Street Maryan: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20655] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Freedom Camping Bill in the Committee stage because I spoke in the first reading of this bill. Having seen some of the effects of the people whose behaviour we are trying to alter in this legislation firsthand in Nelson—in fact very close to where I live—the legislation is of great interest to me and I supported its introduction to the House. What we have now however is legislation albeit somewhat amended by the Local Government and Environment Committee—and I welcome some of those amendments—that does not get the balance right. This was always going to be a matter of balance. In fact if one looks at the submissions as members of the select committee did it is possible to see a whole range of views about just what is required here and what is going over the top. 
I think that this legislation needed to balance a number of things. It needed to balance our attractiveness as a tourist destination. It needed to balance the care and protection of our environment which makes us an attractive tourist destination. But the kinds of provisions that exist in this legislation have in the end gone too far. They have not balanced the need to address a particular problem that is created by a very few—particularly those who camp in vehicles that are not self-contained. So instead of looking at how infrastructure might be developed or how the situation might be avoided the legislation will simply come down with all the force of a sledgehammer on to people who will be criminalised for doing something that is part of our national identity habit and way of being. We are as New Zealanders intimately bound up with our physical environment. We love it we generally take care of it and we do not like it when people abuse it. But suddenly to criminalise people in the way that this bill does does not serve a useful purpose. 
At the risk of seeming to sound somewhat irrelevant to the case at issue here I really want to draw attention to the fact that once upon a time under the previous Labour Government there was the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme which provided a Government subsidy for small communities to put in place toilet facilities and dump stations. That scheme has been done away with by this Government and there is now no subsidy at all. So those small local authorities that have difficulty in providing the infrastructure and facilities that might well address this problem are now offered no assistance at all to do that. Instead we are going to turn people into criminals. 
I will refer to the meaning of “freedom camp” which is found in clause 5(1) of the bill. It refers to people “using 1 or more of the following: (a) a tent or other temporary structure: (b) a caravan: (c) a car campervan housetruck or other motor vehicle.” I have to say that in the Nelson region particularly in the wider Nelson region quite a few people live in campervans housetrucks or other motor vehicles. It will be very difficult if anything like a partial or certainly a complete ban is exercised by the Nelson City Council or the Tasman District Council on the areas they are responsible for. 
If they do exercise this right to designate places as banned areas then it will be extremely difficult for ordinary people—New Zealanders or tourists it does not matter which—who are going about the ordinary task of enjoying our extraordinary environment to know exactly where those places are. Saying that a sign will go up will not be sufficient particularly if people have been doing that for years—if they have been going back to the same place for years and parking up their housetruck or campervan. For some people in the Nelson area these become places of residence. These clearly are not usually the people who foul the environment but the problem with this legislation is that it does not discern between those guilty of behaviour that none of us like—leaving waste or litter behind—and those enjoying our outdoors in a way that does no harm at all. The bluntness of this legislation is its very problem and it is not sufficiently nuanced; it is not sufficiently progressive. There is not sufficient support for local authorities to invest in the kinds of facilities they need in order to ensure that those who are legitimately camping in beautiful parts of the country can do that without fouling the environment. 
This legislation is coming in under urgency tonight because everybody wants to get it through in time for the Rugby World Cup. Quite frankly there will be a huge problem when the Rugby World Cup comes along. I refer to a reported statement in the  
Nelson Mail  
of 20 May in which one of the councillors of the Nelson City Council said there were likely to be a thousand extra campervans in the city that would park during Rugby World Cup events in Nelson this year. That was said by Rachel Reece who is a Nelson City Councillor. I am not sure where a thousand extra campervans will be parked in Nelson. If the Nelson City Council starts to exercise some bans and to say that places everywhere are banned except the end of Sovereign Street which is one of the areas close to where I live and which has been problematic it would make much more sense if the council were to invest in installing some facilities at the end of Sovereign Street or in Neale Park and to say: “Come and park your campervan down here and we will provide some facilities.” 
Other councillors were concerned that the council would in fact overreact and prevent people from enjoying some of the freedoms particular to New Zealand and some of the enjoyable things we can do in moving around the outdoors with freedom. This bill as it stands at the moment gives the Nelson City Council and the Tasman District Council the power to overreact. That is our concern about this bill. It does not get the balance right. It tries to address a real problem certainly and I acknowledge that there is a problem but it is a problem created by a minority. To bring the legislation down as it is with the force it has is nanny Statism of the worst kind. I think members opposite ought to reflect on that a bit because the moment they had the opportunity when they were in Opposition they tried to use the label of “nanny State” to prevent just such legislation as this.