Outdoor Walking Access Report to the Minister for Rural Affairs

16 Rural crime and security

16.1 Background

Crime is a concern to New Zealanders, no matter where they live. Based on their own experience, members of the Panel recognise that the distance between rural households and from emergency services often increases rural people’s sense of vulnerability. These concerns are heightened by occasional high-profile cases of home invasion.

Landholders attribute crimes such as burglary, theft of stock and farm equipment, threats and intimidation, cannabis cultivation and petty offences such as vandalism and littering, to strangers or “undesirable types” entering rural areas. These actions are not experienced by landholders alone; visitors to rural areas, particularly in carparks, are also targets of crime.

16.2 Correlation between access and crime

The link between access and crime is uncertain. On one hand, it is possible that having more people in remote rural areas could increase the possibility of crime occurring. Without any public access, a landholder could easily identify a stranger on their land as a potential threat to their security. If access increases, “undesirable types” might be able to enter a property without arousing suspicion. In addition, people accessing a rural property could well notice the presence of valuable items, such as machinery or farm bikes, leading to opportunistic crime.

On the other hand, it is not certain whether mapping, clarifying and improving public access will always result in a substantial increase in the number of people entering rural areas. The result may be improved quality of access for those already seeking it, rather than an increase in the number of people wanting access.

There are also questions whether walking access would have any bearing on the actions of those who have a disregard for the law. People who go onto a rural property with the intention of breaking the law are unlikely to be concerned as to whether or not they have a legal right of access. The argument here is that if a person is prepared to vandalise or commit theft or acts of violence, they will probably not be deterred by the more minor crime of trespass.

In addition, having responsible people walking in the countryside would decrease the isolation, and perhaps the vulnerability, felt by some rural people. The possibility of having people walk past could actually deter some kinds of crime. Criminals generally seek out secluded places where they will not be discovered to undertake some crimes, such as growing cannabis or consuming drugs.

The Panel recognises that landholders will at times need to restrict access and the Trespass Act 1980 plays a necessary role. The Panel considers there is a need for better liaison between rural communities, recreation groups and the Police.

The Panel concludes that:

  • rural crime is an issue for communities, community leaders, councils and the Police, and that Te Ara o Papatuanuku may be able to help by implementing security measures;
  • more “honest eyes” will result from increased access;
  • defined access is likely to see fewer people “wandering all over the place”.

Recommendations on rural crime and security

The following suggestions fall outside the scope of an access organisation, but the Panel considers that it would be useful to:

  1. strengthen Neighbourhood Watch in rural areas (although this was commonly suggested by some recreational submitters, many landholders objected to the idea that they should take on yet more responsibility here – especially if necessitated by increased public access);
  2. increase the amount of active engagement between the Police and rural communities;
  3. improve links between recreation groups and rural communities;
  4. build a case for having more Police in rural areas, and/or create a law enforcement position (for example, community/rural constables or residents warranted by councils) so that there are more people in rural areas with a law enforcement role.