Freedom Camping Bill

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

Part 1 is clauses 3 to 9. The debate includes schedule 1.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Where to begin with the misnamed Freedom Camping Bill? It is a bill that has so much wrong with it, and I am hoping we will have enough time this evening to tease out the many defects in it.

Labour has set out in its minority report, and in the second reading debate, its opposition to the bill, and members of the House and members of the public who are interested and listening to the debate will know that we went into this debate with an open mind. We recognise there is a problem in certain parts of the country with people fouling the side of the road, leaving litter and waste in a way that no one wants to see. But in the process of the Local Government and Environment Committee discussions and from listening to public submissions we formed a very clear view that this bill is a punitive and heavy-handed response to this problem, that it is bad law, and that it should not proceed.

We believe that giving councils and the Department of Conservation the power to enforce compliance under this bill for people who freedom camp in prohibited areas, and for littering and waste, is a step too far. The net result of this bill is to threaten freedoms that generations of New Zealanders have enjoyed—that is, the freedom to move around the country and enjoy the great outdoors. This bill raises the possibility that people who go into the countryside on a Friday night for a weekend of fishing, climbing, hunting, surfing, or tramping and camp beside the road after they have driven from their homes—with the idea that they will get up early on a Saturday morning to hit the waves, to go tramping, or to go hunting—could easily find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

There is no compulsion under this bill for local authorities to establish a minimum requirement for signage in certain areas. It will be very easy for people who are freedom camping—responsible freedom campers—to park on the side of the road and find themselves woken up in the middle of the night by some council official banging on the window of their campervan and moving them on, let alone slapping a $200 instant fine on them.

The debate has flushed out a lot of concern from New Zealanders about the threat to this freedom, and I want to quote from a couple of them. This quote is from Grant and Smillie Henderson, who live in Pakuranga, Auckland. They wrote: “there are thousands of us, retired hard working ordinary grey haired Grey Nomads out here. Many of us have self-contained rigs worth as much as a small apartment. We have gone to considerable expense to ensure that our motor homes are fully certified and self-contained,”. That allows them to camp away from other facilities for many days. “We leave any place we stop, tidier and cleaner than we found it. We leave nothing behind but tyre imprints in the gravel. Many of us spend a worthwhile amount of money each month in the smaller centres in NZ …. We enjoy the slower pace of the country areas, the quieter surroundings, the simpler way of doing things.” They say they prefer to freedom camp at times, for the solitude and serenity of the remote places they find.

They go on to say that in its present form the Freedom Camping Bill criminalises everyday, law-abiding New Zealanders because they own a motor home and enjoy the freedom of the outdoors. They say that this bill is a huge step backwards for this country. They say it will give local councils a licence to target and fine everyone, rather than target those who actually create the problem, and I think they have touched on the nub of the problem here. This bill targets an entire category of person—those who enjoy freedom camping and who go out to the countryside and do it. It targets a whole category of activity, freedom camping, without focusing on the activity that actually does the damage.

Members on the other side of the Chamber, who are supporting this bill, railed against the phasing out of inefficient light bulbs, which is happening all over the Western World—they said it was an example of the nanny State. Yet the very same members, now in Government, are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. They are criminalising everyday, law-abiding New Zealanders—as that submitter wrote—simply to solve a problem of people littering and leaving waste on the roadside. It is a travesty and they should not be allowed to get away with it.

I note that the bill is also supported by the ACT Party, which loves to trumpet its claim to be the great liberal party—the great defender of our freedoms and liberties. I know that many members of the ACT Party in this House do not support this bill, but they have been dragooned into it by the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide.

We want to propose in the course of this debate a number of amendments that we think would improve this legislation, and we look forward to debating those. In particular, we would like to see the deletion of the provisions that criminalise the act of freedom camping. There is no need for it. We could actually achieve the objectives we all have in this matter by bringing in an enforcement and infringement regime that deals with littering and the dumping of waste on Department of Conservation land or on council land. That would be sufficient, along with the kind of powers that are set out on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to allow the owners of the campervans to recover the fines from the people renting those campervans.

We were told at the select committee that the great majority of problems in this area are caused by international visitors using campervans that are not self-contained—they do not have self-contained toilet facilities. I submit that a much more focused and targeted approach could actually solve much of this problem, as well as local authorities in this country investing more in the provision of toilets and rubbish bins in the places that are most vulnerable to this problem.

In Part 1 there is a definition of “freedom camp” and I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to it. Clause 5(1) states: “freedom camp means to camp … within 200m of a motor vehicle accessible area, or the mean low-water springs line of any sea or harbour, or on or within 200m of a formed road or a Great Walks Track,”. All a person has to do is be in that area and be using a tent, a caravan, a car, a campervan, house truck, or other motor vehicle and they are freedom camping—and they may not know it. They may not have seen the sign in the darkness, but they have broken the law.

I say that this is an infringement of a really important freedom that New Zealanders have enjoyed for a long time. I have spent a good part of my life hitchhiking, climbing, tramping, and fishing around the country, and, more often than not, trips away for those sorts of activities involve camping on the side of the road in situations that would likely leave someone to cause an infringement under this Draconian and punitive bill.

Clause 3(2A) really illustrates the absurdity of this bill. One of the concerns that many people expressed at the select committee was that the bill would effectively allow councils to institute a blanket ban in their territory. Clause 3(2A)—and, I think, clause 11 further on in the bill—states that the powers of regulation under the Act do not allow blanket bans. Well, just saying it does not make it true.

A council can implement a ban over 98 percent of the territory, or over 97 percent. How much, I ask the Minister, is not a blanket ban in her book? I invite the Minister to take a call and explain to New Zealanders the logic behind inserting into the bill a provision that says that councils cannot use it to blanket-ban when that means that they cannot outlaw freedom camping on all of their territory.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak to the Freedom Camping Bill in the Committee stage because I spoke in the first reading of this bill. Having seen some of the effects of the people whose behaviour we are trying to alter in this legislation firsthand in Nelson—in fact, very close to where I live—the legislation is of great interest to me, and I supported its introduction to the House. What we have now, however, is legislation, albeit somewhat amended by the Local Government and Environment Committee—and I welcome some of those amendments—that does not get the balance right. This was always going to be a matter of balance. In fact, if one looks at the submissions, as members of the select committee did, it is possible to see a whole range of views about just what is required here, and what is going over the top.

I think that this legislation needed to balance a number of things. It needed to balance our attractiveness as a tourist destination. It needed to balance the care and protection of our environment, which makes us an attractive tourist destination. But the kinds of provisions that exist in this legislation have, in the end, gone too far. They have not balanced the need to address a particular problem that is created by a very few—particularly those who camp in vehicles that are not self-contained. So instead of looking at how infrastructure might be developed or how the situation might be avoided, the legislation will simply come down, with all the force of a sledgehammer, on to people who will be criminalised for doing something that is part of our national identity, habit, and way of being. We are, as New Zealanders, intimately bound up with our physical environment. We love it, we generally take care of it, and we do not like it when people abuse it. But suddenly to criminalise people in the way that this bill does, does not serve a useful purpose.

At the risk of seeming to sound somewhat irrelevant to the case at issue here, I really want to draw attention to the fact that once upon a time, under the previous Labour Government, there was the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme, which provided a Government subsidy for small communities to put in place toilet facilities and dump stations. That scheme has been done away with by this Government, and there is now no subsidy, at all. So those small local authorities that have difficulty in providing the infrastructure and facilities that might well address this problem are now offered no assistance at all to do that. Instead, we are going to turn people into criminals.

I will refer to the meaning of “freedom camp”, which is found in clause 5(1) of the bill. It refers to people “using 1 or more of the following: (a) a tent or other temporary structure: (b) a caravan: (c) a car, campervan, housetruck, or other motor vehicle.” I have to say that in the Nelson region, particularly in the wider Nelson region, quite a few people live in campervans, housetrucks, or other motor vehicles. It will be very difficult if anything like a partial or, certainly, a complete ban is exercised by the Nelson City Council or the Tasman District Council on the areas they are responsible for.

If they do exercise this right to designate places as banned areas, then it will be extremely difficult for ordinary people—New Zealanders or tourists, it does not matter which—who are going about the ordinary task of enjoying our extraordinary environment to know exactly where those places are. Saying that a sign will go up will not be sufficient, particularly if people have been doing that for years—if they have been going back to the same place for years and parking up their housetruck or campervan. For some people in the Nelson area, these become places of residence. These clearly are not usually the people who foul the environment, but the problem with this legislation is that it does not discern between those guilty of behaviour that none of us like—leaving waste or litter behind—and those enjoying our outdoors in a way that does no harm, at all. The bluntness of this legislation is its very problem, and it is not sufficiently nuanced; it is not sufficiently progressive. There is not sufficient support for local authorities to invest in the kinds of facilities they need in order to ensure that those who are legitimately camping in beautiful parts of the country can do that without fouling the environment.

This legislation is coming in under urgency tonight because everybody wants to get it through in time for the Rugby World Cup. Quite frankly, there will be a huge problem when the Rugby World Cup comes along. I refer to a reported statement in the Nelson Mail of 20 May, in which one of the councillors of the Nelson City Council said there were likely to be a thousand extra campervans in the city that would park during Rugby World Cup events in Nelson this year. That was said by Rachel Reece, who is a Nelson City Councillor. I am not sure where a thousand extra campervans will be parked in Nelson. If the Nelson City Council starts to exercise some bans, and to say that places everywhere are banned except the end of Sovereign Street, which is one of the areas close to where I live, and which has been problematic, it would make much more sense if the council were to invest in installing some facilities at the end of Sovereign Street or in Neale Park, and to say: “Come and park your campervan down here, and we will provide some facilities.”

Other councillors were concerned that the council would in fact overreact and prevent people from enjoying some of the freedoms particular to New Zealand, and some of the enjoyable things we can do in moving around the outdoors with freedom. This bill, as it stands at the moment, gives the Nelson City Council and the Tasman District Council the power to overreact. That is our concern about this bill. It does not get the balance right. It tries to address a real problem, certainly, and I acknowledge that there is a problem, but it is a problem created by a minority. To bring the legislation down as it is, with the force it has, is nanny Statism of the worst kind. I think members opposite ought to reflect on that a bit, because the moment they had the opportunity when they were in Opposition, they tried to use the label of “nanny State” to prevent just such legislation as this.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) Link to this

I follow on from my colleague from Nelson, Maryan Street, who rightfully points to the reality of there being issues in and around New Zealand, and I do not think anyone would deny that, but the Freedom Camping Bill is bizarre legislation that is attempting to kill what is part of the culture of New Zealand. In fact, I was just at Copperfields, grabbing my coffee from a young man in there called Robin. I said I would quote him, because I said I was going back in to speak and he asked what the bill was. I said it was the Freedom Camping Bill, and he asked what it does. I said it effectively stops people going and camping wherever councils put up a sign, and he said “Well, isn’t that the fun of New Zealand?”. In fact, that is exactly right. That freedom we have that people from the UK, Ireland, and all around the world come to New Zealand to enjoy—the ability to go into the outdoors that is not owned or controlled by anyone and to enjoy nature—is something that goes right to the heart of what Kiwi culture is. This legislation—look at it; this bill, this nanny State legislation—will stop that.

Well, I have Supplementary Order Paper 272 here from my colleague Phil Twyford, which is at the heart of it. It is at the heart of this, and it is what we will support. It says that it does not determine what people should do—that is, it does not outlaw freedom camping—but that if people deposit waste, interfere with things, or do damage, then they are liable for prosecution. It is a kind of Resource Management Act approach, really. It does not specify exactly what we should do. Let it be noted that the parties in this House that are telling us what we should do—where we should poo and what we should do—are National and ACT. I hate to think of the number of times that I have been in this Chamber and heard rantings and ravings from members on that side, and from Rodney Hide in particular, about compliance costs, about nanny States, and about telling us as Kiwis what we should do. Do members know what they are doing? They are telling us where we can poo—they are telling us where we can poo.

I have always been told that—not in the cities, but in the greater outdoors—if people get caught short and have to exercise their natural feelings, then they should take a shovel. That usually addresses it. I have to say that that is not telling people what they should or should not do or where they should or should not do it; it is saying that people should minimise and reduce the impacts of it. It is Resource Management Act, bottom-line stuff. It affects base legislation. Why would you bring it into this House? I will tell members why. It is a shallow bit of politicking by Nick Smith. He has convinced his colleagues. I know that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Conservation, is quite embarrassed by it, because I believe she is truly committed to conservation and the outdoors, and encouraging people to get out there. She knows that this bill will kill that, because people will be paranoid about where they will poo. That, quite frankly, is just bizarre in a country of 4 million people. We have a number of visitors accepted, but we bring them into this country almost under false pretences if everywhere they go they will face signs put up by councils that could effectively have a blanket ban that is up to the councils.

Councils find this whole proposition rather bizarre, because although they want to do something to reduce the impacts, the Government will not help with any infrastructural costs. The previous Labour Government did with our sewerage and water subsidy scheme. It helped councils that did not have the resources but were facing quite a lot of visitors—Kaikōura in particular, and many others around the country—and needed to put in place proper infrastructure. If there are no toilets, it is very hard for people to go to the toilet. So we need to build infrastructure to address the problem. As we have gone out and promoted New Zealand and encouraged more people to visit this country, the basic responsibility is to put in place better infrastructure. The Labour Government had assistance for councils. The National Government gave $14 billion in tax cuts to its mates, the rich, then said it had no money to do anything else. So it has chopped schemes like that, and now councils have the difficult option of saying they cannot afford to put in place proper toilets, although they want to attract visitors and they realise there is an impact. So Nick Smith, in his shallow way, said “Oh, I’ll give you a tool. Here you are: you can go and put up little signs and tell people they’re not allowed to come here.” Well, that goes to the heart of Kiwi culture. It goes to the heart of the experience that we sell and promote overseas, I have to say.

The images put out by Tourism New Zealand are of wide open spaces for people to have freedom to go out and enjoy. Most of those people understand that they have to minimise their impact on the environment. The problem is often if they are in a campervan—even if it is self-contained—at the end of their journey, or when the tank is full, there are simply not enough dump stations. The real impact out around the country is where self-contained campervans dump large volumes of effluent in one place. It is outrageous. It is shocking. There should be, as the Supplementary Order Paper from my good colleague Phil Twyford says, some penalty for that. But if we do not provide the facilities, then it is very hard to impose a fine. There will be a backlash, there is no doubt about that. We have amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 267 from the Minister to tidy up how the Government can charge people these penalties if they go away from New Zealand. So if they run offshore—because most of them are visitors and come here for a time—or hop on the plane and move off, all of a sudden there is a penalty imposed upon them. So there is a very complex set of rules and regulations in the bill to ensure that we can get the money out of them and that they can be charged, or, if they are let off for some technical reason, then the obligation is on the rental camper van companies to refund the money.

All the complex rules in this bill are unnecessary. What we have to do is put out a code of practice, put in place some proper infrastructure, and put up some signs to encourage the right culture and behaviour—for example, signs could say “No toileting for the next 50 kilometres”. That is a clear indication that it is not acceptable to go to the toilet on the side of the road. Do not say “Do not camp”. and have some overzealous and, dare I say it, maybe farmer-controlled councils that are not necessarily friendly to the tourism industry saying “Right! That’s it. We don’t want any freedom camping. They can go to the camping grounds.” The problem is that although we have some wonderful camping-grounds, and I encourage people to go to them, what we are selling as New Zealand is an experience and an amazing opportunity for tourists from anywhere around the world to come and enjoy our culture and our country at their leisure and their pace. We are chopping that.

I have to say, as a former Minister of Tourism, I find that rather sad. I find the whole thing rather unnecessary, and I cannot understand how National and ACT, given their ranting and raving on things like the nanny State and compliance costs, can possibly put forward legislation like this. There are better ways of dealing with this issue. There are far better ways, and I hope that National will see its way clear, if it wants to push through this legislation, to at least amend it through the wise Supplementary Order Paper put up by my colleague to make judgment on the effects on the environment, not on the proposal to either camp or stay overnight in a place. As a good friend from Copperfields—Robin—said: “That’s what the fun of New Zealand is.”—being able to go somewhere and camp.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) Link to this

It is great to follow my colleague Damien O’Connor, who is a former Minister of Tourism. I had a brief, fleeting moment as a Minister of Conservation. Freedom camping was an issue that we looked at when we were in Government, and it came up at a mayoral forum with senior Cabinet Ministers, which we held on a regular basis. We realised there was a problem, not because the Rugby World Cup was coming up and we were going to dump down ridiculous legislation to try to tidy up the motorways of New Zealand for our Rugby World Cup visitors, but because there was a genuine concern about people littering on our State highways and in places of quite high visibility. But beneath that there was also concern about environmental degradation. We were really concerned about it.

Mayor Geddes’ solution was where we were at when we lost the election, and for us to now have to sit here and watch National bring in a bill that is 64 pages long is an embarrassment. The Freedom Camping Bill says that in New Zealand people can freedom camp but only in certain places. Visitors cannot camp it up when they come to our country to enjoy the lifestyle that New Zealanders love. The bill is absolutely a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is an embarrassment to us in Labour that we are seeing this nanny State Government bring in such stupid legislation. There is now also a Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister of Conservation to tidy up the infringement and penalty regime, because the Government got that wrong, too. It is an embarrassment to us in this country who are saying: “Haere mai. Welcome to New Zealand and enjoy the Rugby World Cup.” I am embarrassed, and we are definitely opposing this bill, especially after listening to submissions during the select committee process.

I come from Rotorua. We have a by-law in Rotorua that works perfectly well. We have never needed legislation that is 64 pages long for us to say to visitors: “When you come to New Zealand, these are the places where we want you to go. Don’t freedom camp in this place, because there are no ablution blocks anywhere near it, but these are the places you can go to.”

I think this Government and the Minister of Tourism—who, for goodness’ sake, is the Prime Minister of this country—have failed to understand the very nature of the visitors to our country. They come here to explore the great outdoors. That is what they love. They come here and they want to get in the great outdoors. New Zealand is a long, skinny piece of string, as our previous Prime Minister called it. The visitors think they are freedom campers because they get in their campervan, they can travel anywhere, north and south, and they cannot get lost. They can go off the north-south continuum in this country, and they can find their way back to the main routes to the next town.

The bill is putting in something that those visitors will not even know about. They will not even understand. We will have an infringement regime that pings people when they get to the airport. It will say: “We got you when you were going through Rotorua, when you stopped at Rotoiti—”

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

The Committee should be honoured to be listening to a descendant of the original freedom camper in New Zealand, some 30-odd generations ago. My tupuna Kupe turned up and he was the first person, according to legend, to set foot in Aotearoa. He was the original freedom camper when he set up shop at his first campsite. But he did not actually form a permanent dwelling; he circumnavigated all of the North Island, naming places on the way, and therefore I claim him as the original freedom camper in Aotearoa. Here is his direct descendant standing up who follows his legacy, because every Christmas my family and I also participate in freedom camping.

According to clause 5, the meaning of freedom camp is to camp other than at a camping ground. We do not camp at a camping ground; we camp on private property. This is a slightly different circumstance. But it is within 200 metres of a motor vehicle accessible area. It is not near a great walking track. The only walking track at our camp is the great walk from the sleeping tent over to the food tent, and back again. That is the great walk that I participate in when I am freedom camping.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson Robertson. Kia ora tātou katoa e hoa mā. I am taking a call on the Freedom Camping Bill. Earlier this evening I was listening to my colleague Rahui Katene in the debate on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. She referred to the wisdom of the Waitangi Tribunal’s report Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and Identity. For all intents and purposes, it is known as the Wai 262 report.

In that report there are a number of recommendations that suggest that the Resource Management Act should be reformed so that the Crown and all local authorities are more strongly compelled to engage meaningfully with the kaitiaki. The report outlines exactly how that can be achieved. It could be achieved by developing an enhanced iwi management plan, with polices and proposals developed by, agreed to, and adopted by both the iwi and local authority representatives. Another approach could be to create an improved plan to make joint management with, and a transfer of power to, iwi much more easily implemented. A third approach might be to recommend that core national policy statements are developed on Māori influence and active participation in the Resource Management Act processes. Those are great ideas, I reckon, but given the impending importance of the event on 26 November, I suggest that it does not appear likely that any progress will be made in responding to the recommendations made in that report, certainly not in the immediate future.

In the meantime, the Māori Party has come up with the challenge of seeing how we can draw upon such an excellent reference point for other legislation where it applies. The Freedom Camping Bill is a very clear example of legislation where we can encourage a far more effective relationship between local authorities and mana whenua. The Māori Party, through my colleague Rahui Katene, has taken the step of introducing Supplementary Order Paper 266 to amend this bill to require local authorities to recognise, respect, and act in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi when exercising powers or functions under the legislation. This amendment will introduce a clause that suggests that in order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, local authorities and any person acting on behalf of local authorities must act in a way that is consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi when exercising powers or functions under the Act.

We say we need to have a more proactive approach, to encourage local authorities to communicate meaningfully with the relevant iwi, hapū, and whānau. My colleague Rahui Katene recently advised me—and it comes with some experience, I think—of what has happened down in Kaikōura, where I used to teach at the start of my teaching career. In Kaikōura there is a place called Ngā Niho Pā, which is just in behind Takahanga Marae, if one has ever been to Kaikōura. It is a traditional pā site of Kaikōura and, of course, Ngāi Tahu—rightly so—became pretty agitated when some so-called freedom campers were using the traditional pā site to empty their toilet waste. In case people think that that is an isolated approach, I say I am aware that there have been concerns in my electorate of Waiariki from one end of the electorate to the other, from places such as the Tongariro National Park through to Te Urewera National Park and the eastern Bay of Plenty, and up and down the East Coast, where freedom campers tend to move. Quite rightly, this issue is something that we have to address.

We think this bill is pretty useful, because it sets up an offence of freedom camping, which is described as taking place when the flora or fauna is interfered with or damaged, or waste is deposited on to the area other than into the waste receptacles that have been set aside for that. But the Māori Party has a philosophical opposition to any bits of legislation that are introduced for the sake of creating a new list of fines and punishments, without due consideration being given to proactive and responsible behaviour to avoid the same mistakes reoccurring. We believe that the amendment in the name of Rahui Katene on behalf of the Māori Party is such an approach. It encourages local authorities to take, as I said earlier, appropriate account of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to act in ways that recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility as a Treaty partner. Acting in a Treaty-complaint manner will ensure that there is consultation with iwi.

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) Link to this

I will take just a few minutes to have a call on the Freedom Camping Bill. I think there is general agreement throughout the House that freedom camping in New Zealand is a valued tradition, and it is part of our way of life—and no wonder, when we have so much beautiful scenery and we are the best country in the world. Having said that, unfortunately there are some behaviours that do need to be discouraged.

I want to take a call to address just a couple of the issues and questions that have been raised by the Labour Opposition. The first one is in relation to blanket bans. There is absolutely no intention in this legislation to allow local authorities to issue a blanket ban on freedom camping in their area. In fact, one of the amendments that I think was pointed out was in clause 3(2A), which specifically states that “the powers of regulation under the Act do not allow for freedom camping to be prohibited on all land”, so that therefore addresses the blanket ban.

In addition to that, it is further provided later on in Part 2 that the by-law has to be appropriate and proportionate. We think we have put in sufficient safeguards to prevent a local authority thinking it has carte blanche to issue a total blanket ban on freedom camping in New Zealand. The other misunderstanding that I think the Opposition has is that this legislation bans freedom camping. In fact, it does the complete opposite. It is permissive. It permits it, and it actually specifically provides for freedom camping, which, until now, has not been protected or enshrined in law. This is actually good legislation.

The final issue I will raise is from the Hon Steve Chadwick, whom I recognise as a former Minister of Conservation. She made the interesting comment that there is a by-law that provides for this in Rotorua, which is working well. Well, actually, all this legislation does is provide for other local authorities to have the same by-law.

STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this

I will take only a short call on the Freedom Camping Bill. We are obviously not supporting it whatsoever. I was not too sure what the Māori Party were doing, whether they were supporting it. There was a lot of verbosity there but not much understanding.

I actually think this legislation will be decided in the courts. The reason I say that is there is a lot of ambiguity here around the meaning. In particular I would like to talk about clause 5, “Meaning of freedom camp”. If we go to subclause (1A) it says: “In this Act, freedom camping does not include the following activities:”. It talks about temporary and short-term parking. When I am parking in the city, I know what temporary and short-term parking means. But when in the great wilderness that is New Zealand, what does that mean? If we say that temporary does not mean permanent, does that mean one can park a car for 3 days? Is that temporary? It is certainly not permanent. There is not a permanent structure there, the car is not in my garage; it is not in anything I own. By any account, that is in fact temporary parking. Is it 1 day, 2 days, 3 days—a week even? That is certainly temporary parking when one is on holiday or doing a trek up and down the country. The other term is “short-term parking”. Again, when in the city I think I know what short-term means, but in terms of a 4-week summer holiday, if one is driving from spot to spot, does short-term mean 3 days, 4 days? Does it mean 1 day?

I think that a smart lawyer representing a client who wanted to make a point, or a principle, could drive a bus, a campervan, or a housetruck straight through the middle of this, because I would suspect they could quite easily argue that they were not freedom camping under the meaning of the Act because they were temporary parking, they were not permanent parking, or they were short-term parking. Perhaps they were on a holiday for 6 months and during that term a 4-day stopover was considered as short-term in the scheme of things. The other thing, if we go to subclause (1), is the meaning of freedom camping. It includes a tent or other temporary structure; a caravan; a car, campervan, housetruck, or other motor vehicle. Well it is pretty obvious that this bill is being rushed through for the Rugby World Cup, because this is what happens in the middle of winter; people stay in these things. But if I know many young people, and I take myself as an example, when I was a young man, footloose and fancy-free during the holidays, I would jump in the car, grab a sleeping bag, and sleep on a beach.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the meaning of “local authority area”. The bill states: “local authority area—(a) means an area of land—(i) that is within the district or region of a local authority;”. It is the areas of land that are of concern. They are where people will park up or camp in. I think there is a pragmatic, practical solution that, if the Government had not cut the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme, could have involved a joint venture between the Government, local authorities, and other organisations within the community, such as schools, sports clubs, and possibly even marae, so that the whole cost of providing facilities is not borne solely by the Crown. You see, most schools, sports clubs, and marae would love to have their ablution blocks upgraded and improved. I think there would have been real scope to do that through something like the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme, which the Government has cut.

There would be issues to do with getting registered or whatever, if the car-park or sports field at the school or rugby club, say, or the car-park at the marae, was to be used as a temporary camping-ground. But I think that would ease a lot of congestion on the streets. I have been to Nelson and seen the street that the Hon Maryan Street spoke about where, in one evening, 26 cars parked up. There were two temporary toilets—Portaloos—and a couple of rubbish bins there for the campers to use, because there was no room at the local camping-ground. If there was a bit of thought, we could come up with a solution whereby any overflow could go to those sorts of facilities.

Where I grew up, the ablution block—the shower facilities and toilets—in the first-ever rugby club I played for have not been touched in 40 years. They are a mess, but with a bit of thought, using something such as the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme, the club itself, the local authority, and the Government could all pitch in to upgrade those facilities. There is a huge car-park there, and a huge sports field, which in summer is nice and hard. People could park there if there was overflow from camping grounds. In fact, those bodies could perhaps set themselves up to get a bit of income for the local sports club, because these days they are certainly struggling for members and struggling to raise funds in other ways. With a bit of thought and a bit of organisation, that could be a way for the particular sports club I am talking about to get a bit of income over the course of the summer break, when the facilities are not being used for sports. I believe that with a bit of thought we could solve this issue, and not have people camping out on roads or in car-parks in the middle of town. So it would not be the major problem that it is now.

I endorse what my colleague Stuart Nash said about the possibility that this matter could well be settled in court, because of the lack of definition of short-term and temporary parking. I think he raised a very valid point about that.

I also say that I think the Supplementary Order Paper from Rahui Katene is a very good Supplementary Order Paper. The Labour Opposition will support it. I think it is really important. It is a pity that it was missed out in the first place. The Supplementary Order Paper inserts a Tiriti o Waitangi clause that basically makes sure that the Crown recognises and respects Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the responsibilities it has to take account of te Tiriti. The Supplementary Order Paper also deals with the responsibility of local authorities having to take account of te Tiriti.

It is really important that local Māori are involved in any decision making on the areas where camping may or may not be banned. It is very important that Māori have this input.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

I am very happy to take what will be a very brief call on the Freedom Camping Bill. I think this is a ridiculous bill. It is a total overreaction to what is a real problem. I am not saying that it is not a real problem, but this is a total overreaction to it. I am a freedom camper. I have quite often, with old flatmates, driven up to the Tararuas, parked in the car-park overnight on a Friday night, and gone tramping the next day. Under the definitions and provisions provided in this bill, we could be slapped with a $200 instant fine for doing that. I think that is absolutely ridiculous and an absolute attack on what is a Kiwi way of life—the ability to drive to a place, park, sleep in the car, or camp beside the car, and go tramping or hunting. This bill attacks that.

There is a real problem with people leaving a mess behind by not using adequate camping facilities; there is also, however, a responsibility on us to make sure that those facilities are provided. I note that this Government, of course, has cut the funding for providing sanitary disposal facilities, and that is absolutely ridiculous as well. This is an overreaction to what is a real problem, but it could be much more easily solved, and I think this bill is ridiculous.

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) Link to this

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Freedom Camping Bill. As many of the members on this side of the Chamber have made clear, we think that Part 2 is another example of—no matter what you call it—over-the-top, heavy-handed, or sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut legislation. Part 2 again typifies what we think is a bit of an overreaction from the Government to what we see as a problem, but not a significant-enough problem to basically take away the freedoms of Kiwis who have enjoyed freedom camping in some of our most pristine and beautiful places. Part 2 deals with where freedom camping is permitted. What is now in store for New Zealanders and visitors is that some of our most beautiful areas—beaches, vistas, and views—are no longer allowed to be enjoyed. One cannot park up, have a look around, and have a bit of a kip without having what could be called ablution police keeping an eye on us.

I would like to open up a window to the world of what it would be like to be one of those people who will be forced to police this kind of law. What exactly will they be confronted with? I think that, along with parking wardens, the people who will be tasked with policing the Freedom Camping Bill will be in one of the most hated occupations for both New Zealanders and visitors to New Zealand. These people will be in some of our most pristine areas, and they will be forced to sit in car-parks, rest stop areas, or places where one can look at some of the most beautiful views in New Zealand, and be forced to snoop on what people are doing there. So for families sitting at home now, I tell them that if they are out enjoying some time with the family at Christmas time—just as Kelvin Davis does—and they get caught short, it will now be the job of some people to whack members of those families with a $200 instant fine if they are found defecating or urinating in some of those public places—

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

I am referring to clause 16, “Public notification of freedom camping notices”. Subclause (1) states: “A freedom camping notice is published in accordance with this section if a summary of the notice—(a) is published in the Gazette; and (b) is published in the following newspapers: (i) in a daily newspaper circulating in each of the cities of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin;”. My concern is for overseas tourists who land in New Zealand and have not happened to pick up a copy of a daily newspaper in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, or Dunedin, in which that freedom camping notice was published. The chances are that they would not have seen it, or that they would not even look in the section where that sort of thing would be published. So those freedom campers—free independent travellers—will be journeying around New Zealand and will have a nice surprise when they pull up somewhere and wonder who the person is approaching them and saying that they have committed an offence that is liable for $200. That is not the face that we want to portray to our travellers from overseas, but I think we are risking that.

I know that ignorance is not an excuse, but how can we expect people from overseas to turn up to New Zealand and know exactly what these regulations are? I hope there will be some sort of full-blown education campaign, so that international travellers will know what the circumstances are, and so that they will not be stung by that sort of thing.

I note clause 11A, “Bylaws must not absolutely prohibit freedom camping”. This is similar to clause 11(2)(a). Subclause (1) states: “A local authority may not make bylaws under section 11 that have the effect of prohibiting freedom camping in all the local authority areas in its district.” Subclause (2) states: “This section is for the avoidance of doubt.” But the doubt still exists—the doubt that our colleague Phil Twyford raised earlier. What is a blanket ban? The provision says that a local authority may not make by-laws that have the effect of prohibiting freedom camping in all the local authority areas in its district. Will the local authority not have that provision, then, in just one area of its district, or in two areas of its district? I think there are still some vagaries there that will allow overzealous local authorities to sting all and sundry, in a roundabout way. I do not think that subclause (2) removes the avoidance of all doubt.

Clause 11(5) states: “The local authority must use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (as modified by section 86 of that Act) in—(a) making a bylaw under this section; or (b) amending a bylaw made under this section; or (c) revoking a bylaw under this section.” So regarding the special consultative procedure, section 83 in the Local Government Act 2002 states: “Where this Act or any other enactment requires a local authority to use or adopt the special consultative procedure, that local authority must”—and in subsection (1)(e) it says—“give public notice, and such other notice as the local authority considers appropriate, of the proposal and the consultations being undertaken;”. The part that is of concern is what the local authority considers appropriate, because we are concerned that some local authorities may be overzealous, just go too hard, and, as we already said, use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. So it comes down to what is appropriate according to one local authority and what is appropriate according to another local authority when they refer to the Local Government Act 2002. There are vagaries and there could be confusion as to what the local authority considers appropriate.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

I will pick up where my colleague Kelvin Davis left off and make some comments about the second clause in Part 2, which is about the bylaw-making power of local authorities. To borrow the turn of phrase from Stuart Nash, I think it was, we could drive a housetruck through the wording in some of these clauses. Subclause (2) of clause 11 says that “A local authority may make a bylaw under subsection (1) only if it is satisfied that—(a) the bylaw is necessary … (i) to protect the area:”—to protect the area. I mean, that is ridiculous. That is so wide-ranging and so lacking in any kind of concrete meaning or specificity that it just makes a complete mockery of the bill. A council can make a by-law if it is satisfied that this bill is necessary to protect the area. Well, what is it protecting the area against—or whom? It is an absolute nonsense.

Paragraph (b) of clause 11(2) states: “the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way …”. Well, there is an irony right there that this entire bill is disproportionate. That is the problem with it. It criminalises a whole class of people and a whole class of activity unnecessarily, when it could actually be focusing on the problem—that is, people who dump waste in scenic places. The by-law is supposed to be the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem—but perceived by whom? If there is a perception that there is a problem, a council can pass a by-law to outlaw freedom camping across all but 100 percent of its territory. The legislation is absolutely ridiculous. It is heavy-handed and it is punitive. So if there is a perceived problem and a council thinks it needs to protect an area, then that is justification enough under this bill for the council to pass a by-law that will outlaw freedom camping; a freedom that generations of New Zealanders have enjoyed will be able to be outlawed across large swathes of territory.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) Link to this

I refer to subpart 2 in Part 2 of the Freedom Camping Bill, which relates to details of freedom camping on conservation land. It starts off very well, I have to say. Clause 13 states: “Freedom camping is permitted on any conservation land unless freedom camping is restricted or prohibited on the land.” Clause 14(1) goes through a process of: “The Director-General may, by erecting a sign, …”, etc. Clause 15(1) states further: “The Director-General may, by notice published in accordance …”. Then it goes on to say how the good people of New Zealand will be informed of this, and states that a notice must define the conservation land, and then it must be published in the Gazette. Well, that is a good publication.

Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) Link to this

I will pick up on a couple of points made by my colleagues. I think they were very, very well made. I turn to clause 16(1) in Part 2 of the Freedom Camping Bill to pick up the point that “A freedom camping notice is published in accordance with this section if a summary of the notice—(a) is published in the Gazette;”. In all of my time as a tramper and a hunter, the very first thing we did before we did anything else—before we examined the weather forecast and made a plan—was read the Gazette, because we knew that the Gazette was the most important part of our information requirements for going on any trip. It is a very widely circulated document, and is avidly read by New Zealanders every day. I am surprised the Gazette is not in the newspaper awards as one of the most widely circulated documents!

Let us face it: this publication, as far as the public is concerned, is published in secret. It is a secret publication. How many New Zealanders have ever read the Gazette? I ask how many parliamentarians have ever read the Gazette.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this

We now move to debate on clauses 18 to 48 and schedules 2 to 4. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

I am disappointed that members of parties that are voting for this Freedom Camping Bill are not taking calls in this debate. Not only are we in the situation yet again of this National Government taking away freedoms of New Zealanders under urgency but, even worse, the members on the Government side are not even game enough to get up and take a call—

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

Clause 18(1A) of Part 3 I think actually gets to the heart of this very issue. I think it is a relevant issue, and it is what we should be focusing on. Clause 18(1A) of the Freedom Camping Bill says: “Every person commits an offence who discharges a substance in or on a local authority area or conservation land in circumstances where the discharge of the substance is likely to be noxious, dangerous, offensive, or objectionable to such an extent that it—(a) has, or is likely to have, a significant adverse effect on the environment; or (b) has caused, or is likely to cause, significant concern to the community and users of the area or land.” That is the heart of this bill. It is not about parking up a housebus or a caravan, or pitching a tent. That is not offensive. That is not a problem. The problem is the discharge of waste. That is what we should be focusing on. We should be pinging people who do that, rather than people who just pull up and camp, or sleep in a car or a tent, or whatever. That is not the problem. There is no harm or offence done there. We should be focusing solely on the discharge of waste.

As Phil Twyford has touched on, clause 35, “Enforcement officers may seize and impound certain property”, talks about boats, cars, and things like that. They are not the problem. The boats, the caravans, and the housebuses are not the problem. It is what people do when they get out of such vehicles and go in the bush to relieve themselves—that is the problem. When they empty the septic tank or sewage tank—whatever they are called—from the caravans, that is the problem. That is the behaviour that should be dealt with, not the fact that someone parks up overnight, or whatever. To have a provision to, in effect, seize somebody’s Māui campervan or mobile home is outrageous. Let us take a company that rents out campervans or the vans that people stay in—the self-contained vans. Why should they, the owners, have their property confiscated? I think it is way over the top; it is a way-over-the-top provision.

Who can do this? Who can do all the confiscating? It is an enforcement officer, and enforcement officers are appointed by local authorities. If I was camping somewhere out in the wilderness, someone could walk up to me and say “I’m an enforcement officer; here’s my evidence.” Under clause 32(1) “An enforcement officer must produce evidence of his or her appointment under this Act…”. What does that evidence look like? Are they wearing a uniform or a badge, or do they have a certificate? What do they have to produce to prove they are an enforcement officer?

If I was camping way up north in the bush with my cousins, if we were going hunting or something like that, I could imagine what my relations would say to a guy—or a person, I should say—who turned up, said they were an enforcement officer, and told us to move our four-wheel drive away from that area. I would say that person’s safety would be in jeopardy. I mean, who up north will take it seriously if somebody bowls up, waves a piece of paper in their faces, and says it is evidence that they have been appointed by a local body to tell them to go away—to tell them to move their vehicle? Especially if those people have been using that spot for generations to camp before heading off on whatever outdoor pursuit they want to do, and all of a sudden, as Rick Barker said earlier, there has been a move taken by a local authority, which has been gazetted and put in the New Zealand Herald, and which no one knows about it. Why would those people believe that this person had any sort of authority, at all? I do not understand how that piece of paper will make them—

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) Link to this

There is much that we could debate about the Freedom Camping Bill, but I will focus on the proposed amendments in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 267. I go to new clause 28B, “Charging hirer for infringement fee”. This relates basically to the situation of foreign visitors, say a husband and wife from Finland, who have come here and hired a campervan. Their knowledge of English may not be great, but for some reason or another they have ended up camping in the wrong spot in their campervan. It does not matter whether they failed to do something; they just camped in the wrong spot. Then they have left and gone back home.

The rental company then receives an infringement notice, because someone has driven past and seen the number plate. The “poo police”, whoever they are—a person with the bit of paper—has come along. They will not be respected in Northland, and they will not be respected on the West Coast, either. The “poo police” have come along, taken the registration number of the vehicle, and sent it to the rental car company. They see it is a Māui campervan or some other firm’s campervan. I do not like to mention brands, and I am not in any way trying to imply that one brand is better than the other or worse. But, anyway, the rental company receives an infringement notice, so it sends a copy to the people. I will quote from the Supplementary Order Paper. This is the wisdom that comes from the department after the first version of the bill, when it recognised that there were mistakes but said it would improve the bill. Clause 28B(1) says “the rental company may not exercise an authority under a rental service agreement to debit the hirer’s credit card unless, within 5 working days of receipt of the infringement notice, the rental company—(a) sends a copy of the infringement notice and the rental service agreement to the permanent address provided by the hirer in the rental service agreement;”.

Imagine this: the rental company receives a notice. The first point is that the company has to send a copy of it to the people from Finland. Is it to their email address or is it to their residential address? That is what the law says. The company is not allowed to do it for 5 days, and it has to send it through to the permanent address. I take it that that will mean sending a letter to the permanent address. I do not know how long it takes to get a letter from Wellington to Finland, or to some little town in Finland, but the company has to send it there after that. It is somewhat archaic not to have provision for email contact. The clause does not say so; it says the notice goes to the permanent address. Is it an email address or a residential address? Maybe the Minister can clarify that question. Subclause (1)(b) says the company then “notifies the hirer that if the rental company receives a reminder notice for that offence, the rental company will debit the hirer’s credit card”.

Subclause (2) then says: “If the rental company does not receive an infringement notice for the particular offence, but receives a reminder notice for that offence, the rental company may not exercise the authority to debit the hirer’s credit card”. How do we get the money? If we put in place stupid legislation and stupid penalties that cannot be enforced, will people just carry on and go out of the country? Maybe they will be held up at the border because someone says to them: “A notice has come up. You’re not allowed to leave the country, because you camped somewhere and you haven’t paid the fine.” Will it go as far as that? This sounds like a wonderful recipe for Kiwi hospitality—I think not! This is a ridiculous situation. Subclause (2)(a) says the rental company again “sends a copy of the reminder notice and the rental service agreement to the permanent address”. I do not want to go on and on and round and round in circles, but the whole thing is ridiculous. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, and this is a process to get $200 maximum, maybe.

Then, of course, there is the ability to challenge an infringement notice, and the people from Finland may have a legitimate defence to say they did not understand English. Maybe the sign was knocked over—who knows? This is 5, 10, 15, 20 days, or a month after they have left New Zealand, and we are chasing them around for a small fine, in the hope that it will be a big incentive to behave better when camping on conservation land. If people out there are getting somewhat confused, it is because the legislation is confusing, quite frankly.

Once again, I say we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. This is all because a campervan has parked in a place where there is a nice view, but some council has decided that it does not want people to park there overnight, regardless of the fact that they have a fully self-contained unit and they have been fully aware of, and compliant with, every other law in the land. But this bill says the council or councillors can decide that people cannot stay there.

Unfortunately, the people from Finland may not have been able to read the New Zealand Herald. They do not go online very often. They probably do not think the New Zealand Herald is worth reading very often. So they have not had early notice of, or consultation about, a particular area being out of bounds.

I say, in summary, that the signage in this country is generally not up to scratch. If people are trying to drive around and find a place to camp, then they will find, on an international comparison, that the signage is pathetic, I have to say. People get lost; they do not know where they are going. I doubt whether the signage needed for the measures in this legislation will be sufficient to allow someone from Finland or a foreign-speaking country to understand fully what is going on here. There are international signs, I guess. There is the skull and crossbones; that sign might be the one that aptly applies to this legislation. No doubt there might be a way to indicate that camping is banned, but the finer points of for how long or where people may camp, or of where they can go if they cannot park in one spot—200 metres or whatever—will make for a very confusing situation for people who come to this country expecting to be able to wander around in their fully contained campervan. It will be completely contrary to what they were told about New Zealand, and what they understood a holiday in this country would be like. Then, to top it off, they will have in the mail notices from New Zealand, demanding the Finnish equivalent of $200 or thereabouts for parking in a spot that they probably do not even remember.

This bill is just ridiculous. We should not support it. We should get on and do the wise things about improving knowledge of how to reduce our impact on the environment when we are camping, regardless of where it is.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

GARETH HUGHES (Green) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Chairman. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is wonderful to take one of the last calls tonight on the Freedom Camping Bill, which is a Government bill coming before the Committee.

I have to ask: is this the most urgent thing this Committee could be addressing a few months before the election, a month before the Rugby World Cup, and just before we are about to go into urgency? I acknowledge there is a poo problem when one goes out across the countryside, and there is a legitimate freedom camping issue of waste being disposed of unwisely in our natural areas. But the fact is that if we were thinking of the actual, serious poo problem facing this country, we would be looking at the massive—and I mean massive—dairy effluent pollution that every day is going into our creeks, into our rivers, and into our streams, meaning that Kiwi kids cannot learn to swim in a Kiwi river, because we are not adopting smart farming solutions.

I just have to point that out before I go on to addressing Part 3. There are more serious issues that this Committee should be discussing before we go into urgency, such as our kids and our grandkids being able to swim in our rivers.

I spent a few years freedom camping. I was a contractor for Greenpeace for a couple of years. I would work for 3 months and then I would freedom camp for a few months, getting to see our fantastic country. Like most tourists and Kiwis, I did it responsibly. I took care of the waste. I never left anything apart from footprints, and I took nothing but photographs.

The Green Party does acknowledge that there is a serious issue. Our “clean, green” brand is vital to our economy. It is vital to our sense of who we are as a people, and we do not want tourists—or New Zealanders—to turn up to a beautiful scenic spot and see waste there. This is a serious problem and, looking at Part 3 of the bill, I wonder whether the magnitude of this issue is dealt appropriately with by the fines. We have a pretty small fine; the financial penalty is only $200.

The main point I want to touch on is clause 18(1)(c) of Part 3, which states that any person who “makes preparations to freedom camp in a local authority in breach of any prohibition or restriction” commits an offence. We have heard other speakers ask how we will identify the appropriate person delegated to deal with this serious issue—whether it will be with a badge, certificate, or sash.

The big question is how this person will be able to identify whether a person is making preparations to freedom camp. What is the definition of “make preparation to freedom camp”? Is it getting out the thermos and having a cup of tea? Is it setting up a table with the thermos on it and having a cup of tea? Is it setting up a folding chair with the thermos, and being about to enjoy a cup of tea? How on earth will we define this? Are we simply going to put off these tourists who are important to our economy, coming to our country and enjoying our beautiful natural scenery? How will we define “makes preparation to freedom camp in a local authority in breach of any prohibition or restriction”? I invite the Minister of Conservation to take a call on this issue.

There are a whole bunch of other questions that I have heard tonight, and it would be good to have them answered. We have heard a whole range of questions in this debate. The fact is that this bill has just been rammed through under too much haste.

I am really looking forward to the Rugby World Cup kicking off. As a Kiwi I am really excited about it, but unfortunately the tournament has brought out a bit of a bad streak in our national psyche. We have heard about Auckland sweeping the streets of homeless people, we have seen Adidas price-gouging Kiwis who want to wear the black jersey, and here we see the authorities and police—who already have appropriate powers to deal with this serious issue—being circumvented by this bill. We do not need to do it; they already have the powers.

What the Green Party supports is a positive approach that looks at education, and providing more facilities and more legal camping-grounds. What we would love to see is more money going to the Department of Conservation to keep providing those great camping-grounds. Kia ora.

Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) Link to this

The member Gareth Hughes made a very good point about freedom camping. He talked about Auckland sweeping the streets of all the people who sleep on the street. Well, surely they are the ultimate freedom campers. Does each of those people who sleep on the street realise that they will be subject to a $200 fine if they are making preparations for freedom camping? What does this mean for Blanket Man in Wellington? I do not think anybody has heard that this is an attack on Blanket Man’s right to sleep on the streets of Wellington.

I want to come to another point. There are several points I want to make, and I start on clause 18(1)(c) of the Freedom Camping Bill. It states “makes preparations to freedom camp in a local authority area”, and there is a similar reference for a Department of Conservation area. What does “makes preparations to freedom camp” mean? Does it mean that the campervan has stopped, and someone has pulled on the handbrake? Surely that is a prerequisite to freedom camping. One cannot freedom camp without the vehicle being stopped and the handbrake pulled on, as we saw tragically at Lake Hayes. So if someone has pulled the handbrake on and stopped, are they making preparations?

One would think that a person who did that would have a defence. But, no, National has made sure there is no defence, because if we go over to clause 19 of the bill, “Strict liability offences”, it states “In prosecuting an offence under section 18(1), the prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant—(a) intentionally or recklessly committed the offence;”. So there is no need to have proven intent. The person needs only to have stopped and encountered someone of mean spirit who has had a bad day and decides they need to do something, so issues an instant fine of $200 to that person because they have stopped. Is it an intention to camp if someone stops, like in those glossy adverts where people put a couple of chairs outside to have a cup of tea and enjoy the view? Is that an intention to camp? It is very hard to prove an intention. But it gets worse. I draw members’ and the Minister’s attention to new clause 18(1A)(b), which states “has caused, or is likely to cause, significant concern to the community and users of the area or land.” A concern—what is a concern?