McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Chair thank you. Minister thank you for that. And I want to debate that and to talk more about that and I thank you for engaging on it. I must say your approach when you became Minister for this portfolio has been refreshing because indeed the last Minister of Tourism actually really got to the point where he was saying to submitters and others that they were wrong and his officials were right and he wasn't willing to engage in this anymore. And he could well be correct in that but the job of this House and the committee here during the committee stage is to exhaustively look at these issues so at the very least members of the public who will be affected by this legislation—have costs placed upon them or their ability to do things that previously were lawful are no longer—at least understands why Parliament is making that decision. So I want to thank the Minister for constructively engaging.Some of the things that he said I agree with completely but Minister I'm not sure the legislation will make the changes that you intend or hope to. So the example you gave near Rotorua where somebody has defecated in public of course that should not happen but the problem with this legislation is it doesn't actually stop that because the people that you mentioned that had a fixed facility in their campervan in camping there under the new regime where certified they are meeting the requirement of the law but the law does not say they have to use that. So they could climb over their campervan and they could defecate actually on the side of the campervan and they're still certified because it's fixed—that toilet in their campervan—but the law doesn't say they have to use it; it just says it has to be fixed. Conversely someone else could drive up and park beside you Minister in a campervan with a portable toilet and they couldn't be certified and they use that portable toilet inside their campervan and ultimately they are breaking the law. And that is where the challenge or the problem is with the legislation.The intent is something that we accept. We have no problem with the intent. But I've got to say that some of the examples that were given to us—they weren't the officials' examples but the things the officials were being given to present to the committee so the officials were doing a good job—actually didn't lead us to the point of believing that actually all the solutions that were needed had been found or explored or put into legislation to ensure that people are responsible when they camp and they freedom camp and that actually imposing restrictions upon some Kiwis who have acted responsibly and continued to would be made illegal and it would impact upon the things that they were doing. You gave the example of how for New Zealanders all over the country it's a rite of passage and they go and camp in their tents. Well of course the legislation allows them to camp in a tent and not to have a toilet and I suppose do whatever they want with their business anywhere so it doesn't impact upon somebody who has a tent if they are travelling around the country hitchhiking and so on. It doesn't deal with that because you can't certify a tent. I suppose you couldn't have a fixed toilet in the tent but you could have a portable one. The point is it doesn't deal with any of that.Our spokesman has brought forward a submission and in the committee we made the case because probably of all the issues that were raised the one that was the most contentious and raised the most concern from submitters—law-abiding Kiwis who just want to go and camp and they want to meet their obligations they don't want to ruin the environment they're responsible people—was the great cost and imposition placed upon them if they had to have a fixed toilet. So there's a Supplementary Order Paper that's been tabled that actually will deal with this. It says actually that you can use a non-fixed toilet but it has to be described in regulation. The previous Minister said Well people using buckets with lids—nobody believes that is a portable toilet." But actually it should be around changing behaviour. And for the officials to say they've done research that merely says if somebody has a fixed toilet they're more likely to use it than if it's a non-fixed toilet actually I'm not convinced by it because it means we probably just haven't got those regulations right. We also didn't hear clearly from any submitter or any evidence or anything that says that people are less likely to take the responsibility to dispose of effluent that's stored in a portable toilet less seriously than somebody with a fixed toilet. I guess there will be examples of that where people don't do what they should—they're not responsible. We should penalise and criminalise that not criminalise somebody who has a portable toilet in their campervan they use it they dispose of it in a place that is identified for its disposal but they're breaking the law if they freedom camp because they can't be certified. It's a very small change that says actually if you are responsible and you have a portable toilet and you use it you will be allowed to be certified and freedom camp. If you don't use it you would break the law just as if you're not using a fixed one you would break the law. It would mean tens of thousands of Kiwis are not inconvenienced and we could continue to focus on where the problem is."