Freedom Camping Bill

I move, That the Freedom Camping Bill be now read a second time. Firstly, I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for its clear analysis of the issues and for its excellent report. I also thank the committee for reporting back a bill that will protect our environment and ensure that New Zealanders and visitors to New Zealand can enjoy the freedom to camp, while enabling local authorities and the Department of Conservation to better manage freedom camping for everyone’s benefit.

I agree with the changes the committee has recommended. Some submitters were concerned that the bill had the potential to catch out responsible campers or allow local authorities to issue blanket bans across their districts. Both of these concerns have been addressed. This bill’s default position is that freedom camping is allowed on public land, subject to the Act. It is a matter for local authorities and the Department of Conservation to identify specific sites where freedom camping is prohibited or limited to self-contained vehicles.

There is little argument that freedom camping is causing communities considerable concern. The number of people undertaking this activity has doubled over the past decade, and the waste left behind as a result has increased significantly. We are an outdoors destination, and we encourage tourists to come here, travel across the country, and enjoy our backyard. Freedom camping is a tradition that will carry on, and this bill is careful to ensure that it does. But we do have a duty to protect our environment from the minority who could not care less about their moral and legal responsibility to leave a site as they found it. The filth that has pervaded some parts of the country is troubling. Not only is it costing councils and the Department of Conservation financially to clean up the mess being left behind but it is ruining the experience of responsible campers and damaging our international reputation. We are not a dirty country; we pride ourselves on being clean.

This bill is designed to allow local authorities and the Department of Conservation to address freedom camping issues they are facing, especially at popular tourist sites. Local authorities will be able to make by-laws prohibiting or restricting freedom camping in a particular area, but only if such a by-law is the most appropriate way of addressing those problems. Prohibitions or restrictions will apply only to areas where problems are being caused by freedom campers. Importantly, any prohibitions or restrictions must be in proportion to the problems identified, which will also alleviate the concern regarding blanket bans. This is a stronger pro-camping stance than currently exists under some local authority by-laws.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I caution members about the use of telephones in the House. Usually, if a phone rings in a select committee, the member shouts afternoon tea. I think it would cost the member a lot of money in Parliament.

The bill will also result in nationally consistent signage and improved online resources informing both domestic and international tourists of where camping is restricted. There has been concern that some of the by-laws listed in the schedules impose blanket bans on freedom camping. It is true that some of the by-law provisions in the bill’s schedules do not entirely reflect the parameters set by the bill, but none of the current by-laws imposes an outright ban on camping in a district. Many local authorities provide designated areas for camping, and their current by-laws do not allow freedom camping outside those areas. The bill reverses this position, in favour of freedom camping being allowed everywhere, except in designated no-camping areas.

In order to enable local authorities to use the infringement regime during the Rugby World Cup 2011, the bill is pragmatic in its use of the existing camping-related by-laws. Approximately 95,000 visitors will come to New Zealand over the 6-week period of the Rugby World Cup, and a great many of these visitors plan to travel between the games in campervans, freedom camping along the way. Breaching existing local camping by-laws will be an infringement offence for 1 year. After the year is up, local authorities, in consultation with their communities, will have to make new by-laws under the Freedom Camping Act if they wish to use the infringement regime. New freedom camping by-laws will have to conform to the provisions set out in the bill. No responsible law-abiding freedom camper or tramper will be affected.

The bill defines freedom camping as an activity that takes place within 200 metres of a vehicle-accessible area or the coast. Trampers in the back country will not be ticketed for making camp for the night during a tramp. Nor do picnickers need to worry that they will be prevented from enjoying a day’s recreation at their favourite picnic spot. People will still be able to sleep overnight at road ends before starting a tramp, unless specific restrictions apply to that site. There are already some restrictions on camping near the start and end of some of the Great Walk tracks, and these have not created problems for legitimate users. The committee has also specifically reinforced that tired drivers will not be fined should they need to take a few hours’ rest on the roadside.

This bill will not only protect our traditional Kiwi camping experience but will ensure that visitors to New Zealand, who inject millions of dollars a year into our economy, are also able to enjoy the best of that traditional Kiwi experience.

The bill has been criticised by some for being a disproportionate response to the problems associated with freedom camping. It has been suggested that a better way to deal with the problems is to provide more public toilets and rubbish tins. Local authorities and the Department of Conservation have found that other tools and methods of management are of limited effect, do not have teeth on their own, or have negative side effects. Providing more rubbish tins or public toilets may alleviate problems in some areas, but there are significant costs to local authorities and the Department of Conservation to establish and maintain toilet and rubbish collection facilities. For example, the Queenstown Lakes District Council spends $326,000 a year to clean and maintain 45 public toilet buildings. It costs about $10,000 to install even a basic, back country - style kit toilet. To build and maintain public toilets at every potential freedom camping site may not be a priority for the ratepayer when considered against other community priorities. This is particularly true in areas such as the West Coast, where local authorities have large land areas and high visitor numbers but small rating bases from which to fund facilities and services. There is also no guarantee that such facilities will be used.

The threat of a $200 fine will be a valuable tool for local authorities and the Department of Conservation. Like all enforcement there is room for leniency should the occasion suit, but the threat of a fine will give authorities more confidence to tackle issues and move campers on. Some submitters suggested that freedom campers be required to comply with the New Zealand standard for self-contained motor caravans. This standard may be a useful way for enforcement agencies to identify whether a motor caravan parked in an area where only self-contained vehicles may park is complying with those conditions, but it is not mandatory or required under this bill. However, we do not want to be in a position where only people in expensive motor homes are allowed to experience the great outdoors. In some areas freedom camping may be permitted only in self-contained vehicles. In other areas where there have been no significant problems or where toilet and waste facilities are provided, freedom camping in non - self-contained vehicles or in tents may be totally acceptable. It will be up to local authorities, the Department of Conservation, and local communities to decide what is appropriate at particular sites.

One of the changes the committee recommended was the creation of a new offence in relation to the serious environmental harm that can be caused where, for example, someone empties a campervan sewage tank on to a rest area. This offence recognises that self-contained vehicles are only as environmentally friendly as the people who operate them.

We want people to enjoy our countryside. We want visitors to come here and see what a beautiful country we have. We need to encourage everyone to act responsibly and with care for the environment. When they do not, we need to make sure that local authorities and the Department of Conservation have the tools to deal with them. This bill enables that.

Finally, I thank again the select committee for the excellent and prompt work it has done on this bill. There were many passionate submissions. The report shows that the committee has been attentive in listening to submitters. The changes will help significantly in achieving the bill’s intentions. I commend this bill to the House.

It is with some degree of disappointment that I say to the House that despite the best efforts of the Local Government and Environment Committee working to improve the Freedom Camping Bill Labour will oppose it. We agree that there is a problem; it is a very small problem. It is one that in our view had alternatives that would have been preferable to this bill.

This bill is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It goes far too far. More important, it restricts some of the activities that New Zealanders value as being at the core of our being and as part of being New Zealanders. Our ability to stay the night on the roadside before setting off on a tramp—the way that hunters and trampers often behave, with total respect for their environment—is now threatened. This bill assumes that everybody who is a freedom camper is also a polluter. That is just not fair. It is not correct.

I commend, however, the process undertaken by the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was rigorous. I pay tribute not just to the members on it but also to the officials. The officials worked really hard to pick up the points made by select committee members and by the submitters and to understand how solutions could be reached. They were not able to do that on every occasion, as is clear from the fact that Labour opposes this bill. But that was not for lack of trying. They worked really hard, and I commend them. It was an interesting process.

This bill gives every district council and every Department of Conservation conservancy the ability to say that large parts of our country are no longer allowable for freedom campers—a blanket ban. In fact, a district council could say that the whole of its district was no longer allowed to have any freedom camping in it. That is by anyone’s stretch of the imagination, in my view, a step too far.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: They couldn’t do that.

They can do that. It is not likely that they would, but they could. That was certainly the conclusion that was reached during the select committee process. There are large parts of our country that can be excluded at the determination of a council—that is correct. In my view, New Zealanders have the right to get out and pursue outdoor activities.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Read the bill.

The brains trust from west Auckland, who refuses to read any briefing papers on anything to do with evidence-based best practice on child abuse or social development, suggests that we read the bill. In my view, it should be up to the people who live in an area, pay their rates, and enjoy that activity to determine how their local area is designated, and that is not the case. So the select committee has released with its report back a minority report. That minority report makes it very clear that Labour recognises that there is a problem but believes it is one where less Draconian measures could be introduced and supported.

It would have been good, in my view, to have support from the whole of Parliament for these measures, giving a clear message to all our councils—all our elected representatives on councils throughout the country—that Parliament considered that there were appropriate means to progress these measures and protect our environment.

But I am not surprised that the councils said they were not sure they would be able to do that. Even Minister Wilkinson talked about how expensive it was for councils to put in toilet facilities. Well, part of the reason for that—in fact, a large part of the reason for that—is that the National Government has cut the subsidies that used to be available for, particularly, small district councils to put in toilet facilities.

That subsidy used to be available to help them. It was seen as a partnership between central and local government, and the National Government was in for 5 minutes and flicked that partnership. It said to the district councils that they were on their own. Then the Minister comes in and says the councils will find it very hard, because it is very expensive to put in toilet facilities. So instead of putting in toilet facilities, the Government will ban freedom camping. This is New Zealand—the country of the great outdoors—where we are going to ban freedom camping rather than put in toilet facilities. There is now no assistance available at all for local authorities to put in toilet facilities.

For the benefit of the member who was screeching out earlier on and saying that that is not correct, I point out that the assistance was called the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme. It was in existence years ago—actually, right up until 2¾ years ago—and the National Government abolished it. The Government stopped the sort of practical help that would have enabled councils to better resource their facilities so that their environment was less likely to be polluted. I do not think it is such a big ask to have specific areas, which can be introduced and built on over time, so that we have better rubbish collection and better toilet facilities.

In a nutshell, my view is that Steven Joyce may have been away from the Cabinet on the day this bill was put through by the Hon Nick Smith, because it clearly has not had the Crosby/Textor nanny State ruler run over it. It is the most Draconian bit of legislation I can remember seeing introduced to this House. The Hon Maurice Williamson is paling at the thought of being part of the introduction of nanny State legislation, but it is before him.

Some of the emails I have had—and there were a large number on this issue—described this legislation as particularly abhorrent and as something that National should never consider. Another one expressed alarm that such a law was going to be passed—that was from one of Nick Smith’s constituents. Actually there were quite a few from his electorate. Somebody else said that he would be personally obliged if we could consider his approach and that an alternative would be to follow the approach Labour has suggested—which is in our minority report—because, he says, he is a strong believer in leadership and example, not burdensome legislation. The Hon Maurice Williamson will need smelling salts very shortly—burdensome, abhorrent, nanny State legislation is being introduced by the National Government.

One other comment I want to share with the House is from a man who is a bike rider and cycles all around the country; he will be well known to my colleague Kevin Hague, I am sure. He said: “Some of my colleagues call this a nanny State bill.” He said that that is not correct; it is a “jackboot State bill. I think that is a step too far.”

💬 Simon Bridges: I think you should table these. Table the evidence.

If that member is implying dishonesty, then he should withdraw and apologise, particularly given his reputation and position. There were a large number of emails on this in addition to the submissions, and the point made by every single one of them was that they agreed with the need to protect our environment but they thought this bill was a step too far. The other concern they had was that it was being put through in a dickens of a rush, solely because of the Rugby World Cup timetable.

If we seriously expect we can solve these sorts of problems with no additional support for councils, with jackboot measures, nanny State measures, all in the name of supporting the Rugby World Cup, I believe that it will detract from our reputation, our clean green image, and our welcoming of people who want to enjoy our environment, rather than enhancing it.

Not only is the Freedom Camping Bill important in protecting New Zealand’s environment but it has served another very useful purpose. It has flushed out in this Parliament those who are the practical greens as distinct from those who are just the political greens. We have people on the Opposition benches who have raved on about water quality during their entire political careers and who cannot give a speech without mentioning the words “clean, green New Zealand”, but when they are given the opportunity to actually do something practical about it, they want New Zealand to be the polluters’ paradise.

The Government says we need simply to give councils the practical laws to be able to control freedom camping. The Labour and Green Party Opposition members say they want to let it be free to continue. I wish members opposite would get out of the comfort of their offices and get out to real New Zealand, where some of our most precious spots are being used and abused. [Interruption] My question for the member who interjects, Sue Moroney, is what is “100% Pure” about the experience of stopping at a beautiful picnic spot on the banks of Lake Wakatipu, becoming overwhelmed with the smell of human sewage, and seeing toilet paper and human effluent all over the place and published from one end of the reserve to the other? Wake up, guys! That is not good for the New Zealand brand.

All this bill does is let our councils and the Department of Conservation define where people can freedom camp, where they can camp subject to self-containment, and where they cannot. [Interruption] They cannot ban camping everywhere, I say to Mr Mallard. He is a former Minister for the Environment. He did not do anything about it. He received dozens of letters from councils asking him to move on this issue, but he did not do a thing.

Secondly, the presumption in this bill is that people can camp unless it is specifically restricted. The really crunchy provision in this bill is simply to introduce an instant fine, so that if someone is camping where they are specifically prohibited by the council from doing so, they can be subject to a fine. At the moment, if a council wants to prosecute, it costs the ratepayer or the taxpayer over $10,000 to initiate a prosecution. The part I cannot believe about the naivety of the Labour and Greens’ opposition is this: they say the answer is just to build more public toilets. Well, I guess we can, and we should. But we will never be able to provide them everywhere. It is the ongoing view of the left that there is a bottomless pit of public money. The Government is simply saying we need to be practical. Councils need to be able to say that people cannot camp in some areas, and councils need the practical measures in order to be able to enforce it.

The part I find most galling about Labour’s and the Greens’ opposition to this legislation is that they are simultaneously running campaigns demanding tougher rules on farmers and industry in relation to water quality. We have just adopted a national policy statement on water quality, and both parties opposite have said it is not nearly tough enough. This Government’s view is that farmers will need to step up and improve their management of fresh water. That is why we have toughened compliance and doubled the fines for breaches of resource consents. But how will we get farmers to take on board this important message when they see the Government and councils ignoring overseas tourists dumping raw sewage in their backyard? The truth is that we cannot. We have to be consistent. We need to be equally firm in our measures to protect the Kiwi environment. The $200 instant fine is not at all out of proportion when a farmer now faces up to a $200,000 fine for breaching their resource consents.

The last contradiction from members opposite that I must expose is the lack of trust they have in councils and the Department of Conservation. This is an empowering bill. The Department of Conservation and councils have good, practical people running them. They do not wish to kill off legitimate recreation any more than anyone else does. This is a practical Bluegreens bill that addresses a growing problem. It is needed in order to protect public health, protect iconic spots, and protect New Zealand’s “clean, green” brand. It poses no threat to the responsible freedom camper.

I say to all members of this House that if they are serious about environment protection and if they do not think it is acceptable to dump raw sewage in some of our most iconic picnic spots, then they should do the right thing and support this practical bill.

The Freedom Camping Bill is typical of what the Minister for the Environment has brought to this House. It is a reactionary, political, posturing bill that attempts to get a few votes down in his own patch, because a few people have jumped up and down about it. The reality is that this bill will not address the problem we have across the country, because we have inadequate infrastructure. That is the fact of the matter. Hundreds of thousands of people travel around this country in cars each and every day, and when they stop at a rest stop—or anywhere—because there are no facilities they often use the bushes for a toilet. It is inappropriate and not what we want—I accept that—but this bill, which addresses just the issue of campervans staying overnight, is ridiculous. It will not address the problem we have here.

The Tourism Industry Association went around the country looking at this issue, and it said: “strong, clear and targeted camping information is the cornerstone for achieving responsible camping practices in New Zealand. Developing a culture of environmental care underpinned by national and local visitor-friendly information is the key to addressing this.”

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: We’re doing that.

No, he is not. No, he is not doing that. That Minister has cut funding from the Department of Conservation. The Government has cut funding from the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme that assisted local councils to put facilities in place. It is absolutely—I am not allowed to use the word, am I? No, no. There is an “h” word.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member will not use a circumlocution to get around what he is trying to say.

Sorry. This jackboot Government has double standards in this area. There are a whole lot of issues that this bill will not address. I pointed to the number of people in cars. This bill will not help them. I was at a meeting the other day at which the local council person turned around to the Department of Conservation person and asked who will be policing this law. Who will be the poo police? Will it be the Department of Conservation, or will it be the local council? Can the Minister answer that? Who will be the poo police?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The bill makes it very clear.

Oh, really? The bill makes it clear. Well, it is not known whether the cost will be to councils or the Department of Conservation, let alone the legal issues involved in trying to address it.

I will finish because I do not want to carry on for too long. The main problem has been campervans dumping and emptying their tanks. That has been the major issue; it is not the little pile and the little bit of white paper. In fact, when people go to locations—and I know many of them—the issue is when campervans have dumped large amounts of effluent in one place. The people in the campervans most likely have not even stayed in that place. They most likely have not stayed in that place, but as they get towards the end of their trip, because there are an inadequate number of dumping stations for these campervans they often—too often—dump their effluent in inappropriate places. That is the problem, and this bill will not address that.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It does.

Well, no more than currently, where we have littering bills. I have to say that as much as I support the submitters who came along in good faith and said that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, the Government has cut funding to the organisations that should be implementing higher environmental standards, and it refuses to bring in a nationwide programme of up-rating, upgrading, and installing facilities to deal with the problem. This legislation is cheap posturing by that member who got on the front page of his local paper, saying what a wonderful bill it would be. Mark my words: in 3 years’ time this legislation will not have addressed the issue of effluent up and down this country, because we have inadequate facilities. It is about time we got on and put them in place.

I would like to say it is a pleasure to take a call on the ridiculous Freedom Camping Bill, but, sadly, that is not the case.

I begin in the usual manner by thanking the officials who assisted the Local Government and Environment Committee considering this bill. I think those officials did a fantastic job under a lot of time pressure, but also under pressure from the extraordinarily tricky drafting tasks that were put in front of them. They did extremely well. Thanks also to the submitters. The submitters also made their submissions in a very tight time frame. We received a lot of thoughtful submissions, and a lot of submissions expressing quite different points of view. It is very difficult to reconcile some of the views that were expressed.

I note that the tightness of the time frame for submissions to be made and for the select committee to do its work has not been reflected in the bill coming back to the House for the second reading. I must say I had hoped that that reflected a difficulty for the Government in getting support for the bill from its confidence and supply partners, in particular the Māori Party and ACT Party. I am sorry to say it appears that that is not the case.

The Green Party, for its part, remains steadfastly opposed to the bill. We restate our position that although there is a genuine problem, this is the wrong approach to resolving that problem. In fact, we do not believe that this approach will resolve the problem. We welcome Labour’s change of heart and its opposition to the bill in the second reading. We wish that other parties had also been prepared to re-examine their views.

Having said that we will continue to oppose the bill, I do thank the select committee itself because I think the committee did a very good job in trying circumstances. The bill that has come back to the House is considerably better than the diabolical mess and Draconian bill that the House was presented with at the first reading. I know that for many of those people who have been expressing strong opposition in emails to us, many of their fears will have been at least eased by the changes made by the select committee. I think that was very worthwhile, and I thank Mr Auchinvole, in particular, as the chair of the committee for his work in steering it through.

One of the issues that continue to sit uneasily is the set of transition measures that are embedded in the bill, largely to deal with the concern that some people have that the Rugby World Cup will be an opportunity for the serially inappropriate in toileting habits to exacerbate the problem. The bill effectively grandfathers, for the period of the Rugby World Cup, the provisions that local bodies have already put in place. But it is critical for this House, for the general public, and for local authorities to understand that by doing so the bill does not confer any greater legal status on those by-laws than already existed. That is incredibly important, because the select committee received advice that it was quite likely that if existing by-laws were challenged, many of them would not stand up to scrutiny in court.

We have a number of territorial local authorities, for example, that have imposed blanket bans on freedom camping throughout their districts, or that have made extensive restrictions on freedom camping. It is quite likely that those by-laws would not stand the test that a court would place on them. The law requires that any by-law must first result from genuine evidence of a real problem in a particular location, and, clearly, a blanket ban or an extremely extensive restriction would fail that test. The by-law has to be the best possible remedy that is available for that problem, and again that is highly contestable. The by-law almost must be proportionate to the size of the problem. So it is crucial that it is widely understood that the grandfathering of those provisions in this bill does not provide any protection for local authorities that have, in fact, illegal by-laws. That may be a very real problem for some of those local authorities in the months to come.

I will raise almost a philosophical question, and I have done so previously in the House: what is the best approach to changing behaviour that we consider to be undesirable? Clearly, there is a whole spectrum of possible approaches, from, at the one end, simply leaving the matter to free choice. There are people who simply believe that if everyone has absolutely free choice and is unhindered, then by a magical process the best outcomes will result. There are ways of skewing that by providing some incentives for different action. At the other end there are, I guess, regulatory approaches. It is a question of choosing the right approach for a particular situation.

I think there are lots of examples of inappropriate deregulation. I have been speaking about some of those in the House over recent months. For example, deregulation of the building industry resulted in leaky homes, deregulation of the finance industry resulted in the catastrophic loss of wealth for many New Zealanders, and deregulation of mine safety has at least arguably—and I believe that it will be found to be the case—resulted in even greater tragedy for at least 29 men on the West Coast, where I live. So deregulation, I believe, has clearly occurred in some circumstances where it was inappropriate.

We have seen from this Government a particular fondness for deregulation. One of the first things it did when it came into office was to repeal the law that regulated biofuel requirements for fuel companies. It then immediately introduced its own approach, which was to provide some kind of subsidy. We clearly see nowadays, in the results, that that approach has been less effective in encouraging the development of biofuels. So it is a question of horses for courses.

What I have argued and what the Green Party has argued, both in this debate and at the first reading, is that the correct approach to this problem is to recognise that people want to do the right thing. We should use regulation where people are disinclined to do the right thing: where they want to do something different or they have incentives to do something different. In this case they have come to this country because of our clean, green image. They want to respect our environment. We need to assist them to do that, and the best way of doing that is through the provision of appropriate facilities and appropriate education. Colleagues have already spoken about the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme for those local authorities that cannot afford to put in extra toilets. That is exactly the right approach, because we all benefit from tourism in our country.

I will make one brief comment about the comments of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I think it is very sad and, indeed, worrying if the Minister for the Environment is unable to distinguish between the infinitesimal contribution that inappropriate toileters in campervans make to fresh water quality in this country and the disastrous impact of agricultural intensification that his failure to act on fresh water quality has resulted in. This is the wrong approach to this problem, it could have been dealt with in a much better way, and we encourage the Government still to do so.

Tēnā koe e te Manu Kōrero. I am really pleased to stand and speak to the second reading of the Freedom Camping Bill today. This bill rests upon the concept of freedom. It responds to the practice of freedom camping, which is when people camp away from sites that are recognised as camping grounds. Any legislative attempt to define or interpret the concept of freedom, whether or not it is in the context of camping, is of course asking for trouble. We are reminded of the challenge by Abraham Lincoln: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves,”. The question in this case is, however, not black and white, because the so-called freedom for tourists, whether they be international or domestic tourists, to pitch a tent, to park their caravan, or to drive their car, campervan, house truck, or any other type of vehicle on to a piece of land has brought with it adverse consequences for those living around the area, and particularly for mana whenua, who take very seriously their responsibilities for kaitiakitanga, for guardianship of tribal land. So I choose another interpretation of freedom, from Janis Joplin in the song “Me and Bobby McGee”, which says: “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” For what we have experienced with freedom camping in my electorate of Te Tai Tonga has a massive loss in terms of the way the litter of human waste has trampled on the mana of the local people and the special places in our rohe.

I first raised this issue over a year ago in March 2010 when I called on freedom campers to show respect, and for local business owners to inform manuhiri of the need to be careful with their rubbish and body waste. The problem of freedom camping has been particularly apparent in Te Wai Pounamu, no doubt because of our priceless beauty and our unique landscapes, which draw tourists to them in huge numbers. So we have frequently reported sightings of the freedom camper species in areas like Fiordland, Otago, Southland, West Coast, and Nelson-Marlborough. They have even been reported in major centres like Christchurch. To get an indication of the scale of the problem, at the top of the south, in Marlborough, complaints over irresponsible freedom camping increased from 80 in 2006 right up to 432 in 2009. Most complaints were about non - self-contained vehicles used by overseas visitors. At the other end of the motu in Queenstown, Department of Conservation staff monitored six sites with “No Camping” signs during February to April 2010. Between one and four vans were found at each site visited. Human waste and toilet paper were common and widespread. The issue had erupted for me over the disrespect accorded Ngā Niho Pā, a traditional pā site in Kaikōura. The ultimate offence was shown when the so-called freedom campers were using this traditional pā site to empty their toilet waste. So, yes, from a basis of cultural integrity we certainly agree with the sentiment expressed in the lyrics that there is “nothing left to lose.”

The Māori Party will fight to the nth degree to protect and preserve Papatūānuku, to prepare for our environment, and to care for our environment in any way befitting. So I have much pleasure in announcing that, in time for the second reading, I have released Supplementary Order Paper 266 to ensure that mana whenua are intimately associated with the monitoring, supervising, and decision making around the provisions to combat freedom camping. My amendment inserts a new clause 3A, “Tiriti o Waitangi”. The clause notes: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the 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 performing functions under this Act.” I think that it is really important when we consider any legislation that we consider what it means for tangata whenua as the indigenous peoples of this land, and a Treaty clause is a very clear way of being able to formalise intent into action. Acting in a Treaty-compliant manner will ensure consultation with iwi as an important means of protecting the integrity of the associated ecosystems together with the taonga contained within them for their own sake and for the benefit of future generations. We want to be assured that there will be robust and accountable work practices by local government and regional authorities when working with mana whenua. Taking appropriate account of the Treaty will mean that iwi who exercise a customary right over the associated lands will be automatically involved in the response.

Within the terms of a kaupapa-driven economic framework, the Māori Party believes that kaitiakitanga becomes imbued with value in cultural, social, and economic terms. Within the terms of the Treaty, mana whenua will be involved in devising solutions to reduce the pressure on the environment and avoid long-term costs to future generations. In the case of this bill, the economic returns from the manifestation of kaitiakitanga are spelt out explicitly under the examples described as a strict liability offence. To name just a few, the offence of freedom camping 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 a waste receptacle. But freedom camping is also considered an offence when individuals fail or refuse to leave conservation land when required to do so by an enforcement officer. It is about preventing unnecessary damage and destruction. Environmental protection becomes viewed as an inherent part of citizenship. We see the kaupapa achieving an economic value in that the long-term stewardship of the environment and ecosystems is most effectively provided by committed citizens, individually and collectively. Tangata whenua, in carrying out our obligations and duties to protect our primary ecosystems, are acting in ways that are necessary for future economic prosperity.

Of course, we all know the real reason this issue has suddenly appeared on the Order Paper is because of the Rugby World Cup, and the Government’s anxiety to get our house in order before we prepare to welcome the crowds. I would rather that we were taking this action out of a genuine concern for the environment, but, notwithstanding my cynicism, we will be supporting this bill in the longer-term interests of the environment and the cultural integrity of our unique places.

I would like to give a brief presentation on the Freedom Camping Bill. I will begin, as have other speakers, by commending the work of the officials, by commending the contributions from submitters, and by thanking the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for the way they handled this particular issue. It was done at some speed, but it certainly was not rushed. Something that never fails to impress me with the processes that we have in Parliament is that short-term submissions are none the less of high quality. We had high-quality submissions on this bill, and some high-quality work has been done by the committee.

I must say that I occasionally find myself wondering whether I had been to the same meeting as some of the people who have spoken in this debate. I find astonishing the range of interpretations that can be taken from the same subject by different members.

Basically, in my mind, this bill establishes three things. It establishes the rights of freedom campers and for everybody to engage in freedom camping. The bill certainly does not restrict that right; it creates it as the default position. Freedom camping is a right.

It does create infringement notices. My colleague Kevin Hague said that the bill is a sledgehammer to crack a nut—a phrase that was later taken by Phil Twyford, who said it was his phrase. In fact, that is the current situation, whereby if people wish to move campers on, they have to take them to court. The bill will create infringement notices that can be used by the Department of Conservation and by councils, and that is an interchangeable responsibility.

The bill allows the management of camping activity within 200 metres of a road. It is pretty much as simple as that.

Coming from an area that benefits from 1.2 million bed-night visitors a year, I look forward to being down on the coast again shortly, once this bill has passed. I am sure we will be commended for the way it has been handled. Thank you.

Tēnā koe. The Freedom Camping Bill went through the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am not a member of the committee, but I am Labour’s spokesperson on tourism. I first of all want to give a plug for tourism, because that is basically what this bill is about. That is the industry this bill affects. Tourism is our biggest export earner. It is responsible for a huge slice of our GDP. One in 10 New Zealanders is employed in a tourism-related industry, so it is really important that we do what we can to support the tourism industry.

There is a problem regarding freedom camping, and I can say that from personal experience up north. Just last year I attended a meeting in Kaitāia where there were about 40-odd people who are involved in the tourism sector. I stood up and gave my little explanation, as I have just done now, about the benefits of tourism. I was quite stunned to hear a woman who lives in Waitaki, which is about 20 kilometres south of Cape Reinga, cut me off and say that tourists are a pain in the neck. She said they are a pain in the neck because they are dumping waste, litter, rubbish, human waste, and all sorts on the side of the road, next to creeks, and in rivers, and it is polluting our waterways. I was quite taken aback by that attitude towards tourism. So there is a need to do something, but I do not know whether the something that I am reading in this bill will change the problems that we have all around the various parts of Tai Tokerau and the rest of the country.

I was listening to the member for the West Coast - Tasman talking about infringement notices and about the ability of Department of Conservation personnel and councils to issue those infringement notices. There are so many highways, byways, and little nooks and crannies around the country that Department of Conservation workers and council workers will not be near. They will not go past them, so this problem will not be addressed whatsoever.

We have to make the differentiation between whether it is the camping that is the problem or whether it is the disposal of the waste. As Damien O’Connor said, there are these self-contained campervans whose occupants dump their waste in all parts of the country. Those people may not have even stayed overnight, but they wake up in the morning and find before they take the campervan back to the rental outfit that they have a full tank of waste that they have to get rid of or else they will be charged, so they just dump it anywhere. I am not sure that this bill will change that outcome, whatsoever.

Minister Smith said that what we need are practical solutions, and I wonder whether these practical solutions have been considered, at all. One of the problems is the lack of camping grounds. Some campers turn up in a self-contained or even a non - self-contained camper vehicle and go into a camping ground, but there is no space for them, so they have to go somewhere else. In Nelson, for example, which I visited one night, I went to a car park where by about 6.00 in the evening about 25 or 26 vehicles were parked up. The council had propped up a couple of Portaloos and a couple of rubbish bins for the waste. There is a problem, and why should the residents of Nelson have to put up with those campervans and the people who, if the Portaloos are full, jump in the bushes to do their business?

There are other options. I wonder whether these practical solutions have been thought through. There may not be camping grounds everywhere and there may not be waste disposal facilities everywhere, but in most communities there are rugby clubs, sports clubs, schools, and marae. They have car parks and flat ground. With a bit of thought and a bit of ingenuity, such as local government entities working together with the tourism industry and schools, sports clubs, and marae, there could be the potential to improve the facilities at those organisations. The septic tanks could be improved, as could the ablution blocks and showers. I would say that a number of marae might quite possibly welcome the idea of getting funding from their local authority to improve their ablution blocks so that they could be improved for the people of the marae as well as for the tourism industry. They could quite possibly make a buck from it, as well. So if we are talking practical solutions, I wonder whether everything has been explored. I am not sure that it has.

There is also the option or possibility that the people driving around in their campervans do not actually know where the next set of public facilities is. I wonder again whether there is enough information for tourists when they go to book or hire their vehicles. Do they have enough information to know that if they are in a particular place in the country, it is 15 kilometres to the next public facility where they can dispose of their waste or go to the toilet? I think that a number of things really have not been totally thought through, and that the $200 fine for infringement has been the solution for something that I think is a bit broader than just pinging people who happen to park their campervans in the main street of a town when they should not do that.

There is also the idea in Labour’s minority report that we could phase out non - self-contained rental vehicles over a period of time. We were not saying they should be phased out in the next 5 minutes, or even the next 5 years; we said that as the vehicles come to the end of their lifespan and have to be replaced they should be replaced by something that is self-contained. I thought that that was a sensible idea that should have been looked at, as well.

When we talk to the people in the tourism industry we hear them say that the infrastructure to support tourism in New Zealand is lacking. It goes back to what I said about local authorities buying in to the concept that tourism is so important to their local economies, and that the tourism industry and local authorities should be working together to create facilities. If I am driving north, I swear there is not a toilet north of Whangarei that I myself would really want to stop at. From Whangarei up to Cape Reinga is close to a 5-hour drive, yet there is nothing really there, in between, except for an odd place—

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Kawakawa.

Oh, Kawakawa. Sorry, I forgot my own home town with the Hundertwasser toilets. Oh, gee whiz! This is about local government working for and valuing tourism, and making sure that there are the facilities that campers can utilise. It is also unclear where the next service station is that has disposal facilities for the self-contained tanks of camping vehicles, and I think that that needs to be highlighted, as well, in tourist information, so that tourists do not have to drive 30 kilometres to dispose of their waste, when there could be something a heck of a lot closer.

This Government cut the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme, and that is a shame. It gave a subsidy for small communities to put in place toilet facilities and dump stations, but that scheme has gone, and now there is no assistance, at all. That is a shame because it could have mitigated this whole problem of the waste that is disposed of by people freedom camping. I do not think it is the camping itself that is the problem; I personally believe that it is the disposal of the waste. Kia ora.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

💬 Gareth Hughes: The Noes have it. Party vote.

I have made it very clear that when a vote is called, the party vote must be asked for at the time. If the member wants to cast a party vote, he or she must indicate that quickly. If the member wishes for that, he will have to seek leave.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I did; you must not have heard it. I seek leave to record a party vote.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to record a party vote. Is there any objection? There is no objection.