Davis Kelvin: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Davis Kelvin: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20675] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Clause 18(1A) of Part 3 I think actually gets to the heart of this very issue. I think it is a relevant issue and it is what we should be focusing on. Clause 18(1A) of the Freedom Camping Bill says: “Every person commits an offence who discharges a substance in or on a local authority area or conservation land in circumstances where the discharge of the substance is likely to be noxious dangerous offensive or objectionable to such an extent that it—(a) has or is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment; or (b) has caused or is likely to cause significant concern to the community and users of the area or land.” That is the heart of this bill. It is not about parking up a housebus or a caravan or pitching a tent. That is not offensive. That is not a problem. The problem is the discharge of waste. That is what we should be focusing on. We should be pinging people who do that rather than people who just pull up and camp or sleep in a car or a tent or whatever. That is not the problem. There is no harm or offence done there. We should be focusing solely on the discharge of waste. 
As Phil Twyford has touched on clause 35 “Enforcement officers may seize and impound certain property” talks about boats cars and things like that. They are not the problem. The boats the caravans and the housebuses are not the problem. It is what people do when they get out of such vehicles and go in the bush to relieve themselves—that is the problem. When they empty the septic tank or sewage tank—whatever they are called—from the caravans that is the problem. That is the behaviour that should be dealt with not the fact that someone parks up overnight or whatever. To have a provision to in effect seize somebody’s Maui campervan or mobile home is outrageous. Let us take a company that rents out campervans or the vans that people stay in—the self-contained vans. Why should they the owners have their property confiscated? I think it is way over the top; it is a way-over-the-top provision. 
Who can do this? Who can do all the confiscating? It is an enforcement officer and enforcement officers are appointed by local authorities. If I was camping somewhere out in the wilderness someone could walk up to me and say “I’m an enforcement officer; here’s my evidence.” Under clause 32(1) “An enforcement officer must produce evidence of his or her appointment under this Act…”. What does that evidence look like? Are they wearing a uniform or a badge or do they have a certificate? What do they have to produce to prove they are an enforcement officer? 
If I was camping way up north in the bush with my cousins if we were going hunting or something like that I could imagine what my relations would say to a guy—or a person I should say—who turned up said they were an enforcement officer and told us to move our four-wheel drive away from that area. I would say that person’s safety would be in jeopardy. I mean who up north will take it seriously if somebody bowls up waves a piece of paper in their faces and says it is evidence that they have been appointed by a local body to tell them to go away—to tell them to move their vehicle? Especially if those people have been using that spot for generations to camp before heading off on whatever outdoor pursuit they want to do and all of a sudden as Rick Barker said earlier there has been a move taken by a local authority which has been gazetted and put in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and which no one knows about it. Why would those people believe that this person had any sort of authority at all? I do not understand how that piece of paper will make them—