Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20653] 
Freedom Camping Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 1 is clauses 3 to 9. The debate includes schedule 1. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. Where to begin with the misnamed Freedom Camping Bill? It is a bill that has so much wrong with it and I am hoping we will have enough time this evening to tease out the many defects in it. 
Labour has set out in its minority report and in the second reading debate its opposition to the bill and members of the House and members of the public who are interested and listening to the debate will know that we went into this debate with an open mind. We recognise there is a problem in certain parts of the country with people fouling the side of the road leaving litter and waste in a way that no one wants to see. But in the process of the Local Government and Environment Committee discussions and from listening to public submissions we formed a very clear view that this bill is a punitive and heavy-handed response to this problem that it is bad law and that it should not proceed. 
We believe that giving councils and the Department of Conservation the power to enforce compliance under this bill for people who freedom camp in prohibited areas and for littering and waste is a step too far. The net result of this bill is to threaten freedoms that generations of New Zealanders have enjoyed—that is the freedom to move around the country and enjoy the great outdoors. This bill raises the possibility that people who go into the countryside on a Friday night for a weekend of fishing climbing hunting surfing or tramping and camp beside the road after they have driven from their homes—with the idea that they will get up early on a Saturday morning to hit the waves to go tramping or to go hunting—could easily find themselves on the wrong side of the law. 
There is no compulsion under this bill for local authorities to establish a minimum requirement for signage in certain areas. It will be very easy for people who are freedom camping—responsible freedom campers—to park on the side of the road and find themselves woken up in the middle of the night by some council official banging on the window of their campervan and moving them on let alone slapping a $200 instant fine on them. 
The debate has flushed out a lot of concern from New Zealanders about the threat to this freedom and I want to quote from a couple of them. This quote is from Grant and Smillie Henderson who live in Pakuranga Auckland. They wrote: “there are thousands of us retired hard working ordinary grey haired Grey Nomads out here. Many of us have self-contained rigs worth as much as a small apartment. We have gone to considerable expense to ensure that our motor homes are fully certified and self-contained”. That allows them to camp away from other facilities for many days. “We leave any place we stop tidier and cleaner than we found it. We leave nothing behind but tyre imprints in the gravel. Many of us spend a worthwhile amount of money each month in the smaller centres in NZ …. We enjoy the slower pace of the country areas the quieter surroundings the simpler way of doing things.” They say they prefer to freedom camp at times for the solitude and serenity of the remote places they find. 
They go on to say that in its present form the Freedom Camping Bill criminalises everyday law-abiding New Zealanders because they own a motor home and enjoy the freedom of the outdoors. They say that this bill is a huge step backwards for this country. They say it will give local councils a licence to target and fine everyone rather than target those who actually create the problem and I think they have touched on the nub of the problem here. This bill targets an entire category of person—those who enjoy freedom camping and who go out to the countryside and do it. It targets a whole category of activity freedom camping without focusing on the activity that actually does the damage. 
Members on the other side of the Chamber who are supporting this bill railed against the phasing out of inefficient light bulbs which is happening all over the Western World—they said it was an example of the nanny State. Yet the very same members now in Government are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. They are criminalising everyday law-abiding New Zealanders—as that submitter wrote—simply to solve a problem of people littering and leaving waste on the roadside. It is a travesty and they should not be allowed to get away with it. 
I note that the bill is also supported by the ACT Party which loves to trumpet its claim to be the great liberal party—the great defender of our freedoms and liberties. I know that many members of the ACT Party in this House do not support this bill but they have been dragooned into it by the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide. 
We want to propose in the course of this debate a number of amendments that we think would improve this legislation and we look forward to debating those. In particular we would like to see the deletion of the provisions that criminalise the act of freedom camping. There is no need for it. We could actually achieve the objectives we all have in this matter by bringing in an enforcement and infringement regime that deals with littering and the dumping of waste on Department of Conservation land or on council land. That would be sufficient along with the kind of powers that are set out on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to allow the owners of the campervans to recover the fines from the people renting those campervans. 
We were told at the select committee that the great majority of problems in this area are caused by international visitors using campervans that are not self-contained—they do not have self-contained toilet facilities. I submit that a much more focused and targeted approach could actually solve much of this problem as well as local authorities in this country investing more in the provision of toilets and rubbish bins in the places that are most vulnerable to this problem. 
In Part 1 there is a definition of “freedom camp” and I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to it. Clause 5(1) states: “freedom camp means to camp … within 200m of a motor vehicle accessible area or the mean low-water springs line of any sea or harbour or on or within 200m of a formed road or a Great Walks Track”. All a person has to do is be in that area and be using a tent a caravan a car a campervan house truck or other motor vehicle and they are freedom camping—and they may not know it. They may not have seen the sign in the darkness but they have broken the law. 
I say that this is an infringement of a really important freedom that New Zealanders have enjoyed for a long time. I have spent a good part of my life hitchhiking climbing tramping and fishing around the country and more often than not trips away for those sorts of activities involve camping on the side of the road in situations that would likely leave someone to cause an infringement under this Draconian and punitive bill. 
Clause 3(2A) really illustrates the absurdity of this bill. One of the concerns that many people expressed at the select committee was that the bill would effectively allow councils to institute a blanket ban in their territory. Clause 3(2A)—and I think clause 11 further on in the bill—states that the powers of regulation under the Act do not allow blanket bans. Well just saying it does not make it true. 
A council can implement a ban over 98 percent of the territory or over 97 percent. How much I ask the Minister is not a blanket ban in her book? I invite the Minister to take a call and explain to New Zealanders the logic behind inserting into the bill a provision that says that councils cannot use it to blanket-ban when that means that they cannot outlaw freedom camping on all of their territory. 
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. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I follow on from my colleague from Nelson Maryan Street who rightfully points to the reality of there being issues in and around New Zealand and I do not think anyone would deny that but the Freedom Camping Bill is bizarre legislation that is attempting to kill what is part of the culture of New Zealand. In fact I was just at Copperfields grabbing my coffee from a young man in there called Robin. I said I would quote him because I said I was going back in to speak and he asked what the bill was. I said it was the Freedom Camping Bill and he asked what it does. I said it effectively stops people going and camping wherever councils put up a sign and he said “Well isn’t that the fun of New Zealand?”. In fact that is exactly right. That freedom we have that people from the UK Ireland and all around the world come to New Zealand to enjoy—the ability to go into the outdoors that is not owned or controlled by anyone and to enjoy nature—is something that goes right to the heart of what Kiwi culture is. This legislation—look at it; this bill this nanny State legislation—will stop that. 
Well I have Supplementary Order Paper 272 here from my colleague Phil Twyford which is at the heart of it. It is at the heart of this and it is what we will support. It says that it does not determine what people should do—that is it does not outlaw freedom camping—but that if people deposit waste interfere with things or do damage then they are liable for prosecution. It is a kind of Resource Management Act approach really. It does not specify exactly what we should do. Let it be noted that the parties in this House that are telling us what we should do—where we should poo and what we should do—are National and ACT. I hate to think of the number of times that I have been in this Chamber and heard rantings and ravings from members on that side and from Rodney Hide in particular about compliance costs about nanny States and about telling us as Kiwis what we should do. Do members know what they are doing? They are telling us where we can poo—they are telling us where we can poo. 
I have always been told that—not in the cities but in the greater outdoors—if people get caught short and have to exercise their natural feelings then they should take a shovel. That usually addresses it. I have to say that that is not telling people what they should or should not do or where they should or should not do it; it is saying that people should minimise and reduce the impacts of it. It is Resource Management Act bottom-line stuff. It affects base legislation. Why would you bring it into this House? I will tell members why. It is a shallow bit of politicking by Nick Smith. He has convinced his colleagues. I know that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Conservation is quite embarrassed by it because I believe she is truly committed to conservation and the outdoors and encouraging people to get out there. She knows that this bill will kill that because people will be paranoid about where they will poo. That quite frankly is just bizarre in a country of 4 million people. We have a number of visitors accepted but we bring them into this country almost under false pretences if everywhere they go they will face signs put up by councils that could effectively have a blanket ban that is up to the councils. 
Councils find this whole proposition rather bizarre because although they want to do something to reduce the impacts the Government will not help with any infrastructural costs. The previous Labour Government did with our sewerage and water subsidy scheme. It helped councils that did not have the resources but were facing quite a lot of visitors—Kaikoura in particular and many others around the country—and needed to put in place proper infrastructure. If there are no toilets it is very hard for people to go to the toilet. So we need to build infrastructure to address the problem. As we have gone out and promoted New Zealand and encouraged more people to visit this country the basic responsibility is to put in place better infrastructure. The Labour Government had assistance for councils. The National Government gave $14 billion in tax cuts to its mates the rich then said it had no money to do anything else. So it has chopped schemes like that and now councils have the difficult option of saying they cannot afford to put in place proper toilets although they want to attract visitors and they realise there is an impact. So Nick Smith in his shallow way said “Oh I’ll give you a tool. Here you are: you can go and put up little signs and tell people they’re not allowed to come here.” Well that goes to the heart of Kiwi culture. It goes to the heart of the experience that we sell and promote overseas I have to say. 
The images put out by Tourism New Zealand are of wide open spaces for people to have freedom to go out and enjoy. Most of those people understand that they have to minimise their impact on the environment. The problem is often if they are in a campervan—even if it is self-contained—at the end of their journey or when the tank is full there are simply not enough dump stations. The real impact out around the country is where self-contained campervans dump large volumes of effluent in one place. It is outrageous. It is shocking. There should be as the Supplementary Order Paper from my good colleague Phil Twyford says some penalty for that. But if we do not provide the facilities then it is very hard to impose a fine. There will be a backlash there is no doubt about that. We have amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 267 from the Minister to tidy up how the Government can charge people these penalties if they go away from New Zealand. So if they run offshore—because most of them are visitors and come here for a time—or hop on the plane and move off all of a sudden there is a penalty imposed upon them. So there is a very complex set of rules and regulations in the bill to ensure that we can get the money out of them and that they can be charged or if they are let off for some technical reason then the obligation is on the rental camper van companies to refund the money. 
All the complex rules in this bill are unnecessary. What we have to do is put out a code of practice put in place some proper infrastructure and put up some signs to encourage the right culture and behaviour—for example signs could say “No toileting for the next 50 kilometres”. That is a clear indication that it is not acceptable to go to the toilet on the side of the road. Do not say “Do not camp”. and have some overzealous and dare I say it maybe farmer-controlled councils that are not necessarily friendly to the tourism industry saying “Right! That’s it. We don’t want any freedom camping. They can go to the camping grounds.” The problem is that although we have some wonderful camping-grounds and I encourage people to go to them what we are selling as New Zealand is an experience and an amazing opportunity for tourists from anywhere around the world to come and enjoy our culture and our country at their leisure and their pace. We are chopping that. 
I have to say as a former Minister of Tourism I find that rather sad. I find the whole thing rather unnecessary and I cannot understand how National and ACT given their ranting and raving on things like the nanny State and compliance costs can possibly put forward legislation like this. There are better ways of dealing with this issue. There are far better ways and I hope that National will see its way clear if it wants to push through this legislation to at least amend it through the wise Supplementary Order Paper put up by my colleague to make judgment on the effects on the environment not on the proposal to either camp or stay overnight in a place. As a good friend from Copperfields—Robin—said: “That’s what the fun of New Zealand is.”—being able to go somewhere and camp. 
Phil Twyford 
: Cam Calder understands that. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Most of them understand it I think but they are just too scared because a shallow piece of legislation has been railed through Cabinet by Nick Smith. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 It is great to follow my colleague Damien O’Connor who is a former Minister of Tourism. I had a brief fleeting moment as a Minister of Conservation. Freedom camping was an issue that we looked at when we were in Government and it came up at a mayoral forum with senior Cabinet Ministers which we held on a regular basis. We realised there was a problem not because the Rugby World Cup was coming up and we were going to dump down ridiculous legislation to try to tidy up the motorways of New Zealand for our Rugby World Cup visitors but because there was a genuine concern about people littering on our State highways and in places of quite high visibility. But beneath that there was also concern about environmental degradation. We were really concerned about it. 
Mayor Geddes’ solution was where we were at when we lost the election and for us to now have to sit here and watch National bring in a bill that is 64 pages long is an embarrassment. The Freedom Camping Bill says that in New Zealand people can freedom camp but only in certain places. Visitors cannot camp it up when they come to our country to enjoy the lifestyle that New Zealanders love. The bill is absolutely a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is an embarrassment to us in Labour that we are seeing this nanny State Government bring in such stupid legislation. There is now also a Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister of Conservation to tidy up the infringement and penalty regime because the Government got that wrong too. It is an embarrassment to us in this country who are saying: “Haere mai. Welcome to New Zealand and enjoy the Rugby World Cup.” I am embarrassed and we are definitely opposing this bill especially after listening to submissions during the select committee process. 
I come from Rotorua. We have a by-law in Rotorua that works perfectly well. We have never needed legislation that is 64 pages long for us to say to visitors: “When you come to New Zealand these are the places where we want you to go. Don’t freedom camp in this place because there are no ablution blocks anywhere near it but these are the places you can go to.” 
I think this Government and the Minister of Tourism—who for goodness’ sake is the Prime Minister of this country—have failed to understand the very nature of the visitors to our country. They come here to explore the great outdoors. That is what they love. They come here and they want to get in the great outdoors. New Zealand is a long skinny piece of string as our previous Prime Minister called it. The visitors think they are freedom campers because they get in their campervan they can travel anywhere north and south and they cannot get lost. They can go off the north-south continuum in this country and they can find their way back to the main routes to the next town. 
The bill is putting in something that those visitors will not even know about. They will not even understand. We will have an infringement regime that pings people when they get to the airport. It will say: “We got you when you were going through Rotorua when you stopped at Rotoiti—” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: You are not a visitor Mr Chairperson; I mean the visitor. The infringement regime says: “We’ve got you and you’ve got an instant fine here of $200. Hope you had a good trip. Bang! Here’s your fine. Pay it before you leave the country or there will be problems when you come back into the country.” It is just silly and it is just embarrassing for us as hosts who are saying: “Come to our country. When you come here enjoy the great outdoors. Please don’t spoil the great outdoors experience by littering our highways and our byways but do enjoy yourself while you’re here.” This is ridiculous. 
The other aspect of this bill that is ridiculous—the Minister of Conservation has become absolutely passionate about conservation—is that there is no way that the Department of Conservation front-line staff want to be involved in snooping around the country and checking up on who is pooping on the side of the roads that are not on the conservation estate. They do not want to have anything to do with it. They want to go out there and look after species that are threatened not tourists who will feel a bit like threatened species when they come to this country. The Department of Conservation wants to get on with front-line work. When I know that there are cuts to Department of Conservation staff and conservancies around the country it makes this stupid bill even sillier. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 The Committee should be honoured to be listening to a descendant of the original freedom camper in New Zealand some 30-odd generations ago. My tupuna Kupe turned up and he was the first person according to legend to set foot in Aotearoa. He was the original freedom camper when he set up shop at his first campsite. But he did not actually form a permanent dwelling; he circumnavigated all of the North Island naming places on the way and therefore I claim him as the original freedom camper in Aotearoa. Here is his direct descendant standing up who follows his legacy because every Christmas my family and I also participate in freedom camping. 
According to clause 5 the meaning of freedom camp is to camp other than at a camping ground. We do not camp at a camping ground; we camp on private property. This is a slightly different circumstance. But it is within 200 metres of a motor vehicle accessible area. It is not near a great walking track. The only walking track at our camp is the great walk from the sleeping tent over to the food tent and back again. That is the great walk that I participate in when I am freedom camping. 
Stuart Nash 
: Many times. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Many times in the one day. We are concerned about the potential for a blanket ban on freedom camping. I take up the point that our colleague Phil Twyford made about what constitutes a blanket ban. Is it 99 percent? Is it 98 percent? Is it 70 percent? There can be bans on huge swathes of local authority areas and they can still not be called or defined according to this bill as a blanket ban but in effect that is a blanket ban under clause 3(2A). 
The problem with this bill is that it does not address the problem. The problem is not that people pull up in their campervans or pitch a tent and camp; the problem is with the disposal of waste or effluent—call it what you may. That is the problem and that is the issue that should be addressed not the fact that people might pull up overnight and camp. We have heard from the previous Minister of Tourism the Hon Damien O’Connor and he would know that the term “FIT” in the tourism trade is “free and independent traveller”. We want to attract more free and independent travellers to New Zealand because generally they tend to be older people who like to not have any set schedule. They do not like to get on a bus and be taken from city A to city B to city C. They like to make up their plans as they go along the way. They like to pull over here and there and just camp where they can and when they can. That is what it means to be a free and independent traveller. 
These free and independent travellers tend to be wealthier. They bring more money and they tend to spend more money. We should be encouraging these people to come and have a great time enjoy themselves go where they want and when they want but respect the places they stay at just like my ancestor Kupe would have done back in his time. We need to encourage these people to stay and then go home and tell their friends and their families what a great time they had in Aotearoa New Zealand and encourage those people to also come over here and participate in the freedom camping experience. They tend to stay longer and they tend to spend more. We need to encourage those tourists not as the Hon Steve Chadwick referred to pop them here there and everywhere and get them as they are leaving the country. We should not say: “There you go. Here is a $200 fine because you were camping somewhere where a local authority said you shouldn’t.” 
There is the issue of not having enough places for freedom campers to stay at. I am talking about tourists; I am not talking necessarily about New Zealanders who want to go pig hunting surfing or whatever and end up camping just off the road before they go on their big adventure. I am talking about the tourists who are driving around. The camping grounds are normally full in the summer period or when we have something on such as the Rugby World Cup. There will be a lot of freedom campers at that time. 
I note the decision by this Government to do away with the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme which the Hon Maryan Street touched on. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson Robertson. Kia ora tatou katoa e hoa ma. I am taking a call on the Freedom Camping Bill. Earlier this evening I was listening to my colleague Rahui Katene in the debate on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. She referred to the wisdom of the Waitangi Tribunal’s report  
Ko Aotearoa Tenei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Maori Culture and Identity 
. For all intents and purposes it is known as the Wai 262 report. 
In that report there are a number of recommendations that suggest that the Resource Management Act should be reformed so that the Crown and all local authorities are more strongly compelled to engage meaningfully with the kaitiaki. The report outlines exactly how that can be achieved. It could be achieved by developing an enhanced iwi management plan with polices and proposals developed by agreed to and adopted by both the iwi and local authority representatives. Another approach could be to create an improved plan to make joint management with and a transfer of power to iwi much more easily implemented. A third approach might be to recommend that core national policy statements are developed on Maori influence and active participation in the Resource Management Act processes. Those are great ideas I reckon but given the impending importance of the event on 26 November I suggest that it does not appear likely that any progress will be made in responding to the recommendations made in that report certainly not in the immediate future. 
In the meantime the Maori Party has come up with the challenge of seeing how we can draw upon such an excellent reference point for other legislation where it applies. The Freedom Camping Bill is a very clear example of legislation where we can encourage a far more effective relationship between local authorities and mana whenua. The Maori Party through my colleague Rahui Katene has taken the step of introducing Supplementary Order Paper 266 to amend this bill to require local authorities to recognise respect and act in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi when exercising powers or functions under the legislation. This amendment will introduce a clause that suggests that in order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of Te Tiriti o Waitangi local authorities and any person acting on behalf of local authorities must act in a way that is consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi when exercising powers or functions under the Act. 
We say we need to have a more proactive approach to encourage local authorities to communicate meaningfully with the relevant iwi hapu and whanau. My colleague Rahui Katene recently advised me—and it comes with some experience I think—of what has happened down in Kaikoura where I used to teach at the start of my teaching career. In Kaikoura there is a place called Nga Niho Pa which is just in behind Takahanga Marae if one has ever been to Kaikoura. It is a traditional pa site of Kaikoura and of course Ngai Tahu—rightly so—became pretty agitated when some so-called freedom campers were using the traditional pa site to empty their toilet waste. In case people think that that is an isolated approach I say I am aware that there have been concerns in my electorate of Waiariki from one end of the electorate to the other from places such as the Tongariro National Park through to Te Urewera National Park and the eastern Bay of Plenty and up and down the East Coast where freedom campers tend to move. Quite rightly this issue is something that we have to address. 
We think this bill is pretty useful because it sets up an offence of freedom camping which is described as taking place when the flora or fauna is interfered with or damaged or waste is deposited on to the area other than into the waste receptacles that have been set aside for that. But the Maori Party has a philosophical opposition to any bits of legislation that are introduced for the sake of creating a new list of fines and punishments without due consideration being given to proactive and responsible behaviour to avoid the same mistakes reoccurring. We believe that the amendment in the name of Rahui Katene on behalf of the Maori Party is such an approach. It encourages local authorities to take as I said earlier appropriate account of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to act in ways that recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility as a Treaty partner. Acting in a Treaty-complaint manner will ensure that there is consultation with iwi. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I will take just a few minutes to have a call on the Freedom Camping Bill. I think there is general agreement throughout the House that freedom camping in New Zealand is a valued tradition and it is part of our way of life—and no wonder when we have so much beautiful scenery and we are the best country in the world. Having said that unfortunately there are some behaviours that do need to be discouraged. 
I want to take a call to address just a couple of the issues and questions that have been raised by the Labour Opposition. The first one is in relation to blanket bans. There is absolutely no intention in this legislation to allow local authorities to issue a blanket ban on freedom camping in their area. In fact one of the amendments that I think was pointed out was in clause 3(2A) which specifically states that “the powers of regulation under the Act do not allow for freedom camping to be prohibited on all land” so that therefore addresses the blanket ban. 
In addition to that it is further provided later on in Part 2 that the by-law has to be appropriate and proportionate. We think we have put in sufficient safeguards to prevent a local authority thinking it has carte blanche to issue a total blanket ban on freedom camping in New Zealand. The other misunderstanding that I think the Opposition has is that this legislation bans freedom camping. In fact it does the complete opposite. It is permissive. It permits it and it actually specifically provides for freedom camping which until now has not been protected or enshrined in law. This is actually good legislation. 
The final issue I will raise is from the Hon Steve Chadwick whom I recognise as a former Minister of Conservation. She made the interesting comment that there is a by-law that provides for this in Rotorua which is working well. Well actually all this legislation does is provide for other local authorities to have the same by-law. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They can do it without a law. They don’t need the law. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: But what actually happens under the by-law in Rotorua is if the council wants to enforce it it has to go through the courts and that wastes court time and several thousands of dollars in legal fees when an instant $200 fine should be all that is required. It is actually pretty light-handed but I do agree that this is only one of the tools in the tool box. 
We do need to get across the culture that spoiling our pristine countryside is not acceptable. Freedom camping is acceptable; irresponsible spoiling of our countryside is not. That will take more than just one piece of legislation to stop; it will take a change of attitude education working with the Department of Conservation and local authorities working together with various sector groups appropriate signage and a whole lot of other tools. This is one small tool in the tool box that we hope will discourage those irresponsible people who want to spoil our countryside. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I will take only a short call on the Freedom Camping Bill. We are obviously not supporting it whatsoever. I was not too sure what the Maori Party were doing whether they were supporting it. There was a lot of verbosity there but not much understanding. 
I actually think this legislation will be decided in the courts. The reason I say that is there is a lot of ambiguity here around the meaning. In particular I would like to talk about clause 5 “Meaning of freedom camp”. If we go to subclause (1A) it says: “In this Act freedom camping does not include the following activities:”. It talks about temporary and short-term parking. When I am parking in the city I know what temporary and short-term parking means. But when in the great wilderness that is New Zealand what does that mean? If we say that temporary does not mean permanent does that mean one can park a car for 3 days? Is that temporary? It is certainly not permanent. There is not a permanent structure there the car is not in my garage; it is not in anything I own. By any account that is in fact temporary parking. Is it 1 day 2 days 3 days—a week even? That is certainly temporary parking when one is on holiday or doing a trek up and down the country. The other term is “short-term parking”. Again when in the city I think I know what short-term means but in terms of a 4-week summer holiday if one is driving from spot to spot does short-term mean 3 days 4 days? Does it mean 1 day? 
I think that a smart lawyer representing a client who wanted to make a point or a principle could drive a bus a campervan or a housetruck straight through the middle of this because I would suspect they could quite easily argue that they were not freedom camping under the meaning of the Act because they were temporary parking they were not permanent parking or they were short-term parking. Perhaps they were on a holiday for 6 months and during that term a 4-day stopover was considered as short-term in the scheme of things. The other thing if we go to subclause (1) is the meaning of freedom camping. It includes a tent or other temporary structure; a caravan; a car campervan housetruck or other motor vehicle. Well it is pretty obvious that this bill is being rushed through for the Rugby World Cup because this is what happens in the middle of winter; people stay in these things. But if I know many young people and I take myself as an example when I was a young man footloose and fancy-free during the holidays I would jump in the car grab a sleeping bag and sleep on a beach. 
Hon Member 
: When was that? 
STUART NASH 
: A long time ago sometime last century. I would grab a sleeping bag and sleep under the stars under a tree or on a beach. But according to this bill that is not freedom camping. But that is where a lot of the problem lies. As my honourable colleague Kelvin Davis said we need to address the issue of people defecating in the wilderness. But if one is sleeping in a sleeping bag under the stars on a beach for a 3-day period according to this bill one is not freedom camping. Again what is the definition of “temporary structure”? The Crown may argue that a sleeping bag is a temporary structure; I doubt it. I would say— 
Phil Twyford 
: What about the stars? 
STUART NASH 
: Are they temporary? Well they are in Christchurch at the moment because one cannot see the sky or the stars. It will be interesting to see who starts challenging this. Someone will I know that. It will go through the court. What will happen is that someone will be picked up after staying on a beach for 3 days with a group of mates in sleeping bags. They will have taken no care about where they do what they do and they will be picked up and fined an instant $200. One of them will be the son or the daughter of very wealthy person and they will say no. They will be a third-year law student and decide to test the case in court. This is classic legal systems 101. What defines freedom camping? The issue will be what the definitions of temporary and short-term parking are. Is temporary and short-term parking 1 hour half a day a full day 3 days or a week? Does a temporary structure mean a sleeping bag? Temporary structure is almost a bit of an oxymoron but I suppose it means a tent. The bill says “tent or other temporary structure” but a sleeping bag on a beach in a car for 3 days—according to the bill—is not freedom camping. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the meaning of “local authority area”. The bill states: “local authority area—(a) means an area of land—(i) that is within the district or region of a local authority;”. It is the areas of land that are of concern. They are where people will park up or camp in. I think there is a pragmatic practical solution that if the Government had not cut the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme could have involved a joint venture between the Government local authorities and other organisations within the community such as schools sports clubs and possibly even marae so that the whole cost of providing facilities is not borne solely by the Crown. You see most schools sports clubs and marae would love to have their ablution blocks upgraded and improved. I think there would have been real scope to do that through something like the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme which the Government has cut. 
There would be issues to do with getting registered or whatever if the car-park or sports field at the school or rugby club say or the car-park at the marae was to be used as a temporary camping-ground. But I think that would ease a lot of congestion on the streets. I have been to Nelson and seen the street that the Hon Maryan Street spoke about where in one evening 26 cars parked up. There were two temporary toilets—Portaloos—and a couple of rubbish bins there for the campers to use because there was no room at the local camping-ground. If there was a bit of thought we could come up with a solution whereby any overflow could go to those sorts of facilities. 
Where I grew up the ablution block—the shower facilities and toilets—in the first-ever rugby club I played for have not been touched in 40 years. They are a mess but with a bit of thought using something such as the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme the club itself the local authority and the Government could all pitch in to upgrade those facilities. There is a huge car-park there and a huge sports field which in summer is nice and hard. People could park there if there was overflow from camping grounds. In fact those bodies could perhaps set themselves up to get a bit of income for the local sports club because these days they are certainly struggling for members and struggling to raise funds in other ways. With a bit of thought and a bit of organisation that could be a way for the particular sports club I am talking about to get a bit of income over the course of the summer break when the facilities are not being used for sports. I believe that with a bit of thought we could solve this issue and not have people camping out on roads or in car-parks in the middle of town. So it would not be the major problem that it is now. 
I endorse what my colleague Stuart Nash said about the possibility that this matter could well be settled in court because of the lack of definition of short-term and temporary parking. I think he raised a very valid point about that. 
I also say that I think the Supplementary Order Paper from Rahui Katene is a very good Supplementary Order Paper. The Labour Opposition will support it. I think it is really important. It is a pity that it was missed out in the first place. The Supplementary Order Paper inserts a Tiriti o Waitangi clause that basically makes sure that the Crown recognises and respects Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the responsibilities it has to take account of te Tiriti. The Supplementary Order Paper also deals with the responsibility of local authorities having to take account of te Tiriti. 
It is really important that local Maori are involved in any decision making on the areas where camping may or may not be banned. It is very important that Maori have this input. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take what will be a very brief call on the Freedom Camping Bill. I think this is a ridiculous bill. It is a total overreaction to what is a real problem. I am not saying that it is not a real problem but this is a total overreaction to it. I am a freedom camper. I have quite often with old flatmates driven up to the Tararuas parked in the car-park overnight on a Friday night and gone tramping the next day. Under the definitions and provisions provided in this bill we could be slapped with a $200 instant fine for doing that. I think that is absolutely ridiculous and an absolute attack on what is a Kiwi way of life—the ability to drive to a place park sleep in the car or camp beside the car and go tramping or hunting. This bill attacks that. 
There is a real problem with people leaving a mess behind by not using adequate camping facilities; there is also however a responsibility on us to make sure that those facilities are provided. I note that this Government of course has cut the funding for providing sanitary disposal facilities and that is absolutely ridiculous as well. This is an overreaction to what is a real problem but it could be much more easily solved and I think this bill is ridiculous. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 in the name of Rahui Katene be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Where freedom camping permitted 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Freedom Camping Bill. As many of the members on this side of the Chamber have made clear we think that Part 2 is another example of—no matter what you call it—over-the-top heavy-handed or sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut legislation. Part 2 again typifies what we think is a bit of an overreaction from the Government to what we see as a problem but not a significant-enough problem to basically take away the freedoms of Kiwis who have enjoyed freedom camping in some of our most pristine and beautiful places. Part 2 deals with where freedom camping is permitted. What is now in store for New Zealanders and visitors is that some of our most beautiful areas—beaches vistas and views—are no longer allowed to be enjoyed. One cannot park up have a look around and have a bit of a kip without having what could be called ablution police keeping an eye on us. 
I would like to open up a window to the world of what it would be like to be one of those people who will be forced to police this kind of law. What exactly will they be confronted with? I think that along with parking wardens the people who will be tasked with policing the Freedom Camping Bill will be in one of the most hated occupations for both New Zealanders and visitors to New Zealand. These people will be in some of our most pristine areas and they will be forced to sit in car-parks rest stop areas or places where one can look at some of the most beautiful views in New Zealand and be forced to snoop on what people are doing there. So for families sitting at home now I tell them that if they are out enjoying some time with the family at Christmas time—just as Kelvin Davis does—and they get caught short it will now be the job of some people to whack members of those families with a $200 instant fine if they are found defecating or urinating in some of those public places— 
Phil Twyford 
: Or just camping. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
:—or just camping; that is right. Families now run the risk of being slapped with what we think is an over-the-top $200 instant fine. We will have to hire people to do that kind of work. 
As Steve Chadwick said in her earlier contribution to the bill we do not need those people to do that kind of work. There are other means and ways to make sure we crack down on this problem. People hired by local bodies or by the Department of Conservation should not be doing that kind of work. They should not be snooping on people who are enjoying some of our most pristine areas. They should be making sure that other by-laws are being adhered to and that some of the flora fauna and wildlife in those areas is being saved. They should not be keeping an eye on people who are enjoying a night out under the stars in their sleeping bags—as Stuart Nash commented on earlier—to make sure they are not defecating or urinating in public areas. That is not their job and we do not believe that it should be their job to monitor that kind of behaviour in some of these areas. Again this bill is heavy-handed and a punitive measure that threatens the freedom to camp under the stars that Kiwis have enjoyed over generations. 
I would like to pick up a point that Stuart Nash made earlier about the definition of what freedom camping is and what short-term freedom camping in some of these brilliant areas is. My colleague Chris Hipkins pointed out that he has been on a number of camping expeditions where he has done that. I would like to know what will happen to the surfing expeditions now. It is not unknown for a young bunch of lads to jump in a car on a Friday night head to the beach and camp out for an early start on a Saturday morning to make sure they can get the early waves. Now under this legislation what will happen to that? It is unclear as to whether that is freedom camping. A lot of surfies will be sitting at home wondering what this National Government is doing to the freedom that they and their parents have enjoyed for many years which is to go and sleep under the stars or in their cars in some of those areas close to the beach so they can get the early morning waves. 
It also raises the possibility of freedom camping being effectively outlawed in large parts of the country and I think that is a sad by-product of this bill. It leaves uncertainty in the minds of Kiwis—can we park here can we sleep here or will we get a $200 fine? Now that uncertainty is there with many Kiwis and it will leave a lot of confusion for many Kiwi families who enjoy some of these most pristine areas. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I am referring to clause 16 “Public notification of freedom camping notices”. Subclause (1) states: “A freedom camping notice is published in accordance with this section if a summary of the notice—(a) is published in the  
Gazette 
; and (b) is published in the following newspapers: (i) in a daily newspaper circulating in each of the cities of Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin;”. My concern is for overseas tourists who land in New Zealand and have not happened to pick up a copy of a daily newspaper in Auckland Wellington Christchurch or Dunedin in which that freedom camping notice was published. The chances are that they would not have seen it or that they would not even look in the section where that sort of thing would be published. So those freedom campers—free independent travellers—will be journeying around New Zealand and will have a nice surprise when they pull up somewhere and wonder who the person is approaching them and saying that they have committed an offence that is liable for $200. That is not the face that we want to portray to our travellers from overseas but I think we are risking that. 
I know that ignorance is not an excuse but how can we expect people from overseas to turn up to New Zealand and know exactly what these regulations are? I hope there will be some sort of full-blown education campaign so that international travellers will know what the circumstances are and so that they will not be stung by that sort of thing. 
I note clause 11A “Bylaws must not absolutely prohibit freedom camping”. This is similar to clause 11(2)(a). Clause 11A(1) states: “A local authority may not make bylaws under section 11 that have the effect of prohibiting freedom camping in all the local authority areas in its district.” Subclause (2) states: “This section is for the avoidance of doubt.” But the doubt still exists—the doubt that our colleague Phil Twyford raised earlier. What is a blanket ban? The provision says that a local authority may not make by-laws that have the effect of prohibiting freedom camping in all the local authority areas in its district. Will the local authority not have that provision then in just one area of its district or in two areas of its district? I think there are still some vagaries there that will allow overzealous local authorities to sting all and sundry in a roundabout way. I do not think that subclause (2) removes the avoidance of all doubt. 
Clause 11(5) states: “The local authority must use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (as modified by section 86 of that Act) in—(a) making a bylaw under this section; or (b) amending a bylaw made under this section; or (c) revoking a bylaw under this section.” So regarding the special consultative procedure section 83 in the Local Government Act 2002 states: “Where this Act or any other enactment requires a local authority to use or adopt the special consultative procedure that local authority must”—and in subsection (1)(e) it says—“give public notice and such other notice as the local authority considers appropriate of the proposal and the consultations being undertaken;”. The part that is of concern is what the local authority considers appropriate because we are concerned that some local authorities may be overzealous just go too hard and as we already said use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. So it comes down to what is appropriate according to one local authority and what is appropriate according to another local authority when they refer to the Local Government Act 2002. There are vagaries and there could be confusion as to what the local authority considers appropriate. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I will pick up where my colleague Kelvin Davis left off and make some comments about the second clause in Part 2 which is about the bylaw-making power of local authorities. To borrow the turn of phrase from Stuart Nash I think it was we could drive a housetruck through the wording in some of these clauses. Subclause (2) of clause 11 says that “A local authority may make a bylaw under subsection (1) only if it is satisfied that—(a) the bylaw is necessary … (i) to protect the area:”—to protect the area. I mean that is ridiculous. That is so wide-ranging and so lacking in any kind of concrete meaning or specificity that it just makes a complete mockery of the bill. A council can make a by-law if it is satisfied that this bill is necessary to protect the area. Well what is it protecting the area against—or whom? It is an absolute nonsense. 
Paragraph (b) of clause 11(2) states: “the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way …”. Well there is an irony right there that this entire bill is disproportionate. That is the problem with it. It criminalises a whole class of people and a whole class of activity unnecessarily when it could actually be focusing on the problem—that is people who dump waste in scenic places. The by-law is supposed to be the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem—but perceived by whom? If there is a perception that there is a problem a council can pass a by-law to outlaw freedom camping across all but 100 percent of its territory. The legislation is absolutely ridiculous. It is heavy-handed and it is punitive. So if there is a perceived problem and a council thinks it needs to protect an area then that is justification enough under this bill for the council to pass a by-law that will outlaw freedom camping; a freedom that generations of New Zealanders have enjoyed will be able to be outlawed across large swathes of territory. 
Louise Upston 
: It doesn’t outlaw it Phil. Do you remember the bill? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Louise Upston has occasionally opened her mouth in this debate. She refuses to get up and take a call. I do not know why. She sits there on the backbenches on the Government side saying “Read the bill. Read the bill!”. Well I know from the select committee discussions that Louise Upston had grave concerns about this bill as did Cam Calder. They had serious concerns that this bill is punitive and heavy-handed and that it threatens the freedom of New Zealanders to enjoy the great outdoors. I challenge Louise Upston to get up and take a call. At least the Minister in the chair the Minister of Conservation had the good grace to get up and engage in a little bit of debate and I thank her for that. But to be honest I was mystified because all the Minister did was repeat what is already in the bill supposedly to avoid doubt and that was the statement that this bill does not allow blanket bans. Well we have already asked the Minister what percentage of a ban is acceptable. Is 98 percent OK? Is 95 percent OK? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: 99? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Maybe 99 percent is if there is a perceived problem that needs to be remedied by the council. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: What about freedom camping in a council car-park? That might be it. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I thank Rick Barker; that is a very good suggestion. 
The Minister also said that the bill specifically protects freedom camping unless it is outlawed. But that is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland logic: if one says that it is so then it must be so. Well it is not. The status quo makes it quite difficult for councils to outlaw freedom camping across large areas of land. It does. It makes it quite difficult for them to do that and it is not easy for them to enforce it. But with this bill Minister Wilkinson is not as she said handing councils one small tool in a tool box. She is giving them a powerful and efficient tool to outlaw freedom camping across large swathes of New Zealand and to enforce that ban in a heavy-handed way with $200 instant fines for people who happen to find themselves parked up and sleeping overnight in a prohibited area. What punitive bureaucratic and authoritarian streak lies at the heart of the National Government that it thinks it is OK to deal with this problem this specific problem of people dumping waste in some of our country’s scenic areas by imposing this heavy-handed regime? It is way beyond what any normal person would consider to be a proportionate response to this problem. It threatens a fundamental freedom that New Zealanders have enjoyed for a very long time. 
Louise Upston 
: It actually makes it more pleasant. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: All I can assume from that outburst from Louise Upston is that she has never gone away for a weekend surfing tramping or hunting and has never slept on the side of the road or pitched a tent in some beautiful part of New Zealand as she has gone off climbing mountains tramping or fishing. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Five-star hotels in Europe. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: That is right. It must be that she stays in five-star hotels and that she does not give a damn for the thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who spend their retirement travelling around this beautiful nation of ours in self-contained campervans enjoying the great outdoors in this country and who are fearful that this bureaucratic and punitive law will crack down on their freedom to enjoy New Zealand. 
I know that Cam Calder is a man of the world. He has travelled around. I bet he has slept on beaches. He has probably slept under hedgerows has Cam Calder. He does not like this bill but why will he not get up and take a call? Why will he not get up and take a call and explain why he is voting for this heavy-handed bureaucratic legislation? 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I refer to subpart 2 in Part 2 of the Freedom Camping Bill which relates to details of freedom camping on conservation land. It starts off very well I have to say. Clause 13 states: “Freedom camping is permitted on any conservation land unless freedom camping is restricted or prohibited on the land.” Clause 14(1) goes through a process of: “The Director-General may by erecting a sign …” etc. Clause 15(1) states further: “The Director-General may by notice published in accordance …”. Then it goes on to say how the good people of New Zealand will be informed of this and states that a notice must define the conservation land and then it must be published in the  
Gazette 
. Well that is a good publication. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Widely read. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Widely read in New Zealand circles. I know that all my hunting fishing and surfing friends always read the  
Gazette 
. But to be fair and we have to be fair to the Minister clause 16(1)(b) states the notice can be published in the following newspapers of course: “(i) in a daily newspaper circulating in each of the cities of Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin; or”—not and—“(ii) if the Director-General is satisfied that the notice is of local or regional interest only” in a local paper. So we are to have laws that for the most part affect areas in regional New Zealand but there may not be a requirement for there to be notification in any of the newspapers in the areas where freedom camping will be banned. What sort of consultation process has there been? What sort of authoritarian regime are we setting up here? It is just bizarre. 
I know now that regional and provincial newspapers quite often get up in arms about the lack of consultation and about the arrogance of the “shiny bums” as they say who sit on their chuffs in Wellington make these laws—I guess we are some of them now; we spend long enough here—and impose them on the good people up and down this country. They are the people who understand nature and who go out and enjoy it: the fishers the hunters and the surfers—all of those people. Yet the people—and I have to say it is National and the ACT Party people who want to impose this law—have said that it is OK and that we can notify people— 
Phil Twyford 
: And the Maori Party. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: —and the Maori Party too that is right. Actually that is scandalous. I have just realised that. Maori people will be criminalised for parking up and camping on their beaches and by their rivers. How could the Maori Party support this bill? How could they support such Draconian authoritarian and quite arrogant legislation? It is understandable National and ACT members supporting it. They might have three or four toilets in their own homes and cannot understand why people should not be able to go somewhere and go to the toilet. But not all Maori—many of them in Northland in particular—have ready access to toilets in their homes so they understand the ways of working with nature. One could call it composting or whatever but a good shovel and a spade can address the issues of effluent. 
I can understand that National and ACT members cannot quite get their heads around it. They have said that a notice in the newspapers circulating in the cities will be good enough to inform people of the areas that will be banned from freedom camping. That is outrageous. It goes right to the core of Wellington arrogance. The kind of criticism that we as politicians get every single day when we are out in the provinces is that we in Wellington do not understand and that we have no idea what is going on. That is what the people say and they will be quite right in this case. In fact those good people do not always hop in their cars and rush to the city for a holiday. Many of them travel down the road to another part of beautiful New Zealand and to the wilderness—for example from Westport to Punakaiki or from Nelson down to Fox Glacier or to Gillespies Beach or anywhere like that.  
There are many many options but they may not know and may have had no notification whatsoever that the area is conservation land until they arrive at the place and there may or may not be a sign there. So their planned journey and experience in wilderness New Zealand or beautiful New Zealand will come to a grinding halt. They will have to make a call on whether they commit an illegal act and stay as they were planning to do yet have no impact on the environment. They might have brought a shovel or be self-contained—who knows? But someone in Wellington in conjunction with the local council or the Minister of Conservation in this particular case has decided that it is conservation land. The Minister has decided having been given advice from the Director-General of Conservation that these areas shall be out of bounds and banned for camping. The Minister or the department will then issue a notice in a daily newspaper that circulates in each of the cities of Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin.  
What about Nelson? Did the Hon Nick Smith insist on Nelson being included? Maybe he should have given that he brought this legislation into the House. What about Timaru Invercargill Westport or Greymouth? None of those places will have mandatory notification in their newspapers because the bill states “or if the Director-General is satisfied”. Can the Minister get up and give an absolute guarantee that the provincial newspapers and the people in the provinces will have fair notice of her Draconian legislation to ban people from the conservation estate that they fund that they have fought for and that they uphold as being sacred in this country? The Minister is going to ban them from staying overnight on that land.  
Well I have to say this is what the legislation says and if the Minister can get up and guarantee that notice will be given in all of the provincial papers then maybe we have gone one step forward. But the legislation as stated here does not say that. Just as my colleague Stuart Nash said there will be interesting legal battles over what is a short-term park or a long-term park or whatever and the difference between what is perceived in provincial New Zealand and what is perceived in urban New Zealand. There is a huge void that is not covered by the legislation and the Minister has not risen and attempted to answer that in any way.  
This is just one of the many many flaws in legislation that is a sledgehammer attempting to crack a walnut. The Minister should just wind back and perhaps take on board the Supplementary Order Paper put up by my colleague Phil Twyford and say that we shall have a law around harming nature and harming the conservation estate but we will not make a judgment on the input side of it whether people are staying in a V-Dub—as many used to in the old days—a combi a Bedford van or nowadays a fully compliant and self-contained Mercedes van. Technology has moved on and we have found better ways of mitigating the impact of all of our behaviour—for example reducing carbon and getting better at saving energy and indeed in the area of camping we are better able to manage the potential effects of it. That is what we should be moving to do to encourage people and to give fair warning by notice. We should not impose a penalty for something that is at the heart of the New Zealand way of life and something that many have fought for and expected to see for their lifetimes. Unfortunately in this subpart 2 we now see potential behaviour by the Minister of Conservation and the department that through notice in the main newspapers of the main cities they will deem areas to be out of bounds for freedom camping. I think it is outrageous. The Minister should get up and explain why she is doing this or change it and take on board the Supplementary Order Paper put up by my colleague Phil Twyford. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will pick up on a couple of points made by my colleagues. I think they were very very well made. I turn to clause 16(1) in Part 2 of the Freedom Camping Bill to pick up the point that “A freedom camping notice is published in accordance with this section if a summary of the notice—(a) is published in the  
Gazette 
;”. In all of my time as a tramper and a hunter the very first thing we did before we did anything else—before we examined the weather forecast and made a plan—was read the  
Gazette 
 because we knew that the  
Gazette  
was the most important part of our information requirements for going on any trip. It is a very widely circulated document and is avidly read by New Zealanders every day. I am surprised the  
Gazette  
is not in the newspaper awards as one of the most widely circulated documents! 
Let us face it: this publication as far as the public is concerned is published in secret. It is a secret publication. How many New Zealanders have ever read the  
Gazette 
? I ask how many parliamentarians have ever read the  
Gazette 
. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: I have. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Minister in the chair says she has read the  
Gazette 
. I want to ask her what was on page 2 of today’s publication. I bet she cannot tell me. Let us be honest: most people look at it as a quaint document that no one has ever heard of. To publish in the  
Gazette 
 is to have a decision of the old-fashioned Star Chamber. It is in secret. It is a closed society. No one will know about it. 
To make sure that people have some notice of freedom camping restrictions the writers of this legislation go on to say—it is hilarious—that the notice will be published in papers in the following areas: Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin. Well everybody knows that those papers go to all the camping areas of New Zealand! How much freedom camping is done in the city of Auckland? How much freedom camping is done in the city of Wellington? I would say it is next to zero. Not only will we have publication of documents in secret but we will have publication of documents that are completely irrelevant to the places where people go freedom camping. 
But it gets even better! I could not believe this. The third option put up by the drafters of this legislation said it would be “published if the director-general is satisfied that the notice is of local or regional interest only in a newspaper or newspapers circulated throughout the locality.” That means effectively that it will never ever be published. There is no place in New Zealand where freedom camping could be undertaken that is only and exclusively of interest to the people in that area. For example if we are to have a publication about freedom camping on the West Coast it would be impossible to argue that it was of interest only to people on the West Coast. The people of the West Coast live there. They have houses there. They will never go freedom camping there. Freedom camping on the West Coast would be of interest to people who live in Auckland. But because it is of interest to Auckland people it cannot be published in the local paper because it is of interest outside of the West Coast. By logic and definition the director-general cannot publish it in the local paper because something that is to happen on the West Coast of the South Island is of interest to the whole of New Zealand. Because it is of interest to the whole of New Zealand it is not of interest only to West Coasters; it is of interest to all New Zealanders. By definition the man or the woman who is the director-general cannot publish it in the local paper. 
So what do we have as a notification? We have a notification processed by the  
Gazette 
 which is read by nobody. It is a publication in secret. We have a publication in newspapers that is completely irrelevant to the areas in which it is published and then we have a clause that means it is impossible for the director-general to justify publishing it in a local paper because it is not of interest only to those people in that area; it is of interest to people across the whole country. This is a nonsense. 
We then get back to the other point made very well by Phil Twyford that under clause 11A by-laws must not absolutely prohibit freedom camping. Well there is an easy way to get around that. Councils can simply set a small part of a council district as a freedom camping area. It could be the council’s backyard that has a big fence around it and is locked so that people cannot get into it. As long as it is designated as a freedom camping area that justifies the council having the whole of its district wiped out from availability to freedom campers. The Minister shakes her head but she has not thought of the inventiveness of local councils. 
What we have now is a Freedom Camping Bill that means that a council if it is hostile to freedom camping—and some may be—will designate an area that is hostile to freedom campers and say it is the freedom camping area. It effectively means that it then has a freedom camping area. It can be 0.5 percent of the area available or it could be 0.1 percent but as long as the council has one area available it can say it has not absolutely prohibited freedom camping. There just has to be an exception to prove the rule. It does not have to be a certain percentage. Just one exception justifies the council saying it has not absolutely prohibited freedom camping. 
On the other side the council makes the decision and who will be able to challenge the council? The council makes a decision to designate one minor small inconsequential hostile area to freedom campers. The power rests with the council. A freedom camper can turn up get a $200 fine then go through the council’s by-laws and say that they have done all the right things. They have gone back and read the  
Gazette 
 and they made sure they did that before they went. They have gone through all the back issues of the  
New Zealand Herald  
before they left to go to the South Island and made sure they checked all the public notices to find out all the information they needed but missed it somehow. They get themselves there and are then confronted with this. Will they take the council—firstly I presume—to the District Court? If they fail there can they go to the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court thereby exercising all their legitimate options? Let us face it. Councils are litigious. If they lose they will appeal. We will have a freedom camper with a $200 bill for camping trying to overturn the council’s policy decision and having to go all the way to the Supreme Court because the weight of bureaucratese will be with the council. There is no balance in this. 
I find this extraordinary coming from National which pushes itself forward in the public as the party of freedom and the party of choice. National lauds itself as the party of freedom and the party of New Zealand and of protecting New Zealand’s heritage. What a load of bunkum. National has set up legislation that ensures that the information is held in secret: it is published in the  
Gazette 
 or in a paper that is irrelevant to where freedom campers are. It is a notice that cannot be put in the local paper because as I said it has to be of interest only to the people in that area to be published locally. If people outside the area are interested in it it cannot be published locally. 
Then the bill says a council has to have only a small aspect of its council area available to freedom camping to show that it has not absolutely banned freedom camping. It needs only one example to prove it. It could be beside the rubbish dump it could be beside—I do not know—the sewage station the sanitation plant or the oxidisation ponds. Here we are: here is a place that freedom campers can have beside the oxidisation ponds. Because the council has designated that place it has not banned freedom camping absolutely. It can find all sorts of hostile places such as a mill that works 24 hours a day. A sawmill can go for 24 hours a day and be completely hostile to freedom campers but as long as the council puts up a sign saying “Freedom campers welcome” it has not absolutely banned freedom camping. 
This bill goes far too far. There is no balance logic or reason in it and I think the process of consultation has been abysmal. This legislation is from a party that says it is there for individual freedoms and individual rights. What a load of rubbish. This shows the paradox in National. National members talk about being anti - nanny State then they introduce nanny State policies. They talk about getting the Government out of people’s lives and then they put more government on people. They talk about having less bureaucracy and what do we have? More bureaucracy. In fact they are taking people’s freedoms away by stealth and by orders of that well-read paper the  
Gazette. 
 I cannot believe it. It is impossible to believe. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Enforcement miscellaneous and transitional provisions 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now move to debate on clauses 18 to 48 and schedules 2 to 4. The question is that Part 3 stand part. 
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. 
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— 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 There is much that we could debate about the Freedom Camping Bill but I will focus on the proposed amendments in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 267. I go to new clause 28B “Charging hirer for infringement fee”. This relates basically to the situation of foreign visitors say a husband and wife from Finland who have come here and hired a campervan. Their knowledge of English may not be great but for some reason or another they have ended up camping in the wrong spot in their campervan. It does not matter whether they failed to do something; they just camped in the wrong spot. Then they have left and gone back home. 
The rental company then receives an infringement notice because someone has driven past and seen the number plate. The “poo police” whoever they are—a person with the bit of paper—has come along. They will not be respected in Northland and they will not be respected on the West Coast either. The “poo police” have come along taken the registration number of the vehicle and sent it to the rental car company. They see it is a Maui campervan or some other firm’s campervan. I do not like to mention brands and I am not in any way trying to imply that one brand is better than the other or worse. But anyway the rental company receives an infringement notice so it sends a copy to the people. I will quote from the Supplementary Order Paper. This is the wisdom that comes from the department after the first version of the bill when it recognised that there were mistakes but said it would improve the bill. Clause 28B(1) says “the rental company may not exercise an authority under a rental service agreement to debit the hirer’s credit card unless within 5 working days of receipt of the infringement notice the rental company—(a) sends a copy of the infringement notice and the rental service agreement to the permanent address provided by the hirer in the rental service agreement;”. 
Imagine this: the rental company receives a notice. The first point is that the company has to send a copy of it to the people from Finland. Is it to their email address or is it to their residential address? That is what the law says. The company is not allowed to do it for 5 days and it has to send it through to the permanent address. I take it that that will mean sending a letter to the permanent address. I do not know how long it takes to get a letter from Wellington to Finland or to some little town in Finland but the company has to send it there after that. It is somewhat archaic not to have provision for email contact. The clause does not say so; it says the notice goes to the permanent address. Is it an email address or a residential address? Maybe the Minister can clarify that question. Subclause (1)(b) says the company then “notifies the hirer that if the rental company receives a reminder notice for that offence the rental company will debit the hirer’s credit card”. 
Subclause (2) then says: “If the rental company does not receive an infringement notice for the particular offence but receives a reminder notice for that offence the rental company may not exercise the authority to debit the hirer’s credit card”. How do we get the money? If we put in place stupid legislation and stupid penalties that cannot be enforced will people just carry on and go out of the country? Maybe they will be held up at the border because someone says to them: “A notice has come up. You’re not allowed to leave the country because you camped somewhere and you haven’t paid the fine.” Will it go as far as that? This sounds like a wonderful recipe for Kiwi hospitality—I think not! This is a ridiculous situation. Subclause (2)(a) says the rental company again “sends a copy of the reminder notice and the rental service agreement to the permanent address”. I do not want to go on and on and round and round in circles but the whole thing is ridiculous. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous and this is a process to get $200 maximum maybe. 
Then of course there is the ability to challenge an infringement notice and the people from Finland may have a legitimate defence to say they did not understand English. Maybe the sign was knocked over—who knows? This is 5 10 15 20 days or a month after they have left New Zealand and we are chasing them around for a small fine in the hope that it will be a big incentive to behave better when camping on conservation land. If people out there are getting somewhat confused it is because the legislation is confusing quite frankly. 
Once again I say we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. This is all because a campervan has parked in a place where there is a nice view but some council has decided that it does not want people to park there overnight regardless of the fact that they have a fully self-contained unit and they have been fully aware of and compliant with every other law in the land. But this bill says the council or councillors can decide that people cannot stay there. 
Unfortunately the people from Finland may not have been able to read the  
New Zealand Herald 
. They do not go online very often. They probably do not think the  
New Zealand Herald 
 is worth reading very often. So they have not had early notice of or consultation about a particular area being out of bounds. 
I say in summary that the signage in this country is generally not up to scratch. If people are trying to drive around and find a place to camp then they will find on an international comparison that the signage is pathetic I have to say. People get lost; they do not know where they are going. I doubt whether the signage needed for the measures in this legislation will be sufficient to allow someone from Finland or a foreign-speaking country to understand fully what is going on here. There are international signs I guess. There is the skull and crossbones; that sign might be the one that aptly applies to this legislation. No doubt there might be a way to indicate that camping is banned but the finer points of for how long or where people may camp or of where they can go if they cannot park in one spot—200 metres or whatever—will make for a very confusing situation for people who come to this country expecting to be able to wander around in their fully contained campervan. It will be completely contrary to what they were told about New Zealand and what they understood a holiday in this country would be like. Then to top it off they will have in the mail notices from New Zealand demanding the Finnish equivalent of $200 or thereabouts for parking in a spot that they probably do not even remember. 
This bill is just ridiculous. We should not support it. We should get on and do the wise things about improving knowledge of how to reduce our impact on the environment when we are camping regardless of where it is. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairman. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is wonderful to take one of the last calls tonight on the Freedom Camping Bill which is a Government bill coming before the Committee. 
I have to ask: is this the most urgent thing this Committee could be addressing a few months before the election a month before the Rugby World Cup and just before we are about to go into urgency? I acknowledge there is a poo problem when one goes out across the countryside and there is a legitimate freedom camping issue of waste being disposed of unwisely in our natural areas. But the fact is that if we were thinking of the actual serious poo problem facing this country we would be looking at the massive—and I mean massive—dairy effluent pollution that every day is going into our creeks into our rivers and into our streams meaning that Kiwi kids cannot learn to swim in a Kiwi river because we are not adopting smart farming solutions. 
I just have to point that out before I go on to addressing Part 3. There are more serious issues that this Committee should be discussing before we go into urgency such as our kids and our grandkids being able to swim in our rivers. 
I spent a few years freedom camping. I was a contractor for Greenpeace for a couple of years. I would work for 3 months and then I would freedom camp for a few months getting to see our fantastic country. Like most tourists and Kiwis I did it responsibly. I took care of the waste. I never left anything apart from footprints and I took nothing but photographs. 
The Green Party does acknowledge that there is a serious issue. Our “clean green” brand is vital to our economy. It is vital to our sense of who we are as a people and we do not want tourists—or New Zealanders—to turn up to a beautiful scenic spot and see waste there. This is a serious problem and looking at Part 3 of the bill I wonder whether the magnitude of this issue is dealt appropriately with by the fines. We have a pretty small fine; the financial penalty is only $200. 
The main point I want to touch on is clause 18(1)(c) of Part 3 which states that any person who “makes preparations to freedom camp in a local authority in breach of any prohibition or restriction” commits an offence. We have heard other speakers ask how we will identify the appropriate person delegated to deal with this serious issue—whether it will be with a badge certificate or sash. 
The big question is how this person will be able to identify whether a person is making preparations to freedom camp. What is the definition of “make preparation to freedom camp”? Is it getting out the thermos and having a cup of tea? Is it setting up a table with the thermos on it and having a cup of tea? Is it setting up a folding chair with the thermos and being about to enjoy a cup of tea? How on earth will we define this? Are we simply going to put off these tourists who are important to our economy coming to our country and enjoying our beautiful natural scenery? How will we define “makes preparation to freedom camp in a local authority in breach of any prohibition or restriction”? I invite the Minister of Conservation to take a call on this issue. 
There are a whole bunch of other questions that I have heard tonight and it would be good to have them answered. We have heard a whole range of questions in this debate. The fact is that this bill has just been rammed through under too much haste. 
I am really looking forward to the Rugby World Cup kicking off. As a Kiwi I am really excited about it but unfortunately the tournament has brought out a bit of a bad streak in our national psyche. We have heard about Auckland sweeping the streets of homeless people we have seen Adidas price-gouging Kiwis who want to wear the black jersey and here we see the authorities and police—who already have appropriate powers to deal with this serious issue—being circumvented by this bill. We do not need to do it; they already have the powers. 
What the Green Party supports is a positive approach that looks at education and providing more facilities and more legal camping-grounds. What we would love to see is more money going to the Department of Conservation to keep providing those great camping-grounds. Kia ora. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The member Gareth Hughes made a very good point about freedom camping. He talked about Auckland sweeping the streets of all the people who sleep on the street. Well surely they are the ultimate freedom campers. Does each of those people who sleep on the street realise that they will be subject to a $200 fine if they are making preparations for freedom camping? What does this mean for Blanket Man in Wellington? I do not think anybody has heard that this is an attack on Blanket Man’s right to sleep on the streets of Wellington. 
I want to come to another point. There are several points I want to make and I start on clause 18(1)(c) of the Freedom Camping Bill. It states “makes preparations to freedom camp in a local authority area” and there is a similar reference for a Department of Conservation area. What does “makes preparations to freedom camp” mean? Does it mean that the campervan has stopped and someone has pulled on the handbrake? Surely that is a prerequisite to freedom camping. One cannot freedom camp without the vehicle being stopped and the handbrake pulled on as we saw tragically at Lake Hayes. So if someone has pulled the handbrake on and stopped are they making preparations? 
One would think that a person who did that would have a defence. But no National has made sure there is no defence because if we go over to clause 19 of the bill “Strict liability offences” it states “In prosecuting an offence under section 18(1) the prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant—(a) intentionally or recklessly committed the offence;”. So there is no need to have proven intent. The person needs only to have stopped and encountered someone of mean spirit who has had a bad day and decides they need to do something so issues an instant fine of $200 to that person because they have stopped. Is it an intention to camp if someone stops like in those glossy adverts where people put a couple of chairs outside to have a cup of tea and enjoy the view? Is that an intention to camp? It is very hard to prove an intention. But it gets worse. I draw members’ and the Minister’s attention to new clause 18(1A)(b) which states “has caused or is likely to cause significant concern to the community and users of the area or land.” A concern—what is a concern? 
Debate interrupted.