Freedom Camping Bill

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) Link to this

I move, That the Freedom Camping Bill be now read a third time. Freedom camping is a valued tradition in New Zealand, as we have heard, and this Government wants to ensure that it stays that way. It is unfortunate that we need this bill, but we do. We want freedom camping to continue, and for that to happen it needs to be managed before communities lose their patience. We are an outdoors destination, the land is the cornerstone of our identity, and we have always welcomed tourists who want to share in its grandeur. We want to retain our natural beauty, and not to see our most pristine spots degraded by human waste and rubbish.

This bill is about protecting our environment and our reputation. It allows local authorities and the Department of Conservation to better protect our most popular tourism destinations, so that everyone can enjoy them. The presumption is that people can camp unless a location is specifically restricted. Councils cannot issue blanket bans across their districts, as some have claimed. This bill is purposely pro-camping, as we recognise that the majority of freedom campers are responsible and take great care to clean up after themselves. But where freedom camping is causing very real issues, councils and the Department of Conservation now have the tools to act. The introduction of an instant fine is simple: if someone is caught camping where they are specifically prohibited from doing so, then they can be subject to a fine. At the moment if a prosecution is undertaken, it costs the ratepayer, or the taxpayer, over $10,000. It is far more efficient and effective to simply have the tool of an instant fine than to have the matter drag through the courts.

The genesis of this bill is a case study undertaken in collaboration between private industry, local government, and central government. In December 2007 the Tourism Industry Association established a forum aimed at better management of vehicle-based freedom camping. It has become known as the New Zealand Responsible Camping Forum. Its members are made up of all the relevant industry bodies and Government agencies. The forum succeeded in achieving a unified stance on how best to manage freedom camping, with a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory tools. The members of the forum have, and will continue to develop and distribute, excellent communication and education materials, including print, news media, and standard signage.

In its submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee, the Tourism Industry Association noted that all members of the forum agreed that some degree of enforcement is required to enhance their non-regulatory approaches in order to help campers to take responsibility for the care and guardianship of the environment and our communities. It pointed out that the forum has been under increasing pressure to help establish a nationally consistent enforcement regime that can be used to fine campers who deliberately camp in places or in ways that are not tolerable for communities. It was felt that this would act primarily as a deterrent, while providing a tool for land managers when deemed absolutely necessary. Used wisely, a nationally consistent enforcement regime will support the information-based approach and help to remove community tension that has grown from a sense of powerlessness when campers have ignored local advice and direction.

The Minister of Local Government, the Minister for the Environment, and I in my role as the Minister of Conservation have worked together to respond to the needs identified by the forum, the wider community, our tourism sector, and the needs of our environment. This bill is a result of that collaboration.

I again thank the select committee for its fine work to ensure that measures intended to address the worst excesses of freedom camping did not undermine freedom camping as a valued Kiwi tradition. As we have always said, this Government is committed to ensuring this tradition continues to be available to those who camp responsibly. We are committed to ensuring that local councils and the Department of Conservation are able to address problems where they have arisen.

The Tourism Industry Association stated: “Forum members have been unanimous in their belief that strong, clear and targeted camping information is the cornerstone for achieving responsible camping practices New Zealand. The strongest long-term gains will come from developing a culture of environmental care underpinned by national and local visitor-friendly information”. I agree with these views. The tools provided through this bill are additions to, not replacements for, the broad range of tools that are needed to encourage responsible freedom camping. My department and local authorities will use the enforcement tools only when there are real issues, and when these tools are the most appropriate and proportionate way of dealing with them. I encourage camping and I look forward to a future where communities, secure in the knowledge that freedom campers will camp responsibly, happily roll out the welcome mat. I commend this bill to the House.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

Let me, for the record, state again that Labour acknowledges that we have a problem with the dumping of waste on the roadside in some of our country’s most scenic areas. We acknowledge this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but we have come strongly to the view that the Freedom Camping Bill is ill-conceived, badly thought through, and bad law that must be opposed.

What does this bill do? It gives councils the power to declare large parts of their territory to be off-limits for freedom camping. It installs an enforcement and compliance regime for not only the dumping of waste and littering but also freedom camping itself. It is a joke that this Minister stands up and tries to portray this bill as some kind of Magna Carta for freedom campers. It is not. It is the opposite. It undermines freedom camping and it threatens the freedom that generations of New Zealanders have enjoyed, to get out in the countryside, to park on the side of the road, and to sleep a few hours before heading off for a weekend of fishing, surfing, pig hunting—you name it.

We have two chief concerns. The first is that this bill is disproportionate. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, as Kevin Hague said in the first reading debate on this bill. As I said, it gives councils the power to declare large areas off-limits to freedom campers, and we have had considerable debate over the last few hours about whether that gives councils the power to effect blanket bans. The bill says no, it does not allow councils to effect blanket bans, but the reality is that they can declare large swathes of their territory off-limits for freedom campers. The Minister has failed to answer the question we put to her, and that is what percentage is acceptable or not acceptable? Is 98 percent of the territory off-limits to freedom campers a blanket ban or not?

At the Local Government and Environment Committee we heard that a number of councils have, in the current system, actually set out to effect blanket bans. The Thames-Coromandel District Council through its own by-laws has effectively instituted a blanket ban. The Dunedin City Council came to the committee and gave us quite a detailed presentation. It too has effectively outlawed freedom camping in its territories. So the political will is there when councils decide, for whatever reason, that it is too much hassle, it is too much problem, and we do not want freedom campers in our territory. By giving councils such an efficient mechanism as is in this bill, councils will have much greater ability to prohibit freedom camping in their territories. The result is that this will affect many New Zealanders—pig hunters, surfers, fishers, climbers, trampers—who probably do not live in those areas and therefore are not ratepayers or local voters, but they are New Zealanders who currently have the right to go freedom camping and enjoy the country in that way.

Are we demonising councils by suggesting that they will use the law in this way? I do not think we are. Who in this House has experience of councils using traffic laws for revenue generation? Do we have any examples of councils using bus lanes to generate revenue? Yes, we do. It is not inconceivable that councils, in an attempt to get cost recovery under this law, will go out there and have officials banging on the windows of campervans that are parked on the side of the road and pinging people with a $200 instant fine. So we believe that this law is disproportionate. We also are of the view that it is badly drafted, and this is not a complaint against the officials; it is a complaint against their political masters for the woolly, unfocused, and badly thought through policy that they have asked the officials to implement.

Clause 11 talks about one of the criteria that a council would have to satisfy before it passed a by-law to ban freedom camping, and that would be to protect the area. What the heck does “protect the area” mean? It also says the local authority must be satisfied that the by-law would address a perceived problem in the area. Well, perceived by whom? Clause 11A states that by-laws must not absolutely prohibit freedom camping. This is the Alice-in-Wonderland clause. Just because it says the by-laws must not absolutely prohibit, it does not actually prevent them from banning freedom camping in 98 percent of that territory.

Stuart Nash pointed out that clause 5(1)(a) defines freedom camping as sleeping out under some temporary structure, a caravan, or a campervan. But sleeping under the stars is perfectly acceptable under this bill. It is an absolute nonsense. Further on in the bill it makes it an offence to make preparations to camp and, as Rick Barker pointed out, what does that mean? Does it include pulling the handbrake up, getting one’s jamies out of the suitcase, or putting on the burner to make a cup of tea? Is that “making a preparation to camp”? So not only the campers of New Zealand but also the law enforcement officers of councils all over New Zealand will have a field day with this bill.

One of the most odious parts of this bill is the seizure and impoundment of property provisions. We have already discussed the advice from Sir Geoffrey Palmer as chair of the Legislation Advisory Committee. He told the Government and the select committee that the seizure and impoundment provisions were inconsistent, illogical, and would not achieve their stated aims, and that they provide a perverse incentive for people to commit an offence in a tent rather than a campervan. In fact, they are an assault on the property rights of New Zealanders because they place the onus on the persons who have had their property seized to prove or establish that the property will not be used in any ongoing offending. That is just one of the many defects in this bill.

Associate Professor Kenneth Palmer made a really interesting submission to the select committee. He stated: “I consider the message given by the legislation is one of punishment, which is likely to affect many international tourists, as well as local persons. The effect on international tourists may be to change the image of New Zealand as a freedom area, and to impose on visitors significant fines, and even the seizure of vehicles, which may not be justified on the merits of the situation.” He pointed out that local authorities have been in breach of the duty imposed under the Litter Act to provide receptacles in public places. That is consistent with the case we have been making all the way along that practical measures like the provision of more public toilets and rubbish bins in these scenic, out-of-the-way places would be a much better response than this sledgehammer bill from the National Government.

My opening comment was that this bill is misnamed. It has about as much to do with freedom camping and preserving freedom as Ronald Reagan’s “Clear Skies Bill” did, when in the 1980s he gutted pollution controls on industrial polluters. This should be called the “Anti-Freedom Camping Bill”, “National’s Nanny State Camping Bill”, or “The Day National Killed the Kiwi Road Trip Bill”. Those would all be much better titles. We live in a complex, highly regulated society, and it is important that as legislators we carefully consider the balance of rights and responsibilities, and the potential unintended consequences of laws that we pass.

It is our case that this bill seriously undermines and curtails the freedoms that New Zealanders have enjoyed for generations to enjoy the great outdoors without having some council law enforcement officer knocking on the window of their campervan—

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

I start with the underlying premise that the default position of the Freedom Camping Bill is that freedom camping on public land is allowed, subject to the legislation. I thank the Hon Rick Barker for his colourful contribution. I think he brought in allusions to Arlo Guthrie’s “Alice’s Restaurant Massacree” in a previous contribution. The Hon Damien O’Connor made a number of contributions, some of them more considered than others, but I do not feel he, along with Mr Phil Twyford, understands the full problem that indiscriminate defecation in our areas of outstanding natural beauty is posing to local residents, local authorities, the Department of Conservation, and, of course, the unwary traveller. Who wants to step out of their van or off their motorcycle into a pile of steaming human waste or ordure? I do not mean to make light of this issue. It is a significant problem to a large number of communities around our beautiful country.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this

I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Freedom Camping Bill. I was disappointed to miss the Committee stage, because it was clearly a lively debate, to which I had wished to contribute many remarks. It was very interesting to hear the Minister of Conservation refer in her remarks in her third reading speech to the consultation process that she says led to the construction of this bill. What a shame that that process did not involve trampers, hunters, and mountain bikers—all of those who will be so terribly affected by this ridiculous bill.

I will give eight main reasons—I raised five fingers, but really there are another three—why this is such a bad bill. The first of those reasons is that it penalises ordinary Kiwis for doing things that are an important part of our way of life. We have heard a lot about that so far in the debate in the House, at all stages.

The second point is that the things this bill penalises are already offences. They are already against the law, so what actually is it about this bill that will be more effective than all of the previous penalties and offences? There is absolutely nothing. The idea that in some way the bill will deal with this problem is based on an entirely fanciful notion. It will not work.

The third thing is that there are certainly some issues associated with a small minority of people who have campervans that do not have toilets, and who park overnight in a location where there are no suitable facilities for them. But in those exact same places there are day visitors who may also get caught short. It is the absence of facilities that is the problem, not the freedom camping activity. This bill does nothing to deal with that problem, either. The Rugby World Cup is coming along, and then there will be plenty of day visitors too.

The fourth point I will make is one that I made strongly in the second reading debate, which is that it would have been so much better to use a non-regulatory approach to this issue, because regulatory approaches are appropriate in situations where people do not want to comply with a direction they know to be the best one. In this case, visitors to our country actually want to look after our environment. The correct approach is to make that easy for them to do, not to penalise them for not doing it. There would have been plenty of other ways to do that.

The fifth reason is an important one, and I raised it in the second reading debate, hoping that it would achieve a little bit more media coverage than it did. There is a problem with this bill: it gives the impression of validity to existing territorial local authority provisions related to freedom camping. In fact, the bill does not add any greater legal status to those provisions. The Local Government and Environment Committee heard that those provisions already enacted by territorial local authorities, in very large number would be found by a court to be invalid, because the existing law requires that territorial local authorities pass by-laws about these matters only in those locations where there is a demonstrated problem, and only where the by-law is the best means available to deal with that problem.

That is not the approach that territorial local authorities have taken. We see territorial local authorities that have imposed blanket bans. The provision in this bill that says a territorial local authority may not impose a blanket ban is all well and good, but people should recognise that that is just for the sake of clarity. It does not change the requirement that there has to be an actual problem in a specific location, that a response has to be the best way of dealing with that problem, and that the response has to be proportional to the problem. What we have seen for the most part is responses that do not meet that formula, and that will fail in court as soon as they are challenged.

The next point I come to is the impracticality of this legislation. Again, I was stupefied to hear from the Minister of Conservation today in this debate that this bill has emerged as a result of consultation with those who will be enforcing it, because I see this bill as one of the least enforceable I have seen, certainly in my time in Parliament, and in my time of observing Parliament over many years. This bill is impractical, and it will be found to be hard to enforce, or at least hard to enforce without giving the impression to all users of our back country and natural places—Kiwis and visitors alike—of pervading officiousness. I think that is the culture we are likely to see emerge as territorial local authorities and the Department of Conservation come to try to implement this ridiculous bill.

The seventh point I make is in response to one that the Minister of Conservation, Kate Wilkinson, and the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, made in response to my first reading speech, and that Nick Smith made again in his second reading speech, in which he appeared to be completely unable to distinguish between the effects of the extremely small, infinitesimal impact of this particular problem of freedom camping on freshwater quality in New Zealand, and the effect of dairying intensification on freshwater quality in New Zealand. Nick Smith, Minister for the Environment, seemed unable to distinguish which of these impacts was the larger. He seemed to say that they were comparable. I tell the House that they are not comparable. The impact, for example, of the planned extra 1 million dairy cows in the intensification planned for this country will be equivalent to an extra 14 million human beings, with all of the consequent environmental impacts on our fresh water, and without the treatment systems that exist for human beings.

The eighth point I make—and it is one I made in both the first and second readings, but I will reiterate it—is about the impact this bill will have on our overseas visitors. This is a bill that this Government is rushing into place for the Rugby World Cup, but, for all of those overseas visitors coming to visit our country, instead of the welcome mat being rolled out, this Government is choosing to roll out a “Not Welcome” mat, a “Keep Off the Grass” sign in neon lights. It is entirely the wrong approach. This Government could instead have actually used the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme to recognise the fact that visitors to our country, and Kiwis using the back country, contribute very substantially, both to local economies and to our national economy. Therefore, it is reasonable for local economies through territorial local authorities, and for the national economy through the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme, to fork out just a little bit to provide the extra facilities required in popular spots for freedom camping, and to use a little bit extra to provide education about where those places are. That is exactly the approach that Tourism New Zealand was following, and it is exactly the approach that this Government should have continued to follow, had it not lost its nerve.

This is a bad bill. It is bad from start to finish, and this House and this country will regret it.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

Part of New Zealand’s heritage is at stake here. New Zealanders have always been able to go and participate in the outdoor environment and camp, as we have heard, get up in the morning, and go off and do some form of activity. That is now in jeopardy, because of the Freedom Camping Bill. What we should be doing is focusing on the people who are dumping effluent, and who are dumping waste and rubbish around camping areas. We should of focus on them, not on the act of parking up and resting overnight, or sitting in a car, or lying in a tent or caravan, waiting to do some sort of activity the next day. I have to say that Kevin Hague has covered the issues really, really well. They are well-thought-out and he is right.

One of the main points I want to pick up on is the whole enforcement of this bill. If we take the Far North District Council, for example, we see that it is responsible for an area the size of Israel. It has four service centre towns and about 30 or 40 little villages and hamlets. The problem is that there are no facilities around those towns and hamlets to cater for freedom camping. We need to be looking at the facilities, but instead we are pinging people. We should be looking at the facilities. But in respect of enforcement, the Far North District Council will just not have the staff to cover that whole area, to cover the 30 or 40 towns and the four main service centres. It will not have the staff. It struggles with staff anyway just to do less controversial tasks, yet here we are expecting that somewhere in the middle of the night someone will go around popping up and knocking on the windows of caravans or cars, or calling out from outside a tent, to tell people to move on. That is just ridiculous. It will not happen. It is a nonsense to even include this measure in the bill. It will not happen in areas such as the far north.

Last night we covered the issue of notification—informing New Zealanders and overseas tourists about the areas where they can or cannot camp. We have heard that those areas will be published in the Gazette, which is a publication I have to admit I have never read. I have never read it, I have never seen it, and I would not know how or where to access it. As the Hon Rick Barker said, how on earth will people from overseas know where to access that publication and find out where they can or cannot park up for the night? Not only that, but those areas will be notified in the daily papers of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. I do not know in which edition and I do not know on which date the information will be published. But if it is published today, how will someone who turns up in New Zealand next week know where to find out where they can or cannot freedom camp? They will not know. It is not like it will be the headline on the front page of the New Zealand Herald or the Dominion Post; it will be tucked away somewhere in the back pages. No tourist is interested in looking through the “For Sale” signs and the “Places to Rent” notices in order to find a little notification as to where they can or cannot park their caravans overnight. Those parts of the bill are silly. In fact, we say the whole bill is silly.

We still do not know about the blanket bans. We see that the bill says that there are to be no blanket bans. Local authorities will not be able to put blanket bans on freedom camping, but that means that they may be able to exclude just a little area—a car park or a couple of car parks in one little town—and say that they have not put in place a blanket ban over the whole of the area. And they would be quite within their rights. So there is actually no definition of what size the blanket ban can be. Again we say that this is a nonsense.

The bill is jeopardising the way of life for New Zealanders. Freedom camping is something that we have been able to do since, as I said last night, my tupuna Kupe turned up on the shores of New Zealand. He was New Zealand’s very first freedom camper, because when he turned up and parked his waka up on some beach, he did not actually stay there, build a permanent structure, and live there for the rest of his life; he circumnavigated the whole of the North Island, naming places around the whole of the North Island.

HILARY CALVERT (ACT) Link to this

I rise to take a call on the Freedom Camping Bill. I commend this bill to the House.

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I rise to support the third reading of the Freedom Camping Bill. Listening to the speakers on the other side of the House, one would think that we were talking about two different bills. The Freedom Camping Bill is all about keeping New Zealand clean and green so that all New Zealanders and visitors can enjoy our beautiful natural environment, and it amazes me that parties such as Labour and the Greens, which profess to want to improve our environmental standards and to give credibility to our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand, will vote against it. That does not make any sense. They acknowledge that there is a problem, but they have spent all their time trying to find reasons that legislation will not work, rather than looking for a useful solution.

This bill responds to a serious environmental problem and pollution issue—that of dirty and careless campers, who are despoiling our natural environment. Nobody wants that. Nobody will go home to their country and say what a beautiful, clean country New Zealand is if they have stepped into other people’s waste. New Zealanders do not want a small number of irresponsible campers spoiling our right to enjoy our beautiful country or giving us a bad reputation internationally.

In debating this bill, the Local Government and Environment Committee found a practical, common-sense way to balance two great Kiwi traditions. The first is the right to go freedom camping, and the second is our wish to look after our natural environment. I believe that we have got that balance right. The bill, for the first time, enshrines the right of New Zealanders to go freedom camping as a default setting. New Zealanders can camp as of right on public land and Department of Conservation land, unless there is a good reason not to allow it.

The restrictions are within limited geographical areas, which the Opposition seems to have forgotten all about or does not understand. In creating these by-laws, authorities need to prove that there is a real problem. This bill ensures that they can no longer impose blanket bans and it will give consistency across the country. The questions that the Opposition has been asking about the percentage are nonsense, because authorities can impose those by-laws within only very limited geographical areas, and the select committee tightened those up even more.

It has long been illegal to camp in some specific areas and to deposit litter and human waste on the roadside, and for very good reason, but there has never been an effective or efficient way of enforcing the law. This bill provides for instant fines, which are a common-sense way to ensure responsible freedom camping, so that all of us—New Zealanders and visitors alike—can enjoy our beautiful natural environment. I commend this bill to the House.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

I rise to speak to the Freedom Camping Bill. As New Zealanders we are justly and rightly proud of the reputation New Zealand has as a clean, green country, but unfortunately some people take advantage of that reputation. New Zealand has a reputation of encouraging our citizens to see our country before they see the rest of the world, and also we are keen to let the rest of the world come here and see our beautiful country. Unfortunately, some people take advantage of that, and we have a problem with freedom campers who are unable to decide what to do with their litter and their waste. This bill sets out a very good way of dealing with that issue. It allows local authorities to pass by-laws not only to allow freedom camping but also to make sure that it is done within limits. I think that is a good idea. The Māori Party thinks this is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) Link to this

It is nice to speak towards the end of this debate on the Freedom Camping Bill; hopefully I will have the final word. The last speaker, Rahui Katene, said that there is a problem with freedom campers. No; there is a problem with effluent disposal and there is a problem with infrastructure. It is quite bizarre that in the year of the Rugby World Cup, when we are hoping to welcome tens of thousands of extra people to this country, we are rushing through Parliament legislation that will cut right across what we have told those people about New Zealand and their experience in New Zealand.

It is quite outrageous that a Government that is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on stadiums up and down this country has not been prepared to spend any money on basic toilet infrastructure for the tens of thousands of people who come here. This Government cut the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme, in which central government assisted local government to put in place proper toilet facilities where necessary. This Government cut that scheme, spent hundreds of millions on stadiums, and has gone out marketing around the world saying: “Come and enjoy New Zealand. Come and enjoy our Rugby World Cup. But if you park in that particular spot, you are likely to get a note after 5 days from the rental car company to your permanent address, in which case you can respond.”

The point is that Supplementary Order Paper 267, brought in by the Minister of Conservation, is so complex and so bizarre—it prescribes the way that the rental car companies can charge any fine—that it makes a mockery of anything the National-ACT Government, supported by Peter Dunne, says about compliance costs, the nanny State, and regulation. This is the worst that I have seen in this Parliament.

We have an issue. We have had an issue for quite a while. Actually, it is not just people who camp at night; it is people who want to go to the toilet during the day in their travels up and down New Zealand. But this bill does not say we will look at the outcomes and the adverse effects and try to address them. It says we will just say point-blank that people shall not camp in certain places. Discretion has been given to the councils, and we have had assurances that it will be only where the council identifies a problem. Well, the council might say that it gets a few rubbish bins that are filled up in a certain place and it costs a bit to clear them, so it will just declare that place “No Camping”. It will save the council the cost of clearing the rubbish tins. That will be sufficient for a council to make a blanket ban. That is quite bizarre in a country that has prided itself on outdoor experiences.

Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, you know full well that with regard to these things, to quote Robin from Copperfields last night: “Well, that is the fun of New Zealand.”—being able to go out, park up, and be responsible. Yes, we have an issue around education and around infrastructure. For the growing number of people who come to New Zealand and go out and have less understanding of effluent disposal, perhaps we need to educate them. But this bill attempts to educate New Zealanders by putting notices in the Gazette—a very widely read newspaper, as colleague Mr Rick Barker said! Notices will also be put in key metropolitan newspapers. Those notices will educate the people of New Zealand as to where they cannot freedom camp.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this

I am very pleased to be able to speak in the third reading of the Freedom Camping Bill and to answer some of the issues or the misinformation that has been spread by members on the other side of the House. It is great to be able to get the record straight.

The Freedom Camping Bill is a very practical bill. It solves a practical problem that affects not only visitors to this country but, more important, local residents of places that are popular for overseas guests to camp. One of the things the Opposition members have not really got their head around is the shift of the presumption of where people can camp and where they cannot. I would suggest that one of the reasons the councils currently have by-laws that put blanket bans in place is that they have not had any practical tools to deal with the problems. That is exactly what this bill delivers. So the first point is to say that this bill changes the presumption, to say that people can freedom camp anywhere unless there is a local council by-law that says otherwise.

I know it is not normal in the third reading, but I want to bring the House’s attention to clause 11(2)(a), which states the reasons under which a council can make a by-law. They are “(i) to protect the area: (ii) to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area: (iii) to protect access to the area;”. But the key phrase, in clause 11(2)(b), is—and the Local Government and Environment Committee did a significant amount of work to get this wording right, so I do want to thank the officials both from the Department of Internal Affairs and the Department of Conservation—that “the by-law is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to that area;”.

That provision means that an authority cannot pass a blanket by-law. This is an example of one of the concerns the Federated Mountain Clubs raised with us. So for those who are interested in hunting, fishing, and tramping we answered their concern by saying the presumption that they can camp is stronger—this allows them to camp. We also redefined “freedom camp” so that it does not apply to someone who has been travelling overnight and sleeps and rests in their vehicle to keep their driving safe.

But the main point I want to make is that this is about protecting the right of New Zealand families to camp. I want to give a personal example. I was raised camping by the lakes, by the rivers, and by the beaches. I remember times with my son when staying in a camping ground was not affordable for me at that time. So we would pack up the borrowed tent, jump in the car, and drive to a place that was yet undiscovered.

This bill protects the right of New Zealanders to have those kinds of adventures in this country, because it will stop the blanket by-laws. It is all about giving councils the tools so they will not have to put blanket bans in place like they have to today. They can give people an instant fine; this bill gives councils a tool. This makes it consistent for the local council and the Department of Conservation, and that is why this bill is a nice, practical bill that protects New Zealanders’ long-fought-for ability to camp in the great outdoors. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this

I am pleased to speak in this final stage, the third reading of the Freedom Camping Bill—a completely inappropriately named bill, sadly. I want to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I agree with the member who has just resumed her seat, Louise Upston, and her point. The select committee did work very hard together to try to resolve the concerns we had about the bill. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, that was not successful.

Everybody on the select committee, and I am sure everyone in this House, agrees that there is a problem when people litter and pollute our beautiful environment. The old National, the traditional National, would have said in the past “There is a problem. What’s a practical, common-sense way of fixing it?”. In fact, the Hon Peter Dunne may, in the past, have been inclined towards that approach as well. But instead we hear National saying “We have a problem, and, oops, we have the Rugby World Cup coming. Let’s bring in Draconian legislation that gives local authorities and the Department of Conservation huge powers that really undermine the whole image we want to portray internationally at any time, but particularly leading into the Rugby World Cup.” So this is exactly the wrong time to be using this sledgehammer to resolve the problem.

We could have phased out the sort of campervans that cause the problem. We could have reinstated Government financial support for local authorities to install more toilet facilities where there are problems around the country. Instead, we have this huge power being given to local authorities so that they can say that massive parts of their district are not allowed to be used for freedom camping and very significant fines—not just for littering, but for dumping of waste and actually for freedom camping itself—can be given.

It is to my regret that despite the best of efforts across all four parties represented on the select committee, we were not able to get a resolution to this problem. We are now giving the wrong message from our Parliament about how we would like visitors to come to our country and enjoy and cherish our beautiful outdoors. Supplementary Order Papers 271, 272, and 273 proposed by Phil Twyford would have done that, but unfortunately National has maintained a very rigorous approach to Supplementary Order Papers from Labour and has just said “It is Labour; we will vote against it.” I think that was foolish, particularly when we were looking at legislation where we agreed there was a problem and when we tried very hard at the select committee to get a good resolution. The officials worked extremely hard, and I know they understood the tensions that arose between our desire to send a strong message about wanting our clean environment to remain so, and our desire to not punish, or even give the wrong message to, people who have enjoyed freedom camping as part of our New Zealand culture. That is what we are doing with this legislation, and I regret that we are progressing in this manner.