Twyford Phil: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20674] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I am disappointed that members of parties that are voting for this Freedom Camping Bill are not taking calls in this debate. Not only are we in the situation yet again of this National Government taking away freedoms of New Zealanders under urgency but even worse the members on the Government side are not even game enough to get up and take a call— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You cannot say that word. I ask you to withdraw that word. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I withdraw. I just think it is a shame that the Government members will not get up and take a call to explain themselves. The ACT Party members who are the great defenders of our freedoms and liberties have not even made a contribution in this debate but they are quite content to vote for this nasty odious bureaucratic little bill that takes away the freedoms of New Zealanders to enjoy the great outdoors. I urge Hilary Calvert to get up and take a call because as we know the ACT members are not whipped on these things. It does not matter that Rodney Hide has promised this bill to Local Government New Zealand. That member has the freedom to stand up and express her view and I urge her to do that. 
I think it is a shame that yet again the Maori Party is voting for a nasty sordid little bill like this and the best its members can do is put up a Supplementary Order Paper inserting a Treaty clause. It is exactly what we have seen time and time again. They will vote for a lousy little bill like this and they will try to ameliorate the situation by proposing the insertion of a Treaty clause. Well it is just not good enough. 
I want to speak on our Supplementary Order Paper that deals with the question of the seizing and impounding of boats caravans motor vehicles and other property. This illustrates just how pernicious this bill is. The provisions around clause 35 give extraordinary powers for the Department of Conservation and council officers to seize property that has been used in the committing of offences under this new regime. I submit that the powers are completely out of proportion to the offences that are being dealt with by this bill. They are Draconian and I think there is a risk that they are so out of whack with the offences that this bill seeks to deal with that they could do serious damage to our tourism industry. If people come to this country from around the world to experience our country’s most beautiful places and to do it in a spirit of freedom and they find that their car or their property is impounded seized and forfeited under this bill then that would send a very very unfortunate signal to our international visitors. 
I will refer to the advice from the Legislation Advisory Committee which raised some really serious concerns about the seizure powers. It raised two main concerns. It said: “Firstly the purpose of the seizure provisions in the bill is less than clear. Secondly it is not clear that the objectives will necessarily be effectively achieved through the provisions as they are currently drafted.” The Legislation Advisory Committee points out the reasoning behind the higher threshold that is given to the seizing of things like boats caravans and campervans. A series of tests have to be passed and large items—housetrucks boats caravans cars—can be seized only if an officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the seizure is necessary to avoid risk to the health of the public and the safety of the public and so on and so forth. It sets up a two-tier test which under this regime actually creates a perverse incentive for people to infringe in a housetruck but not in a tent. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer points out in this advice that is illogical and inconsistent. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: A housetruck’s OK. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: That is right. It is much more difficult for property to be impounded if it is a boat or a housetruck. There is a much lower threshold and a much lower test that has to be passed if people choose to break this law in a tent. It does not make any sense at all. 
What is more the Legislation Advisory Committee says that clause 37 which deals with the return of seized property is also problematic. In fact the clause places the onus on the person who has had their property seized to establish that it will not be used for future offending. As the advice from the Legislation Advisory Committee makes clear that may be difficult to do. Essentially the likelihood of property being retained and disposed of means that this is a forfeiture regime. It is not about seizing and impounding property; it sets up a de facto forfeiture regime. This is one of the most Draconian aspects of the bill. It has no place in this bill. It is completely disproportionate to the scale of the offences we are talking about. I invite the Minister of Conservation to think again about the seizure and impounding provisions in this bill. It will bring this House into disrepute for this bill to be passed in its current form. I would like to hear from the Minister her response to the detailed and thoughtful submission made by Sir Geoffrey Palmer as the chair of the Legislation Advisory Committee. 
Labour has put two other Supplementary Order Papers on the Table for this debate. One addresses the issue whereby the offence is associated with a particular vehicle and any subsequent fine can be levied against the owner of that vehicle. I note that the Minister has brought in a similar Supplementary Order Paper. In a way I am glad to see it because it makes sense that rental companies have the ability to pass on fines to offenders. Our concern is that that would be fine if this infringement regime was set up to target the dumping of waste and littering but to harness it to an infringement regime that deals with freedom camping is completely over the top. And putting those two things together is the reason why we keep saying this bill is Draconian. 
We would support the amendment that allows the owners of these vehicles to have those fines passed on to them by the rental companies but not if it is for a regime that includes penalising people for freedom camping. We would support it only for offences relating to the dumping of waste and littering. That is why we have also proposed an amendment to clause 18 that would remove the offence of freedom camping from this bill and would leave simply the offence of littering and leaving waste. Creating the offence of freedom camping is the problem with this bill. That is the provision in this bill that will undoubtedly lead to innocent New Zealanders being criminalised simply because they are freedom camping in the way they have for generations and think they should be entitled to. 
It is our argument that if this bill focused on the actual problem which is the leaving of waste and litter if other practical measures were implemented as my colleagues Damien O’Connor and Maryan Street have said and if other infrastructure was put in place such as bins and waste facilities in places where they are needed then those practical measures would be enough to deal with most of the problem. I will leave it there. Thank you.