Freedom Camping Bill

We now move to debate on clauses 18 to 48 and schedules 2 to 4. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

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.

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 Māori 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.

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.

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 Māui 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—

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 Māui 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.

I move, That the question be now put.

Kia ora, Mr Chairman. Ngā 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.

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.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)