Twyford Phil: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Twyford Phil: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20685] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Let me for the record state again that Labour acknowledges that we have a problem with the dumping of waste on the roadside in some of our country’s most scenic areas. We acknowledge this is an issue that needs to be addressed but we have come strongly to the view that the Freedom Camping Bill is ill-conceived badly thought through and bad law that must be opposed. 
What does this bill do? It gives councils the power to declare large parts of their territory to be off-limits for freedom camping. It installs an enforcement and compliance regime for not only the dumping of waste and littering but also freedom camping itself. It is a joke that this Minister stands up and tries to portray this bill as some kind of Magna Carta for freedom campers. It is not. It is the opposite. It undermines freedom camping and it threatens the freedom that generations of New Zealanders have enjoyed to get out in the countryside to park on the side of the road and to sleep a few hours before heading off for a weekend of fishing surfing pig hunting—you name it. 
We have two chief concerns. The first is that this bill is disproportionate. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut as Kevin Hague said in the first reading debate on this bill. As I said it gives councils the power to declare large areas off-limits to freedom campers and we have had considerable debate over the last few hours about whether that gives councils the power to effect blanket bans. The bill says no it does not allow councils to effect blanket bans but the reality is that they can declare large swathes of their territory off-limits for freedom campers. The Minister has failed to answer the question we put to her and that is what percentage is acceptable or not acceptable? Is 98 percent of the territory off-limits to freedom campers a blanket ban or not? 
At the Local Government and Environment Committee we heard that a number of councils have in the current system actually set out to effect blanket bans. The Thames-Coromandel District Council through its own by-laws has effectively instituted a blanket ban. The Dunedin City Council came to the committee and gave us quite a detailed presentation. It too has effectively outlawed freedom camping in its territories. So the political will is there when councils decide for whatever reason that it is too much hassle it is too much problem and we do not want freedom campers in our territory. By giving councils such an efficient mechanism as is in this bill councils will have much greater ability to prohibit freedom camping in their territories. The result is that this will affect many New Zealanders—pig hunters surfers fishers climbers trampers—who probably do not live in those areas and therefore are not ratepayers or local voters but they are New Zealanders who currently have the right to go freedom camping and enjoy the country in that way. 
Are we demonising councils by suggesting that they will use the law in this way? I do not think we are. Who in this House has experience of councils using traffic laws for revenue generation? Do we have any examples of councils using bus lanes to generate revenue? Yes we do. It is not inconceivable that councils in an attempt to get cost recovery under this law will go out there and have officials banging on the windows of campervans that are parked on the side of the road and pinging people with a $200 instant fine. So we believe that this law is disproportionate. We also are of the view that it is badly drafted and this is not a complaint against the officials; it is a complaint against their political masters for the woolly unfocused and badly thought through policy that they have asked the officials to implement. 
Clause 11 talks about one of the criteria that a council would have to satisfy before it passed a by-law to ban freedom camping and that would be to protect the area. What the heck does “protect the area” mean? It also says the local authority must be satisfied that the by-law would address a perceived problem in the area. Well perceived by whom? Clause 11A states that by-laws must not absolutely prohibit freedom camping. This is the Alice-in-Wonderland clause. Just because it says the by-laws must not absolutely prohibit it does not actually prevent them from banning freedom camping in 98 percent of that territory. 
Stuart Nash pointed out that clause 5(1)(a) defines freedom camping as sleeping out under some temporary structure a caravan or a campervan. But sleeping under the stars is perfectly acceptable under this bill. It is an absolute nonsense. Further on in the bill it makes it an offence to make preparations to camp and as Rick Barker pointed out what does that mean? Does it include pulling the handbrake up getting one’s jamies out of the suitcase or putting on the burner to make a cup of tea? Is that “making a preparation to camp”? So not only the campers of New Zealand but also the law enforcement officers of councils all over New Zealand will have a field day with this bill. 
One of the most odious parts of this bill is the seizure and impoundment of property provisions. We have already discussed the advice from Sir Geoffrey Palmer as chair of the Legislation Advisory Committee. He told the Government and the select committee that the seizure and impoundment provisions were inconsistent illogical and would not achieve their stated aims and that they provide a perverse incentive for people to commit an offence in a tent rather than a campervan. In fact they are an assault on the property rights of New Zealanders because they place the onus on the persons who have had their property seized to prove or establish that the property will not be used in any ongoing offending. That is just one of the many defects in this bill. 
Associate Professor Kenneth Palmer made a really interesting submission to the select committee. He stated: “I consider the message given by the legislation is one of punishment which is likely to affect many international tourists as well as local persons. The effect on international tourists may be to change the image of New Zealand as a freedom area and to impose on visitors significant fines and even the seizure of vehicles which may not be justified on the merits of the situation.” He pointed out that local authorities have been in breach of the duty imposed under the Litter Act to provide receptacles in public places. That is consistent with the case we have been making all the way along that practical measures like the provision of more public toilets and rubbish bins in these scenic out-of-the-way places would be a much better response than this sledgehammer bill from the National Government. 
My opening comment was that this bill is misnamed. It has about as much to do with freedom camping and preserving freedom as Ronald Reagan’s “Clear Skies Bill” did when in the 1980s he gutted pollution controls on industrial polluters. This should be called the “Anti-Freedom Camping Bill” “National’s Nanny State Camping Bill” or “The Day National Killed the Kiwi Road Trip Bill”. Those would all be much better titles. We live in a complex highly regulated society and it is important that as legislators we carefully consider the balance of rights and responsibilities and the potential unintended consequences of laws that we pass. 
It is our case that this bill seriously undermines and curtails the freedoms that New Zealanders have enjoyed for generations to enjoy the great outdoors without having some council law enforcement officer knocking on the window of their campervan— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: With their clipboard. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —with their clipboard at 2 o’clock in the morning telling them to move on or slapping a $200 infringement notice on their windscreen. It is bad law it should not be passed and we think the Government is making a real mistake with it.