Review of the Walking Access Act

Regional field advisors

Contact an advisor to investigate or negotiate public outdoor access. 

Pocket Maps

Get the app to take our maps with you just about anywhere.

Functions of the Commission

Broadening, combining and consolidating functions

Feedback was mixed about whether changes are needed to the functions of the Commission. Of the 396 responses received through the online feedback form to the question ‘are changes needed to objective and functions of the Commission?’, 29 percent answered ‘yes’, 29 percent answered ‘no’ and 42 percent answered ‘don’t know’. However, many submitters who provided feedback outside the online feedback form thought new functions were required in the Act.

The functions in Section 10 of the Act are currently expressed as an exhaustive list. There are positive and negative aspects to this. The positive aspect is that it may serve to prevent the Commission from taking on extra work for which it is not resourced. On the other hand, an inflexible list leaves little scope for adapting the work of the Commission to meet changing needs or priorities.

Amending this section of the Act to include a function allowing the Commission to carry out any other function that is consistent with its objective in section 9 of the Act, is one way to provide more flexibility. An organisation to which the Commission is sometimes compared, the QEII National Trust, has in the functions section of its Act a list of particular functions. However, this is prefaced with ‘but without limiting the general functions’ that are outlined in a general functions statement. The general functions statement in that Act is worded in a similar way to the Commission’s objective in section 9.

A number of submitters also highlighted the need to combine and consolidate the list of current functions, to make it shorter and easier to digest. The Commission agreed that a shorter, broader list would be beneficial. A combination and consolidation of current functions could also allow them to be worded in a broader sense. This could be an alternative way to address the issue described above by providing a broader, more flexible set of functions. For example, subsection 10 (1)(a) about providing national leadership and coordination could be combined with 10(1)(b), which is about providing local and regional leadership and coordination. Further, subsection 10(1)(f) about negotiating to obtain walking access could be combined with 10(1)(g), which is about negotiating other forms of access. And finally, subsection 10(1)(l) about administering walkways could be combined with 10(1)(m), which deals with compliance and enforcement for walkways.

Recommendation 11: That amendments be made to section 10 of the Walking Access Act 2008, to:

  1. combine, where appropriate, existing functions and frame them in broader terms. While existing functions have served the Commission well, consolidation will allow greater flexibility for the Commission in carrying them out; and

  2. include a statement acknowledging that the listed functions do not prevent the Commission carrying out any other work in line with its objective as set out in section 9 of the Walking Access Act 2008.

Existing functions to be expanded

Leadership of access at a national and regional level

Feedback supported the Commission’s current national and regional leadership role on access, included in section 10 of the Act. One submitter said:

‘[w]e believe that the Commission and its regional representatives are in a good position to identify regional needs and opportunities and to encourage groups and [territorial authorities] to work together to provide inter-connected walkways and recreation routes’.

As outlined in Commission achievements and progress to date, in recent years the Commission has undertaken a number of strategic, regional projects. Through this work, the Commission has provided a leadership and coordination role in particular regions, for example in Taranaki and the South Island high country, to plan for future approaches to access and the impact of emerging issues such as increasing tourism. Many submitters identified the significant value in the Commission continuing and expanding its work in this context. However, as noted earlier in this report, further strategic work could not be undertaken by the Commission without additional resourcing. This is because current projects have been funded by cash reserves or one-off injections (from the acquisition of land on which a walkway was located for the purpose of road construction), which are unlikely to reoccur.

Recommendation 5 proposes that consideration be given to additional resourcing for the Commission to enable it to continue and expand this strategic, regionally-focused project work. As such, no further recommendations are made here.

Provision of information about access 

Feedback was clear that the Commission’s existing function of providing maps and information about access is particularly valued by the public. For example, when people were asked what’s working well, one of the most common answers was that the

Commission’s mapping system, WAMS, is an excellent resource. This sentiment was consistent across all engagement feedback.

However, areas for improvement of WAMS were also identified. These included the need to:

  • increase promotion and public awareness of WAMS;

  • incorporate all tracks and trails across the country, to provide a ‘one stop shop’ for access information;

  • differentiate between formed and unformed legal roads;

  • show access agreements made through Overseas Investment Office processes;

  • provide more information on the condition and accessibility of tracks and trails for people with a disability; and

  • include landowners’ contact information to support access users asking for permission or checking access conditions where required (noting the Commission is unable to do this due to obligations under the Privacy Act 1993).

Many of the issues about the completeness of data on WAMS is a result of access information being owned and published across a range of government agencies. This report finds it would be beneficial for such agencies, including the Commission, DOC, LINZ and territorial authorities, to work together to ensure all access information is consistent and readily available. This could comprise a series of interagency projects to agree data standards and potentially bring together sources of information into a single platform.

Feedback also noted the importance of clear and consistent information at the point of access through physical signage. A number of submitters noted the inconsistent approach to signage across the country, which is dependent on the agency or group responsible for a particular track or trail. This report finds that the Commission would also be well-placed to lead and coordinate a consistent, national approach to physical signage. While requiring additional resourcing, this would supplement the inter-agency work, proposed above, to standardise the collection and publication of digital access information.

Recommendation 12: That:

  1. given the acknowledged success of the Walking Access Mapping System, the Commission, the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand and territorial authorities work together to consolidate and improve the consistency of information on access, including agreeing on data standards for access information; and

  2. consideration be given to additional resourcing for the Commission to lead and coordinate a national, standardised approach for physical signage on tracks and trails.

New functions

A number of submitters, as well as the Commission, identified new functions that could be added. These included:

  • partnering with Māori across the breadth of work done by the Commission;

  • coordinating and building the capacity of volunteers;

  • working with other agencies at a policy level to promote public access to the outdoors;

  • providing advice to the Overseas Investment Office (LINZ) about the walking access ‘benefit’ of applications for purchases under the Overseas Investment Act;

  • providing advice on public access for Treaty of Waitangi settlement processes to the Office for Māori Crown Relations – Te Arawhiti;

  • providing advice to LINZ on public access across or to certain sites on Crown Pastoral Land; and

  • playing a formal role in relation to unformed legal roads, particularly in relation to the stopping of such roads.

All of these proposed new functions, with the exception of the first two, seek to formalise a role for the Commission in advising on public access across central and local government. Including them as statutory functions would provide a greater mandate for the Commission’s involvement in relevant cross-government processes.

It is important to note that any new functions, or the expansion of existing functions in section 10 of the Act, will require additional resourcing for the Commission.

Partnering with Māori

The Commission indicated support for a function in the Act of partnering with Māori ‘to allow access that enhances their status as kaitiaki of their rohe’. Strong feedback was also received from Māori stakeholders about the need for the Commission to partner with Māori across all of its work. Recommendation 13 proposes a new statutory function for the Commission to partner with Māori across the breadth of its work. However, this should be considered hand in hand with Recommendation 19 under Māori interests, which proposes principles that should underpin a partnership approach, for inclusion in the Act.

Coordinating and building the capacity of volunteers

A number of submitters, including the Commission, raised the possibility of a function enabling it to better use volunteers and community groups. This is dealt with in detail in Partnerships. Recommendation 13 proposes a new statutory function be included for the Commission to coordinate and build the capacity of volunteers and community groups. However, this should be considered hand in hand with Recommendation 18 under Partnerships, which calls for consideration to be given to additional resourcing for the Commission to undertake this role.

Policy function

A small amount of feedback suggested that the Commission should have a specific, statutory policy function. It was envisioned that this would include the Commission being involved in work across government relevant to public access, as well as playing a role in local government planning and development work.

The Commission has previously provided input into relevant cross-government policy work and submissions on key pieces of legislation. However, this has occurred in the absence of a formal policy function. Further, the Commission has acknowledged that it does not have the resources to do this consistently. Additional resourcing is required for the Commission to take on the more substantial role suggested through engagement feedback. Sport

New Zealand is a Crown agent like the Commission and has a statutory function to:

‘work with health, education, and other agencies to promote greater participation in physical recreation and sport through policy development, advocacy and support, in line with the objectives of the New Zealand health strategy.’ 14

The Commission could be given a similar function of working with other agencies at a policy level, to promote and support access to the outdoors.

Overseas Investment Act processes

A ‘new’ function suggested was providing advice to the Overseas Investment Office (in LINZ) about access on certain land subject to overseas purchase applications. Section 17 of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 outlines the factors that must be considered by Ministers when assessing the benefit of overseas investments in sensitive land, which includes ‘whether there are or will be adequate mechanisms in place for providing, protecting, or improving walking access over the relevant land or a relevant part of that land by the public or any section of the public’. It is important to note that the Commission currently carries out this function, under section 10(1)(d) which refers to ‘providing advice on walking access to the Minister or any other person’. However, seeking advice from the Commission on the walking access ‘benefit’ is currently dealt with at an agency-process level, rather than being required or set out in statute. As noted above, inclusion of a specific function in this context would provide the Commission with a greater mandate to provide this advice. For clarity, this would not necessitate an expansion of Commission’s involvement in overseas purchases of land. The provision of advice would continue to be provided in relation to overseas purchases of land where access is appropriate and possible.

Treaty settlement processes

A number of submitters suggested that the Commission could also play a role in providing advice to the Office for Māori Crown Relations - Te Arawhiti, on public access issues in the context of Treaty settlement processes. This was largely based on concerns about access to public land being lost through these processes. While submitters acknowledged that in some cases, access to sites on returned land would not be appropriate, they identified benefit in the Commission’s involvement in this process.

Currently, when conservation properties subject to a reserve status with public access are vested as cultural redress in Treaty settlement process, the reserve status, along with the associated public

access, is preserved through settlement legislation. Te Arawhiti also currently engages with the Commission, and other relevant stakeholders, when a negotiation involves questions of public access. However, as is the case with the other advice functions proposed above, inclusion of a specific function in this context would provide the Commission with a greater mandate to provide this advice.

Management of Crown Pastoral Land

Several submitters highlighted the value of the Commission playing a role in advising on public access across or to sites on Crown Pastoral Land. The Commission has at times undertaken this role at an agency-process level. However, formalising the provision of advice to LINZ, as a statutory function, was again identified as a way to give the Commission a greater mandate to provide this advice.

Unformed legal roads

Feedback indicated that access via unformed legal roads remains a significant, nationwide challenge. Formalising the Commission’s role in the context of unformed legal roads is dealt with Partnerships, and through Recommendation 15. As such, no further recommendations are made here.

Recommendation 13: That consideration be given to additional resourcing for the Commission to undertake the below listed functions, and that amendments be made to section 10 of the Walking Access Act 2008 to include:

  1. a new function for the Commission to partner with Māori in the context of carrying out all of its functions listed in section 10; and

  2. a new function for the Commission to work with central and local government at a policy level to promote and support public access to the outdoors; and

  3. a new function for the Commission to coordinate and build the capacity of volunteers and community groups; and

  4. as part of subsection 10(1)(d), the provision of advice on public access issues to the Overseas Investment Office (Land Information

    New Zealand) in relation to applications for purchases of land under the Overseas Investment Act 2005; and

  5. as part of subsection 10(1)(d), the provision of advice on public access issues to the Office for Māori Crown Relations - Te Arawhiti, in relation to Treaty settlement processes; and

  6. as part of subsection 10(1)(d), the provision of advice to Land Information New Zealand on public access issues, in relation to Crown Pastoral Land.

Consideration of giving greater powers to the Commission

A small number of submitters called for greater powers to be given to the Commission to deal with poor visitor behaviour, going beyond the current offences and penalties in the Act relating to gazetted walkways. Suggestions included banning people from land for a period of time if they broke the rules, requiring people to obtain a free outdoor access licence or permit to indicate they have read the Code, and introducing penalties (fines and deportation notices) for breaching the Code. However, this report finds that the current offences and penalties in the Act are sufficient and that a greater enforcement regime would not only be costly, but unnecessary given the relatively small number of poorly behaved visitors.

Footnotes:

14 See section 8 (k) of the Sport and Recreation New Zealand Act 2002.