Dyson Ruth: Freedom Camping Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Freedom Camping Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20568. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is with some degree of disappointment that I say to the House that despite the best efforts of the Local Government and Environment Committee working to improve the Freedom Camping Bill Labour will oppose it. We agree that there is a problem; it is a very small problem. It is one that in our view had alternatives that would have been preferable to this bill. 
This bill is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It goes far too far. More important it restricts some of the activities that New Zealanders value as being at the core of our being and as part of being New Zealanders. Our ability to stay the night on the roadside before setting off on a tramp—the way that hunters and trampers often behave with total respect for their environment—is now threatened. This bill assumes that everybody who is a freedom camper is also a polluter. That is just not fair. It is not correct. 
I commend however the process undertaken by the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was rigorous. I pay tribute not just to the members on it but also to the officials. The officials worked really hard to pick up the points made by select committee members and by the submitters and to understand how solutions could be reached. They were not able to do that on every occasion as is clear from the fact that Labour opposes this bill. But that was not for lack of trying. They worked really hard and I commend them. It was an interesting process. 
This bill gives every district council and every Department of Conservation conservancy the ability to say that large parts of our country are no longer allowable for freedom campers—a blanket ban. In fact a district council could say that the whole of its district was no longer allowed to have any freedom camping in it. That is by anyone’s stretch of the imagination in my view a step too far. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: They couldn’t do that. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: They can do that. It is not likely that they would but they could. That was certainly the conclusion that was reached during the select committee process. There are large parts of our country that can be excluded at the determination of a council—that is correct. In my view New Zealanders have the right to get out and pursue outdoor activities. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Read the bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The brains trust from west Auckland who refuses to read any briefing papers on anything to do with evidence-based best practice on child abuse or social development suggests that we read the bill. In my view it should be up to the people who live in an area pay their rates and enjoy that activity to determine how their local area is designated and that is not the case. So the select committee has released with its report back a minority report. That minority report makes it very clear that Labour recognises that there is a problem but believes it is one where less Draconian measures could be introduced and supported. 
It would have been good in my view to have support from the whole of Parliament for these measures giving a clear message to all our councils—all our elected representatives on councils throughout the country—that Parliament considered that there were appropriate means to progress these measures and protect our environment. 
But I am not surprised that the councils said they were not sure they would be able to do that. Even Minister Wilkinson talked about how expensive it was for councils to put in toilet facilities. Well part of the reason for that—in fact a large part of the reason for that—is that the National Government has cut the subsidies that used to be available for particularly small district councils to put in toilet facilities. 
That subsidy used to be available to help them. It was seen as a partnership between central and local government and the National Government was in for 5 minutes and flicked that partnership. It said to the district councils that they were on their own. Then the Minister comes in and says the councils will find it very hard because it is very expensive to put in toilet facilities. So instead of putting in toilet facilities the Government will ban freedom camping. This is New Zealand—the country of the great outdoors—where we are going to ban freedom camping rather than put in toilet facilities. There is now no assistance available at all for local authorities to put in toilet facilities. 
For the benefit of the member who was screeching out earlier on and saying that that is not correct I point out that the assistance was called the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme. It was in existence years ago—actually right up until 2¾ years ago—and the National Government abolished it. The Government stopped the sort of practical help that would have enabled councils to better resource their facilities so that their environment was less likely to be polluted. I do not think it is such a big ask to have specific areas which can be introduced and built on over time so that we have better rubbish collection and better toilet facilities. 
In a nutshell my view is that Steven Joyce may have been away from the Cabinet on the day this bill was put through by the Hon Nick Smith because it clearly has not had the Crosby/Textor nanny State ruler run over it. It is the most Draconian bit of legislation I can remember seeing introduced to this House. The Hon Maurice Williamson is paling at the thought of being part of the introduction of nanny State legislation but it is before him. 
Some of the emails I have had—and there were a large number on this issue—described this legislation as particularly abhorrent and as something that National should never consider. Another one expressed alarm that such a law was going to be passed—that was from one of Nick Smith’s constituents. Actually there were quite a few from his electorate. Somebody else said that he would be personally obliged if we could consider his approach and that an alternative would be to follow the approach Labour has suggested—which is in our minority report—because he says he is a strong believer in leadership and example not burdensome legislation. The Hon Maurice Williamson will need smelling salts very shortly—burdensome abhorrent nanny State legislation is being introduced by the National Government. 
One other comment I want to share with the House is from a man who is a bike rider and cycles all around the country; he will be well known to my colleague Kevin Hague I am sure. He said: “Some of my colleagues call this a nanny State bill.” He said that that is not correct; it is a “jackboot State bill. I think that is a step too far.” 
Simon Bridges 
: I think you should table these. Table the evidence. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If that member is implying dishonesty then he should withdraw and apologise particularly given his reputation and position. There were a large number of emails on this in addition to the submissions and the point made by every single one of them was that they agreed with the need to protect our environment but they thought this bill was a step too far. The other concern they had was that it was being put through in a dickens of a rush solely because of the Rugby World Cup timetable. 
If we seriously expect we can solve these sorts of problems with no additional support for councils with jackboot measures nanny State measures all in the name of supporting the Rugby World Cup I believe that it will detract from our reputation our clean green image and our welcoming of people who want to enjoy our environment rather than enhancing it.