Walking Access Bill

I rise to support the Walking Access Bill as the best possible bill we could have in this area in the current political climate, but we have some misgivings about some aspects of the bill, particularly those regarding the balance of public and private rights inherent in it. The Greens’ position has been adequately conveyed in previous speeches, so in the final speech on this bill, we will focus on four specific matters that we have been investigating in recent weeks.

I point out that the bill as it stands still does not give the commission the ability to arbitrate—it can only negotiate—so it still cannot actually deal with the really hard questions. Where there are really difficult issues, this legislation will not help, so I think that we should not over-egg it as to what it will achieve. I would also just encourage Eric Roy to connect with the poacher within himself. I tell him that he should go back to the poacher within himself.

Eric Roy: I might kill someone!

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Ha, ha!

The first thing is the Overseas Investment Office. The Federated Mountain Clubs wrote to us, raising the very good point that access opportunities are sometimes missed when the Overseas Investment Office negotiates conditions for the sale of sensitive land to overseas parties. Due to commercial sensitivity, Ministers have refused to notify stakeholder groups like the Federated Mountain Clubs about such sales. Recreational stakeholders would obviously like the chance to identify and advocate for access opportunities, and we agree. Obviously it would be preferable if we were not selling land to overseas owners, but given that we know that it happens, we think that this opportunity should be given.

We raised this matter directly with the Minister. We are pleased to advise the House that the Minister has agreed that formalising the relationship between the Walking Access Commission and the Overseas Investment Office is possible without an amendment to either the Overseas Investment Act or the Walking Access Act, and will be established via an exchange of ministerial letters. We thank the Federated Mountain Clubs and the Minister for undertaking constructive engagement to resolve this issue.

Second, the Green Party remains concerned with a definition in this bill—that of “private land”. Part of the definition is “any land that is held by a person under a lease or licence granted to the person by the Crown;”. This definition is only for the purpose of this bill, but even so, the inclusion of types of Crown land, public land, and conservation land in the definition of “private land” should ring alarm bells on principle. This part applies to two specific areas, which are pastoral leases, and leases and licences more broadly. Crown pastoral lease land is very attractive in its own right for recreation. However, it has often been a barrier for access between public roads and the conservation estate. Some runholders have been able to effectively capture public areas and unreasonably deny access by assuming the authority of the Trespass Act.

The Local Government and Environment Committee heard that the Fish and Game Council was contemplating making an application to the High Court for a declaratory judgment on whether Crown pastoral leases grant an exclusive possession of the land to the lessee. This application has now been lodged and it will be heard soon. If the High Court finds in the Fish and Game Council’s favour, the present definition of “private land” may need to be reconsidered. It is important that Parliament is made aware of this possibility now, so that there are no surprises later.

Additionally, the definition of “private land” in this bill applies to land held under any lease or licence, so it includes things like a grazing lease or mining licence on conservation land. Generally, areas like these are closed to public access only where there is a specific reason to do so—for example, during mining operations or lambing. The Greens have been assured by the Minister that this definition will not lessen any current access rights to Crown land. The official advice is that it is significant only where there is a licence or lease that grants exclusive possession.

The Green Party wishes to make it quite clear that we are voting for the bill on the understanding that the bill does not lessen current access rights and that it does not establish a principle that Crown leases and licences are in any way private land. The whole idea that public land is defined as private land is rather illogical, members must admit. If any lessening of access rights transpires, or if this legislation is used to confiscate access rights to public land, the Green Party will fight to ensure that the current access rights on public land are restored.

Third, it is important that a Crown entity such as the Walking Access Commission, which has responsibility for an area of intense public interest, is transparent in its operations. Crown entities are required to establish their own operational procedures within the bounds of the Crown Entities Act. The Green Party votes for this bill in the hope that the commission will be transparent. The panels and consultation process that have led to this bill have been transparent, and the commission is expected to continue the trend. We hope that means it will, in general, allow the public to attend its meetings and that it will publish its minutes, notices, and reports, preferably on a website for ease of access. It is incumbent on an access commission to allow maximum public access to its decision making.

Finally, we have raised the issue of the rather long review period of 10 years in previous speeches and in the select committee. Despite the support of United Future on reducing this to a more sensible period, we have not convinced the Government or the National Party to agree to a reduction. The Minister is confident that there will be ample chance for Ministers to identify and resolve problems with the legislation through the annual reports of the Walking Access Commission and through public interest and scrutiny of the commission’s activities. If problems or inefficiencies arise, we sincerely hope that it is not necessary to wait for 10 long years to address them. With these points noted, I say that the Greens will be voting for the bill.