Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill

Just a slight recap, and also to speak to a Supplementary Order Paper that will be delivered in my name. Freedom camping is important to Aotearoa New Zealand, both for our people and our manuhiri. However, change is needed, and it’s become loud and clear from communities that the freedom camping system is no longer sustainable. We must practise kaitiakitanga by taking better care of our people and our whenua. A particular concern is those who freedom camp in vehicles that do not contain fixed toilets and are disposing of human waste inappropriately. This pollutes our environment and angers our communities. The cost to clean this up after irresponsible freedom campers has, historically, fallen on the environment and our communities.

Local ratepayers, taxpayers, and councils have asked for change and the Government has responded. The Government reforms address concerns by requiring fixed toilets in certified self-contained vehicles, ensuring that vehicle certification is consistent and high quality, and by giving local government more tools to address issues in their region.

Part 1 deals with the new national rule requiring that vehicle-based freedom campers use a certified self-contained vehicle when they stay on council land, unless the council designates the site as suitable for non - self-contained vehicles. The new rule is key in enabling local authorities to better manage freedom camping in their area and reduce pressure on public infrastructure.

The bill extends the Freedom Camping Act 2011 to include land managed by Waka Kotahi and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), as freedom camping issues have occurred on both LINZ and Waka Kotahi land. Extending the Act in this way will provide Waka Kotahi and LINZ with additional management tools through the ability to prescribe restrictions on freedom camping as well as access to the offences and penalties regime.

The bill introduces a broader range of infringement offences to deter poor behaviour such as freedom camping in breach of the new national rule, not displaying a warrant card, or displaying an altered or fraudulent warrant card. It also enables infringement notices to be emailed to individuals who have committed an offence, to speed up the process and increase collection rates.

The bill provides for a two-year transition process to enable the gradual implementation of the regulatory regime. The transition period is essential for enabling new certification authorities to get approval from the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board (PGDB) and develop their services; vehicle inspections and certification to be staggered to minimise wait times for the public, and the public to be educated and informed about the new rules and requirements. I have also introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces the ability to extend the transition period by up to 24 months by Order in Council if necessary. This amendment will enable some flexibility if there is insufficient capacity in the system during the original two-year transition period, while still enabling the reforms to be progressed if there is adequate capacity.

The policy objective of the bill is for those experiencing homelessness not to be penalised—and I want to repeat: not to be penalised—under the freedom camping rules. The Supplementary Order Paper adds a legislative exemption to protect those experiencing homelessness from receiving infringement for freedom camping offences. The proposed exemption will cover people residing in New Zealand who are staying in a motor vehicle or tent because they are unable to live in appropriate residential accommodation. This will encompass the broad range of circumstances that may lead to someone experiencing homelessness. This exemption will protect the interests and welfare of this vulnerable group, and the bill will also mandate a review of the impact of the reforms on those experiencing homelessness.

Part 2 of the bill amends the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006 to establish the PGBD as a new regulator for the certification of self-contained vehicles. The primary purpose of the system is to ensure the sanitary plumbing requirements have been met for people to be self-contained when camping in a vehicle. The bill will require vehicles to have a fixed toilet to be certified as self-contained. This will build public confidence that if the vehicle is certified, it is equipped with a toilet that is more likely to be used than a portable toilet, and that the toilet has not been removed from the vehicle. This will contribute to reducing the costs borne by communities and the environment.

In my engagement with both councils and communities, as I’ve travelled the country, it’s become quite clear that we want to take our responsibilities of kaitiakitanga seriously, and what we also want to do is make sure that those who do visit pristine sites in this country, like lakesides, beachsides, and important significant sites around this country can do so without seeing the kind of human waste that we’re seeing in places like rest stops and on beaches and by lakes. I look forward to the engagement on this bill in the committee.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to ask the Minister of Tourism some questions about this bill. So, Minister, the issue was raised previously, and again in the first reading, that the requirement to have a fixed toilet will, effectively, punish the 70,000 responsible Kiwis who have suitable portable toilets in their vehicles and use them, leading to the somewhat odd situation of a camper with a fixed toilet, who doesn’t use it, not breaking the law, but a camper who has a non-fixed toilet and uses it will be fined.

I have had a look through Supplementary Order Paper 351, and I cannot see anything that addresses that issue. I wonder why that has not been addressed by the Minister, because I cannot see a rational reason for punishing 70,000 responsible Kiwis who have suitable portable toilets and use them. Obviously, we want to focus on those who don’t use them, and stop them from littering our roadsides or laybys, etc. But I can’t see any good reason for punishing 70,000 Kiwis who do use their portable toilets.

Just a corollary to that, I wonder whether the Minister has taken any advice on how many travellers are expected for the FIFA Women’s World Cup coming up on 20 July to 20 August, jointly hosted by Australia and New Zealand. I note that last time we had a major event in New Zealand, we did have some changes around these laws to reflect the fact that we had probably a lot more travellers and visitors to our country, which is a great thing, I would suggest, and I’m sure the Minister would agree with that, and we want them to have a great experience here in New Zealand.

There is a third point which I might just touch on here, just looking at this Supplementary Order Paper. I see the intention not to penalise people who are freedom camping because they cannot find appropriate residential accommodation. The way this definition is phrased, it says “a person is not freedom camping if the person—(a) is a person other than a person who is in New Zealand on the basis of a visitor visa (within the meaning of the immigration instructions)”. Is this intended to apply only to New Zealand residents and citizens who are unable to find appropriate residential accommodation, or does it include people who are on working visas in New Zealand who are unable to find appropriate residential accommodation?

Can I thank the member for his questions, and I’ll start with the final question. The reason why we’ve made it rather specific—and that member will know that, for example, in places like Queenstown, in his own electorate, there are many on working visas—is that it was considered that the bill in its old state would continue to punish those people who are struggling to find accommodation, and we want to make sure that this bill clearly is designed, along with its policy intent, to make sure that it does not discriminate against or penalise those who, for one reason or other, or multiple reasons—and they’re often complex reasons, as many of the MPs in this Chamber will know as they work with those who find themselves homeless—find themselves in the situations that they find themselves in.

It also, of course, makes it clearer to the council, because it’s a requirement of the council to make sure that they’re able to administer this particular bill, this particular legislation, so the impetus is put on them, and there’s also an area there for discretion for them so that they are able to make sure that, once again, those who do find themselves homeless for whatever reason aren’t penalised unnecessarily.

To the second part, with respect to the member’s comments about FIFA, yes, I’m sure the entire country is looking forward to welcoming visitors here to this country. Of course, the encouragement from all of us is to get around and to get to as many games as possible, but just to make sure that our visitors have a good visit here to New Zealand. While the focus is on the games, we know many of them are going to travel around the country. We know that they’re going to visit key places and significant sites around the country. This, in particular, is intended to make sure that we can have a regime that will continue to support the way that visitors come into this country. But I will note, though—and the member will know this—that once the legislation is passed, there will be a regime afterwards to make sure that those who do actually responsibly have self-contained vehicles will be able to go through the registration process in order to be able to use their vehicle and go travel the country as they see fit.

So that brings me to the first question that the member asked. He quoted a number of numbers about those who were talking about using a portable toilet. Requiring a fixed toilet will continue to encourage increased usage and help reduce the improper disposal of waste. What we mean by that is: with a portable toilet, it undermines a system, and any place around the country, it can be taken out and disposed of—that’s as good as doing the act right there, which is the kind of behaviour that we’re trying to dispel.

What I also want to say, though, is an acknowledgment to all of those who are embracing these changes, who are making sure that their current vehicles that do have fixed toilets will come under the regime to be certified, to make sure that they are the right vehicles to be going places, but also an acknowledgment of those like the councils, the Department of Conservation, who acknowledge that camping in this country is still one of those things that our families and our young people and our travellers look forward to. So there are numerous sites, hundreds of sites around the entire country where people can still go along, still pitch a tent, and still do it within the parameters of this particular piece of legislation. That’s important to remind ourselves, because, as I said, it’s one of those almost rites of passage for Kiwi families, in particular, but also for visitors who come here, who like to pitch a tent, but we want to make sure that they do it in places that have the proper facilities.

I’m going to retell a story. Just recently, I went to Rotorua to speak on my other portfolio of forestry, and on the way back I stopped at the many rest areas along the way that look over Lake Karapiro , which is a beautiful view, if anybody’s interested. I saw two fixed-toilet campervans there and got to speak to the people there. They didn’t have a problem with what we were proposing. As I returned to my car, I noticed human faeces and toilet paper at the rest stop. It’s this kind of behaviour that I’m sure every Kiwi in the country will look to expelling out of what we see on our roads, around our beautiful, serene nature places around this country, to make sure that not only as an international visitor but those domestic who decide to go and visit other parts of the country can do so without seeing the kind of human waste that I noticed on the side of the road at a rest stop at one of the most beautiful places in the country, overlooking Lake Karapiro.

Madam Chair, thank you. Minister, thank you for that. And I want to debate that and to talk more about that, and I thank you for engaging on it. I must say, your approach when you became Minister for this portfolio has been refreshing because, indeed, the last Minister of Tourism actually really got to the point where he was saying to submitters and others that they were wrong and his officials were right and he wasn’t willing to engage in this anymore. And he could well be correct in that, but the job of this House and the committee here, during the committee stage, is to exhaustively look at these issues so at the very least members of the public who will be affected by this legislation—have costs placed upon them or their ability to do things that previously were lawful are no longer—at least understands why Parliament is making that decision. So I want to thank the Minister for constructively engaging.

Some of the things that he said, I agree with completely, but, Minister, I’m not sure the legislation will make the changes that you intend or hope to. So the example you gave near Rotorua where somebody has defecated in public, of course that should not happen, but the problem with this legislation is it doesn’t actually stop that because the people that you mentioned that had a fixed facility in their campervan, in camping there under the new regime where certified, they are meeting the requirement of the law, but the law does not say they have to use that. So they could climb over their campervan and they could defecate, actually, on the side of the campervan and they’re still certified because it’s fixed—that toilet in their campervan—but the law doesn’t say they have to use it; it just says it has to be fixed. Conversely, someone else could drive up and park beside you, Minister, in a campervan with a portable toilet, and they couldn’t be certified, and they use that portable toilet inside their campervan, and ultimately they are breaking the law. And that is where the challenge or the problem is with the legislation.

The intent is something that we accept. We have no problem with the intent. But I’ve got to say that some of the examples that were given to us—they weren’t the officials’ examples but the things the officials were being given to present to the committee, so the officials were doing a good job—actually didn’t lead us to the point of believing that, actually, all the solutions that were needed had been found or explored or put into legislation to ensure that people are responsible when they camp and they freedom camp and that, actually, imposing restrictions upon some Kiwis who have acted responsibly and continued to would be made illegal and it would impact upon the things that they were doing. You gave the example of how for New Zealanders all over the country, it’s a rite of passage and they go and camp in their tents. Well, of course, the legislation allows them to camp in a tent and not to have a toilet and, I suppose, do whatever they want with their business anywhere, so it doesn’t impact upon somebody who has a tent if they are travelling around the country, hitchhiking, and so on. It doesn’t deal with that because you can’t certify a tent. I suppose you couldn’t have a fixed toilet in the tent but you could have a portable one. The point is it doesn’t deal with any of that.

Our spokesman has brought forward a submission, and in the committee we made the case because, probably, of all the issues that were raised, the one that was the most contentious and raised the most concern from submitters—law-abiding Kiwis who just want to go and camp and they want to meet their obligations, they don’t want to ruin the environment, they’re responsible people—was the great cost and imposition placed upon them if they had to have a fixed toilet. So there’s a Supplementary Order Paper that’s been tabled that actually will deal with this. It says, actually, that you can use a non-fixed toilet, but it has to be described in regulation. The previous Minister said, “Well, people using buckets with lids—nobody believes that is a portable toilet.” But, actually, it should be around changing behaviour. And for the officials to say they’ve done research that merely says if somebody has a fixed toilet, they’re more likely to use it than if it’s a non-fixed toilet, actually I’m not convinced by it, because it means we probably just haven’t got those regulations right.

We also didn’t hear clearly from any submitter or any evidence or anything that says that people are less likely to take the responsibility to dispose of effluent that’s stored in a portable toilet less seriously than somebody with a fixed toilet. I guess there will be examples of that where people don’t do what they should—they’re not responsible. We should penalise and criminalise that, not criminalise somebody who has a portable toilet in their campervan, they use it, they dispose of it in a place that is identified for its disposal, but they’re breaking the law if they freedom camp because they can’t be certified. It’s a very small change that says, actually, if you are responsible and you have a portable toilet and you use it, you will be allowed to be certified and freedom camp. If you don’t use it, you would break the law, just as if you’re not using a fixed one you would break the law. It would mean tens of thousands of Kiwis are not inconvenienced and we could continue to focus on where the problem is.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in reference to the Supplementary Order Paper, which is fairly significant, and I’m thinking about the backdrop to this issue, and very commonly we saw in the media issues of tourists behaving badly. Remember the French tourists who were a good case study. In addition to the media coverage, we had the previous Minister, Stuart Nash, talk a lot about this, particularly these immigration changes in section 5(2A)(a), in clause 6, which now clarify that a person is not freedom camping if they’re on a visitor visa. I think it’s not quite in those words, but I think that’s what it’s trying to say.

If we sort of take a step back, doesn’t this kind of undermine one of the big reasons for this bill in the first place? Because it does seem like a pretty reasonable carve out. And similar, or connected to that, a slightly different question: can the Minister then confirm that this does not apply to Australian visitors to New Zealand—tourists who come here, because they don’t get visitor visas; they get residency upon arrival. So there’s a bit of discrepancy there. I’d like to hear the Minister’s feedback on that.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and can I thank the members for their questions. I acknowledge the work that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee did in hearing a large number of submissions, and also those who submitted to me directly via email and other means to bring their particular matters to the fore.

There are a couple of things here that I would like to highlight to the committee, and it is about the way that we try with this particular bill to deter bad behaviour. Members of the Opposition in particular will know that when it comes to something like this, if you want to deter them and if you want to deter bad behaviour, we want to make sure that there’s a punishment that will deter that behaviour. What we’ve done here is we’ve looked towards making sure that there’s a fit punishment for those who are caught breaking rules—those who are caught doing the kinds of deeds that were described and already accepted in this House as rather deplorable and disgusting—to make sure that that is the disincentive for people to do those kinds of things.

I want to note too that what we know is that when it comes to camping, for example, I’ve already mentioned that you can camp on campsites and you can camp at a number of Department of Conservation sites that are available to the public. As the bill makes clear, when it comes to private land, you can also go there and you can still feel free to camp there, as long as you’ve got the permission, or if you own the land, then that’s all fair and well.

I myself, for example, when I head up to the Far North, to where my mother’s family come from, we literally camp there, despite there being a house there. But there are facilities there. There are actual toilet and shower facilities, but we enjoy having our own space of a tent.

The research shows that tent-based freedom camping makes up only 4 percent of freedom camping in this country, so we want to just make sure that some of the facts are out there. What we also know too is that in this country, 85 percent of the domestic vehicles have fixed or fitted toilets already, and I want to acknowledge those who do do these things responsibly, who do make sure that they act in a way that the community can continue to support tourism activities within their community, and that’s absolutely fantastic.

A couple of questions from the members continue to focus on portable toilet matter. What’s clear is that fixed toilets are twice as likely to be used than a portable toilet. So if we’re trying to change behaviour here, it is my opinion and the opinion of this Government that this particular bill will do that.

If the Minister was able to show us very, very clearly that people with portable toilets and campervans were the ones causing the problems, it would be easy; he would have unanimity in the Chamber, but I’m sorry, Minister, I’m not sure it’s as straightforward as that. You gave the example, I suppose, of, you know, a case where people were camped near a house and there were facilities. There were other areas where people camp and somebody will bring in a portable toilet, a stand-up one—you open the door and you go into it—and they’ll use that as well. Of course, in the case that it was a freedom camping area and somebody had put it there, the person that had a certified campervan with a fixed toilet in it would be allowed to camp there. If there was a portable toilet brought, a tall one that you rent from, you know, Kiwi Hire or whatever it’s called—it’s put there—somebody who had a campervan with a portable toilet inside it would be breaking the law if they were in there. So I agree with you, Minister—if they were then camping there and using this other portable toilet. I agree with you that we should focus on the problem and penalise that problem. Nobody wants the waste that we see in places.

But the other problem we have with the legislation is it doesn’t deal with this, because it doesn’t say to somebody who has a certified campervan that they must use that toilet; they can do whatever they want with their business, and therein lies the problem. The issue is people not using facilities, portable or a fixed toilet, and where they don’t use those, they are the ones causing harm to the environment and to our tourist areas, and they should be stopped. They should be found, they should be fined, they should be made to pay those fines, and so on, but that’s not what this legislation does. What this legislation does punitively is focus on New Zealanders, whether there is a large percentage or a small percentage of them, who have campervans with portable toilets who are responsible. What it does is say to them, “You can no longer do this, even though you are not causing any harm.”, and I think that’s the bit that we need to focus on.

Now, the last Minister was correct: you do have people driving around in smaller than—they’re not really campervans; they’re in cars or station wagons, sleeping in the back, and they have a bucket in it and call it a toilet. Well, of course, that’s not what we’re talking about, but, actually, if we look at the great amount of regulation that this bill is going to create, a huge amount of regulation, it’s surely not too much for us to ask for plumbers or gasfitters or somebody else to do some work and come up with a clear definition of what a portable toilet is, the standards that are required—just as the standards that will be required for a fixed toilet will also be decided—and that it must be used, and where it is used, you are able to freedom camp. It may not be a large group of New Zealanders, it may not be hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders, but it probably is 10 or 20,000 Kiwis who are responsible. They do this often: they go camping, they have a portable toilet. Sometimes they’re in a campground with facilities; other times they’re not. They are in areas they’re allowed to camp, but under this legislation, under law, they won’t be able to, even though they’re being responsible and they’re using a portable toilet properly, responsibly—well, it’ll be breaking the laws and they will be up for a fine, and I think that is the largest part of the problem with this legislation.

To many, it may not seem like a big deal—well, they can go somewhere else—but what we are doing is saying that we are going to restrict their freedoms because some other people pollute and are not responsible, and there’s not many of you so it doesn’t matter. Well, I don’t think that is the responsible thing for this House to do. Actually, it’s a very, very large Supplementary Order Paper; there are lots of regulations that will come as a result of it. To get the officials to get it right, not us in this House but other experts can come up with a clear definition of what a portable toilet is, actually to a standard that’s acceptable, that will be used as much as a fixed one, and that if they are not used, that’s the penalty, not the penalty or the fine in using a portable toilet in a vehicle that’s not certified, then we would be doing a better job. It may only be 20 or 30,000 Kiwis, but these are hard-working people that are responsible New Zealanders that don’t deserve to be lumbered in with those who are not meeting their responsibility and defecating all over the country.

If I can go back to one of the questions asked by the ACT Party member, Aussie residents are not here on visitor visas, so they would have entitlement of exemption, as they are given a resident’s visa for the time they’re visiting here. Hopefully, that addresses the member’s question.

Coming back to the Hon Todd McClay’s contribution, the Government has been quite clear, over a number of years, that we have supported local councils and local government to be able to invest in more facilities that can cater for visitor numbers, and building infrastructure for example. I myself visited Mount Ruapehu some time ago to open one such area that had proper facilities. It also had Wi-Fi, and it also had a very clear area where people were able to use the facilities but also stay there for the night. We’re quite clear in supporting local councils to build their infrastructure through matters like the Tourism Infrastructure Fund. This creates more opportunities for people to do the right thing. It creates spaces where people can go along and can continue to have trust that the facilities they are using clearly do not break the law.

What we do know is that the inappropriate disposal of waste is an offence anyway. So what we’re trying to do is support councils not only to stamp out this bad behaviour but also to invest in those spaces, so that people can continue to enjoy the freedom of travelling around this country, can continue to go to those key tourism destinations that our many international visitors enjoy, and our domestic tourism market can as well. The bill makes it quite clear that the penalties for committing this offence have increased from $200 to $400, just to send the right message, to change the behaviour that we’re talking about—the bad behaviour that we’re referring to.

Also, Cabinet agreed to a tiered infringement fee regime. That’s important as we look towards the way that we support councils in implementing this particular piece of legislation—the way that they enforce it and the way that we can continue to make sure that we stamp out this behaviour. It’s going to take some time, and we’ve made it clear, in order to get the right messaging out—whether you’re a domestic traveller or whether you’re an international visitor, those messages are clear to our people—in order to stop the behaviour that we’re seeing and, sadly, is being cleaned up by local authorities.

Madam Chair, thank you. Minister, I see that you had a note and you mentioned that it’s already an offence to not dispose of waste correctly, but that wasn’t the point that I was making. My point is—it’s a very clear question, I guess, and this will clear it up, to see whether the legislation or the Supplementary Order Paper that’s been put in by you, Minister, or by the Government, actually has fixed the problem or not. Is it against the law for somebody with a certified campervan who has a fixed toilet in it to not use that toilet and to go out and to defecate on the grass beside them? And is it lawful for somebody with a campervan that has a fixed toilet, who uses it, to freedom camp?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Is it the responsibility of the health system to treat somebody’s sunburn when the person owned a hat or owned sunscreen? The kind of question that the member is posing—it just seems irrational that somebody would own a vehicle with a fixed toilet and continue to do their business outside. That just doesn’t make sense to me. And what we’re trying to do here, as I’ve continued to reiterate to the committee in this session, is to make sure that we can stamp out this behaviour. We do it through utilising our councils in a regime that will make sure that these vehicles are certified, and we’ve given time for that certification process to happen and for the regulatory framework to be built here. I’ve also mentioned that we have a very clear plan to make sure that the messages are being clearly explained to visitors and to people who travel the country to make sure that they aren’t unwittingly caught by this particular legislation, to make sure that we continue to stamp out the behaviour.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m happy to take a call on this. I just want to give the Minister one quick example on his previous point about the irrational comment—or his perception that the comment or view was irrational—that Mr McClay made.

I think it’s quite plausible that there could be a scenario where someone would have a campervan with a fixed toilet in it, but not want to use that fixed toilet—for example, if they were hiring it and it had an additional cleaning charge to use that facility, and so then they may indeed wish to avoid that cleaning charge by not using the particular fixed toilet in that vehicle. So I think that’s quite a realistic example that Mr McClay was referring to that could indeed see someone not using that and looking to go in the bushes, as it were.

But, look, that aside, I’m interested to ask the Minister a couple of questions around this self-containment certification authority and the process for getting that certification for a particular vehicle—in particular, the initial process, once this legislation comes into play. So I’d like the Minister to give us some insight into exactly how many certifications he believes will be needed and how long he thinks it will take for all of those certifications to be given or made and then how many self-containment certification authorities would be needed to ensure that those self-contained certifications can be issued by those authorities.

So a few questions there: how many self-certifying authorities will be needed? How many vehicles are going to need to be given these certifications? What’s the time frame for that? Is he confident that could be met—once the legislation comes into play, that there will not be a significant lag where we therefore have thousands of vehicles that have been unable to secure the certification through no fault of their own, simply through the fault of a lack of processing capacity within the system that he is setting up? And does he have an expectation around a time frame that would be appropriate, both in the initial phase, and then further down the track for the certification process to take place on any given vehicle? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Minister, I was just interested in your response before where you said that it would be illogical for someone to have a fixed toilet and not use it. My question is: wouldn’t it also be illogical for someone to have a portable toilet and not use it, and why the difference? Because if someone has a portable toilet, it makes, I would suggest, just as much sense for them to use that as it would a fixed toilet.

Obviously there needs to be the right regulatory framework to make sure that people aren’t taking the mickey and, you know, having a bucket or something as a portable toilet—it needs make sure that it’s of a good standard. But my question is: why hasn’t this bill addressed that point?

And on that point, there’s a Supplementary Order Paper which is on the Table, and I’d ask that the Minister has a look at it—Supplementary Order Paper 356, which has addressed this issue. It’s been placed there under my name, a proposed amendment which would replace clause 44 and make it clear that a vehicle is equipped with a toilet that is either “permanently fixed to the vehicle and usable within the vehicle; or is portable and otherwise meets the requirements set out in regulations”.

So I would suggest that the Minister adopt this Supplementary Order Paper, which would clarify this point and make it clear that some vehicles’ non-fixed toilets can be certified as “self-contained”, and that would be a sensible way, I would suggest, Minister, of addressing this particular issue and making it clear that we want people to be using their toilets and their vehicles, but also making it clear that there’s no true distinction between a proper portable toilet and a fixed toilet. If people are reminded and responsible to use either, they will use those.

There is one other point I’ll just briefly touch on. I want to make sure these decisions that we’re making in this committee are based on evidence and not just based on an incidental observation here and there. The observation the Minister made of stopping and seeing some waste close to the road—well, I understood the Minister’s comment, and the question is whether that was done by someone staying overnight or whether that was someone who was stopping, trying to find somewhere where there was no public toilet available and using it and then carrying on in their vehicle.

So we need to be making sure we address legislation towards an identified problem that’s based on sufficient and adequate evidence. And I would ask the Minister: are we making decisions, in this Chamber this afternoon, on that basis, or on the basis of an incidental observation without any evidence to really supplement or underpin the decisions that are made?

Thank you to the members for their questions, and I’m going to try and address some of them in my contribution here. Independent research commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment found that around 76 percent of New Zealanders thought that freedom camping has negative impacts on the local environment. If we’re looking towards clear research and evidence to make sure that the moves we are making here with this particular bill address these matters, it was through this particular research that it made it clear to us, as well as our engagement with local councils and local authorities, that something had to be done.

Around 55 percent of New Zealand residents would like to see more restrictions placed on freedom camping, and certainly in my engagements as well, once again with local authorities and local government in some of the most beautiful places, they talk about this ongoing challenge of cleaning up these areas because of the acts of irresponsible people. And so making sure that we can continue to support them with an evidence base and a research base with this particular bill has always been at the forefront of what we’re trying to achieve here.

The member Tim van de Molen asked about the time frames and about the length of time and also the numbers involved. So the transition is a two-year transition period—and that’s always been quite clear—at which point we expect all self-contained vehicles to be certified under the new system.

I did mention earlier, in my first contribution, that the Supplementary Order Paper introduces the ability to extend that transition period by up to two years if necessary—and there could be a number of complex factors as to why it might need that extension and to do it by Order in Council. But when working with the regulator here, we’re making sure that we’ve given enough time frame to be able to cater for any of those delays if they occur.

What it also does is it sets out quite clearly the job that we all have to do to make sure that we educate and inform visitors through that period—for those who are wishing to certify their vehicle, those who are looking towards doing so, but also those of the general public who need to understand these to make sure that we can continue to report bad behaviour, to make sure that we can continue to allow people who visit this country—and also domestic tourism markets—to travel more freely around this country and do so within the rules, whereby they’re respecting the environment, the place that they visit, and also the social licence that is gained and offered by community to places that are frequently visited by large numbers of people throughout the year.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That helps with one part of it, but I did really want to get a gauge on how long he feels it will take and whether, therefore, it’s likely to need that two-year extension or not, but, more specifically, how many of these self-contained certification authorities he believes will be needed to meet that requirement and whether he has confidence that many of those can indeed be certified.

Because we’re talking here about setting up a new system and therefore having to find a whole group of people who can act as self-containment certification authorities. And I’m interested in whether he has confidence that there are enough people to fill those roles, how many of those roles he thinks needs to be filled, and not just for the initial period but also ongoing—obviously, initially getting through that bulk load of vehicles will be a higher demand load, but also to the point around the time frame for certification after the initial period. So renewals or for new vehicles down the track, how long will they have to be certified, and does he have confidence that the number of certification authorities will be sufficient for that purpose? Thank you.

I thank the member for his questions and I want to continue to reiterate that the register is a crucial part of the new system, and it’s that system that enables the enforcement officers and the public to determine whether a vehicle is self-contained or not. It talks about the displaying of a warrant to make sure that it is certified. I do have confidence in working with the regulator that we can, within the two-year period, probably do a really good job at making sure we can register and certify as many of these vehicles as possible.

But, as I mentioned, we do reserve the ability to extend that for whatever reason and, you know, this country has seen those kinds of left-field situations—that were unexpected—impact on this country. We talk about severe weather events, and the last time I checked Nostradamus wasn’t in the National Party. So we can’t predict weather events. We can’t predict global pandemics. We can’t predict many of the challenges that have impacted on global supply chains. And some of those matters were already canvassed in the submissions that were made to the committee, which is why we’ve made it quite clear that we want to have the two-year transition period, and, of course, we reserve the right to be able to extend that for a further two years if need be.

But overall, in response to that member: yes, I do have confidence that we can have the workforce and that we have the capacity to be able to deliver this.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. Just on the point that the Minister was making around the certification time of October, or other, but I see the member Anna Lorck was shaking her head a moment ago. I’m not sure whether it’s because she doesn’t understand the legislation, or she’s seen a poll in her electorate and knows she’s in trouble and has only five months left here.

But—coming more closely to this point—to the Minister; one of the concerns that was raised with this new regulatory regime being set up by the plumbers and gasfitters, was that people will have to be employed and they will have to work all of the things out, and it would help with the certification. No question about working out the rules around certification or the regulations and so on, but particularly around them once that’s in place, who gets to certify?

We know that up and down the country, if you have a motorhome of over 3.5 tonnes and you need to go and have, not the warrant of fitness but the certificate of fitness, I think it’s called—just as for many people getting a warrant of fitness, there can be quite long delays, and they are waiting for many hours, or, in some cases, half a day to get through the process. Having established this new system to certify a campervan, as this legislation is suggesting, as having a fixed toilet, or, as we would prefer, we would say a non-fixed toilet, Minister—whether or not the plumbers and gaslayers are the best people, or the only people, that should be then doing the certification, or whether the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association could also do it.

They already have a regime in place under the existing legislation where they are doing certification. I think that we all accept that that legislation doesn’t meet the requirements that the House would have in making sure that freedom camping is controlled well. Our issues over the types of campervans that are used aside, and whether or not we can decide that the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association—a majority of people who have motor homes, I think, are probably their members. We would ask whether they too should play a role and whether we should recognise that they are a certifying body.

So, Minister, it’s not to say that they decide what the conditions are to be certified or what are the regulations or rules, but, actually, just as a garage gets to go out and issue a warrant of fitness where the Ministry of Transport has decided what standards a car should meet to get that warrant of fitness, in this case the plumbers and gaslayers would be the certifying authority but the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association would also be that. My colleague Joseph Mooney has a Supplementary Order Paper in this area which would merely say that they can also certify under the conditions set by the legislation and set by the plumbers and gaslayers council.

It’s the opinion of this Government that we have catered for that within the legislation. I expect, as the member pointed out, that the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association is likely to apply to be a certificating authority on the matter simply because of the points and the facts that the member has raised here.

But I want to highlight a particular matter that is important when we look towards setting up a regulatory regime here, and that is the independence factor, which is why we are still of the firm belief that the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board is still the right regulatory authority that we’ll be working with to establish the framework.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, thank you for engaging in these questions that have been raised. There’s one point that I’m not still not entirely clear on—the Supplementary Order Paper around the definition of “persons not freedom camping”. As it’s framed—I’ll just read it out, it says “is a person other than a person who is in New Zealand on the basis of a visitor visa”. Does that mean a person who is on a visitor visa in New Zealand and freedom camps but can’t find appropriate residential accommodation will be subject to the restrictions in this bill, and a person who is on a visa that’s not a visitor visa won’t be if they are unable to find appropriate residential accommodation? So that’s a point that, as I read it, it seems to me to say that a person will be subject to the restrictions in this bill if they are on a visitor visa in New Zealand, but if they are on, say, a work visa, for example, they won’t be if they are a person who falls in this exception that they are unable to live in appropriate residential accommodation. I’d appreciate it if you could just make that clear, Minister.

I can continue, while the Minister’s looking at that. I would ask if the Minister would take on board Supplementary Order Paper 356 in my name, which does change the definition from a vehicle that’s equipped with a toilet that is permanently fixed to the vehicle and usable within the vehicle, or is portable and otherwise meets the requirements set out in regulations. So I would ask if the Minister would make it clear if that is being rejected by the Minister or whether the Minister is minded to accept that and take that on board. I would suggest that would be a sensible amendment to make to take into account the fact that there are people who are quite responsible and do use vehicles that have portable toilets in them. So I can take a seat now if the Minister is in a position to answer that question or I can continue. Continue? Thank you.

Tim van de Molen: Tell us a joke.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Mr van de Molen says I should say a joke. The only ones I can think of, that spring to mind, are probably not appropriate right now.

But, look, the other point I would ask some questions around is just around this change, the definition of “freedom camping” being amended to provide that a person who’s living in a tent or a motor vehicle because they aren’t able to live in appropriate residential accommodations are not freedom camping. I note that there is a new clause 38A which requires the Minister, no later than two years after the commencement date, to review and report to the House of Representatives on the effect of the bill on homelessness. And I would ask why the Government, or why the Minister, has settled on a date no later than two years rather than making that, say, a little bit shorter—for example, one year—to give some relatively rapid feedback to the House, but taking into account some time to elapse for the effect of this bill to become clear. Why is it two years as opposed to one year?

In answer to one of the member’s questions, the homelessness exemption is based on the Stats New Zealand definition of homelessness. And to be clear to the member and others who have asked this question, travellers are usually excluded from the Stats New Zealand definition of homelessness, hence why it won’t apply to those on a visitor visa. I hope that clears the matter up for the member.

With respect to the member’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that he mentioned and whether or not I’d be supporting that, much to my dismay I won’t be supporting the member’s SOP but I thank the member for his engagement with this particular bill from its genesis to now. He’s been an active member in continuing to promote his view, which is why I want to thank that member.

With respect to the time frame around reporting back to this House, in particular to Cabinet, around matters with respect to homelessness, it is because it is our expectation—that’s why we set the two-year parameters for the regulatory framework to be set up to give operators time to be able to make sure that they can certify their vehicles and make sure that they can, if needed, put work into their vehicles to fix the toilet in their vehicles. And I think it’s only fair that it’s that time we also take to make sure that we monitor the matter with respect to homelessness. I think it was a good point—and it was raised by the Green Party—about making sure that those who do find themselves homeless aren’t negatively impacted by this bill. And we can come back after a good length of time to see the way that this particular regulatory framework will look towards administering the bill to make sure we’re clear on matters of homelessness. But I want to be clear to the committee that, you know, homelessness matters don’t just reside under this portfolio; we take a view across our entire work portfolio to make sure that we can continue to monitor homelessness, but, more importantly, look towards solving it for the many people who find themselves there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Minister, again, for engaging in this. Just on that point of requiring the Minister no later than 2 years after the commencement date to review and report to the House of Representatives on the effect of the bill on homelessness—and, look, I support the intention of that, and I think it’s useful to have a requirement for the relevant Minister to report on the effect of this bill.

Just in that vein, Minister, I have another Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name—SOP 355—and I would ask if the Minister would consider taking this on board, which would just expand that intent, and take it from just focusing on homelessness to also focusing on a few other matters which I think would be helpful both for the Minister and for the ministry and for the House. And this Supplementary Order Paper, Minister, says, “(1) The Department and the Department of Internal Affairs must, within 1 year of the end of the transitional period,—(a) review the operation of the Amendment Act, since the date of its commencement, in so far as it relates to its effect on—(i) costs to people freedom camping; and (ii) the usage of permitted freedom camping areas; and (iii) waste, generated while freedom camping, being deposited in and on permitted freedom camping areas (other than into an appropriate waste receptacle); and (iv) the proportion of people freedom camping using self-contained motor vehicles.” And then the department to “(b) prepare a report on the review for the Minister of Tourism.” And the requirement that “(2) The review must include recommendations to the Minister of Tourism on whether any amendments to the Act are necessary or desirable.” And finally: “(3) As soon as practicable after receiving the report, the Minister of Tourism must present a copy of that report to the House of Representatives.”

I would suggest, Minister, that those are, in the scheme of things, fairly apolitical things that would be quite useful for the department, firstly; and, secondly, for the Minister of Tourism to have that information; and, thirdly, for the House to have that information. And I suggest that that would be a nice addition to the intention here on reviewing and reporting to the House of Representatives on the effect of the bill on homelessness, and to add this as a requirement would make sure that we had a good piece of law that is being reviewed.

And, if not, the points that we have raised and our concerns that we have with this bill could be addressed by requiring this information to be collated and reported back to the House. Because, as my colleague the Hon Todd McClay said, we support the broad intention of this, but we are of the view that, unfortunately, the Government has got it slightly wrong in just focusing on fixed toilets as opposed to those that are not fixed but, in our view, can be up to standard, and really focusing the issue on those who are not using toilets in these areas and resulting their waste. So I would ask that the Minister would incorporate this into the review and report back to the House of Representatives.

Once again I apologise to the member. We won’t be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 355 that he’s referred to. And there are a number of matters here that I want to just touch on. It’s that the review that the member is mentioning, to my perspective, is rather broad and potentially rather costly. And what we don’t want to be doing is heaping more cost on to local authorities. As we look towards the matters that the member raised, we do and will continue to monitor the implementation of this particular bill after it becomes legislation. But also I want to be clear to the member that there’s nothing to stop a more targeted review in the future if issues or opportunities eventuate, but it is the opinion of myself and the Government that that doesn’t need to be mandated as the member described in this particular bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So if I can just get the Minister to confirm that, under this law, this legislation, given the Supplementary Order Paper, visitors, tourists from Australia, will be treated differently—very differently—to tourists coming from, say, the United Kingdom. Immigration rules aside, I’d just like to know the justification behind that.

Madam Chair, thank you again. Look, I’m prepared to work with the member to clarify more of this particular matter with him. What became clear as we looked towards the impact on those who visit was the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. What we tried to do was make sure we’ve got balance here, but if the member will indulge me, I’ll be more than happy to come back to him with a very specific way that the intention with this Supplementary Order Paper is looking towards those who visit the country from Australia and other places around the world. But I note the member’s concern and question, and I’ll come back to him in the near future.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Minister about clause 49 in the Supplementary Order Paper, which does insert a new section enabling regulations to be made that prescribe levies to be paid by owners of motor vehicles with self-contained certificates.

It’s amended to ensure that, in the first year, the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board sets levies and it can include in those levies any initial set-up costs incurred after the bill is enacted but before the amendments to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006 come into force.

So I’m just asking: are there any limitations to that regulatory power for the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board to set levies that include any initial set-up costs? Because I would imagine that there is the prospect that those potentially could be quite high.

Has the Minister set in place any limitations to ensure that any initial set-up costs aren’t prohibitive; that the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board can set a set-up that is prohibitive for those who have to comply with this and have to set this up? Because there is potentially a concern here that that could be quite significant.

I would ask if the Minister has addressed that issue or has tuned his mind to it and what, if any, advice has been given to the Minister on this particular point. If the Minister is able to address that point, it’d be helpful. Thank you.

I thank the member for his question. The expected cost is to be approximately $120 for the certification process. But I note the member’s concern here, and it’s clear as we implement this particular framework, that we’ll continue to work with the regulator as those costs become very clear to us. But I want to be clear to the member that as we look towards this particular fee, we don’t want to be pricing our people out of paradise either.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 351 be agreed to.

The question is that Joseph Mooney’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 be agreed to.

The question is that Joseph Mooney’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 356 be agreed to.

The question is that Joseph Mooney’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 355 be agreed to.