain to
ensure improved public access
to our waterways and coastline. Labour promised also to fix a growing
problem
of “exclusive capture” of public fish and game resources, resulting
from the
sale of access
rights across private land.
However,
during the Government’s first term, nothing happened. Labour was
content to repeat its pledges in more explicit form, with extension to
urban
areas, during the 2002 election campaign.
In
January 2003, the Minister of Rural
Affairs, Jim Sutton, announced he was appointing a ministerial
reference group
to examine rights of public walking access
across private land to rivers, lakes and the sea. Cabinet papers reveal
the
terms of reference were conceived months beforehand, and in secret.
That was
the beginning of inevitable distrust and opposition to the Government’s
plans,
from affected landholders, in particular.
The
promotion of a concept of “right to
roam” over private land naturally caused great alarm for landholders.
There was
also alarm among some, but not all, of those in the recreational
community.
They had not asked for this, and it had not been signalled in Labour’s
election
policies. What they wanted and expected was extension of the Queen’s
chain and
better defined accessways through private land, while avoiding mass
confiscation of property rights and resultant loss of landowner
goodwill.
The
terms of reference narrowed the
Government’s focus to just walking access,
rather than access
in general, and only in rural areas. It made no commitments to honour
promises
to extend the Queen’s chain, nor to fix the “exclusive capture”
problem.
Back
in 1996, when an Opposition MP, Mr
Sutton published a paper calling for a legislatively backed code of
public
access
to the countryside, irrespective of land ownership. He wished to sweep
aside
what he described as “the muddle of public-access emotions” on issues
such as
the tenure of pastoral leases, overseas investment, and the Queen’s
chain.
His
proposal was based on an erroneous
assertion that the Queen’s chain and other forms of public access
were “constructed on legal foundations of sand”. His deprecation of
existing
legal mechanisms appeared to be a strategy to sideline and overturn
them in
favour of his alternative. His appointees and officials have continued
espousing such a line.
In August
2003, the reference group
reported to the Government and just before last Christmas, the
Government
announced its response. A “right to roam” over private land will not be
pursued. The Queen’s chain will not be extended because now, “it’s not
appropriate”. Officials will not reveal the Government’s intention with
regard
to existing public rights: whether they stay unaltered or are
“overlaid” by the
restrictive rights of new entities called footways.
The proposals include:
Providing footways over private land, only 5m wide, along
the margin of water bodies “of significant access value”. The 30% of water
margins that are in private ownership are liable to be affected;
however, public margins could also be included (see below).
A right to deviate up to 20m from a water margin if there are obstructions; however, there will be no prohibitions of fencing and so on that may obstruct public passage.
No provision for formation of footways. There will only be rights to pass and repass if physically able to do so.
Prohibition of passage along a water margin if a building is within 20m, or a house within 50m. It is not difficult to envisage a rash of tin sheds appearing near waterways.
Permanent exclusions of the public and discretionary closures for up to 20 years for particular land uses, and for up to 90 days a year on any footway for other reasons.
Camping, dogs, firearms, vehicles and cycles are to be prohibited.
Identification of footways, taking three or more years of mapping and approvals.
Appeals could go as far as the Court of Appeal, with years more delay.
An enforceable “code of responsible conduct”, apparently with no distinction between public and private land. Officials have not revealed whether this will result in loss of existing public rights.
The
Government proposals are claimed to be
formulated under a principle of “high-quality access”,
meaning free of hindrance, enduring and certain. It is difficult to see
how
these proposed footways can qualify as high-quality access.
The
current national epidemic of waterside
subdivision development and intensified land use, including deer and
electric
fencing, will rapidly extinguish the worth of many footways. This
highlights the
fatal flaw in the Sutton approach: making only paper provision for
“access”,
without ensuring retention of open space suitable for recreation, free
of
obstruction.
Mr Sutton
describes the approach as
“farming without hindrance”. He said recently, “If you are a deer
farmer, you
can keep your big fences all the way to the waterway.”
Prevention
of private encroachment along
water margins is the central ethos behind Queen Victoria’s instructions
of
December 1840. That is what Labour is now reneging on.
The
Government’s approach is in marked
contrast to that of the proposed Clutha River Parkway. The entire river
corridor, from Lake Wanaka to the sea, is planned to be protected. In
the past
five years, onethird of access
to the river has been lost, due to extreme pressure from subdivision
development. The proponents of this scheme are not focusing just on
securing
public access,
as important as this is. They are also seeking protection of the river
corridor
as an attractive setting for recreation.
It
is not as if the Government is unaware
that management of the environment — and not just “access”
— is important for public recreation. Its inclusion of natural criteria
for
determining whether there are “significant access
values” warranting establishing footways is explicit recognition that
the
quality of the environment must be considered.
However,
its proposals deliberately steer
away from preventing anything that may reduce or destroy those values.
The
Government will no doubt imply that
this is solely the responsibility of local government. It is not. The
Government has an ongoing duty to reserve marginal strips from Crown
land and
to ensure local authorities are properly implementing esplanade
requirements
and planning controls over private land.
The
Government’s approach is a contrived
time-warp view of rural New Zealand: that the current open space will
always
remain so and no changes in land use or urbanisation will occur in
future. The
new footways over private land will likely prove to be an ineffectual
and
rapidly shrinking access
provision.
There are, however, worthwhile aspects to the Government’s review:
Providing more readily accessible information on public
access is the most far-reaching
proposal, provided this extends beyond walking access. Lack of definitive
information on the location of existing access ways and public reserves
is the biggest single deterrent to public enjoyment of the outdoors.
A contestable fund to enable the negotiation of public
access across private land to
footways, natural areas and public lands.
Acknowledgement public roads provide the most secure means
of access, with an implied
preference for government action.
An “access agency” to provide
national direction and leadership, to disseminate information, and to
develop the “code of conduct”, and a “land access
However,
too wide a role would be
counterproductive. The Department of Conservation, Land Information New
Zealand, and most local authorities would likely welcome an opportunity
to opt
out of their access
responsibilities.
None of
these measures requires the radical
new approach of footways over private land, and they should happen,
irrespective of whether new mechanisms are enacted or not.
The
thrust of the Government’s approach is
to project grand but misleading gestures that make easy headlines. The
most
disturbing example is its continuing claim that public access
over the Crown foreshore is “guaranteed”. In fact, the Government
enacted
provision for the exclusion of the public, reinforced by $5000 fines.
The
Government also claims the proposed
footways “guarantee access”.
Some of my recreational colleagues are of the view that “something is
better
than nothing”.
However,
the footway proposal has the
potential to be worse than nothing. It will likely undermine public
ownership
and security for public recreation over the Queen’s chain.
Privateers
within Treasury and elsewhere
will likely be clambering for privatisation under a flawed ideology
that
ownership of water margins does not matter, that all the public needs
is
“access”.
Backblocks
brouhaha . . . A fly fisher tries his luck on the Shag River, while
debate
rages about public access
to rivers on private land.
It is an amazing achievement that 70% of water margins were reserved in public ownership over a period of 165 years, writes BRUCE MASON in the second of his two-part contribution on land tenure and access issues. It is an achievement deserving of celebration, not deprecation.
EVER since organised British settlement of New Zealand began, as title was granted to settlers, provision was also made for public purposes and communications. Every title was to have "frontage" on to a public road, ensuring legal rights of access for the owner and also passage past the front gate for everyone else.
The Colonial Office clearly understood that no property based democracy could function without public highways connecting all properties and community places.
From the outset, land surveyors defined road lines for immediate use and made provision for anticipated future needs. In so doing, they also conveyed to all citizens rights of unhindered passage, developed through centuries of English common law.
It was Queen's Victoria's "Instructions" of December 1840 that set out Governor Hobson's duties in regard to settlement. He was required to set apart lands for a variety of public purposes, including for landing places, recreation and amusement, on the sea coast or in the neighbourhood of navigable streams. Queen Victoria enjoined that "not on any account, or on any pretence whatsoever, grant, convey, or demise to any person or persons any of the lands so specified - nor permit or suffer any such lands to be occupied by any private person for any private purposes".
It is noteworthy that there was no reference to "access" in these instructions. These reserves were envisaged for recreation and communications, the latter critically important for water transport, being the then primary means of effecting commerce.
It is also important to appreciate that the Crown could implement these instructions only over lands it owned. Maori lands were exempt. Therefore, any present-day notions that somehow the "Queen's Chain" is flawed and should be discarded, or considered "inappropriate" because there is incomplete coverage, are quite erroneous.
Since 1843, a succession of ordinances, regulations and Acts have being promulgated, not always consistently, to effect the royal instructions. The result today is a living legacy of settlement recorded in a Crown cadastral database (showing the extent and ownership of land). This provides the basis for a Crown guarantee of property boundaries and, consequently, title to private land. Our society could not function without this record.
The cadastral record documents a heritage of tens of thousands of kilometres of "Queen's Chain" (public roads and a variety of reserves) threading along water margins; countless public roads, formed and unformed, heading just about everywhere; and the boundaries of public reserves, which extend over a third of the country. All these differing designations carry with them different public rights of use, in recognition that different purposes are being served.
Provision of roads and reserves can be made only over time on an ad hoc basis. There was not, and could never be, a grand plan that could envisage all present and future needs for recreation, "access" or anything else.
The ad hoc nature of existing access provision is a central but misguided criticism advanced by associate rural affairs minister Jim Sutton. It is an amazing achievement that 70% of water margins were reserved in public ownership over a period of 165 years of ad hocracy. This is something deserving celebration, not deprecation.
This legacy and the continuing provision of public roads and reserves are largely fulfilling their intended purposes. However, changes are necessary to fix anomalies and deficiencies and to rectify poor official performance by central and local government.
Expansion is also necessary to accommodate a growing and increasingly diverse and urbanised society. It is not enough to claim that the status quo will do and that no change is necessary, as more vocal proponents of private property rights assert.
Disturbed by a lack of Government action, in 2002 Public Access New Zealand (PANZ) began preparing a national access strategy to demonstrate that there are a number of actions that could be taken relatively easily. This strategy was well advanced when Mr Sutton announced the appointment of a Land Access Reference Group.
Panz completed its strategy (available from www.publicaccessnewzealand.org) and submitted it to both the group and the Government as independent expert advice. Despite presenting fairly obvious steps that could be taken, to date, this has largely been ignored.
Forty-one actions were identified that would allow the Government to implement its election policies with minimal effect on private property rights. Three-quarters of these would entail only policy and resourcing decisions, or only minor legislative amendments.
The recommended actions include. –
Public information:
free and readily available access to the Crown cadastral database; the provision of printed and digital topographic maps (showing natural and artificial features) with overlaid public road and public land boundaries.
Public roads and paths:
signpost and way-mark useful unformed roads for foot, cycle or horse use; if necessary, relocate existing unformed roads to more convenient routes; dedicate new roads and paths to improve access to public lands and waters; require local authorities to assert and protect public rights of passage; make it an offence for failure to signpost
gates across formed public roads; make it an offence to erect misleading signs that contain false or misleading content deterring public use; and instigate government agency and public education on legal rights and responsibilities.
Queen's Chain:
review exemption provisions to ensure greater provision of esplanade reserves from subdivision of private land and marginal strips from Crown land; make all marginal strips, esplanade reserves and roads movable along water margins; extend triggers for creation of esplanade reserves and marginal strips to the sale of land to overseas owners.
Rivers and lakes:
prevent the sale or disposal of Crown owned river beds (currently no protection); create statutory rights of public recreation over river beds.
Fishing and hunting access:
amend Conservation and Wildlife Acts to make it an offence to sell or let the right of access to fish or to hunt game.
Beaches:
create statutory rights of foot and bathing recreation over foreshores (boating and fishing rights historically exist).
The latter recommendation was overwhelmed by events. It was never contemplated that Crown ownership would be challenged through the Courts. However, the convoluted balancing of interests that the Government enacted, while nominally ensuring Crown ownership, does not ensure public rights of recreation.
The strategy's recommended actions could achieve the Government's stated aims by tweaking existing legislation and by a mix of stick and carrot to government agencies and local authorities that have been performing poorly. Their poor performance is the primary reason for current difficulties.
The farming sector's response to the Government's proposals has varied from complete rejection, with denial that there is any need for change, to an alternative of a code of conduct and negotiation of improved access across private land. An initiative from Federated Farmers, in June 2004, gave some hope that issues could be addressed with landowner support.
The Federation wanted "buy-in" from national recreational organisations to a code for foot access over private land. However, most were reluctant to subscribe while the form of the Government's package was unknown. Most believe that the Government must play the central role; that it cannot be left to the private sector. However, there is a range of views as to the degree of state intervention that is desirable.
Among the recreation sector, there is a long memory of ineffectual initiatives for voluntary negotiation of access ways over private land. For instance, despite more than 30 years of effort and goodwill between farmer and recreational representatives, very few New Zealand walkways have been opened or remain over private land.
The unfortunate reality is that, unless tied to some statutory approval like tenure review or subdivision consent, or exchange of lands or compensation, very little is likely to be achieved. Also, the initial proposal from Federated Farmers did not recognise that additional public reserves are required; that public recreation is more than just providing "access".
A convergence of views has subsequently occurred. Federated Farmers now recognises that there should be a stock-taking of existing access provision (the Reference Group failed to do this); greater availability of public information about existing public reserves, Queen's Chain and public roads; and on-the-ground identification of existing access such as roads and marginal strips.
This fits with the PANZ objective of maintaining clear distinctions between public and private land so that there are secure public rights of access and recreation over defined areas of the countryside while maintaining owners' rights to control who goes on to their property.
There is, however, a pressing need for a shake-up of the bureaucracy and for some tinkering with the law. It is in this direction that the Government should be heading if its legacy is to be remembered as beneficial and enduring.
Bruce Mason, of Public Access NZ, is an experienced commentator and respected researcher on land access issues.
Otago
Daily Times 22/6/05
Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand (FMC) says the Federated Farmers “Action Orange” campaign is short-sighted and shallow. The President of FMC, Brian Stephenson, says farming lobbyists would do better to work on constructive solutions, instead of providing only a negative, short-term emotional response.
Federated Farmers today concludes a week-long campaign of opposition to the Acland Committee’s proposals for improving walking access to significant recreation and conservation areas. FMC supports the Acland proposals, because some important conservation areas are surrounded by private land, with no long-term guarantee of access.
Mr Stephenson described the Acland Committee’s proposals as “far-sighted and sensitive to the competing interests, including those of farmers. The proposals can be made to work well, if the main players approach the task with goodwill,” he said.
“The proposals emphasise farm-by-farm negotiated solutions, not a ‘one size fits all’ approach,” Mr Stephenson said. “There would be little or no impact on day-to-day farming.”
Mr Stephenson said there is tremendous goodwill between farmers and trampers, going back several generations. “Instead of harnessing this goodwill and moving forward, Federated Farmers seems content to fire cheap shots. Words like ‘confiscation’ are emotive, unhelpful and inaccurate,” he said. “Federated Farmers would provide better leadership to its members if it were to take a long-term view and support efforts to find a good solution. It does not seem to have a focus beyond the next election,” he said.
“Tomorrow, when the tub-thumping speeches are over and the ribbons come down, the problem of high country access will still be there,” Mr Stephenson said. “If the Acland proposals do not go forward, 10 years from now New Zealanders will look back with sadness at a lost opportunity. Right now, the second worst option is to do nothing. The worst option is to torpedo anyone who tries to solve the problem.“
Brian Stephenson
President
Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand.
Thursday,
23 June 2005
“Arrogant, selfish and anti-kiwi” is how Fish & Game New Zealand described plans next week by Federated Farmers to close farm gates, tie ribbons on them and deny the public access.
“They are trying to stop public access to public resources – waterways and fisheries,” says Bryce Johnson, Fish & Game New Zealand spokesperson. “This is an extreme action and it will alienate the public.”
“The Queen’s Chain, access along waterway margins, is a heritage all New Zealanders share and should be able to enjoy. It is part of the country’s founding principles. All the Government is trying to do is find a way to complete the Queen’s Chain along the remaining 30% of water bodies that don’t have one in a manner which is fair to both the community and landowners, and here is a selfish section of the community trying to deny our unique heritage. The land access reforms do not remove land from the title of farms, or affect normal farming operations. And the reforms exclude guns and dogs.”
“Besides the Queen’s Chain already exists on many properties without any attributable problems to its existence. And criminals, by definition, are not concerned by access rights or laws.”
“Trampers, canoeists, rafters, big game hunters, four wheel drive enthusiasts, anglers, and mums and dads who want to take their kids on a picnic by the river and go for a swim, should be up in arms at this selfish and alarmist grandstanding by Federated Farmers.”
“The Feds also neglected to mention that New Zealand’s large network of unformed ‘paper roads’, which belong to the public, have been effectively confiscated through defacto ownership by landowners when in fact they are public rights-of-way. How fair is it when a paper road – a public road - has a farm fence or farm building built across it?”
“Federated Farmers deny that access to the countryside is a problem in the same way they denied ‘Dirty Dairying’ and were proven wrong. Perhaps they are more concerned about the public seeing more examples of the negative agricultural impacts on the environment that have recently been revealed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.”
Says Mr Johnson: “There are now cases where landowners have effectively ‘captured’ public resources, such as rivers and fisheries, for private commercial use by blocking public access. The existing mechanisms to increase public access through the creation of marginal strips and esplanade reserves through subdivisions, are simply not working.”
“An increasing number of overseas people are buying our land, bringing a completely foreign attitude to public access. Similarly our countryside is becoming more and more urbanised with lifestyle blocks springing up everywhere. Traditional public access is being closed down.”
“The Feds talk about property rights being taken away. It is time they realised that there has never been an absolute right to property in the cities or countryside. There is no private property right to freshwater fisheries, wildlife, natural water or paper roads – they belong to the public! They are also wrong about liability. There is no liability upon landowners for people they do not know are on their land.”
“No one is asking for ‘wander-at-will’ or a ‘right-to-roam’. All that is being contemplated here is a public right to walk along the 30% of rivers and lakes that do not already have a Queen’s Chain. Everything else would be by negotiation. And many farms will be of absolutely no interest to the recreating public.”
“Why should the public have to ask permission to exercise a basic right?”
ENDSThursday
June 16, 2005
Media Release
Federated Farmers campaign to
lock-out the public from access to the outdoors and to try and stop the
completion of the Queen's Chain begins today.
"The Queen's Chain is part of our national identity and every Kiwi's
birthright," says Bryce Johnson, Fish & Game New Zealand
spokesperson,
"and here we have one segment of society trying to deny it. Seventy
percent of the Queens Chain already exists and thirty percent of it
remains to
be completed. The proposals will not remove landowner's title, provide
protection for the privacy of landowners, and it will increase access
to
rivers, streams and lakes for all New Zealanders".
"Ever since Federated Farmers drove a tractor up the steps of
Parliament
they think they can pull off a stunt like this and dictate their own
views to
the rest of the community."
"Public access to the outdoors is in need of urgent reform," says Mr
Johnson. "The current laws governing access are a confusing mish-mash.
There is little information for outdoor recreationalists in terms of
published
information, maps and signs. The existing mechanisms to increase public
access
through the creation of marginal strips and esplanade reserves through
subdivisions, have been glacially slow and inadequate. We are seeing
the rapid
growth of lifestyle blocks which hinder access, and cases of 'exclusive
capture' by landowners of waterways for commercial ends. Vast networks
of
publicly owned unformed 'paper roads' are being denied to the public -
especially because they remained unmarked."
"Federated Farmers are trying to revert New Zealand back to the landed
gentry attitudes that the early settlers came here to escape."
"The land access reform proposals are pretty moderate, and achieve a
balance between public and landowners rights. We are only talking about
'walking
rights' to those waterways where no Queens Chain already exists, and
then only
some which have an identified access value. There will, in fact, be a
huge
amount of farm land the public will have no interest in whatsoever."
"Where the Queens Chain needs to be completed it is a five metre access
strip on waterways, which have an access value, and it does not come
out of the
title to the land. There will be a 'Code of Conduct' with legal
authority to
require responsible recreation, and to ensure landowners privacy, and
protection of stock."
Says Mr Johnson: "The Government proposals are about 'walking rights'.
The
proposals do not include guns, dogs, or vehicles. It is creating an
opportunity
to walk up the margins of waterways that do not have a Queen's Chain
and then,
separately negotiate access across to them with the landowners."
17/06/2005
NewstalkZB
Fish and Game New Zealand believes the debate over land access has been overblown.
President Bryce Johnson says Federated Farmers has over-pitched its argument over land access legislation.
The organisation yesterday launched its campaign to stop the government changing its land access law.
Farmers will shut their gates with orange ribbon to members of the public.
The organisation says the public should not be allowed to roam over private land to get access to the "Queen's Chain" of beaches and waterways.
Mr Johnson says the issue is actually a relatively minor one.
He says 70 percent of New Zealand's rivers have Queen's Chain now, so this is only about increasing access to those which remain.
He says even then, only areas which have access value are involved.
17 June 2005
A proposal to change the law to ensure access to significant waterways does not affect ownership, Prime Minister Helen Clark said today as farmers continued to protest against it.
Protesting Farmers throughout the country yesterday closed their land to the public for a week after Associate Rural Affairs Minister Jim Sutton said the Government would introduce access legislation - before the election - to ensure the public could walk to and along significant waterways.
Miss Clark said the proposal did not affect farmers' ownership.
"It doesn't impact on their property rights at all," she told Radio Live.
"It's not about access to farmland it's about access to significant waterways."
The proposed change would see new 5m-wide access strips for people to walk along all significant waterways not just those covered by a Queen's Chain - an already existing provision where a 20m strip of land along waterways is open to the public.
Miss Clark said many farms had waterways running through them that were covered by the Queen's Chain.
"The problem for the poor old public is they don't know where it is and where it isn't and that impedes on access rights," she said.
Mr Sutton had been fighting for years to clarify the situation.
Miss Clark said the majority of the population now lived in towns and cities and should be able to walk alongside a river bank if that was the way to a forest park, for example.
Her family had a farm which had a large Queen's Chain creek running through it.
"It wasn't actually that practical for people to walk along the bank because of vegetation and DOC (Department of Conservation) negotiated with my father a walkway that went along a fence line - we never had a single problem."
Under the changes a commission would do negotiations.
NZPA
23 June 2005
Federated Farmers has misjudged
its orange-ribbon ribbon protest against giving walkers access to
rivers on
farm land, says Agriculture Minister Jim Sutton.
"The existing mechanisms governing public access to waterways - colloquially known as the Queen's Chain - are extremely important to all New Zealanders," he said.
"It's part of our cultural tradition."
The big Federated Farmers lobby - which has 18,000 members - plans to stage a mass protest in Wellington today against the Government's walkway plans.
Farmers will gather at 11am outside the railway station in the central city and march to Parliament, led by pallbearers carrying two symbolic orange caskets.
Myrtle the tractor - which achieved notoriety when MP Shane Adern drove it up Parliament's steps at a 2003 protest - is expected to be at the front of the march.
During an applegrowers' protest yesterday Myrtle and about 33 other tractors were kept outside Parliament's gates.
A petition will be presented to the Government at 1pm on the steps of Parliament.
Mr Sutton said yesterday that New Zealanders felt strongly about access to water, and that people should have access to their commonly-owned assets of water and the animals living in it.
But he said people would not be allowed to wander willy-nilly wherever they liked across private land.
The 5m walkways were proposed only for where there was no existing Queen's Chain, and would not change the 22m-wide Queen's Chain. Rather, they would address gaps in access to beaches, rivers, and lakes.
There would be little or no impact on farming operations from the policy, and costs such as signage would be borne by a proposed access commission. Farmers could continue to use their land as they wanted.
"We do not want people near homes or farm buildings," he said. "The policy creates buffer zones to ensure that."
Federated Farmers is finishing a week-long protest in which supporters tied orange ribbons on the gates of their properties, and restricted access by visitors.
But reports from some regions such as Taranaki have indicated relatively low levels of participation in street protests.
In New Plymouth, fewer than 20 vehicles turned up for a demonstration over the access issue, compared with 60 for a protest in 2003 against the so-called "fart tax" research levy on greenhouse gas emissions.
NZPA
BRUCE
Mason is a long-time advocate of public access
.
However in his articles (ODT, 21.6.05 and 22.6.05) he appears to be a
bit
confused about what the Government is proposing in the walking access
policy.
The
proposed 5m walkway along significant waterways is to be put in place
only
where there are no existing access
mechanisms, i.e., there is a gap in the Queen’s chain. It does not
replace the
Queen’s chain, or affect in any way currently existing access
mechanisms.
So,
rest assured, I and the Government have no intention to
privatise the Queen’s chain. Rather, we wish to preserve access
to waterways until such a time — through sale to foreigners or
subdivision — as
a Queen’s chain can be put in place.
Jim Sutton
Associate Minister of Rural Affairs,
Wellington
24.06.05 NZ Herald
By Kevin Taylor
Agriculture Minister
Jim Sutton talked tough to farmers protesting against new land access
rules
yesterday - but signs are emerging that legislation introducing the
controversial changes may not be seen until after the election.
Mr Sutton has been accused of inflaming farmers after ridiculing the
size of
the Federated Farmers protest outside Parliament and telling one
protester she
was "a joke".
The protest drew about 200 people - a third the size of an
apple-growers' march
the day before - and was the culmination of Federated Farmers' "Access
Orange" campaign opposing the proposed rules.
A Government source has now suggested it is unlikely the legislation
will be
introduced to Parliament before the election.
Mr Sutton told Parliament later that the bill would be tabled when it
was
ready, and went on to list policy issues that still needed clarifying,
such as
the mechanisms for negotiating compensation.
The protesters marched to Parliament from the Wellington Railway
Station
carrying a 29,000-signature petition opposing the proposal for a new
agency to
negotiate 5m walkway strips beside significant bodies of water.
They also carried two orange coffins symbolising the "death of property
rights".
But Mr Sutton ridiculed the size of the crowd when he met the marchers
outside
Parliament.
To jeers and abusive chants, he said: "[Do you] want me to carry on, or
should I wait until the rest of you have parked your cars and caught
up.
"When Federated Farmers agree that they can hold a meeting without
running
around and telling everything that was said to the Opposition parties,
we can
talk about it some more. Have a nice day."
Protester Annie Carmichael shouted at Mr Sutton that the issue was not
a joke.
"You're a joke," the minister fired back.
Asked later in Parliament by Act leader Rodney Hide if he would
apologise to
her, Mr Sutton said: "The member's friend was attempting to shout me
down
after I had been invited to address the crowd.
"I gave as good as I got, and if people think it's all right to dish it
out they should be prepared to take it and stop whingeing afterwards."
Federated Farmers president Tom Lambie said later that Mr Sutton's
attitude was
likely to inflame farmers, and if the Government did not listen
protests would
escalate.
"We certainly expect the Government to listen to this ... There was a
pretty clear indication there that they weren't."
Federated Farmers used the protest to release a "visitor access
protocol" to solve the impasse with the Government. The protocol
proposes
that visitors ask farmers for access.
National Party leader Don Brash said a National government would ensure
farmers
kept the right to determine who had access to their land.
But Federated Mountain Clubs called the farmers' campaign
short-sighted,
president Brian Stephenson saying if the policy did not go ahead, 10
years from
now New Zealanders would look back with sadness at a lost opportunity.
Why farmers oppose planned land access rules:
* Personal security and privacy.
* Impact on farming operations.
* Uncertainty over liability issues.
* Biosecurity risks.
* Cost for farmers from public access.
Wellington: Federated Farmers has misjudged its orange-ribbon protest against giving walkers access to rivers on farm land, says Agriculture Minister Jim Sutton.
“The
existing mechanisms governing public access to waterways — colloquially
known as the Queen’s Chain — are extremely important to all New
Zealanders,” he
said.
“It’s
part of our
cultural tradition.”
The big
Federated
Farmers lobby — which has 18,000 members — plans to stage a mass
protest in
Wellington today against the Government’s walkway plans.
Farmers
will gather at
11am outside the railway station in the central city and march to
Parliament,
led by pallbearers carrying two symbolic orange caskets.
Myrtle
the tractor —
which achieved notoriety when MP Shane Adern drove it up Parliament’s
steps at
a 2003 protest — is expected to be at the front of the march.
During an
apple
growers’ protest yesterday Myrtle and about 33 other tractors were kept
outside
Parliament’s gates.
A
petition will be
presented to the Government at 1pm on the steps of Parliament.
Mr Sutton
said
yesterday New Zealanders felt strongly about access to water, and that
people
should have access to their commonly-owned assets of water and the
animals
living in it.
But he
said people
would not be allowed to wander willy-nilly, as they liked, across
private land.
The 5m
walkways were
proposed only where there was no existing Queen’s Chain, and would not
change
the 22m-wide Queen’s Chain. Rather, they would address gaps in access
to
beaches, rivers, and lakes.
There
would be little
or no impact on farming operations from the policy, and costs such as
signage
would be borne by a proposed access commission. Farmers could continue
to use
their land as they wanted.
“We do
not want people
near homes or farm buildings,” he said. “The policy creates buffer
zones to
ensure that.”
Federated Farmers is
finishing a week-long protest in which supporters tied orange ribbons
on the
gates of their properties, and restricted access by visitors. — NZPA
Press Release: New Zealand National Party 23 June 2005
National Party Leader Don Brash has pledged to end the erosion of private property rights and says a National Government will ensure farmers maintain the right to determine who has access to their land and under what circumstances.
He was commenting at the Federated Farmers march on Parliament, in protest at Labour's proposed right-to-roam legislation.
"This is the single biggest issue facing rural New Zealand and Labour knows it. That's why Helen Clark and Jim Sutton are trying so desperately to sweep it under the carpet until after the election.
"But the Budget small print says it all - $2 million set aside for the implementation of the policy. That sends a very clear message - if Labour is re-elected, public access to private land will become a reality.
"Labour is under increasing pressure from its Maori caucus to exempt Maori land from these access provisions. That would be an extraordinary double-standard, even for Labour."
Dr Brash says most farmers are happy for responsible hunters, trampers and recreational fishers to cross their land after seeking permission.
"The protection of private property rights is at the core of any true democracy. National will not allow those rights to be trampled on, nor will we allow the safety and security of stock, lives and rural families to be compromised.
"Helen Clark wants to walk all over rural New Zealanders. National will not let that happen."
Ends
Rodney Hide Thursday, 23 June 2005 Press Releases - Rural
ACT Leader Rodney Hide said today that Don Brash was right to equate the protection of our freedom and democracy with the defence of private property rights. The three go hand in hand.
“But Don Brash’s National Party must back their talk with their votes.
“Last August every National MP, including Don Brash, voted for Nick Smith’s bill to pinch land from framers selling their land to overseas buyers.
“A land grab is a land grab, whether it’s done by Labour or National.
“I am pleased National are joining ACT in opposing Labour’s land grab. But to back National’s talk, Don Brash needs to publicly condemn Nick Smith’s bill that’s a land grab worse than what Labour proposes,” Mr Hide said.
ENDS
Gerry Eckhoff ACT New Zealand
Thursday, 23 June 2005
Press Releases - Rural
Address to Land Access protest; Parliament Grounds, Wellington; Thursday, 23 June 2005; 1pm.
This land is your land, not the Labour’s Party’s.
Thank you all for coming to Parliament to deliver that message to Helen Clark and her Labour Party caucus today.
Labour’s land grab is the biggest threat rural New Zealand has faced in recent times. It’s a direct attack on the property rights of farmers.
This anti-farmer government has treated farmers like a cash cow it can milk whenever it likes. It has failed rural communities.
Remember the Fart Tax? School closures? The 111 debacle? Hiked up ACC levies? Petrol taxes going up and up? And now land access.
This issue isn’t about public access to private land. That’s already happening. It is about property rights, and a government that wants to remove, by legislation, the right of farmers to say who may or may not enter their property.
Last Friday Helen Clark said the access legislation wouldn’t impact on the property rights of farmers. That’s rubbish! Comments like that go to show just how out of touch Labour is with the rural community.
How would Helen Clark like it if a government passed legislation allowing people to walk all over her Mt Albert property? Answer: She wouldn’t! And there’s a word for that and its starts with H.
Helen Clark’s land grab would make Robert Mugabe and his mob in Zimbabwe blush! She is stealing you and your family’s right to quiet enjoyment of your property, with compensation all but ruled out.
That’s theft!
Helen Clark is endangering farmers’ personal safety and security - and that of their families, by pushing through this legislation. It’s ludicrous for Labour to say it won’t lead to an increase in rural crime - just ask Peter Bentley and Agnes Nicholas, who both attended an ACT public meeting on rural crime in Rotoura earlier this month. It’s good to see Agnes here supporting today’s protest.
Labour says they have consulted farmers over land access. That’s a lie. How do I know that? Because ACT wrote to 180,000 farmers and asked them whether Labour had consulted them. Ninety-seven precent wrote back and said they hadn’t heard a peep.
Let’s take a moment to examine where the other parties stand on land access. I’m not going to bother about Labour, we know their position. United Future supports Labour’s land grab, while NZ First is on record in the Rural News as saying access is nothing more than a side issue.
National, if it were really serious about property rights, would oppose Nick Smith’s Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill, which is itself a land grab. National, alongside Labour and Green MPs, voted for this bill which requires ‘consideration to be given to issues of public access’.
That leaves ACT. We stand foursquare with farmers against Labour’s attack on property rights. After all, ACT is the property rights party. Standing up for private property rights for ACT is a matter of principle. It’s not something that we do just because it’s election year. It’s why I stood for Parliament in the first place.
ACT is the only party that backs private property rights 100 percent. We have a plan to protect farmers’ land from the greedy grasp of Helen Clark and her Fish & Game mates. We won't let them get away with daylight robbery. ACT will continue to stand up for Rural New Zealand.
This election you have two votes. ACT is only asking for one of them - the Party Vote. A Party Vote for ACT is a vote for the protection of property rights and a vote for change.
Thank you.
ENDS
Dear David
I read the article in the Rural News magazine recently, which quoted you on the public access issue. I thought you might be interested in the Green Party policy on public access, which is part of our conservation policy (section 7). I've pasted it below, or you can find the whole policy at http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy8789.html
Louise Norton
Assistant
Jeanette Fitzsimons Office
Parliament
Green Party of Aotearoa/New Zealand
Ratified
9th June 2005
For further information, contact Jeanette Fitzsimons MP, Green Party
Conservation Spokesperson or the Policy Co-convenors,
policy@greens.org.nz.
7. Public Access to the conservation estate
There are concerns that access to conservation land, waterways and the coast is being made difficult for the general public. The Green Party supports public access to Conservation Estates and will:
1. When conservation values are upheld, support the public having walking access to the conservation estate.
2. Support the creation of a public access commissioner to:
a. Build relationships between landowners and land users.
b. Develop a code of conduct alongside the Department of Conservation, local government, and land owners (including iwi), and other agencies/organisations as appropriate with strong penalties for breaches.
c. Provide financial support for landowners who need to erect signs and fence their properties.
d. Work with the Department of Conservation on this issue of access and any resulting conservation issues.
e. Liaise with the Waitangi Tribunal to determine if land may be under a claim or investigation.
f. Ensure access to paper roads is maintained by resolving complaints about the obstruction of paper roads.
g. Provide community mediation and work with councils and assist them to enforce the law and provide appropriate signage.
h. Research and collect information from the public about land access issues, including difficulties.
i. Two years after its establishment, report to Parliament about whether there is a need for legislation to resolve issues and improve public access to land.
j. Facilitate public access to New Zealand outdoors and iconic lands by ensuring existing paper roads remain open and adequately marked.
21.06.05 NZ Herald
They're out there -
orange ribbons tied to farm gates and signs that read "ask before you
walk".
In song, one yellow ribbon was a sign of welcome. "Do you still want
me?" sang Tony Orlando and his love did, emphasising the degree by
tying a
hundred ribbons around that ole oak tree.
The orange ribbon protest organised by Federated Farmers, which is set
to
culminate in a petition delivered to Parliament on Thursday, conveys
the
opposite message.
Should a walker come down a country road humming that "I'm comin' home,
I've done my time, I've got to know what is and isn't mine," they will
find - according to the Feds - that it isn't the publicly owned rivers,
beaches
and bush surrounded by farmers' land.
The farmer lobby group's Action Orange protest, launched at last week's
Agriculture Fieldays, has been sparked by Government plans to introduce
a bill
to Parliament before the election.
It would establish an agency, dubbed the Access Commission, and a
process by
which access across private property to significant public waterways
could be
negotiated for walkers.
Rural Affairs Minister Jim Sutton says the aim is to ensure all New
Zealanders
have free and secure access along the coast, rivers, lakes and
mountains while
respecting the interests of property owners.
Farmers, says Fed president Tom Lambie, see the proposal as a
confiscation of
their property rights and are alarmed at the increased risk it poses to
their
security and livelihoods.
Likening their farms to a factory floor, the Feds, who represent 18,000
of the
country's 70,000 farmers, say landowners should have the final say on
who
crosses them, when and under what conditions. And, providing walking
access
quickly leads to demand for everything from dogs and guns to vehicles
to be
allowed in.
Generally, farmers feel the system ain't broke so don't try to fix it.
They reckon 92 per cent of farmers - when asked - already allow
visitors to
cross their farms and because of increasing concerns about crime,
biosecurity,
health, safety, and cost they should retain the right to be judge and
jury on
access.
But two years ago a fellow farmer concluded things were indeed broken
and some
fixing was necessary.
John Acland of Mt Peel Station, near Geraldine, a former chairman of
the Meat
Board, headed a committee set up in January 2003 to examine walking
access in
the New Zealand outdoors.
It concluded that current legislation and other arrangements were
inflexible
and insufficient to meet the expectations for access now and in the
future and
a better approach was needed.
When I spoke to Acland yesterday the Fed protest had just gone past his
Geraldine door. Two years after his report was finished its recommended
negotiated process had not started and he was disappointed and
frustrated that
things had got to this sorry state.
Acland sympathised with the Feds but said: "If nothing is done, in 10
to
20 years' time there will be real issues of access. They are issues
that need
resolving."
The Feds might claim that 92 per cent of farmers allowed access but he
challenged the organisation to deal with the 8 per cent of farmers who
did not.
The number of farmers blocking access was rising and it was arguably
their
properties that surrounded the significant waterways to which access
was
wanted, he said.
In the Waikato, prominent farmer Bill Garland has not hung out his
orange
ribbon and in recent days has, as usual, allowed several groups to
cross his
property, which borders Mt Maungatautari.
The Feds protest is raising important issues but not, he believes,
about
property rights.
The problem is one of compatibility between recreational interests and
farming,
he believes. It's one that is becoming increasingly fraught.
It's good that townies explore the countryside and potentially
reacquaint
themselves with rural life and work but that needs to be balanced with
rising
pressures on farmers to meet product quality assurance standards, he
says.
In fact, Garland believes the growing web of regulations in which
farmers
increasingly find themselves has sparked the Action Orange protest. The
access
issue has become a flashpoint.
The Government needs to strengthen the relationship between
recreational land
users and farmers, he believes.
As the proposed Access Commission looms as yet another money-gobbling
bureaucracy, it behoves more of us to contribute to a solution for our
walks in
the park and beyond.
The alternative? "Stay on the bus, forget about us, put the blame on me
... "
Government is to be commended for its decision to defer new access legislation until after the election. This is a mature, reasoned decision based on the need to reconsider and refine several proposals, according to outdoor recreation advocate, Public Access New Zealand.
PANZ spokesman, Bruce Mason, says that his organisation wishes to contribute to any further consultation with Government.
"The need for additional and improved and secure access remains. We are convinced it is possible to come up with proposals that would be acceptable to the big majority of concerned and interested parties, both in the public and private arenas".
The decision to not progress the most contentious parts of the proposals will allow all parties a very good chance to get it right.
PANZ believes that much could be
achieved prior to the election, without the necessity for further
legislation.
"For instance there is a dearth public information about the location
of
public roads, the Queen's chain and other public reserves that could be
easily
satisfied," Mr Mason concluded.
ENDS.
Federated Farmers welcomes the government reopening consultation on its controversial access reforms, said John Aspinall, the land access spokesman for Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Inc).
The government said in a brief statement today it would carry out more consultation with major stakeholders "in search of greater consensus" on public access.
"The prospect of more consultation is applauded. Federated Farmers will make the most of this opportunity to convince government why legislated right of access across private land is unacceptable to land owners, and explain how the reforms will restrict rather than improve public access," Mr Aspinall said.
"Though the media is reporting that the government has backed down from its reforms, we are not so sure. It is highly possible that the current reforms will re-emerge with very few changes. The proposals might be on the backburner, but they are not off the stove," Mr Aspinall said.
"In future consultation, we will be asking the government to first prove that there is a problem with the existing arrangement whereby the public first asks for access, and it is very nearly always granted.
"If there are problems with access, let's identify them on a case-by-case basis and work through ways of improving access using a voluntary mechanism," Mr Aspinall said.
Federated Farmers last week launched a voluntary Visitor Access Protocol to assist land owners manage visitors who want to access private land, and clarify the responsibilities of both owners and visitors.
"In further consultation we will also be insisting that the proposed access agency should be a voluntary organisation, like the highly successful QE II Trust.
"We said last week that the Action Orange campaign has not ended. It will continue until the government ditches its policy of allowing anybody, no matter their character or intent, to walk on private land. Farmers are absolutely opposed to this confiscation of their property rights, and alarmed at the increased risk posed to their security and livelihoods," he said.
Many urban people (according to the New Zealand Herald poll published today), the Law Society, other land owner groups, and some recreational groups share these concerns. For more information on the Action Orange campaign or Visitor Access Protocol, see www.fedfarm.org.nz
ENDS
David Carter MP National Party Agriculture Spokesman
National Party Agriculture spokesman David Carter says "Labour's retreat on its land access proposals are a clear sign that we're all now the playthings for a desperate, decaying and directionless Government.
"If Labour and Jim Sutton had the courage of their convictions they would have been brave enough to make this an election issue. A jellyfish has more spine," says Mr Carter, commenting on the decision not to push land access legislation before the election.
"But how stupid does Jim Sutton think we all are?
"Labour has only sidelined this issue for the time being. Farmers can expect it'll be back on the agenda if Helen Clark's anti-farmer gang get back into Government.
"A Budget allocation of $2 million a year for the next three years to advance the law is still there.
"Labour is clearly planning to resuscitate this issue at a more convenient time, given that Helen Clark has made it very clear that she favours this land access land grab.
"National won't have a bar of it.
"No farmer in the country now trusts Labour, which is getting further and further out of touch with our rural communities.
"To call people's genuine concerns 'selfish' as Mr Sutton has, is typical of the arrogant attitude Labour takes to rural issues.
"It's the fart tax all over again and more evidence of Labour's poll-driven, directionless drift," says Mr Carter.
ENDS
Rodney Hide Press Releases - Rural
It’s not good enough that Labour has shelved its land grab, it must scrap it altogether, ACT Leader Rodney Hide and Rural Affairs spokesman Gerry Eckhoff said today.
“Property rights must be respected,” Mr Hide said.
“Gerry has run a fantastic campaign against Labour’s land grab, holding public meetings up and down rural New Zealand, and asking the tough questions in Parliament. He stopped the Fart Tax dead in its tracks, and he’s done the same with Labour’s latest attack on rural communities.
“I only hope the National Party follows Labour’s lead and dumps National MP Nick Smith’s Private Member’s Bill that also grabs private land for public access,” Mr Hide said.
“Labour has been completely out of touch on this issue. Unlike Helen Clark, most New Zealanders believe landowners’ property rights must be respected,” Mr Eckhoff said.
“They understand that access isn’t a problem, with most farmers happy to grant access through their land to waterways if asked first.
“Labour’s proposal to legislate away a farmer’s right to say who may or may not enter their property, without compensation, is theft.
“I urge Federated Farmers not to give an inch to Jim Sutton in their negotiations with him. He has proven time and again that he cannot be trusted to stand up for the best interests of farmers, who he is supposed to advocate for at the Cabinet table. They must demand Labour scraps its access plans altogether - no more, no less.
“Labour’s embarrassing back down shows why farmers must give ACT their Party Vote this election. Unlike the other parties who just pay lip service to the rural community, we stand up and fight for them,” Mr Eckhoff said.
ENDS
United Future's Larry Baldock today urged the Government to press on with the proposed public access bill before the election.
"United Future is confident the basics in the Bill are fair and reasonable and any further fine-tuning can occur during the select committee stage," Mr Baldock said. "That is why submissions are called for.
"After this lengthy process has finally arrived at some decent proposals, now is not the time to get cold feet because of a misinformation campaign launched by an ACT party desperate for votes.
"We have always said that we would support a reasonable solution. Now its up to the Government."
Last week United Future slammed the Government for a growing list of issues that it is putting into the 'too hard' basket as the election approaches.
"This is yet another one. How about some real leadership from Labour?" Mr Baldock said.
ENDS
Farmers cheering a victory over the Government's land
access plans may have
brought an even bigger problem on themselves - the mapping of paper
roads.
Agriculture Minister Jim Sutton has deferred legislation to take farmland for five-metre-wide riverside walkways till after the election and promised another round of consultations on the issue.
Federated Farmers, the lobby group that organised a week-long "Action Orange" protest that culminated with the presentation of a 26,000-signature petition during a noisy protest at Parliament last week, was yesterday welcoming the prospect of more consultation.
Spokesman John Aspinall said he did not believe it was a backdown. "It is highly possible that the current reforms will re-emerge with very few changes. The proposals might be on the backburner, but they are not off the stove."
Mr Sutton said the Government had run out of time to draft a bill. "The level of understanding of the proposal has not been sufficient to build enough consensus to really take this to a stage of putting legislation to the House."
He blamed some farmers and Opposition politicians for running a deliberate misinformation campaign to discredit the proposals. Farmers at last week's protest rally had talked about a right to roam over farmland, but he had been saying for more than a year that this would not be allowed.
However, he said he was determined to press ahead with mapping the many paper roads that ran through farmland. "No one really knows how many there are and many people will be surprised to find where they are and where they are not."
He wanted the map available for public use.
He denied the move was retaliation for the farmers' protests over access. The paper roads will give the public far wider access to some farmland than is proposed for the river walkways. The public has the legal right to use the roads, most of which date back to early last century and have long been incorporated into farming operations.
Mr Sutton said some district councils had more unformed roads than formed roads on their books. "I don't see the sense in fencing off and signposting every paper road, but where they can be used to get access to a waterway, or where they can be exchanged for access, then we should look at it."
The Government was determined to press ahead with the access bill after the election, he said. While consultation was under way, an Access Agency would be set up, mapping would start and a code of conduct written.
He also revealed that farmers who could prove access to waterways had reduced the value of their farm would be compensated.
National's agriculture spokesman David Carter said farmers would be unlikely to trust the Government's statements. "A budget allocation of $2 million a year for the next three years to advance the law is still there”
The
Dominion Post
29 June 2005
Some farmers are cheering a Government backdown over plans to increase public access to waterways.
The government said today there was "too much angst" to introduce the legislation before the election.
"You've made my day," Federated Farmers spokesman Kevin Mitchell said when told of the backdown.
The farm lobby has led a campaign against the planned legislation, and some last week tied orange ribbons to their gateways in a symbolic lockout of members of the public. They also staged a protest rally at Parliament, at which Agriculture Minister Jim Sutton was shouted down.
According to Federated Farmers vice president Charlie Pedersen, of Himitangi, farmers don't want "townies" given walkways on their land for the same reasons urban businesses have security guards and video surveillance - they don't trust some members of the public.
"People with businesses have found they cannot trust the public - and they're the same public that the Government are telling us, as farmers, that we can trust to come up and around our properties 24-hours-a -day," said Mr Pedersen.
Mr Mitchell said the backdown supported a poll done three or four months ago which showed high urban support for the farmers' stand.
"It's a tremendous blow for common sense."
Havelock North farmer Brian Chambers, whose Matangi Road farm has the Tukituki River as a boundary, said the backdown was good news.
"Legislation might be necessary in the future but the objection to this move was the way it was being rushed through in a way unsuitable to everyone.
"I hope they will go over any future legislation a bit more carefully with more input from those affected by it.
"They also need to be careful not to create a whole new set of problems with new legislation."
Mr Chambers said John Acland, in Mr Sutton's original ministerial working party, had put forward some good ideas in the original proposal but misinformation from both sides had polarised opinion too much.
He said exclusivity of land access, especially in parts of the South Island owned by foreigners, meant legislation would be needed at some stage.
Access to some areas of national significance needed legal protection but it was important to find a remedy that didn't make the situation worse, he said.
Mr Mitchell said Federated Farmers was not going to drop the issue before the election.
The rethink comes as a survey in an Auckland newspaper said 60 per cent of voters oppose the plan and means the Government will now try to initiate further consultation rounds in an attempt to win greater support.
Mr Sutton is promising compromises are on the table in exchange for good-faith negotiations.
He revealed that the Government had agreed in principle to pay compensation for "demonstrable loss of value" for any private land used to open up access to the coast, rivers and lakes - a key sticking point.
He accused Opposition politicians and groups such as Federated Farmers of conducting a campaign of misinformation about the policy and blamed its lack of support on a "new hardness, a new selfishness about society at the moment ... that doesn't really care much about community interests".
Mr Mitchell said the Federated Farmers' campaign highlighted many worst-case scenarios because the Government would not talk to them about the legislation.
"They wouldn't once talk about biosecurity, which was our worst fear. The Waiheke Island foot and mouth scare was (a) timely reminder of why we are so worried. This is a blow for the little fellow out in the sticks."
He said it was fashionable to take an extremist view in favour of private property rights at the expense of the protection of public rights.
The Government wanted to extend 5m walking-only access strips along significant waterways to protect access rights to public water.
Despite assertions to the contrary, there was no plan to introduce rights to roam anywhere on private land. Mr Sutton, who faced an angry farmer protest at Parliament last week, had pledged to introduce the legislation before the election.
NZPA
29 June 2005
National says the public should not trust a Government decision to shelve its plans to increase public access to waterways.
The Government's proposal to allow people across private land within 5m of significant waterways has generated heated opposition from farmers who see it as an invasion of their property rights.
Associate Rural Affairs Minister Jim Sutton has previously pledged to introduce the legislation before the election.
But Mr Sutton said yesterday that was now unlikely as there was "too much angst".
He also told an Auckland newspaper there would be further consultation on the plans and compromises would be on the table.
Mr Sutton said the Government had agreed in principle to pay compensation for "demonstrable loss of value" for any private land used to open up access to the coast, rivers and lakes - a key sticking point, the newspaper reported.
He would also consider introducing legislation on a piecemeal basis, beginning with the non-controversial proposals first.
Mr Sutton told the paper opposition MPs and groups such as Federated Farmers had run a campaign of misinformation about the policy and blamed its lack of support on people's "selfishness" and disinterest in "community interests".
But National deputy leader Gerry Brownlee told NZPA people's opposition to the plans were because there were deeply flawed.
Mr Sutton's comments showed how out of touch he was with those opposed to the plans.
Mr Brownlee said people should not trust the Government, which if it won the election would just force its plans into law.
"If they win, the provisions will be put in place without any further consultation at all.
"They've said very clearly they intend doing it and I suspect it will be farmers who will be the ones having to compromise."
The land access issue was the latest in a string of backtracks by the Government on issues which it believed could damage its voter support, Mr Brownlee said.
Other such issues were race-based funding and public school closures.
"It's just straight-out issue management from the 9th floor of the Beehive".
Mr Brownlee said National supported Federated Farmers position of a voluntary code where access would be granted where possible, but not when it interfered with business activities.
A survey by an Auckland newspaper showed 60 per cent of voters opposed allowing access over private farm land to reach rivers or lakes. Just 33.2 per cent supported the plans.
Mr Sutton told the paper the survey's question was not strictly accurate as access paths across private land would be created only after negotiation and a fund was proposed to be established to pay for the easements.
He said the public's opposition to the plans were a double standard when the public had held such a strong view in support of public access rights, over potential property rights, when it came to the foreshore and seabed.
He could not say when the legislation would now be introduced or in what form. The next step was to establish how a consultation process might proceed, a task he would start on immediately.
National agriculture spokesman David Carter said farmers had had "a gutsful" of Mr Sutton.
"First he proposed the ridiculous 'fart tax' and now this," he told NZPA.
"When Mr Sutton embarks on such stupid ideas as this, common sense prevails and even urban New Zealanders realise just how silly it is."
NZPA
Jun 29,
2005
The government has confirmed its controversial legislation to allow public access to waterways will not be tabled before the election.
Farmers have reacted angrily to the government's plans to negotiate access routes over farmland to significant waterways. They say such a law would infringe on their property rights.
Agriculture Minister Jim Sutton had hoped to introduce the legislation, which is currently being drafted, to parliament before the election. But a spokeswoman for Sutton says the bill will not be ready this term because it is "impossible to resolve the conflict" surrounding the issue in the time remaining.
"We are still committed to achieving free, practical, and certain access to the publicly owned rivers, lakes and beaches for all New Zealanders. However, because of complications around drafting, we are running out of time to initiate the parliamentary process to make this law," Sutton says.
Federated Farmers is counting the decision as a success of its Action Orange campaign.
Last Thursday Federated Farmers presented a 28,000 signature petition to parliament protesting against an erosion of their property rights.
Federated Farmers land access spokesman John Aspinall told the NZ Herald that the federation welcomed the chance to hold further talks and to proceed on some issues over which there was a mutual agreement.
Sutton says if Labour is re-elected it will pursue its bid to open up waterways to the public but will consult further on the issue.
"Government is now embarking on a further round of consultation among major stakeholders in search of greater consensus on a way forward in enhancing public access. We are confident that sufficient goodwill exists to make this possible," Sutton says.
Consultation has already been extensive.
In 2002 Sutton set up a ministerial group chaired by former Meat Board Chair John Acland. The group toured the country holding meetings and considered more than 1,000 submissions.
Opposition agriculture spokesman David Carter compared the government's backdown to successful farmer pressure on the so called fart tax in 2003, but Sutton says the government has not backed down.
TV One News
30 June 2005
By COLIN ESPINER
Legislation
allowing the public better access to waterways has been shelved until
after
this year's election, joining a growing pile of issues the Government
believes
are too hot to handle.
Labour yesterday backed down over its proposals to allow the public the right to walk over a narrow strip of private farmland to reach rivers, lakes and the coast in the face of vociferous opposition from some farmers and continued poor polling.
Agriculture Minister Jim Sutton said that while the Government remained committed to improving public access to waterways, it had decided to have a further round of consultation in search of greater consensus.
Sutton cited "drafting complications" in the new legislation for the decision, but agreed there had been "quite a bit of angst" over the Government's plans.
The proposed legislation joins a raft of other issues and potential law changes in Labour's "too hard" basket, including the drinking age, Transpower's new electricity corridor between Hamilton and Auckland, Georgina Beyer's Gender Identity Amendment Bill, vehicle emission-testing rules and use of cellphones while driving, changes to rural school bus services, the review of the constitution and the Treaty of Waitangi, marine reserves extension legislation and MP John Tamihere.
All are controversial issues that the Government has decided to delay dealing with until after the election.
National Party leader Don Brash said the move to sideline the land-access question could only be "a rather cynical move to defer something which could lose them votes".
"I was in the Waikato today, and certainly the people I saw up there were convinced it was a very cynical move," he said. "They don't believe for a moment that the Government has changed its policy on this question – it is simply kicking it beyond the election."
The other issues put on the backburner should be seen in the same light, he said.
The U-turn on land access coincides with the release of a New Zealand Herald DigiPoll that found 60 per cent of voters do not believe the public should be allowed access to waterways across private farmland. Just 33 per cent supported the idea.
The poll was the third in as many weeks showing Labour slipping behind National as the most popular party.
United Future said it was dismayed by Labour's decision on land access.
MP Larry Baldock urged the Government to press on with the proposed access bill before the election.
He said Labour was putting a growing list of issues into the "too hard" basket as the election approached.
"After this lengthy process has finally arrived at some decent proposals, now is not the time to get cold feet because of a misinformation campaign launched by an ACT party desperate for votes."
Sutton said yesterday that if re-elected, the Government would set up a commission to map where the public could now walk without restrictions and where there were access problems.
"We are still committed to achieving free, practical and certain access to the publicly owned rivers, lakes and beaches for all New Zealanders," Sutton said. "We are confident that sufficient goodwill exists to make this possible."
National and ACT said Labour's move was a delaying tactic. National's agriculture spokesman, David Carter, said Sutton appeared to think the public were stupid.
"If Labour and Jim Sutton had the courage of their convictions they would have been brave enough to make this an election issue," Carter said.
ACT MP Gerry Eckhoff said Labour must scrap the policy, describing it as theft.
"Labour has been completely out of touch on this issue," he said. "Unlike (Prime Minister) Helen Clark, most New Zealanders believe landowners' property rights must be respected."
The Government has spent nearly three years consulting on new access laws on private land. The policy was in its past two election manifestos.
In August 2003, a comprehensive report by the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group found the public were increasingly being denied access to waterways.
The group, led by Mount Peel farmer John Acland, recommended access rights should be restored through negotiation with farmers and, where necessary, compensation.
The Press
30 June 2005
By TERRY TACON
"Remember
the coffins" was the cry from a Taranaki farm leader yesterday as he
celebrated the Government's backdown on its controversial land access
proposals.
Taranaki Federated Farmers president Bryan Hocken warned if the Government reactivated the access issue after this year's election farmers throughout the country would be out protesting again.
Mr Hocken said he was bloody delighted at what appeared to be a victory for farmer power after associate Rural Affairs Minister Jim Sutton shelved plans to allow people to cross private land within five metres of significant waterways.
Farmers vehemently opposed the idea, calling it a land grab, and last Thursday marched on Parliament carrying a 29,000-signature petition in two orange-painted coffins that were made by Mr Hocken and Stratford joiner Graham Podjursky.
The coffins that gave such an effective focus to the protest had been left at the Himatangi farm of incoming Federated Farmers national president Charlie Pedersen and, if need be, could be quickly resurrected.
"They're a bit like the rope for a hanging that used to be left in the tree as a reminder to others," Mr Hocken said.
He was delighted with the eventual support that Taranaki farmers gave to last Thursday's march.
After an initial slow response, two busloads of Taranaki protesters went to the demonstration, which drew only about 200 marchers.
"What this Government needs to realise is the role farmers play in this country.
"Who won the Test the Nation contest on TV on Monday? Farmers.
"Who ran the country during the Holyoake years? Farmers.
"If it was still run by farmers, we wouldn't have half the nonsense that this Government has introduced. They've lost the plot."
Mr Sutton yesterday said the Government was still committed to achieving "free, practical and certain access" to the publicly-owned rivers, lakes and beaches for all New Zealand, but it was running out of time to initiate the parliamentary process to make this law before the election.
"If they are simply taking it off the agenda to remove it as an election issue, then we'll be back on the steps of Parliament and there will be a lot more of us next time," Mr Hocken promised.
Mr Sutton said the Government would embark on a further round of consultation with all parties, including Federated Farmers, to get a greater consensus on what to do about land access.
Leading last week's coffin march was Myrtle, the Ferguson tractor that Taranaki-King Country MP Shane Ardern made famous when he drove it up the steps of Parliament after a protest against the proposed Fart Tax in 2003.
"We won that battle, but the Kyoto Protocol has come back to bite us and everyone else with the across-the-board tax proposal from (Energy Minister) Pete Hodgson. So we'll be watching closely what happens with this one and the coffins will come out again if necessary."
Taranaki Daily News
29 June 2005
By GEOFF TAYLOR AND NZPA
An apparent backdown by the Government on plans to increase public
access to
waterways has been welcomed by Waikato farmers.
But they have denied scaremongering and believe Associate Rural Affairs Minister Jim Sutton has had to pull back because of his failure to explain his plans properly.
Mr Sutton had previously pledged to introduce the controversial legislation before the election, but said yesterday that was now unlikely as there was "too much angst".
He also said there would be further consultation and compromises would be on the table.
Mr Sutton said the Government had agreed in principle to pay compensation for "demonstrable loss of value" for any private land used to open access to the coast, rivers and lakes –- a key sticking point until now. He would also consider introducing legislation on a piecemeal basis, beginning with the non-controversial proposals first.
Mr Sutton said MPs and groups such as Federated Farmers had run a campaign of misinformation about the policy and blamed its lack of support on people's "selfishness" and lack of interest in "community interests".
Waikato Federated Farmers president Peter Buckley welcomed suggestions the Government might back down. "At least it gives time for us and for the Government to look at it and see if there really is an issue."
But Fish and Game New Zealand director Bryce Johnson said he would be surprised and disappointed if the Government did back down and predicted the issue of public access to the outdoors wouldn't go away.
Mr Johnson called on the Government to release its draft bill for the public to see, rather than just policy papers, so there could be a meaningful debate on the issue.
He said if the Government did back down it would be partly because it had failed to get its message across clearly.
"Labour has promised this in its manifestos for the last two elections and if this is true they are not delivering on it again."
He said the debate was suffering from misinformation from Federated Farmers which had raised issues such as biosecurity risk, rural crime and threats of dogs and guns which were irrelevant. They ignored the fact that large areas of the Queen's chain were already opened up and people had access across farmland now.
However, Mr Buckley disputed Federated Farmers had spread any misinformation and blamed the Government for not being open about its plans.
"All we've been going on is the information that has come out of the minister's office –- or in this case the lack of information.
"We have all been speculating."
Waikato Times
29 June 2005
By SIMON BLOOMBERG and NZPA
Nelson farmers are cautiously optimistic about the Government's
decision to
reassess its controversial plans to increase public access to
waterways.
The Government has previously pledged to introduce the legislation before the election but on Tuesday Associate Rural Affairs Minister Jim Sutton said that was now unlikely as there was "too much angst".
Mr Sutton said there would be further consultation on the plans and compromises, including an agreement in principle to pay compensation for "demonstrable loss of value" for any private land used to open up access to the coast, rivers and lakes.
He would also consider introducing legislation on a piecemeal basis, beginning with the non-controversial proposals.
The Government's proposal to allow people across private land within 5m of significant waterways has generated heated opposition from farmers who see it as an invasion of their property rights.
Nelson Provincial Federated Farmers chairman Edwin Newport said on Wednesday that the Government's latest decision was a step in the right direction. However, Mr Newport warned that farmers would have to wait and see what changes were planned to the initial proposal.
"I think it's hopeful that they may come to a satisfactory solution to the problem and that they are prepared to look at a bit more seriously from a farmer's point of view," he said.
"They probably realise that farmers are very annoyed at what they are trying to do and if they are prepared to take another look at it and discuss it with farmers it could well be a better outcome."
Upper Takaka farmer Nigel Harwood, whose property includes the popular Takaka Hill walkway, was also pleased with the Government's decision to reassess the plans.
"Obviously it goes some to addressing the frustrations. I don't think it was particularly good legislation anyway and I don't think there was good support for it apart from one or two groups."
One of those groups, Nelson Marlborough Fish and Game, criticised Mr Sutton's comments.
"He's obviously feeling pretty embattled at the moment. It's pretty much a response to the media hype on the issue particularly with Federated Farmers. It's promoting an extreme view of property rights," Fish and Game manager Neil Deans said.
"I'm very disappointed that they are now backing off at the last minute. Bear in mind, this has been government policy for the last two elections. There's this view that private property rights exceed the public rights and our view is that these need to be sorted out on a case-by-case basis."
The Nelson Mail
30 June 2005
By JOANNA NORRIS and JOHN KEAST
Farmers have flexed their political muscles and claimed victory after
an
apparent Government backdown on new public-access laws.
The Government announced yesterday that it would not be drafting new legislation for walking access on farms before this year's election. Instead, it would enter a new round of consultation on the proposals.
In a significant departure from the Government's previous position, Prime Minister Helen Clark said public access may yet be resolved through negotiation.
"Depending on the approach that's taken, we may not need legislation," she told The Press during a visit to Ashburton yesterday. The Government was looking for a "win-win for all Kiwis", she said.
Her comments followed the release of a statement by Associate Rural Affairs Minister Jim Sutton saying the Government was running out of time to initiate the parliamentary process to make the proposals law.
Federated Farmers' public access spokesman, John Aspinall, of Wanaka, said the backdown was a significant win for farmers.
"It just shows what we can achieve if the members get united on a cause," he said. "If our people play their part, we can still be a strong force in this country."
The decision follows Federated Farmers' Orange Ribbon campaign, launched this month in opposition to the proposals, which farmers claimed represented a confiscation of property rights.
The proposals included a provision for 5m access footpaths across farmland to significant waterways.
Last Friday, farmers presented to the Government a 26,000-signature petition against the access proposals. About 200 farmers also protested at Parliament.
Aspinall said farmers were concerned about challenges to their property rights, their ability to manage their land and increasing compliance costs.
"In the overall scheme of things, we do not have as much (power) as we used to, but into the rural electorate we still have a significant amount of clout," he said.
Associate Professor John Henderson, a Canterbury University political scientist, said Federated Farmers' apparent success was more likely based on timing than on the political strength of the rural sector.
"Because the election is only a few months or weeks away, all lobby groups are at their strongest, rather than it just being the strength of the rural lobby at this time."
Under MMP, the rural vote was likely to have a greater importance for Labour now than previously, Henderson said.
"Before, they could afford to ignore them because they were not going to get their vote anyway."
National agriculture spokesman David Carter said the access issue showed Labour was out of touch with rural communities.
National would seek negotiated settlements to resolve the access issue.
Federated Mountain Clubs president Brian Stephenson said recreational outdoor users supported a considered approach.
"It's a complex issue. Each interested party has legitimate concerns that must be respected," he said.
The Press
30 June 2005
The Government has shelved its plans to quickly introduce a law giving greater public access to waterways, saying a watered down bill is now likely after the election.
The Government's proposal to allow the public crossing private land a 5m wide walkway alongside significant waterways has generated heated opposition from farmers who see it as an invasion of their property rights.
Associate Rural Affairs Minister Jim Sutton had previously pledged to introduce the legislation before the election.
But yesterday Mr Sutton said he accepted he had failed to get "consensus" on the proposed law change and it was now likely the Government would look to introduce less wide-ranging legislation after the election.
Local farming leaders have welcomed the Government's decision. "Obviously it is a positive step," said Federated Farmers South Canterbury branch president David Moore.
"Issues such as compensation have to be sorted out before there are any further steps taken. Compensation and consultation really are key to this."
Mr Moore noted that it has not just been farmers concerned about the infringement of property rights threatened by the access proposals; even some government departments had raised questions.
He also said he would like to thank everyone who took the effort to support the federation's protest action signing the 28,000 strong petition.
"I think the petition really made a difference."
Federated Farmers' Mackenzie branch chairman John Murray also gave the Government's statement a cautious welcome.
"I suppose the fact they are prepared to negotiate now has to be good news."
While neither he nor Mr Moore were prepared to comment on whether or not they fear this may simply be a delaying, electioneering tactic by the Government, Mr Murray did say he is convinced the issue has not gone away.
"We will have to wait and see what happens and keep on fighting."
The Timaru Herald
|
|
About Us |
|
|
|
|