Freedom Camping Bill — First Reading 
Freedom Camping Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19262] 
Freedom Camping Bill 
First Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the Freedom Camping Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Local Government and Environment Committee consider the Freedom Camping Bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington region despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
The purpose of this bill is to address the negative effects of freedom camping. Many visitors stopping along our roadsides at rest areas and look-outs face more than a spectacular view. Too often they also face a pile of human waste and toilet paper. This is often a “gift” from a visitor who hired a cheap campervan with no toilet and then used the rest area or look-out to camp overnight in order to avoid paying camping ground fees. We are an outdoors destination. We want tourists to continue to come here to explore and enjoy our countryside. New Zealanders do just that on their own holidays and we want to protect our reputation. Inappropriate camping and toileting does this country a disservice and we do not want this behaviour to be lodged in anyone’s memories when they get home. Freedom camping is an important part of our tourism industry and great Kiwi lifestyle but we cannot tolerate irresponsible campers spoiling our most iconic areas with human waste and litter. 
This is particularly important as we gear up for the Rugby World Cup. Roughly 85000 visitors are expected to arrive on our shores. For many of those this will be the holiday of a lifetime so we are acting rapidly to ensure that this legislation is in place by then. 
The number of freedom campers has doubled over the past decade to 110000 international visitors and more than 40000 New Zealanders. The existing system in which each of our 67 districts has its own bylaws is not working for the responsible freedom camper wanting to do the right thing or for councils wanting to protect their local environment. This bill will enable councils to determine where camping is allowed where it is restricted to campervans with self-containment and where it is prohibited. The Department of Conservation will be able to make similar rules on the reserves it manages. There will be nationally consistent signage and practical enforcement provisions. A website will be provided outlining where people can and cannot camp nationally. Camping at specific sensitive sites and depositing human waste on roadsides is already illegal but councils and the Department of Conservation have very limited options for dealing with offenders. This bill will increase the tools available to them by creating an infringement regime. This will avoid the need for councils and the Department of Conservation to take expensive court action and therefore provide a more effective deterrent to inappropriate behaviour. 
The bill will provide the same approach as that used for other relatively minor offences such as parking and traffic offences. People can be ticketed when they camp in an area in which camping is prohibited or camp in an area where camping is restricted and they breach those restrictions—for example by using a campervan with no toilet in an area restricted to self-contained campervans or by depositing waste whilst camping. The bill sets the infringement fee at $200 and I believe that this will provide a strong deterrent for potential offenders. Enforcement officers will still have the option of taking a matter to the courts if they consider that the offence warrants that action—for example a campervan emptying its sewage tank in a rest area. In that case a far higher penalty to a maximum of $10000 might be imposed. The ability to impose high fines already exists for breaches of council bylaws including camping bylaws but this bill provides a uniform regime across council land and public conservation land. It will enable local government agencies to effectively enforce their existing and future bylaws relating to camping. 
I must emphasise that this bill does not change the locations where anyone can camp. The presumption is still that freedom camping is not only allowed but encouraged as a core part of the back-country experience. The infringement system will apply only in vehicle-accessible areas near formed roads near the coast and near Great Walks. Councils and the Department of Conservation already restrict camping where it would be a problem in specific sites—for example in city car-parks—where camping could damage natural values or where there is a more suitable camping site nearby. This bill is designed to allow such decisions to be effectively enforced. In the case of public conservation land the bill will also provide a clear and transparent method for making such decisions in future taking into account the purposes for which land is held and any management plans. 
In summary this bill will provide my department and councils with another tool to protect our open spaces our tourism industry and the interests of back-country users and it will reinforce the back-country code. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Conservation is one of those areas that arouse a huge amount of passion and pride from all New Zealanders. What is most disappointing about the debate that has commenced is the total lack of passion vision support or understanding that the Minister of Conservation demonstrated in her speech. That will be a big disappointment as has been this Government’s contribution to conservation over the last 2½ years. 
The Freedom Camping Bill has been warmly welcomed by many groups around this country and Labour will certainly support its progress to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am disappointed that we will have such little time at the select committee as indicated by the Minister to consider the concerns that have already been expressed publicly. As with many legislative provisions the devil is in the detail. If we do not get it right at the select committee and report it back to the House we are likely to cause problems. The rush I understand is to make sure the provisions are enabled before the Rugby World Cup. I personally do not think that is a good enough reason to rush legislation and possibly get it wrong. 
As the Minister outlined this provision is really an empowering one so that local councils can determine areas where they say freedom camping is not allowed. That is quite a big step for New Zealand to take. We have often prided ourselves on our welcoming attitude to people who want to get out and about and see the best of our country. We do not welcome people who pollute it. We do not welcome people who abuse the beauty we are so proud of and destroy it for other people. It is important to have that protection but whether this bill is the right mechanism for doing it is certainly part of the debate we will have. 
I am not sure I agree with the Minister that the instant fine regime is the most appropriate and I do think that there will be more difficulty with enforcement than the Minister has outlined. For example if a freedom camper gets a fine and then gets in his or her car and drives to the airport to leave the country as previously planned what happens? Do we just say that that is bad luck? I am not sure we do. The legislation reads to me as if the vehicle owner has the responsibility but it could be a rental car company—more likely than not it will be a rental car company. Then what happens? Does the rental car company have the onus of passing on the fine that has been incurred—unfairly in my view? Does Hertz for example have the responsibility of chasing that person around the other side of the world in order to get that $200? That detail would be quite important particularly to rental car companies. 
Another concern I have is that there could be some relationship between motor camps and a council. The council will determine the zones where freedom camping is or is not allowed. If there is some relationship between a camping ground and a council the council might say that it is to their benefit to exclude freedom camping in a large part of that area for the benefit of the motor camp. That would not be fair on freedom campers. They would be unfairly punished because of that relationship. That is something we also might need to protect against. 
Another area of concern that has been drawn to my attention through quite considerable publicity around this bill is the issue of trampers. It is very common in New Zealand for trampers to sleep the night at the start of the track or at the end of the track and then start their journey the next day either on foot or by driving home. If that area is not allowed to be used as a freedom camping area then those trampers might have to stay some distance away and ruin what is a very important part of tramping tradition of being able to get to the start of the track the night before and then start walking very very early the next morning. Those are areas that I think deserve the rigour of attention. 
I am sure Chris Auchinvole will guide the bill very well through the Local Government and Environment Committee which in my view has developed a reputation—and a fair reputation—of paying considerable attention to detail in legislation. Our deliberations today were significantly enhanced by the presence of Aaron Gilmore who contributed very well. It was fortunate he was there because otherwise we may well have floundered on some of the detail particularly in the local government provisions. It was extraordinarily helpful and I hope he is able to sub in for some of the members as we consider this bill. 
This bill has arisen because of the Government’s desire which I certainly support to ensure that precious areas of our country—areas where people want to visit see and enjoy—are protected against anything unpleasant are damaged or are destroyed by people who are not as respectful as we want them to be. We do not know whether that happens a lot or is quite rare but we know that some councils have been particularly upset about it. I know that other colleagues will add to that. 
Rural Women New Zealand is not a group that complains lightly. It has put on public record its concerns about the damage to specific environments that is being done by freedom campers. Mount Maunganui locals have complained of behaviour in their area. I am sure they were not referring to Simon Bridges or to any other local members of Parliament; they were referring to freedom campers. That area is a magnificent part of the country and I am sure Simon Bridges wants to make sure it is protected as well. 
The same has happened in Queenstown and in Picton. Those are areas where we want to make sure that as we parade around the world inviting people to come here and saying to people that our country is the best in the world and that it is 100% Pure New Zealand we want to be able to back that up. When those people come to visit we want to show them the pristine areas we so enjoy. 
I find it frustrating though that the Minister supports this sort of legislation as she did in her introductory speech but at the same time has significantly undermined the ability of her own department—the Department of Conservation—to progress the very issues that this Freedom Camping Bill is designed to protect. Basically instead of charging the Department of Conservation with protecting our waterways protecting our land and enhancing it for the betterment of all New Zealanders and visitors to enjoy she has handed it over to Minister Brownlee and said he should have a look at the national park areas in schedule 4 to see whether there is anything there worth mining. In the most precious parts of New Zealand she has said we should have a little surgical mining as the Prime Minister described it. 
I was stunned that the Minister of Conservation was prepared to hand over that part of her portfolio which should be the area she defends most to something as outrageous as mining in those protected areas. Members of the public were outraged as well and I was very proud that we had thousands and thousands of New Zealanders marching on the street and saying they want to protect the most precious parts of our country. These are the parts of the country that we also want this legislation to protect from freedom campers who are damaging it. 
I will return to the actions the Minister has taken in terms of the Department of Conservation. The department is now required to be a profit-making organisation. That is not what the Department of Conservation was set up to do. It was designed to be the advocacy group the lobby group and the brains behind the passion that New Zealanders feel about their most important areas. 
The Minister has led a huge and negative step backwards in her own portfolio. It is a big disappointment to many New Zealanders who care about our environment more than they care about anything else. I was surprised the Minister did not take the lead when this bill was originally publicised. In fact it was the Minister for the Environment who took the lead in all of the media. I was quite surprised that the Minister of Conservation introduced the bill today. I thought it had perhaps been transferred to the Minister for the Environment for some reason because all of the publicity had Nick Smith’s name attached to it rather than that of the Hon Kate Wilkinson. That is a puzzle but I am sure it is something I will spend more time discussing at the select committee and I will see whether we can get to the bottom of it. 
As I said the principle of the legislation to protect our areas that are currently being damaged by freedom campers is supported by Labour. We will support this bill going to the select committee. I want the concerns I have raised—and others I am sure submitters will raise—to be addressed in the select committee process. I am sorry that it will be so truncated because of the Rugby World Cup. I think our rights to enjoy our country are worth protecting and I will be ensuring that that happens. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I wish to take only a brief call in respect of the Freedom Camping Bill and to acknowledge and support my colleague the Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson. I acknowledge that Kate Wilkinson is the most practical Minister of Conservation that the department has had in more than a decade. The practical gains she is making for conservation are far better than some of the highbrow dreamer ideas we saw in the years of Labour. We on this side of the House are deeply proud of that work. Yes this bill is a joint piece of work. The Minister of Local Government the Minister for the Environment—me—and Kate Wilkinson have worked hard on bringing this package together as we should. That is how we operate on this side of the House. I know that that side of the House is a bit incapable of that. I know that Chris Carter and Ruth Dyson do not talk these days. We on this side of the House work very closely together. 
This bill is a very pragmatic response to the real problem of freedom campers defecating in some of our most iconic spots leaving a right mess. This bill provides a practical response to that. It is no good leaving every one of our councils to make their own rules when frankly the 120000-odd international tourists who come here actually would not know which district they are in from one day to the next. That is not a criticism; it is just the nature of the international traveller. That is why having a standardised approach between the Department of Conservation and the councils makes such good sense. 
I commend the provision in this bill for a $200 instant fine for those who breach the freedom camping requirements. Labour has indicated some opposition to that. Let me just say it is totally impractical to say to the Department of Conservation or to a council that it has to spend 5000 bucks of ratepayers’ or taxpayers’ money on trying to prosecute some tourist from the other side of the world for defecating at a precious campsite. It is not practical. A $200 fine is a really sensible way of dealing with it. 
I was surprised that Ruth Dyson took issue with the provision that the rental car company should be responsible for the fine in the event of a visitor doing a runner. It is the same for speeding fines and parking fines. Do we not care for our environment as much as we care about those things? We all know what happens. If someone goes to Australia and gets a car from a rental car company the company takes a copy of their credit card. If the person picks up a fine while they are there it is charged back against them. The most important provision deals with the fact that some rental car companies—particularly those with rental vans without containers—have not been responsible. This bill will put some responsibility back on those companies to play their part in protecting the environment and that is a good thing. 
This bill does protect and retain the right for New Zealand families like mine to be able to go out and enjoy the great outdoors—and so it should. To reassure Ruth Dyson opposite I tell her that nothing in this bill will constrain the right of her and her family or me and my family to go to the end of the Heaphy Track and camp there for a night before we proceed to tramp. That is quite plain in the provisions of the bill. 
The last point I will make is that the underlying presumption of this bill is that people can camp anywhere unless a council specifically prescribes it as a non-camping area. Maybe the difference between this side of the House and Labour is that we trust the councils. We think they are pretty common sense. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yeah right! You abolished ours. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Ruth Dyson wants to stand up for the failure of water management. Only 10 minutes ago she was giving a speech saying she is concerned about water quality. How can she defend the track record of Environment Canterbury which after 18 years did not have a plan in place for dealing with water in the precious area of Canterbury? 
The last thing I want to do is acknowledge Jacqui Dean the member of Parliament for Otago. This cause is one she has championed both in Opposition and in Government. This issue is not new. It has been around for quite a while. Jacqui both in caucus and in working with local authorities has been pivotal in this bill getting to this point. I know that it concerns a particular issue in the Otago area she represents. That district should be very proud of the contribution she has made to this practical bill being brought to Parliament to have this environmental problem dealt with. It is a good bill and I say good on Jacqui Dean and Kate Wilkinson for taking this practical step to deal with this environmental issue. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in rising to speak on the Freedom Camping Bill. As my colleague Ruth Dyson has said Labour will be supporting this bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
This issue is a Nelson issue. It is a big issue in Nelson. The whole business of responsibility for the environment and the responsibility of visitors to the loveliest parts of our country is one of the presumptions of this legislation and I support that. Over the summer in Nelson this issue kept coming up. I will give a couple of particular examples from my own experience. I have the privilege of living just a block away from a park quite a large park in Nelson. Parked down the end of a dead-end street that crosses the street I live in have been a number of motor homes and campervans which began to attract a lot of public attention for two reasons. One was that up to about a dozen of them were parked there. I myself saw them there; it was not hard to see them on my way home. But those campervans were parked there in a place that was not a camping area. That is one issue. 
The second thing is that the fouling of that area really upset local residents including me. It is not good to go to bits of the road that abut parks where people have stopped and parked their motor homes or campervans and where if the vans are not self-contained they have then proceeded to use the public area as their own personal toilet. It is not responsible and it is not what we want either from tourists or from New Zealanders who are camping. It goes for everybody. This bill is about tourists who come to New Zealand to enjoy our picturesque areas. They must know that it is not acceptable for them to foul our beautiful environment any more than it is for any of us to do that. So I support this legislation. 
The issue ran hot in Nelson because there was a real concern about the bill preventing people from enjoying our environment. I hope the Minister of Conservation has this approach right in the legislation and we will find out shortly in the select committee. I think it is about right. The issue is not about preventing people from pulling up parking stopping over and enjoying our lovely environment; nobody wants to stop that. With the people being called freedom campers though there was a bit of a backlash in Nelson and it was said the bill would outlaw a way of life they enjoyed. But that is clearly not the purpose of the legislation and I would not support it if it were. However we on both sides of the House require people who want to enjoy Neale Park or anywhere else in Nelson to treat those areas with respect and those areas that give people access to lovely views water and recreation in our environment. We do not ask for any more or any less than that. 
I want to give another example that is also related to my own experience. Members of my family have a place in the Marlborough Sounds. That is not where I live; I live in Nelson but it is common for Nelson people to holiday in the Marlborough Sounds and to go there for recreation. I am one of those people and I thoroughly enjoy it. I will not tell people exactly where the place is because they might go there and enjoy it too much! It happens that in this little bay where my family has a house there is a legitimate camping site that the Marlborough District Council has said can be a camping site for 2 nights only. But the locals have had to put up signs saying “Please don’t treat this like your personal toilet.” because the abuse that has occurred in that lovely part of the Marlborough Sounds has been obscene. It has been offensive in anybody’s language. If those offenders can be fined then that is good. Let us slap an instant fine on them but more than that let us demonstrate to the people who come to our country as tourists that we are equipping the local authorities to do something about this issue. 
Where my family is in the Marlborough Sounds as I said the Marlborough District Council has allocated space for freedom campers. That is great; it is a beautiful spot. It is nice and I do not begrudge anybody spending a couple of nights there. But if their vehicles are not self-contained and are not geared for the disposing of their own waste then I am sorry but they cannot use our backyard for that purpose. It does not matter whether it concerns a park in Nelson or a dear little bay in the Marlborough Sounds where I am still trying to catch snapper the protection of the environment that this bill provides is worth supporting. 
I have a bit of a problem which I hope we can sort out in the select committee with the mechanisms around the instant fine. I think it will be quite hard to recover that from campers sometimes but if it can be done through credit card bills then that is fine. I remember a very long time ago getting a fine through Hertz because I travelled in a bus lane without knowing it while driving a rental car in Rome. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How did you know the difference? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Well everybody was going at a zillion miles an hour so it was really hard to know. I was just trying to stay alive. I did not know it was a bus lane and I got a ticket later on through Hertz for travelling in that lane. But I copped that and saw clearly that it is possible a fine can be extracted later on. Billing someone’s credit card is a very easy way of doing that so let us explore the practicalities of it. 
In essence this is a constructive bill. I like the fact that it underscores people’s responsibility. We have a responsibility as citizens and keepers of this land to protect it but the people who come to visit it also have a responsibility to treat our land and this place with respect as well. I spent a large part of my youth tramping up and down Mount Taranaki. I was born and brought up in New Plymouth and there we go to the beach and to the mountain. We learnt that if we took something in we took it out; we did not leave it behind. We should not foul the environment with waste of any sort and the particularly offensive examples we have had recently in the Nelson area have made me absolutely committed to making sure that this provision goes through and works so that local councils and the Department of Conservation have the ability to strike fines and to punish people where they are caught. It goes to our reputation as a country and as a tourist destination and to our own responsibility to look after and be the kaitiaki the guardians of our environment. To that end I support this bill and so will most of the people in Nelson. Thank you. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I am a freedom camper. I spend my holidays cycle touring this great country of ours or at least I used to spend my holidays doing that when I was able to take my holidays at times when I was not competing with peak motorised traffic on the roads. Most nights when I am bike touring I sleep in a bed especially as I have become older as it seems more comfortable. However when I go bike touring I always take a tent and I always end up camping out some nights—freedom camping. Oftentimes camping is the best or most attractive option or the only option. I guess I pride myself on leaving my campsite as I found it except for perhaps a little bit of flattened grass. To me that is a very valuable part of New Zealand tradition. 
Many New Zealanders and I think we will hear today many people in this House value it. It pains me to have seen in recent decades more and more places that I have personally camped in and that make really good campsites becoming off limits. Thus more and more people are channelled into commercial campgrounds and away from being self-reliant. 
I also say that it irritates me to see in the Freedom Camping Bill the term “freedom camping” which I think perfectly describes the New Zealand tradition that I have referred to as it is used to mean something quite different. Although the definition of that term in this bill will catch the genuine freedom camping I have described it is really targeted at one particular group of people: those who travel around in campervans that do not have toilet facilities and that are therefore cheaper. That is what the bill is actually about. 
Let me be clear. I know there is a genuine problem with that group of people. When I was a member of the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board we received a number of delegations from councils coming to us to complain that almost too many tourists were being attracted to our region by the fantastic West Coast conservation estate. If any members of the House are not familiar with the features of that estate I certainly recommend it to them. Councils were saying that a proportion of those people would park their campervans in rest areas and at other points next to the road. There was both a problem of litter and a larger problem that many of those campervans did not have toilets. Council staff needed to take time and spend money on a very unpleasant cleaning up process. 
There is a genuine problem but which solution to that problem is most consistent with maintaining rights and freedoms and with continuing to encourage our vital tourism industry? Unsurprisingly the Tourism Industry Association is aware of this problem. It had been working on it for some years and had developed a solution. Its solution had an operating assumption that in general people come to this country because of our clean green reputation and they do not set out to undermine or despoil it. The people who rent these particular kinds of campervans—the cheaper ones—are in general some of the most enthusiastic about our environment. They rent these vans because they do not have much money and the fact they have chosen to spend their limited resources to come here speaks volumes about the high priority that they place on our environment. 
Although of course there are some ratbags who simply do not care for the most part the people who rent these campervans would look after our environment if they could so the smart approach is to make it easier for them to do precisely that. Put simply creating more places where campervans can spend the night that are sensibly spaced and that have toilet facilities and rubbish facilities is the smart way to go. The campervan companies would be charged with the responsibility of disseminating information about the responsibility to use these places and information about exactly where they are. That solution was being developed and had not yet been given the chance to work before this approach from the Government and indeed from Local Government New Zealand was imposed. 
Some critics will say that some local authorities have large attractive areas and a small ratepayer base and that is a fair point. I live in one such area and other members of this House do also. It is a common problem and I know it is a real one too. That problem is at the heart of the difficulty of providing good quality health services in many of our rural areas for example. It is the reason cited by the West Coast Regional Council for its being unable to adequately monitor compliance with resource consents as closely as it would like to. 
But let us also remember that these tourists are contributing to local economies by spending on everything except accommodation. They buy food fuel visitor experiences and so on from local businesses. Many businesses benefit directly from having them in the region and many others benefit indirectly. It seems reasonable to ask that the local economy contribute to some of the facilities needed by tourists particularly when those facilities alleviate other costs that would otherwise be borne locally as they would be in this case. 
In cases where a local community still cannot afford the cost of these facilities the view of the Green Party is that the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme needs to step up. The Government needs to ensure that the scheme is sufficiently resourced and flexible to be able to assist those local communities to provide campervan facilities. After all our whole New Zealand economy benefits from the tourism industry and it is reasonable that the whole economy therefore helps to provide the tourism infrastructure required. This is the right approach and should be allowed time to gain traction to deal with the problem. 
Instead the approach being adopted is punitive. It might work—it is possible that it will—but it seems a less likely method to work than the one I have outlined. The problem is that people want to do the right thing but cannot do it. More broadly it replaces the welcome mat that we extend to tourists with warnings of harsh penalties. This method runs a great risk of being counter-productive. 
In all of the debate which has been going on for some years now one of the facts I find most curious is that there is almost no hard information about the size of the problem. Perhaps the select committee might challenge officials and submitters to try to provide this information. I suspect that it is an extensive problem and undoubtedly a very unpleasant one but it is actually relatively small. There is some irony then that this bill is being advanced just now. 
I think we established in the House that one dairy cow produces about the same volume of excrement as 14 human beings. The Government is planning for a million extra dairy cows. Despite the Land and Water Forum having provided a historical consensus for both those who use water such as the dairy industry and conservationists to put in place a national policy statement on fresh water— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: They hate farmers. 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: —including Federated Farmers I say to Mr Hide—the Minister has elected to not include the provision that would have required resource consent for dairy intensification. It seems a little ironic in this debate today. The extra pollution that will be caused by that one decision will dwarf the pollution that could be caused by hordes of campervan tourists. This bill sets out in the wrong direction casts the net too widely and uses the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a walnut. The Green Party will oppose it. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
I must say I was a bit shocked that the Green Party has now joined— 
Chris Hipkins 
: He’s still here. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: —yes unlike Darren Hughes—the attack on farmers along with the Labour Party. It is very very clear that the Green Party hates farmers and the Labour Party hates farmers. Farmers are the very people who provide the backbone of the country and the fact that those members would turn the issue of freedom camping into an attack on farmers is extraordinary to me indeed. 
Let me start by thanking the Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson the Minister for the Environment Nick Smith and their officials for their work on this bill because surprisingly it was a very tough policy issue to work on and to resolve. I also acknowledge the work of Local Government New Zealand in this regard. 
Freedom camping has obviously been increasing in recent years particularly in popular tourist destinations such as Fiordland Queenstown Nelson-Marlborough the Coromandel and the Bay of Plenty. That increase in popularity has also resulted in an increase in complaints. The Greens asked for some data so here is some. The number of complaints to the Marlborough District Council about freedom camping have increased from 132 in 2007 to 432 in 2009. The main problem is people who camp on inappropriate sites such as lay-bys beaches and car parks and leave behind human poo and other litter. This behaviour is offensive and it creates a human health risk. Many of the sites used by freedom campers are on local authority or conservation land and both councils and the Department of Conservation spend a lot of money monitoring and cleaning up these sites. Queenstown Lakes District Council spends $30000 a year on monitoring patrols just looking out for the poo. 
Although we want to encourage visitors to come to New Zealand and enjoy our country and all it has to offer we also want them to respect our environment and be responsible campers. At present we do not have an effective way to deter irresponsible freedom camping or an enforcement regime to address the sometimes offensive behaviour of some freedom campers—just some. Expensive and time-consuming court action is not working; therefore the Freedom Camping Bill provides a low-cost simple way of addressing the problems created by some freedom campers. The bill provides a nationally consistent infringement regime that will enable local authorities and the Department of Conservation to issue an instant $200 ticket to those who are creating the problems. This is a great bill and it has the full support of the ACT Party. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Nga mihi nui ki a koe i tenei ahiahi otira ki a tatou o te Whare. Kua tu ake au ki te korero mo tenei o nga pire Freedom Camping Bill 
. 
 E ai ki taku e mohio nei ko tona tikanga he whakarite tikanga he whakarite whainga ture ranei mo te hunga noho puni nei i Aotearoa. Kei te tautoko te Pati Maori i tenei o nga pire i tona panuitanga tuatahi nei. Na e ai ki ta matou ehara i te mea ko te iwi Maori tetahi hunga whai i tenei momo noho. Ko te nuinga o te wa ko te Ao Maori ka haere ki roto i te kainga o tetahi o nga whanaunga ehara i te mea no te mataku ki te noho i raro i nga whetu kao ehara tera i te raruraru engari he momo noho tenei e kitea ana mai i te hunga i hara mai ai i tawahi ki taku mohio no whenua ke ka hara mai ki Aotearoa nei penei i etahi o nga kaikorero i te ahiahi nei hara mai ki te matakitaki ki te ata titiro ki te ataahua o Aotearoa whanui nui. I roto i a au o Te Waiariki me ki mai i Nga Kuri-a-Wharei ki Tihirau mai i Maketu ki Tongariro ka eke mai te hunga turuhi te hunga hara mai i tawahi i runga i nga waka e korerohia ake nei ki te noho puni nei. No reira kei te marama au ki te tikanga o tenei pire me te tautoko ake i tona whainga. 
I te tau kua hipa i te Maehe ko taku hoa a Rahui Katene nana tonu tetahi korero a-nupepa nei i tuku ki te ao me te whakamarama ake mo te noho a tetahi hunga kainoho puni nei i Kaikoura; me tana aki tonu ki tera hunga kia kaha ratou ki te tiaki i te taiao ka mutu ki te ata whakatikatika i muri mai i a ratau kia kaua e waiho wa ratau para wa ratau tutae ki te taha o te rori ki te wahi i noho ai ratou. E ai ki nga korero i tera wa mai i a Rahui i noho nei tenei momo hunga ki runga i tetahi pa tawhito pa tuwatawata ko Nga Niho Pa tera. Kai Kaikoura tenei o nga kainga engari ko te mate ke ko nga para ko nga tutae i waihotia ake ki tera o nga pa tawhito. Koinei te riri o taku hoa a Rahui koinei tana i tuku ai i tetahi korero i te nupepa ki te whakahe i tera momo noho. 
Kei te mohio tatou na runga i te ahuatanga o nga korero o te Whare Paremata i te ra nei ehara i te mea ko tenei kaupapa te freedom camping 
he kaupapa hou e hia ke nei nga tau kua penei tonu te noho a te hunga hara mai turuhi nei haere i te whenua a ka noho i te taha o te rori na te toringa mai o te ra ranei na te kore waka ranei kua tu te teneti kua noho i te ngahere i te taha o te rori ranei. No reira ehara i te mea no naia tonu nei tenei momo noho. Engari kei te whakarongo ake ki te korero a te mema o te Kakariki me tana ki mai ko tera pea ko te aronga o tenei pire e hangai tonu ana ki nga mea e hara mai ana i runga i nga whene nga waka heri tangata nei nga vans 
nei. Koinei pea tona aronga. Ko te mate ke mo tenei wa tonu nei kei te mohio tonu tatou ka ekengia a Aotearoa e te hunga hara mai ai ki te matakitaki i te kapu whutuporo o te ao a ko ake nei. Tera pea ka ekengia a Aotearoa e te tini e te mano e nga waka e hia ke nei a kaore e kore ka whai i tera momo noho ara ko te noho puni nei. 
Penei i etahi atu o te Whare i te ahiahi nei ko te take nui ko te waiho ake i te para te tutae i te taha o te rori. Ka pataia te patai a tena ka taea e tatou te whakariterite i nga whare paku i nga ipu para me ki kia taea e ratou te whakatikatika i muri mai i a ratou? Koina te patai nui. Tera pea ka raruraru tatou ki reira. Ehara i te mea kei a tatou nga rawa ki te whakatika i etahi wahi hei kohikohi i nga para ka mutu ka pera ano hoki ki te ahuatanga o te tutae. No reira ahakoa kei te tautoko ake i tenei pire kei te patai te patai mo nga rawa mo nga mea hai whakatutuki i te moemoea kia noho pai kia noho ataahua a Aotearoa nei. 
I roto i tenei pire ko te mana o nga kaunihera ki te whakarite i etahi kaunihera a-rohe taku e korero nei kia taea e ratou te whakatika i o ratou ake ture mo ratou ake mo tera rohe mo tena takiwa mo tera rohe mo tena takiwa. Ka pera ano hoki te taha ki Te Papa Atawhai kia taea ai e ia te whakarite tikanga mo tena rohe mo tena takiwa. No reira he pai tonu tera kia taea ai e ratou te whakarite i tera ka mutu mena ka raru tetahi ka kore e whai i te ture o tena takiwa o tera takiwa a ka penei i etahi ka whainahia mai i te $200 neke atu ki te $10 000. 
No reira ko taku tino kaupapa i tua atu o te take mo nga ipu para me nga whare paku hei awhina hei wahi tuku i nga para ko tera e pa ana ki te wahi o te Ao Maori ki roto i nga whiriwhiringa o nga kaunihera. I tenei wa tonu nei i raro i te Local Government Bill o te tau 2002 kei reira tetahi wahanga mo te korero mo te whakawhitiwhiti whakaaro ki te tangata whenua ki te mana whenua ranei. Ko te mate ke ehara i te mea he tino pakari mai tera whainga o te ture. Ko ta matou e pirangi nei kua whakapakari ake tera wahi ara kia whai wahi te Ao Maori i roto i nga korerorero i te taha o te kaunihera a-rohe ka mutu i te taha o nga kawanatanga a-rohe—me mahi i te taha o te mana whenua. Koina te tino putake i te mea i etahi wa no te Ao Maori era whenua ka mutu me whai wahi ratou ki te korero ki nga iwi ka mutu ki te whakamana i te whainga o tenei pire. Ko te mea pai e kitea nei i roto o tenei pire ka waiho ake ki tena rohe ki tena rohe kia whakatika i a ia ano me ona ake ture e pa ana ki a ia engari penei i taku e korero nei ko te inoi atu kia whai wahi te Ao Maori te taha ki te mana whenua te tangata whenua i roto i nga whiriwhiringa. 
Ehara i te mea he nui nga korero i tua atu o tera. Hoi ano me penei rawa te korero e korerohia ana i roto i nga korero o te Ao maori ko te korero mo Ranginui e tu nei mo Papatuanuku ko ta matau o te Ao Maori ko tona tahuhu ko te tiaki i te ahuatanga o te taiao ko Papatuanuku e takoto nei. No reira kei te tino aro atu matou ki te tino putake o tenei pire. He pai tona tirohanga he pai tona kaupapa he pai tona tikanga. Koinei matou e tautoko nei i tenei pire engari ka titiro ake a nga ra kei mua i te aroaro kia kitea mai ai ko te wahi ki te Ao Maori i roto i nga whakawhitiwhitinga whakaaro ka puta ki te taha o nga kaunihera a-rohe kaunihera a-kawanatanga nei. No reira ko enei etahi paku whakaaro ake hei tapiri atu ki etahi o nga korero i te ahiahi nei. Huri noa i to tatou Whare kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. My huge appreciation to you and indeed to us of the House this afternoon. I rise to address the Freedom Camping Bill. As I understand it the purpose of this bill is to find remedies that will deal with issues caused by freedom campers in New Zealand. The Maori Party supports this bill at its first reading. However I need to point out that Maori by tradition are not freedom campers. At most times they stay in the home of a relative—not because they fear sleeping under the stars; not at all that is not where the problem is. To my understanding this kind of lifestyle has come about through campers from other countries coming to see the beauty of New Zealand. Hordes of tourists and those from overseas in vehicles referred to here as campervans have a strong presence in my electorate of Te Waiariki which stretches from the Dogs of Wharei across to Tihirau and from Maketu inland to Mount Tongariro. So I have a clear understanding of what this bill is about and support what it is intended to do. 
In March last year my colleague Rahui Katene made a widely reported statement in the press about the need for freedom campers in Kaikoura to take more care when deciding where and where not to dispose of their food and body wastes; she urged that they should take greater care of the environment and ensure that they clean up before they leave and not leave their rubbish and body wastes on the side of the road or where they had parked. According to reports at the time freedom campers were using Nga Niho Pa a traditional pa site in Kaikoura as a place to defecate. That so infuriated my colleague that it prompted her to go to the press to voice her opposition to that form of camping.  
Because of what has been said in the House today we know that freedom camping is not a new phenomenon. It has been around for a long long time. People who have come from overseas and travelled the land have parked up or pitched a tent in the bush or by the roadside at sunset. But I take on board the message from the member of the Green Party in his address to us that the focus of this bill is particularly on campers in these vans. This perhaps is its focus. But the problem is that New Zealand is about to be inundated by hordes of people coming to watch the Rugby World Cup. Without a doubt a large number of those people will resort to campervans to get about.  
As some in the House have said the major issue is that there are not the facilities to dispose of human waste and litter left behind on the roadside. The question then is whether we can provide toilets and rubbish containers so people can leave the place nice and tidy after them. That is the big question. It could be our downfall. There are not the facilities to dispose of human waste and litter. So while we support this bill we question that there are the resources and tools to fulfil the dream that New Zealand should remain a beautiful and attractive country.  
Local authorities will have the power through this bill to regulate manage and control human waste and litter for this or that region or district. So that is good. The bill allows each local authority to set by-laws to suit its region or district. The bill allows for fees and fines to be set from $200 right through to $10000.  
Apart from rubbish bins and toilets to help with the removal of litter and human waste the real issue I have relates to the participation of Maoridom in consultations with councils. Currently there is a provision in the Local Government Act 2002 to consult with tangata or mana whenua. The problem is that that part of the Act is not adhered to strongly. We want it enforced more firmly. We want local councils and local authorities to engage more strongly in their consultations with local Maori particularly when it comes to enacting the intention of this bill. A positive feature seen so far about this bill is its flexibility. It enables a local authority to regulate according to its situation but as I said earlier participation of local Maori in the consultation process is a must.  
There is not much more to add. Taking care of the environment is an essential need to take care of Earth Mother lying here and Sky Father standing before us. We support the real intention of this bill and its good insight philosophy and meaning. The Maori Party looks forward to seeing a specific consultation provision for iwi in the bill. These then are but some small considerations to add to the speeches this afternoon. Thank you to us throughout our House. 
] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 Freedom campers have an important place in New Zealand’s tourism industry. They are very important to us. Both international tourists and New Zealand domestic tourists quite rightly enjoy the freedom to park their vehicles at no cost and to enjoy our beautiful environment responsibly. For the most part freedom campers in New Zealand are responsible about where they camp and they are to be encouraged in this endeavour. They take notice of signs that prohibit them from certain areas and they are responsible with their waste. But ever since I have had the privilege of serving as an MP I have had people from all over my electorate particularly in Tasman tell me of their very serious concerns about irresponsible campers who ignore the signs park their vehicles in areas with no facilities have no facilities in their vehicles and leave their litter and human waste behind. In fact some of the anecdotal evidence I have had from local constituents has been not only disturbing but also quite frequently disgusting to hear. 
We all know that this problem should not go on. Local councils just have not had the tools to deal with it until now; neither have communities that have concerns. In addition different approaches by different councils have made it difficult for freedom campers to know where they can and cannot park for the night. 
This Freedom Camping Bill deals with the problems I have outlined. It provides better information for freedom campers and effective enforcement powers to councils. It enables councils to determine where camping is and is not allowed where it is restricted to campervans with self-containment and where it is prohibited. Nationally consistent signage and enforcement will make things clear for everyone involved. Quite frankly this is long overdue. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I wonder what our pioneering ancestors would think. The Freedom Camping Bill is a nanny State bill if ever there was one because we are now going to be told where we can do poos. I will tell members why this bill is nothing but a bit of grandstanding by Nick Smith and a few members over there. If it was a true bill to address the issue it would be called the “Environmental Protection Bill”. 
I accept that there is an issue and there has been an issue here for a long time. It was not raised on the basis of people stopping for the night but of people stopping during the day and in South Westland in particular. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Doing their business in the day? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That is right. I do not think that member does; he should do it more often because it might clear his head. The issue is that in many places throughout rural New Zealand there are simply no facilities; there are no toilets. If people are travelling 200 kilometres or even 100 kilometres and stopping then the question of where they go to the toilet is a significant one for them. We ended up with and still have many stopping places—not camping places but stopping places—up and down the country that are littered and are absolutely disgusting. 
The question is what we have done to help tourists to know about the situation. We have done nothing. Our signage is pathetic. As the Minister of Tourism I raised the issue that we as a tourism industry and as a country had a responsibility to inform those people whom we were hosting in this country about some normal issues of where they should go. We tell them whether there is petrol. We sometimes tell them about the speed limits. I have to say though that that signage is quite pathetic. Many tourists coming to this country get pinged for speeding when they probably have not seen a speeding sign because those signs are so small. The same thing will happen now. 
The nanny State National Government will let the councils say people can go here and here but not there. Speakers in this debate have said the law might be used to chase people to camping grounds when they may have otherwise camped out around this country. We have a spectacular country. We have a small population. No one could say we are overpopulated. The vast majority of people visiting this country come because they want to see the spectacular scenery and enjoy the incredible nature that we have. 
I ask what is wrong with using a shovel. Will someone camping somewhere with a shovel dealing with their excrement properly be fined as well? Can Mr Henare tell us that? He does not know. The question is whether the normal sensible systems that many people have adopted over many many years will be accepted as mitigation for what has been a growing problem. I accept that it is a growing problem. But here we have for cheap political purposes a bill that will I have to say send shivers up the spines of many people trying to market and promote this country to a whole lot of people out there. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: That was the best the Minister of Tourism could do. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The Minister of Conservation is over there. She is jumping up and down. I ask her what she or her Government has done to increase the level of facilities and toilets throughout the country and what she will do to address the issue of daytime toilet need up and down this country—up and down this country. People will be told where to go in the evening when they stop—they will be told where to go at night—but what about during the daytime? Hold on hold on! Help is coming. They will have to go down the road and round the corner and there is a spot where they can camp and go to the toilet. It is rather ridiculous. 
I think we need a more comprehensive approach to this issue. Labour will support the referral of this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee because we accept that there is an issue but I have to say it is a bizarre approach and it is a half-hearted approach from a Government that thinks we can just fine the people who come to this country—and I can just imagine the reaction of many many tourists when they come to this country—when we have not even informed them through a normal system of signage and education about the protocols around this. The councils I have spoken to over the years Westland District Council in particular have been complaining about this issue for a long long time I have to say. As people have driven down through South Westland there have been no toilets and there have been some shocking sights at popular rest areas. But we have not even put up a sign. We have not even bothered to put up a sign that says to those travellers: “No toilets for the next 50 kilometres” implying— 
Simon Bridges 
: What should the sign say? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Well just listen. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Go to the gas station. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: We have that. We say: “No petrol for 100 kilometres”. I have seen signs like that. But we do not assist people by saying there are no toilets for 100 kilometres which would imply the same thing. I am raising the realistic issues of people as they travel around this country. If the nanny State party over there is going to tell people where to go to the toilet now and if the National members think they have addressed the problem of camping at night then they are kidding themselves. What will this Government do to address the issue of toilet need during the day Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson? You can even understand it yourself can you not? 
Some real issues need to be addressed here. There are some wider environmental issues and the issue of the tourism industry contributing to more infrastructure in this area is an important one. I challenge the Government to address that issue. The fact is that the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme—the subsidy for small communities to put in place toilet facilities and dump stations—has gone. There is no assistance at all. Small communities are expected to put in place large facilities. Even for camping grounds that might be then allocated or dedicated to this purpose I say that if one has a concentration of campers in one area one will have to upgrade the facilities. The question is who does that. Some commercial camping-grounds will be happy to do that but many many areas around this country will not be able to do that without proper assistance. 
In conclusion I say this is an ad hoc response. It is a bit of political grandstanding by Nick Smith and it does not address the major issue of infrastructure for tourists—not just at night time but during the day as well. If we are to uphold and support the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand in this country then a more comprehensive look at environmental infrastructure for tourists has to be addressed. But that Government chopped $15 million off Tourism New Zealand’s budget in the last Budget; there is $15 million less to promote New Zealand. I guess that is one way of addressing this problem because there certainly will not be as many people coming to New Zealand. Maybe that is it—in fact National might have outsmarted us; I concede that. It may be that National’s cunning plan to address this issue is to cut $15 million off Tourism New Zealand’s budget. It will reduce the number of people coming to the country and we will not have the problem. That is exactly what will happen here. 
The bill is a Draconian approach to what is a real issue. We will just fine individuals whose understanding of the English language might not be great who have had no information or education about the norm and protocol in New Zealand and who have hired a rental van with or without facilities—like elsewhere in the world. Those people will feel really gutted I am sure when they are slapped with a $200 fine. It surprises me but the nanny State the Draconian Government that National is has finally shown its true colours. It has cut the budget of Tourism New Zealand and cut the money from the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme and the support for local councils for toilet and sewerage facilities. It has simply slapped a fine on those people who cannot hold on any longer. Thank you. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Picture this: an international visitor is on the edge of the great Lake Taupo for the very first time when that visitor stands in a piece of —. What will that do for his or her experience of this fantastic country? There will be thousands pouring into Taupo when they come to support South Africa Ireland and Wales during the Rugby World Cup in only 92 days’ time. I am proud to support the Freedom Camping Bill this practical sensible legislation that has been led by Jacqui Dean and the Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I have listened to the debate in the House and I recall that I had a glorious year as a Minister of Conservation. It is a pity that Nick Smith did not even mention that wonderful practical reign! However I am following on from a former Minister of Tourism the Hon Damien O’Connor who pointed out the very problems that we had to face when we were in Government but that this bill just does not fix. This bill is absurd. 
Following the example of the member from Taupo I ask members to picture this: new tourists arrive on the shores of Lake Taupo and do not have a clue where to find the toilets. There is no signage. There is no small subsidy scheme for Little Waihi to even build a decent ablution block next to a camping ground or at a pull-over on the side of the road. So what do the tourists do? They foul the side of the road. We see it and we are aware of this problem. But now they will be pinged with a $200 fine. Who will issue the fine? Will it be the local authority? Will it be a regional councillor? Will it be a front-line Department of Conservation ranger who instead of protecting species—now that $13 million is being knocked off the conservation budget every year—will have to issue fines? Who will be responsible for issuing the fine? Do members know what the tourists will say? They will say: “I am not going to pay it.” 
So we will set up an amazing bureaucracy through the Freedom Camping Bill to catch the pooper. Is it the dog or is it the person? Who will issue the fine? Is the fine for the dog or the person? And who will check that the fine has been paid when the tourists leave the airport? Will it be a customs officer or is it the airport’s responsibility to say: “This person was found soiling the road in Tekapo so must not leave the country until the $200 fine is paid.” This is a stupid bill. That is all. It is not practical and it is stupid. It is a nanny State response to the complex issue of the spoiling of our beautiful environment which we all care about. 
Freedom campers actually came to us when we were in Government too— 
Hon Member 
: You did nothing! 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Hang on a minute! They proposed a solution with a mix of penalties for those who did not have ablution facilities in their campervans. They said there was a problem but that everyone was being pinged because some campers pay a premium to get a campervan that has a good ablution block in it. But is that going to stop the guy who has been drinking at night and goes into the bushes for a quick one? We have to think of the practicalities around this and this bill does not solve the problem we are all concerned about in respect of our clean green environment. 
There is another issue and I heard Damien O’Connor mention it too. It is ironic that the Government thinks this is the quick fix to environment protection when it has cut the very subsidy that allowed small communities to put in basic sanitation blocks and facilities wherever they saw the need along the countryside where freedom campers wanted to go. That subsidy scheme has gone—zip. I wonder whether the collection of the $200 fine proposed in this bill will go back into local authorities’ coffers through the department of tourism so that they can build decent ablution blocks and campervans can pull up and use those facilities. That was the sort of proposal and the solution we put in for other previous big events in this country. We put in more refuse collection and we started to build small ablution blocks. Members over there did not even know that scheme existed. I do not think that Government members even realised how good that scheme was. Local authorities loved it. Local authorities could make the decision about where these were to go. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What scheme? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: The Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme. Ask Minister Tony Ryall. It was administered through the Ministry of Health and all of the funding has gone. 
The National Government has not even looked at some little tool box solutions that were there for the Government at the time. Clearly Minister Ryall has not talked to Minister Wilkinson who has not talked to the Minister for the Environment Nick Smith. Those measures that were already there are not even included in this bill. The nanny State National Government is just going to issue fines all over the country. It is not going to put up any signage. There is nothing in here about signage to say— 
Hon Member 
: Yes there is. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: No there is not. There is no information for freedom campers at all about this law change. There should be information kits for new visitors to the country to say: “Welcome to New Zealand. Now you are going to find you get a $200 fine and we will take the apple that you bring in from Australia off you too. We will ping you for that. Welcome to New Zealand. Haere mai. Welcome to the Rugby World Cup. Have we got a quick-fix solution for you.” This is a band-aid solution. I hope that the Local Government and Environment Committee can flesh out the bill and that is why Labour will support its referral to the select committee. 
In some areas in Rotorua for example the provisions in this bill sort of meet what is being done anyway. We have something called a Rotorua open public place policy and in that policy we promulgate by-laws and encourage people in freedom camping situations to go to a place where there is a toilet and ablution facility. 
This bill is just silly. It is not a bill that will give us a great reputation as a country of liberal thinkers. People love the environment and people want to come here. It is a nanny State bill. It is a stupid solution—again because of the Rugby World Cup. I think the Minister could have done much better than this. There could have been a mix of fines and a mix of the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme and it could have been promulgated. We could look at where the fine could go instead of just into the Government coffers as another revenue back-door facility. For goodness’ sake! Who will be policing this? Who will monitor this? If it is to be front-line Department of Conservation rangers then I think that is an appalling waste of conservation money. 
There was a whole mix and suite of solutions to what looks to be a very overt problem that causes environmental degradation. I hate this bill being called the Freedom Camping Bill. To me it is more like the “Freedom Camping is Dead in New Zealand Bill” or the “We’re Going to Tell You Where to Go Bill”. As Damien O’Connor said we could have come up with an environment protection bill and looked at this whole problem of degradation and contamination of public sites in a much more comprehensive manner that fitted our clean green environment. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 The real problem with freedom camping as members have noted is that although the Government can bring in any number of measures—it might be fines good signage or describing places where people can and cannot camp and whether they have self-containment—the real problem we need to overcome is that we need people who visit New Zealand from overseas and New Zealanders themselves to understand that they have environmental responsibilities. We cannot stop people going to the loo in our beautiful places in New Zealand just by the suite of measures we are proposing in the Freedom Camping Bill but they are a good step along the way. They are an excellent step along the way of reminding people who come to New Zealand that we love them—we love people coming to our country; we love the way they spend money in our country and make a contribution to our society—but please they must not foul our environment before they go home. 
The other point is that unless we get on top of this problem we are in danger of people coming to New Zealand from say Sweden parking up against the shores of Lake Wanaka seeing the mess left there and then going back to Sweden and saying that they loved New Zealand but it is actually not as good as New Zealanders crack it up to be. We need to be very careful that we maintain New Zealand’s good image. 
The reason this bill is so good is that it is making a stand. Labour members can lament the fact that the bill will not fix the problem but it will. It will help to fix the problem because we will remind people of their environmental responsibilities. As I say no single measure will fix this problem. Once again it is up to individuals to understand their environmental responsibilities. 
In closing I commend the Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson for her preparedness to act on this issue in advance of the Rugby World Cup. I congratulate Geoff Ensor from the Freedom Camping Forum who has worked so hard across many sectors on this bill. I commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Freedom Camping Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.