Supporting sustainable freedom camping in Aotearoa New Zealand

[Supporting Sustainable Freedom Camping Webinar in Aotearoa New Zealand. Video is of a slideshow with the presenter, Fraser Pearce, appearing in a small box in the top right corner. Descriptions of changing slides have not been included as they are referred to in the presentation.]

Tēnā koutou katoa. He mihi nui, he mihi mahana, ki a koutou katoa. Ko Rainbow te awa.  No Kerikeri ahau. Ko Pearce tōku whānau. Ko Fraser tōku ingoa. Kia ora huihui mai tatou katoa.

Welcome everybody to this online webinar about the changes Government intends to make to support sustainable freedom camping in Aotearoa New Zealand. In case you didn't gather, my name is Fraser Pearce, and I'm from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. And from my mihi, you would gather that I also hail from the far north, in a small town called Kerikeri, where there is this beautiful freedom camping spot called the Rainbow Falls, where I've been lucky enough to grow up near it, and walk through it, and even swim in the river. And before I start this presentation in full today, I'd like to just thank you all for attending, not just now, but I do see a few familiar faces, some from the webinars that I hosted as a part of public consultation back in April, and I really appreciate you staying engaged in this process because I know it has been some time since then. As I mentioned earlier, the presentation today is approximately 50 minutes long, and there will be plenty of time for questions at the end.

Topics for discussion

But before I get into the presentation in full, I'd just like to briefly cover off and let you know what the presentation today is about. Firstly, I'll briefly reiterate what the changes are at a glance. I'll then talk a bit about how freedom camping is currently managed before touching on the need for change. Next, I'll talk a bit about the public consultation process we undertook earlier in the year and the results of that feedback. I'll then go into the changes in detail, including how the changes will be phased in. And lastly - and I'm sure some of you might be interested here as well to know about this - I'll talk about the upcoming opportunities for you to engage on the policy, before answering any questions that you might have, and I'm sure they'll probably be a few.

The changes – at a glance

Now, before I go into what the law currently says about freedom camping, or the outcomes of public consultation, I want to just briefly outline what the high level changes is the Government is proposing. Hopefully, by sharing these changes with you, as well as the outcomes of public consultation, you'll understand why Government is making the changes that it is, and how the feedback that you have provided has shaped the Government's thinking. So, the first of the main changes is that freedom camping in a vehicle must be done in a certified self-contained vehicle, unless the local council designates the site as suitable for non self-contained vehicles. The second change is establishment of a regulated system for the certification and registration of self-contained vehicles. Thirdly, we'll be requiring vehicles to have a fixed toilet to be considered self-contained. Fourthly, there'll be a bunch of improvements made to the infringement system, so that it will be strengthened. And lastly, looking at extending the Freedom Camping Act to lands managed by both Waka Kotahi and Land Information New Zealand.

What freedom camping is – the law

So, looking a little bit at what the law says now, many of you may be aware that we have something called the Freedom Camping Act. Now the Freedom Camping Act says freedom camping is freedom camping, when it's done for free - when you aren't paying to do it. So, it doesn't cover area or lands such as a paid campground or campsites, or private lands. Freedom camping must be done using a tent, caravan, car, campervan or other vehicle. And most importantly, it must be done within 200 metres of where you can drive, the coast, a harbour, or a Great Walks track. Now, the Act only applies at the moment to land managed by local authorities - that's both city and district councils, or regional councils or the Department of Conservation. The Act as I've mentioned, doesn't apply to camping on private lands, or to lands managed by other government departments. Now, the basic principle of the Act is that someone can freedom camp as they wish, unless less there is a freedom camping bylaw, or freedom camping notice in place that restricts or prohibits freedom camping. Now, councils can issue freedom camping bylaws, and the Department of Conservation can issue freedom camping notices, and both can put in place restrictions or prohibitions on how freedom camping can operate. Right now, about half of all councils in New Zealand have made a freedom camping bylaw. Now of relevance, most of these bylaws require freedom campers to use self-contained vehicles certified to the voluntary standard, and limit the number of nights freedom campers can stay in particular areas. They can also do things like limit the total number of freedom campers in an area - all things that I'm sure you are all aware of. Now, councils and the Department of Conservation enforce the freedom camping rules, whether that's breaches of bylaws, or notices, or specific offences under the Act. Now, it's important to note that freedom camping doesn't include temporary or short term parking of a motor vehicle. It doesn't include day trips, or resting, or sleeping at the roadside to avoid driver fatigue.

The need for change

So why is Government making these changes? Before COVID-19 led to the border being closed, the number of freedom campers was increasing year on year. We estimate that during 2019, close to a quarter of a million people freedom camped during their trips around New Zealand. That roughly breaks down to one third domestic travellers and two thirds international travellers. And I want to point out, I don't think freedom camping's all bad. There definitely are benefits that come from freedom camping. For example, freedom campers travel widely, visiting areas that other sorts of visitors don't tend to visit. They also stay longer and spend more than other types of visits. And there's some detailed figures on our website, including information through our public consultation page, that discusses what the average spends, often going into the 1000s of dollars that freedom campers bring.

However, in the early days, freedom camping was relatively unmanaged, and that did generate a number of problems. In recent years, the Government's been working with the likes of Tourism Industry Aotearoa, industry members, councils, clubs, and across other central government agencies, putting in effort into how freedom camping can be managed. For example, over the last three years, the Government has invested $27 million in improvements. This money has been spent on things like new infrastructure, like toilets, freedom camping sites, waste dump stations and rubbish bins and the like. It's also supported councils additional increased waste management costs during those busy summer seasons. It's also been used to fund the camping Ambassador programmes to educate campers, fund extra enforcement and extra waste management. We've also funded technology pilots. For example, one pilot looked at letting people know when particular freedom camping sites were full, so that they could be redirected to others. The good news is that we've heard that this investment has helped, but it hasn't completely solved the problems.

What we know is that the particular focus for Government is on the 95% of freedom camping that's done in vehicles. And the Government's concerned about a particular subset of that group who don't use self-contained vehicles and who do not camp responsibly. They don't follow the freedom camping rules, and their behaviours lead to pollution and additional cleanup costs for communities. There's damage to sensitive flora and fauna. There's communities that we're aware of that don't appear to want to host freedom campers anymore. And collectively, all these issues have an impact on Brand New Zealand's and the overall tourism proposition that we present to the world.

Public consultation

So, the Government here back between the 9th of April and the 16th of May publicly consulted on four proposals to improve the sustainability of freedom camping in New Zealand. Now the team here at MBIE travelled around New Zealand, holding 16 public meetings from Whangārei to Queenstown. We met with councils, rental vehicle companies, and camping organisations. And like this one right now, we also held four public webinars.

Proposals we consulted on

As a part of that, we wanted to know the answers to a few questions, and put this forward as four proposals that you see before you now for your feedback.

The first was, do we need to introduce a rule for those freedom camping in a vehicle? Now, the Government put forward two options, one which focused on a vehicle also known as Proposal One, making it mandatory for freedom camping in a vehicle to be done in a certified self-contained vehicle. The other which was an alternate, focused more on the behaviour and how the vehicle was to be used, also known as Proposal Two, which focused on making it mandatory for all freedom campers to stay in a vehicle that is certified self-contained, unless they're staying at a site with toilets.

The second question that we asked was, do we have the right regulatory tools to manage freedom camping? This was packaged as a suite of options under Proposal Three, which focused on introducing a regulatory system for freedom camping with the Plumbers Gasfitters & Drainlayers Board as the regulator, introducing higher fines for infringements, removing the ability for rental vehicle companies to transfer the liability around the payment of fines incurred by renters, and lastly, we also asked whether the grounds for under which vehicles could be confiscated should be expanded.

The last of the questions we asked was whether the requirements for self-contained vehicles are fit for purpose. Now, this was one we received a lot of feedback on, and I will cover this off in quite a bit of detail. Now, the key area of focus of this was on the minimum sanitary requirements or toilets, and we also asked a few other questions too, and we wanted to get a bit more of an impression around what the other requirements should be. We also asked submitters on what the transition period should look like and how the changes should apply to those experiencing homelessness.

What you told us – concerns around vehicle-based freedom camping

So, what you told us. Firstly, we received a huge number of submissions: 5136 total. We received submissions in a variety of ways. We received most through the survey, but also through emails, written letters and fax. We have significant numbers of submissions from Auckland, Canterbury, the Bay of Plenty, Waikato and Wellington. And it's clear from all of these submissions, and just the number of submissions, that freedom camping is an activity that a wide range of New Zealanders hold opinions on.

So, the graph before you now is one of the most important ones that we relied on when we asked the question, do you agree that certain types of freedom camping in a vehicle is a problem? And what we can see here is that 60% of submitters, individual submitters agreed that certain types of vehicle based freedom camping was an issue in their community. Now, we dug into this just a little bit more, and we wanted to know why? What we found was that just under half of all submitters noted that people staying in uncertified vehicles was an issue. It was by far the most significant issue pointed out. Around one third of submitters noted there were litter issues, around one third identified human waste issues, around one quarter identified overcrowding and around one fifth of freedom campers stayed too long.

But it's not just about that. We also saw a couple of other trends coming through the individual submissions we received. For example - and perhaps reflecting the experiences of some of you here tonight - 26% of submissions thought that there weren't enough facilities available for freedom camping. On the other side, 52.4% of submissions mentioned station waggons, small cars or hatchbacks, perhaps reflecting a bit of frustration with those types of vehicles and how they're used for freedom camping. 20.2% of submissions also talked about slider vans or small vans. And I know that that's a term that for some freedom campers is offensive, but at the same point, it's just reflecting what people have told us in the submissions. 16.5% of submissions also discussed local residents, local communities or New Zealand and this submission, so we inferred from this that perhaps actually it's not just freedom campers causing some issues that freedom camping sites, but perhaps locals as well.

Now, we also looked at a bit more detail as well looking at some of the key stakeholders, including councils, camping organisations and businesses, and what they thought about freedom camping, and they noted that it wasn't just that the freedom camping in vehicles was an issue, but actually, there's a broader question to be asked around infrastructure and funding.

What you told us – a new rule for freedom camping

Next, we asked the question around what should the new rule for freedom camping be? And in general, there's actually agreement that stronger freedom camping rules are needed. You can see there, the support for Proposal One and Proposal Two are very similar, with 60% of individuals submitters supporting Proposal One, and 55% of individual submitters supporting Proposal Two. Now, the exception to this rule in terms of support does come from camping organisations, so organisations that represent people who camp, who were strongly opposed to Proposal One, and were somewhat neutral, but didn't support Proposal Two. Now, what we also found was that many people who supported Proposal One also supported Proposal Two and vice versa. So, there really was quite clear consensus, in terms of agreement, that a new rule was required.

When looking at what the impact of such a rule for either Proposal One or Proposal Two, many submitters thought that either of the proposals would improve camper behaviour, so there'll be an improvement no matter what you put in place. Submitters did however, think that Proposal Two would be more likely to increase congestion than they did Proposal One. And in terms of once again there being similarities, many people thought that Proposal One and Proposal Two would decrease the impact of freedom campers on the environment. They thought that it would improve the attractiveness of visiting other regions. They thought it would have little impact in terms of decreasing the likelihood of someone camping. And most importantly, they thought that both options would improve tourism outcomes.

What you told us – stronger regulatory tools needed

Next, we asked the question around stronger regulatory tools, and you can see this has slightly less support than Proposal One and Proposal Two, with just under 50% of individual submitters supporting Proposal Three. Now, what you can see here from the graph is that a large proportion of individual submitters, just over 20% in total in fact, clicked or selected "missing" or "other" when it came to supporting Proposal Three. Now when looking at the data, a significant reason why people did not support Proposal Three was due to the proposal to expand the grounds under which vehicles could be confiscated. So, what we could see here is that there was support for a regulator, support for a register of vehicles, support for higher fines, support for making rental vehicle companies pay the fines of overseas visitors, but no support for expanding the grounds for vehicle confiscation. And the full suite of data from the summary of the submissions we've received is available online, and if you are interested, I do encourage you to look at it.

But when looking just now a bit deeper into some of these, there was a range of views on what - and looking at the infringements - what the appropriate level of infringement should be. So, this ranged from some people thinking that there should be no fines for people who freedom camp in breach of the rules, including those in bylaws or notices. Some people thought that the current level of $200 is fine. Others thought the fine, the maximum fine should be increased to $500. Others thought the maximum should be increased to the maximum allowed under the Freedom Camping Act, which is $1,000. And perhaps reflecting the frustration that some people feel with freedom camping, some suggested raising the fine to $5,000 or as high as $10,000, which is beyond what the Act currently allows.

Key stakeholders that we discussed, and whose submissions we analysed in a little bit more detail, consider that the Freedom Campaign Act should be expanded to other Crown land, for example, land managed by Waka Kotahi and Land Information New Zealand. Now, an interesting thing - and it wasn't something we consulted on - a common theme that was emerging from the public meetings we hosted, and in some submissions we received, and have continued to receive, was that some visitors from overseas, and some freedom campers leave the country without paying the fines or infringements that they received. And what we gathered from that was that they thought that the infringement notice and reminder period should be shortened. And we'll come back to that one a little bit later.

What you told us – minimum self-containment requirements

Now, when it comes to Proposal Four and whether the minimum self-containment requirements should be strengthened, what you can see here from this graph is almost a perfectly even mix of support, including with the "missing" or "other". And what we've been able to gather - and we really dug into that "missing" or "other" support section - and what we've been able to ascertain from this is that while there's mixed support for strengthening the minimum self-containment requirements, one of the questions we asked was around whether permanent toilets should be required, and whether that toilet should have a permanently fixed black water tank. And what we found was just over 20% of submitters considered that there should be a permanent toilet requirement for all self-contained vehicles. And so perhaps that's reflected in this overall judgement for Proposal Four. It's possible that this percentage of support could be higher if the minimum sanitary requirements, as set out in the discussion document, was clearer that it could allow for cassette toilets, which are fixed, that have a removable black water tank.

But it's not just about toilets. Some of the other requirements that people thought we should include: a shower, bathroom sink and basin. And it's important to note that the current voluntary standard does require vehicles to have a bathroom sink and basin, but not a shower. Some people thought that there should be a minimum height requirement for self-contained vehicles. Others thought there should be a maximum tonnage weight for self-contained vehicles. People also thought we need to consider the broader health and safety environment as well, and this sometimes focused on fire safety, but also the safety of those that use the features onboard the vehicles. For example, having the ability to dispose of black water without endangering the camper or others, due to the size and weight of the removable tank. Others thought there should be specific or minimum space requirements for self-contained vehicles, in particular, for minimum size and space requirements for a toilet. Others thought we should specify the exact type of vehicles which can or cannot be certified as self-contained. And many submissions focused on removing the blue sticker or the blue warrants, often using them interchangeably. And we also heard a story around removing the ability of rental vehicles to financially penalise people for using the toilets in hired vehicles. We have talked to some rental companies about this, and this does relate, from what we've been told, to the deposit that they charge for returning a toilet clean. And this is making sure that when you return the vehicle back to the company, it's in the same condition as it was at the start. But do appreciate that there might be other stories out there on that one as well.

What you told us – vehicle upgrade costs

We also asked the question around what would it cost to upgrade a vehicle. And we wanted to know what the financial impact would be on individuals and families. Now, this information is provided in full in the summary of submissions. This is just a flavour and also reflects the costs that don't include some of the significantly higher estimates provided, though I do provide both in the summary of submissions. It's worth noting that in our discussion documents, we estimated that it would cost around $500 to $800 to upgrade a vehicle to make the current voluntary standard, with a portable toilet. And we noted that upgrade costs would be higher for either higher requirements, or larger vehicles. Now, based on the figures supplied to us through the consultation process, we've determined that it would cost on average $929 to upgrade a vehicle to meet the current voluntary standards, where that vehicle does not currently meet the standard. The cost would be $1,600 to upgrade a vehicle to have a cassette or fixed toilet with a removable back water tank. And the cost, potentially reflecting the expertise required and the materials, would be $5,362 to upgrade a vehicle to a plumbed in system with a permanent black water tank. But many people also noted that a lot of vehicles actually can't be upgraded to have that permanent black water system due to maximum tonnage weights. So, we factored that in as well and reported on what some of those figures could look like in the summary of submissions.

What you told us – other feedback

But it wasn't just that too, we also heard other feedback outside of what we consulted on. And we also asked the transition, what the transition requirements should be and how the rules should apply to those experiencing homelessness. So when it comes to the transition requirements, you can see from this graph here, most people who submitted thought that the existing blue warrants should be able to see out their certification period. But we did hear a few alternatives as well, for example, providing for a six month, one year or two year transition period. When it comes to those experiencing homelessness, it's really important to note that those who are experiencing homelessness should not be penalised under the Freedom Camping Act, and that came very loud and clear through the submissions that we received.

But we also had a large number of alternative proposals suggested, and I will cover off each of these here now because I think it's important for you to hear that we have captured the common themes that have come through the submissions process. So the first of the alternatives was that we should consider amending or reviewing the legislative environment for freedom camping. This mostly focused on the Freedom Camping Act 2011, but some submissions also called for the Camping Ground Regulations 1985 to be reviewed.

People thought that we should provide additional funding for infrastructure, education and enforcement. This included proposals such as build more toilets, but others focused on providing a bit of information on what that could look like. For example, funding more KiwiCamp facilities, or providing more funding to the Department of Conservation and local authorities.

Some people also thought that we should make it easier for local authorities to charge for certain freedom camping facilities. Some people thought that we should introduce a freedom camping pass. Now this proposed requiring all freedom campers to have and display a pass in order to be able to freedom camp at any site across New Zealand. The fee collected to get a freedom camping pass would then pay for the infrastructure.

Some people thought that we needed to improve the education available to freedom campers. Now this primarily focused on building more signage about where people can and cannot camp. Some people thought that we needed to go further, and that all freedom camping should be done in self-contained vehicles, or alternatively, ban all freedom camping altogether.

Some people thought that only New Zealand driver's licence holders should be able to own a self-contained vehicle, and this included some submissions where people suggested that only New Zealanders should be able to freedom camp in a vehicle.

Some people thought we should continue and fund more technological innovation in freedom camping, such as geo-fencing zones, introducing technology to redirect people from highly frequented sites, or funding CCTV at freedom camping sites.

How your feedback was incorporated

So appreciate that's quite a lot there on what we've heard, and I just want to briefly cover off how your feedback's been incorporated. And if you do want to know more about what I've just discussed, as mentioned, there is a full 47 page summary of submissions on our website, which I'd encourage you to read to find out more.

Before we go into the changes in detail, I'm just going to discuss how your submissions have shaped the changes Government is seeking to introduce. Firstly, we did refine the new rules for freedom camping, taking the best bits of both Proposal One and Proposal Two. Now this addresses the limitation of proposal one that some places managed by councils for freedom camping, actually are suitable for freedom camping, and non self-contained vehicles. So the Government wanted to make sure that councils and communities have the ability to still set rules around how people freedom camp. It also addresses the other main limitation of Proposal One, which is that applying a rule to public conservation land - that is land managed by the Department of Conservation - could significantly impact New Zealanders' access to the natural environment.

And it's not just limitations of Proposal One. Proposal Two, which didn't reflect the different elements of self-containment beyond toilet, also applied to tents. What we thought with this is that actually, based on the feedback we've received, it would be administratively complex to determine and enforce minimum toilet requirements. And to put that in plain English for you, it's really hard to know what's the exact number of toilets per person suitable for each site. Should there be toilet opening hours that are mandated? And heaven forbid, what happens if a toilet stops working?

It wasn't just about the new rule, though. We also heard that faster infringement and notice payment times as mentioned earlier, is a real concern for some community members, that visitors are leaving the country before fine has been paid. And so I'll talk a little bit about that later. But what we're introducing, is shortening that infringement notice period payment time, from 28 days to 14 days.

Now, we've listened to the feedback and there's going to be no expansion of the grounds for vehicle confiscation, so I'm sure that will come as pleasing for many of you here. We've adjusted what the minimum sanitary requirements should be, to allow for removable black water tanks, reflecting both the cost and feasibility of installing a plumbed system with permanent black water tanks, and many vehicles used for freedom camping. Regarding the transition period, we've introduced a substantial transition period time, to allow time for people to transition to the new requirements and make decisions around how and where they want to freedom camp in the future. We've also introduced transition funding for local authorities, reflecting the fact that the proposed changes will take time to be implemented, and to support those councils who haven't had a pillor in the past to develop one.

A new rule for freedom camping

So now, the moment you've been waiting for. I'll talk about the detailed changes and why the Government made the decisions that it did. Firstly, the main rule is that, and the new rule is that all vehicle based freedom camping on local authority land must be done in a certified self-contained vehicle, except at sites designated by local authorities for non self-contained vehicles. Now, this rule does not apply to freedom camping in tents and I'll let you know now. Tents that are attached to vehicles are considered part of the vehicle, and that just makes it easier for enforcement, and understanding of how to apply the rules.

Next, this rule doesn't apply to DOC land, and it doesn't apply to private or commercial lands. Now, how this works in practice is that many councils already have bylaws in place, and these bylaws that already mention places as suitable for non self-contained vehicles, and thereby will automatically, under these new rules, count that place as a designated place. So that means if there's a council that through a bylaw said that that's the place suitable for non self-contained vehicles, when it comes to the new rules being enacted, that place would continue from day one being suitable for non self-contained vehicles, if the council does not change that bylaw. Councils still can also continue to place other prohibitions and restrictions. For example, where people may camp, the number of nights people can camp at particular sites, but also putting limits on the numbers of vehicles as well.

Now just to sort of explain why we've not included DOC lands, is that the issues are more prevalent in urban areas, and the Department of Conservation has advised that it currently has the tools available to it to manage freedom camping on its land, including any potential increase in freedom camping on its land, as a result of the proposed changes.

It's also worth pointing out why we've not included tents as well in this, and why we're still, under the Act, allowing it to be permitted anywhere in a district by default, except where a council has a bylaw in place, restricting or prohibiting it. So, there's a couple of reasons. Firstly, not all sites used for vehicle based freedom camping are suitable for freedom camping in tents. Now a classic example of this is a car park. It's really easy to park up a vehicle in a car park, but it is substantially more difficult to pitch a tent in a car park. Though I have heard that it's possible if you both have time and money.

The second reason is that the majority of freedom camping on local authority land is actually done in vehicles. As mentioned earlier, up to 95% of freedom camping is done in vehicles. Lastly, we wanted to maintain access to some freedom camping spots managed by local authorities for tents, so to protect the kiwi family holiday and some of those popular freedom camping sites where tents are commonly used. And it's also worth noting, councils still have the ability to restrict or prohibit freedom camping in tents as well, through a bylaw, and Department of Conservation through their notice making provision.

A new system for certifying vehicles

Next, we have introduced a new system, or we are introducing a new system for certifying vehicles. And this one focuses on the establishment of a regulation system for the certification and registration of self-contained vehicles. And most importantly, it's worth noting this is replacing the blue warrant with a new green warrant system, which denotes, and will now denote self-containment to the new requirements.

The requirements for what a self-contained vehicle will have to contain will definitely include a fixed toilet, but we'll come to that later, as well as other requirements which we will develop with industry, publicly consult on, and place in regulations, and that will be done next year. And the reason why the Government is phasing out the blue warrant as denoting self-containment is pretty simple. It's not trusted, and this can partially explain the 21.4% of submissions that mentioned either the blue warrants, or the blue sticker - and I appreciate there is a difference between the two - but unfortunately for people's perception it's quite often considered the same thing and used interchangeably.

Now, in terms of the process for certifying a vehicle, vehicles will be certified now by certification authorities and not issuing authorities. Certification authorities will be authorised by the Plumbers, Gasfitters & Drainlayers Board and include a vehicle inspection component, as they do now. Now, vehicle inspectors may be a part of the certification authority, and this includes volunteers, but vehicle inspectors could also be a third party. As with self-containment requirements, the requirements and process for becoming a certification authority and vehicle inspector will be placed and set out in the regulations, which once again we will develop with industry and publicly consult on next year. It's worth noting as well that anyone, not just organisations, will be able to set themself up as a certification authority, provided they meet the requirements and are approved by the Plumbers, Gasfitters & Drainlayers Board.

Now most importantly, as a part of this regulated system, there will be a nationally accessible vehicle register, which people will be able to search to check if a vehicle is certified. This will however - and we were asked this on Wednesday - include privacy provisions, so people won't be able to see all the details of a person's register, of a person's vehicle and their private details through the vehicle register. Rather, they'll just be able to check that a vehicle is certified self-contained or not. This will provide confidence for communities that vehicles are certified self-contained, but there are benefits as well for people who are purchasing, or selling, or buying, or renting self-contained vehicles, because they'll be able to check up online before they purchase a vehicle that is legitimately certified self-contained.

Now, the cost of this new regime will be cost recovered, as we mentioned in our discussion document back in April and May. And we've publicly consulted on this being $125 for a four year certification period. You'll be pleased to know that we've been able to refine this to somewhere between $40 and $60, based on 70,000 vehicles being certified over a four year period. And we will of course, be publicly consulting on that amount next year as well, as that will be going into regulations.

New requirements for self-containment

Next, the new requirements for self-containment. Now, these requirements and what we've settled on, and many of you, based on correspondence that we've received, really want to know what the exact definition of a fixed toilet in a self-contained vehicle that is certified, and what that will be. What we are proposing is that a fixed toilets must have been fixed to the floor and or a wall in a vehicle, it must be difficult to remove, it can have a removable or permanent black water tank, it must be able to be used when fixed. And most importantly, the toilets can't be portable, you can't be able to move them around in a vehicle. While we don't have the exact definition here to share with you right now, the exact definition will adhere to the principles set out above, and this will be included in the legislation that will go to select committee that you will have the opportunity to provide feedback on.

Now, the reason why we're settled on a fixed toilet is that research from the 2018/2019 summer period showed that 74% of budget vehicles hired by travellers had onboard toilet facilities, and these typically were portable toilets. Now despite this, even though 74% of these vehicles had a toilet, they were only used 28% of the time. Conversely, visitors who hired a premium vehicle, which typically have a cassette toilet or better, used it 74% of the time, and look, I appreciate some people with portable toilets definitely use them and some people with a fixed toilet don't. But what we can infer from this is that while some people are using the onboard facilities, others are not, and this could suggest that they might be staying at places with the appropriate facilities to host them, or they're inappropriately disposing of their waste.

Now, we settled on a fixed toilet as this includes cassette toilets, which feedback from consultation indicates costs of around $1,600 to purchase and install. Now of course, more expensive units do cost more. Now, once again, I'm expecting it so I'm going to repeat it here. Many of you listening will go, well how come you can't provide that precise definition right now? So, to give you an advanced democracy lesson, which I know of course you're interested in, the exact definition is set out in a draft bill based on instructions the Government provides to Parliamentary Counsel Office. The bill is then agreed to by Cabinet for submission to Parliament, where it is then considered and debated before potentially becoming law. As a part of that, there is a select committee process, as mentioned, that you will have the opportunity to provide feedback on. Now, the instructions that we give to Parliamentary Counsel Office will be based on the principles set out in this slide. And there will of course, as mentioned, be an opportunity for you to provide feedback on the definition, when the bill goes to select committee next year.

A stronger infringement system

Next, a stronger infringement system. Now, there are a couple of changes here. Firstly, I'm just going to talk a bit about the new offences, tying in with some of the new rules and systems that we've introduced. The new offences are likely to include breaking the new rule regarding freedom camping in a self-contained vehicle, failing to display self-containment certification such as a warrant card, or proof of self-containment when requested by an enforcement officer, falsely claiming certification to the new self-containment requirements, for example, having a fake warrant card, freedom camping in excess of the certification requirements, for example, if a vehicle is certified for two, but it's got four people in it, that's going to be an offence, issuing self-containment certification without being an approved certification authority, issuing a fraudulent self-containment certificate, warrant or sticker, or providing false or misleading information to the regulator.

We're also looking to introduce a tiered system with higher fines for more serious offences. Now, this tiered infringement system will be set at $200, $400, $600, $800 and $1,000. And what offences get what infringement will be set out in regulations, which we'll be publicly consulting on next year, so you'll get the opportunity to provide your feedback on what offence should get what level of infringement. We're also looking at the liability of fines. Fines will now have to be paid by the vehicle owner, when not given directly to the driver of a vehicle. So, it will be up to the vehicle owner to ensure a fine is paid, including having systems in place to collect a fine from someone who has hired a rented vehicle. However, there will still be an ability to challenge that fine that is issued, and this will be through the relevant enforcement authority as it is done now for comparable infringement systems, like speeding fines and traffic fines.

A shorter payment period is also being put in place because it's normal for comparable regimes, which heavily intersect with international visitors, such as biosecurity, aviation, and trade an endangered species, to have a shorter payment period. This will of course support the payment of fines. Similarly, to support enforcement efforts, we will be allowing infringements to be emailed, bringing the enforcement regime into the 21st century. These two things around the faster fines and the emailing of fines will be aided by the national register of self-contained vehicles.

Now lastly, the rules will be expanded to Waka Kotahi and LINZ land. Now, the process for how this will work is slightly different, and this is just based on what the makeup and needs are both of those agencies. For freedom camping rules, when in relation to Waka Kotahi, these rules can now be enforced within a council area at both the agreement of the council and Waka Kotahi, and this will be set up in a bylaw. Freedom camping on LINZ land however, will be different. It will be prohibited, except where LINZ has issued a notice, similar to DOC, permitting freedom camping, including setting out any localised rules such as the maximum number of nights. And the reason for that is there is a lot of LINZ land, and by doing it where it would be allowed would take a significant amount of time for them to publish a notice restricting it, and that would take quite a lot of administrative working through.

Those experiencing homelessness

Lastly, we thought long and hard about how we can protect those experiencing homelessness, which is a very sensitive topic for those who submitted, and I would like to thank those online here for sharing their perspective on what is a complex issue. At the heart of it, the Freedom Camping Act is not intended to apply to those experiencing homelessness, and based on evidence provided to us, councils are doing a fantastic job supporting those who are experiencing homelessness, and not penalising them for being in the circumstances they are facing. As such, enforcement officers will continue to exercise their discretion when dealing with people experiencing homelessness. But not only that, we will make sure that there is appropriate guidance and support in place to ensure that those experiencing homelessness are supported and referred to those that can help them.

Transitional arrangements

Now, the full transition details and timeline is available on our website, and this is just a snapshot here that I've provided. And I'm also happy to answer any questions you might have on this timeline. But for the interests of saving you time, I'll only cover off the changes that will be probably of most interest to you.

Firstly, in summer of 2022/2023. Firstly, all new vehicles certifications must have a fixed toilet. And this is only for new vehicles, existing vehicles and existing warrants will continue to apply and meet the requirements of self-containment. Outside of that, the blue warrants with a fixed toilet will be used to certify self-containment. It's also important to note that come summer 2022/2023, that is when the new rule for requiring freedom campers to be in a self-contained vehicle, on land managed by local authorities when freedom camping in the vehicle, will also come into effect.

In winter 2023, that's when we're hoping the regulations will be in place, and higher fines will now be possible beyond that $200 limit. Both blue and green warrants can be issued from that point because we'll have the systems in place to authorise and establish those certification authorities.

By summer 2023/2024, only green warrants can be issued. Any blue warrants that have been issued and have not yet expired will still be current of course too. But blue warrants, any new blue warrants, from that point on will no longer meet the requirements of self-containment under the Freedom Camping Act.

Winter 2024, all rental vehicles will now have to have green warrants, and summer 2024/25, all vehicles must now have the green warrants, so meet the new requirements for self-containment.

These changes are about making sure vehicle owners have sufficient time to see out the period of certification on their current vehicle, while also providing plenty of time for any vehicle upgrades and certification to the new requirements to be done.

Transitional funding

The Government is also providing transitional funding to councils to help with the transition to the new rules. So, $10 million will be provided across both 2022/23 and 2023/24 summer seasons. So that's $5 million a year. The exact breakdown of the funding in terms of exactly where it's going to go across the country is still to be explored, but this will be shared, funding will be shared across the country and assessed by need. Information on how the fund will operate and what exactly it can be spent on will be shared most likely in the first half of next year. What we're expecting is that this funding will be spent primarily on camping ambassadors, so those who educate and enforce freedom camping rules, but also the development of bylaws for those councils that do not have one.

What’s next?

So, what's next? How can you guys stay engaged in this process? Well, up next, the changes will be drafted in a bill and introduced to Parliament, likely to be in the first half of the year - next year. There'll be a six month select committee process where as I've mentioned, you will have the opportunity to provide your feedback on the laws being considered by Parliament. Now past the 2022 year, the laws would then be gradually introduced from the 2022/23 summer as mentioned earlier. So this of course is subject to parliamentary and Cabinet processes.

Secondly though, it's not just the legislation process where you'll have the opportunity to provide input. We're also developing the regulations as well. Now, I've mentioned these regulations a few times, so you're aware and to give you a good sense about what they mean, the regulations will set out the requirements for a vehicle to be considered self-contained, with the exception of toilets, but also set out the process for a vehicle to be certified as self-contained. They'll set out the requirements for vehicle certification authorities and inspectors, they'll also set the level of fine for each type of infringement offence under the Act, and also the fees that will be charged to freedom campers to be certified as self-contained, and the fees that will be charged to certification authorities for approval. Now, these regulations as I've said, will be publicly consulted on, so of course you will get your opportunity to provide feedback.

Questions

So, this ends the formal part of the webinar, and before I move on to the questions, and I see there's a couple there already, I'd just like to point out that for those that are interested, we do have a range of materials online that may help to answer some of the questions that you may have, including the timeline, factsheets and material that has been proactively released, such as the regulatory impact statement, which sets out MBIE's independent analysis of the situation, and a Cabinet paper and minutes sitting out the decisions that Cabinet has made, and why it made those decisions. It's worth pointing out those fact sheets aren't all the same. There's specific ones for specific stakeholder groups, and sometimes there's some crossover between them too, so, you might be able to read one and find that you have further questions based on a topic and find that your questions are answered in a different factsheet. As some of you may be aware, we also have an email that you can direct your questions to.

So, before we get to it, and so you know it - some of you were here last time for the webinars -  the format that I do is I fully read out the question that's been asked, and then answer it to the best of my ability, in terms of what you've asked. I should note though, I'm probably not going to answer any questions that have already been answered by myself. This is because I want to make sure that there's time to answer all the questions that have been made. But also, I just want to save some time. So, let's get to it. So, here we go.

What advice would you give to someone who is converting their campervan right now, but doesn't know the specifics of the new standards around the fixed toilet, et cetera? So, really good question, thank you for asking that. Firstly, I can't tell you to make any decisions around what you should or shouldn't do, but what we've been trying to do with the wealth of information that we've put online is to give you what changes the Government intends to make. So, if you see something that could impact you in the future in terms of meeting those new self-containment requirements, I would encourage you to think about how that factors into your redesign. It's worth noting as well, that just if your vehicle doesn't meet the new self-contained requirements, doesn't mean you still can't use it for freedom camping, you'll still be able to do that on Department of Conservation camping grounds where permitted, as well as at those designated sites for local authorities. With regards to the fixed toilets, it is worth noting that, in designing this, we were thinking that as currently defined in the self-contained vehicle standard, a cassette toilet would meet that requirement, so that's where the toilet is fixed, but where there is a removable black water tank. And so hopefully that helps answer your question.

I see you've got the next one here, which is why are the fixed toilet provisions being brought in, when the public submissions on the issue were inconclusive and not supportive? And that's a really good question, and I appreciate that there are a large number of freedom campers out there who have portable toilets, and who do the right thing. The reason why we focused on this is that, as I mentioned there, based on that 2018/2019 summer research, we had to come up with a way of making sure that there would be toilets that would be usable and used by freedom campers. And of course, the type of toilet doesn't guarantee toilet use, but what we can infer is that it is associated with higher usage rates. And it's also worthwhile noting that those figures that I've quoted, have been based on self reported usage rates by freedom campers. So, what this suggests - and it was done at a time where there was no requirements or no punishment for saying that you were not using the onboard facilities or not, and no risk of things changing - so it really does provide us with probably the most unbiased research that we've got available around toilet usage rates. But do of course appreciate that, that there is a large proportion of people who do think portable toilets are okay. The second part as well in answering that is that we were able to cross reference the support rates for Proposal Four with a question around whether permanent toilets should be allowed. And when we were able to cross reference those two questions, we were able to see that a significant number of either the opposition, neutral or mixed other was based around that question. So hopefully that helps to answer. I always like it when I can talk about the data.

What other requirements are in scope for the policy work next year? Look, this is some of the things that we're using as the feedback that we've gathered, and I've talked about with regards to Proposal Four, but this is something that we are working on next year, if it's related to those vehicle requirements, and they're going to be placed, we're going to develop those with industry and industry input. But also, we're going to make sure that those are publicly consulted on next year, because we really want a good sense from the public around what they should be, what they should look like, recognising that of course we don't know everything about vehicles, and there's a wide range of expertise out there.

When is select committee due to take place? It's crystal ball gazing one on that one. This is subject to Cabinet and parliamentary processes, and in period where COVID-19 can completely change everything. It's hard to know exactly when that will be. It's likely that that will be some point in the second half of the year, but once again, it could be earlier, it could start slightly later, just depending on what else is on Government's legislative agenda.

What about fixed composting toilets? You know, we have actually had this question as well come through our email, and if based on the criteria that we've given, if the fixed composting toilet is fixed, it's difficult to be removed, it's usable so you're able to dispose of the waste without removing the toilet, then it's quite possible that that will meet the requirements under the new regime. This is something that we're currently working on and making sure that we get that definition right. And so I appreciate you asking that question. And I should note as well, as mentioned earlier, we are doing, as a part of select committee, there will be, the definition of a fixed toilet will be something that people will be able to submit on as a part of the select committee process. So hopefully that helps answer your question.

Is there a risk of overcrowding DOC land in the proposed changes, especially with rental van companies? And that's a really good question, and one of the bits of analysis that came through the summary of submissions is that, particularly for Proposal Two, they thought that, submitters thought that if we placed requirements around toilets, and we redirected people to certain numbers, and limited numbers of freedom camping sites, that there would be, that there would potentially be greater overcrowding at those freedom camping sites. But conversely, it's worth pointing out the other thing as well, which is, I'd say many freedom campers, myself included, and my family, is we enjoy going to those freedom camping sites where it's a little bit quieter, and where there's a little bit less noise. So while more people and vehicles that aren't certified under the new requirements may very well go to the places where they can freedom camp, it's quite possible that the people that are in, that are certified to the new requirements will go to those other ones where there isn't the same group of people. It's also worth noting as well, and this is available and proactively released on our website in the Cabinet paper, that the Department of Conservation thinks that it has the available tools necessary to be able to manage any potential increase in the number of freedom campers that go to their sites. But great question, I really haven't been asked that one yet, and I'm really happy I was able to, so thank you.

The next one is with councils being able to keep their own bylaws, will there be any changes to allow people a chance to move if they find themselves incorrectly parked? Many councils have such different rules that if you've moved between them without realising, you'll risk being hit with a high fine when you were just trying to do the right thing. Yeah, I appreciate this is a really difficult one, and so the first part of that question is yes, councils will still be able to keep their own bylaws. I would hope that if it's a genuine mistake when it comes to enforcement, it's a hard line between whether a council takes an education or an enforcement approach. There's also as well, I should note, a requirement that under the Freedom Camping Act, that any councils must display signage, setting out the requirements, many localised requirements, around freedom camping in a district. So hopefully that provides you with some reassurance. The better way to take this though, is that if your vehicle is not certified as self-contained under the requirements, be that under the blue warrant when it's allowed, or the green warrant card  when that becomes the new way of certifying things, there is an expectation and an acknowledgement that people will know that the default rule, as it stands, is that any freedom camping on local authority land must either be in a certified self-contained vehicle and a tent. I appreciate that as a change, and it is quite a big change. But hopefully, by making that consistent default rule, it's going to make it easier to know how and where to freedom camp. It is also worth knowing as well that by default, you can also freedom camp in tents. So, if a council doesn't have a bylaw, you still will be able to freedom camp in a tent.

Awesome, I see that there are potentially some things in the chat function as well. Here we go. I've had those ones at the start, what about fixed... no answered that one. Answered that one. And ah, excellent, love some advanced democracy, thank you. That is fantastic. Firstly, I'm kind of grateful, because Wednesday's session had 87 questions, I think. This is seven. So look, I'm going to give you a couple more minutes to ask any questions that you may have. Because I don't want to end this too early in case something that I've talked about has raised or sparked something. But I would like to firstly thank you. I'd like to thank do firstly for your thoughtful questions that you've asked, and there's been some really good ones here. And I'd like to think that they've helped to answer the questions that you have, but also benefit those as well who are on board this webinar.

With that being said as well, I have heard of some instances, and we ourselves have experienced some people who have been frustrated, or upset and angry at the new changes, and we've heard about this as well, not just to us, but also potentially vehicle inspectors and representative organisations. And I'd just like to remind you, I know it's been a frustrating year for everyone. I know, it's been tough, in fact, it's been a tough two years. But I'd just like to remind you that we're all New Zealanders here. Be kind to each other, and when you are camping, and you're out there, whether you're camping in a big vehicle, whether you're camping in a smaller van with a toilet, and whether you're in a caravan with a fixed toilet and shower, please do make sure that you are kind to your fellow campers and kind to each other. Excellent, I still see we've got one more question and I will get to that. But, I would like to thank you, I'd like to thank you, because this has been quite respectful questions, and I really appreciate that.

So, in answering that last question, please remind me of your name, thank you for an excellent presentation. Thank you. So my name is Fraser Pearce. So thank you for that, and in case that is everything, I see there is one chat. I didn't know the process of questions, no perfectly okay, and thanks for moving, that makes it really easy for me to be able to answer them. Look, so thank you everyone. I'm giving you five more seconds to ask questions, but other than that, look, thank you so much for being here. If there is any questions that you do want to ask afterwards, we do have an email address up on our website that you used to register for this webinar. So please, please feel free to direct any questions there. But otherwise, thank you very much for, for coming out and listening tonight and I hope you have a lovely weekend, and a lovely summer camping season. Ka kite.