Not Government Policy
FREEDOM CAMPING DISCUSSION DOCUMENT – DRAFT AS AT 2 JUNE 2017
Context
Freedom camping is an activity that is valued by many New Zealanders and our international visitors,
and has a long history in New Zealand.
Since 2011, we have experienced unprecedented growth in the number of visitors to New Zealand.
In the year ended April 2017, 3.6 million people visited New Zealand, up from 2.5 mil ion in 2011.
Domestic tourism activity also increased over the same period.
Freedom campers make up a small number of visitors to New Zealand, but the number of people
who choose to freedom camp while in New Zealand has grown, as has the number of New
Zealanders who freedom camp.
[Spectrum of campers image]
The Freedom Camping Act was introduced in 2011 ahead of the Rugby World Cup to help manage
numbers of freedom campers, by giving councils and the Department of Conservation the ability to
issue infringement notices. At the time of the introduction of the Act, the main concerns from the
public were around protecting the right of New Zealanders to freedom camp. The Act protected
these rights by having a clause preventing councils from banning freedom camping across the
district.
Because of the increasing number of people freedom camping, some communities are expressing
concerns about the impacts of freedom camping on public places. There have been increasing cal s
for more to be done at a local and national level to manage these impacts.
Freedom camping, like any activity that takes place in a public space, will always have an impact on
the surrounding area, whether that’s through volumes of people, the amount of waste produced or
simply by blocking people’s views.
There are many different views about freedom camping in New Zealand, and as a country we need
to make some choices about whether, when and how freedom camping takes place in New Zealand.
under the Official Information Act 1982
This document is designed to spark a discussion on these choices. Each section outlines a different
choice we have to make, and gives you some information about why this choice is important.
We need your views on these choices so that we can ensure the way we manage freedom camping
in New Zealand works for New Zealanders.
Released
1
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
What do we mean by freedom camping?
First off, it is important that everyone agrees what freedom camping actually means and what
activities it does (and doesn’t) cover. This helps to make it clear which people, places and activities
are covered by freedom camping rules.
What are the choices?
One option is to define freedom camping broadly and capture al behaviour that involves someone
camping in a public place for free.
A broad definition like this would cover people who camp for any reason – including people doing
things that we may not currently think of as freedom camping. Under this definition, a visitor to New
Zealand sleeping in a vehicle parked in a public place, a surfer sleeping in a beach car park before a
dawn surf, and a homeless person sleeping on a city street would all be treated as freedom campers
1982.
The benefit of this approach is that it means a consistent rule for everyone and it is easy to
Act
understand and apply.
However, a broad definition would mean that we couldn’t distinguish between the sort of freedom
camping that we think has the most impact – for instance campervans parked near people’s houses
and a single tramper overnighting in an empty carpark in the bush would both be covered even
though the impact is different. It also means that it would be more difficult to reflect different
attitudes towards different reasons for freedom camping - for instance, many people would feel
Information
differently about a homeless person or a seasonal worker than a holidaymaker staying overnight in a
car in a public place.
[Wide spectrum of campers image]
Another option is to define freedom camping narrowly, and
Official focus just on the sorts of camping in
public places that we think can cause the most harm. This would allow us to concentrate more on
the types of freedom camping that people see a
the s a problem, rather than on all people staying in
public places. It would also allow us to potentially exclude groups like homeless people or back
country trampers from the definition of freedom camping, so they would not need to follow the
same rules.
under
The narrower the definition, however, the more difficult it is to avoid creating unfairness or
inconsistencies between different groups. It can make it more difficult to enforce the rules if they
only apply to some people and not others, especially where we cannot tell them apart – say if both
trampers and holiday makers were staying in the same DOC carpark. A narrower definition also has
the potential to create confusion, where people might not know whether they are covered by the
Released
rules or not.
The definition, and whether it is easy to understand or not, can also directly impact how expensive it
is to enforce freedom camping rules. The issues around enforcement cost are covered later in this
discussion paper [link].
[Narrow spectrum of campers image]
2
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
What we currently do
Under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 freedom camping has three main attributes:
• it is free – that is, the camper has paid no fee for staying there
• it takes place in a public place which is accessible by motor vehicle , boat or close to a Great
Walks Track – this means that people camping in New Zealand’s back country are not
considered to be freedom camping
• it involves activities associated with camping – e.g. sleeping, ablutions, cooking.
One important exclusion is where someone pul s off the road to take a rest from driving. NZTA
actively encourages this type of activity to avoid driver fatigue, a known cause of crashes.
Freedom campers can only be restricted or excluded from land administered by the Department of
1982
Conservation (DOC) or councils under the Freedom Camping Act. The Act doesn’t cover private land -
for example a farmer’s land that they might allow people to camp on for free is not covered.
Act
Case study/Examples
Some examples here of different types of activities:
• Tramping/hunting/surfing
• Homeless
• Seasonal workers
Information
• Grey nomads/NZ families
• International visitors
[Case studies wil be shown in pop-up boxes or clicked through to]
Official
What do you think?
What people/activities/places do you think s
the hould be covered by the term “freedom camping”?
Are there some groups that should definitely be excluded from definitions of freedom camping?
Why?
under
Released
3
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
link to page 4 link to page 4
Not Government Policy
Does freedom camping still have a place in New Zealand?
A major choice we have is whether freedom camping is still something we want New Zealanders and
our overseas visitors to have as an option when travelling around our country.
What are the choices?
One possible view is that freedom camping has had its day and is no longer an option we want to
offer people.
As noted earlier, recent significant growth in visitor numbers, and the resulting growth in freedom
campers, have meant that freedom camping is having a big impact in some places around New
Zealand. The sheer numbers of people freedom camping in some places, particularly during peak
visitor season, means that freedom camping is more visible and causing more pressures, even where
people are camping responsibly. The number of incidents where people are not behaving as we
1982
would like them to has also increased significantly – even though this still makes up a very small
proportion of all freedom camping activity.
Act
Added to this, the government and the tourism industry have been focusing for some time on
encouraging visitors that are going to spend the most money while they are here.
1 Freedom campers
are often thought of as people travel ing “on the cheap” and trying to avoid spending money on
accommodation – and may not be seen as consistent with a focus on high value tourism.
On the other hand, freedom camping has a long history in New Zealand. Many New Zealand families
Information
as well as overseas visitors have enjoyed travelling around the country in motorhomes or caravans
and being able to stay in beautiful, unspoilt places – and some see it as an important part of their
birthright as New Zealanders.
It is also not necessarily the case that freedom campers are travelling on the cheap. Data suggests
Official
freedom campers stay longer and spend more on average than other visitors (though less per day).
International visitors who did some freedom camping in New Zealand spent an average of $5000
the
(per visitor), compared to the average for all visitors of around $3,300 (per visitor). These visitors do
tend to spend much longer in New Zealand. [Link to spend graph]
International visitors who freedom camped spent about $380 million a year (based on a three year
under
average). Freedom campers accounted for almost four per cent of total annual spending by
international visitors, which reflected their relatively small numbers.
2
In addition, freedom camping can be a great way to attract visitors to less visited destinations, and
to provide an accommodation option in places that have less traditional tourism accommodation but
still want to attract visitors to their region.
Released
1 One of the goals of the government’s tourism strategy is to attract high value visitors; Tourism New Zealand
targets for value; and one of the targets of Tourism Industry Aotearoa’s Tourism 2025 framework is about
identifying and pursuing opportunities that wil deliver the greatest economic value.
2 Statistics on freedom campers can vary significantly from year to year, and the numbers used are three year
averages. This is because only around two percent of al international visitors undertook any freedom camping
and because the International Visitor Survey samples only a smal proportion of al international visitors. The
average sample size over the past five years is around 200 for visitors who did any freedom camping, and 50
for visitors who mainly freedom camped. Individual figures and year on year changes should be treated with
caution, but trends over many years are more robust.
4
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
What we currently do
The basis of the Freedom Camping Act is that freedom camping is something that we want to take
place in New Zealand. It therefore focuses on how we can provide people with options for freedom
camping, and giving DOC and councils the tools they need to manage the impacts local y.
Case study/examples
Spend profile of visitors (including freedom campers) [Case studies wil be shown in pop-up boxes or clicked through
to]
1982
What do you think?
Do you think freedom camping has had its day?
Act
How do you think freedom camping fits with New Zealand’s focus on attracting high value visitors
from overseas?
How important do you think it is that New Zealanders are able to continue to freedom camp?
Information
Official
the
under
Released
5
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
Where should people be able to freedom camp?
If we agree that freedom camping still has a place in New Zealand, the next question is to ask where
freedom camping should be allowed. Allowing freedom camping to take place means that freedom
campers need to have a variety of places to stay that are close to the places they want to visit. But
local communities will also want to have a say on where freedom camping should be allowed in their
region.
What are the choices?
One option is to allow freedom camping to take place anywhere. This would most likely be
supported by those who see freedom camping as something all New Zealanders are entitled to do,
or who see it as an essential part of our offering to international visitors. This approach would also
give freedom campers true freedom to move around New Zealand. It might even mean freedom
1982
camping becomes less visible as freedom campers will have more choices about where to stay and
will be more dispersed around a region rather than all congregating in one area. Act
However, al owing freedom camping to happen anywhere could lead to situations where locals and
other visitors are overwhelmed by visitor numbers in particularly popular locations, or freedom
camping takes place in areas that are not suitable for freedom camping (for instance,
environmentally-vulnerable areas or sports grounds). This is more likely with more growth in
freedom camper numbers.
Another possible choice is to put wide-reaching blanket bans in place and then only allow freedom
Information
camping in specific places. Public landowners and managers (like councils, DOC, LINZ or NZTA) could
be required to consult with communities when making decisions about where freedom camping
should be al owed.
This approach would help ensure freedom camping didn’t t
Official ake place in unsuitable locations. It
would also be likely to result in particular places being earmarked for freedom camping, making it
easier to provide facilities like toilets. the
The problem with this approach is that we might end up restricting the ability to freedom camp so
far that it doesn’t suit those who wish to use it as an accommodation option. This could mean that
freedom campers have no places to g
under o in a particular region, or can’t stay anywhere near attractions
they want to visit. As visitor numbers grow, this could also mean not enough room in an area for the
level of demand. If there weren’t enough designated areas available then campers might have to
choose between paid accommodation or breaking the law.
Even if adequate places for freedom camping were provided, concentrating freedom campers in a
few specific locations would mean that there is more of an impact on those locations.
Released
In addition, this could mean inconsistencies where different rules are set by different landowners –
leading to different rules on neighbouring land plots.
6
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
What we currently do
Freedom camping is permitted under the Freedom Camping Act, but councils (in consultation with
the public) and DOC are empowered to make rules to restrict or prohibit access to an area where it
is necessary to protect the area and environment, protect the health and safety of people who may
visit the area and/or protect access to the area.
Councils must have identified a specific problem that can be addressed by a bylaw. They must also
consult with the public on the bylaw, and cannot make bylaws that have the effect of prohibiting
freedom camping in all the local authority areas in its district.
Rules are based on management of land – Councils and DOC can set rules on land they administer,
but not on LINZ or NZTA land.
1982
Case studies / examples
Act
Overseas examples – France/Germany designate stopping areas with facilities (aires de service and
stellplatz), Norway’s right to roam and consequences. Australia’s rules
[Case studies wil be shown in pop-up boxes or clicked through to]
What do you think?
What is the right balance between al owing freedom campers to choose where they
Information can camp and
allowing local circumstances to be taken into account when determining where freedom camping
should happen?
What makes a place suitable or unsuitable for freedom camping? Is it location, facilities or
Official
something else?
Does it make a difference if land is rural or in
the a metro area?
Should we be encouraging campers to congregate together and increase the impact in these few
locations? Or should we encourage them to disperse out to prevent overcrowding and spread out
the impact?
under
Released
7
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
link to page 8
Not Government Policy
How should people be able to freedom camp?
As well as
where freedom camping takes place, we also need to think about whether we want to set
rules around
how people freedom camp. This could include:
• whether a freedom camping vehicle is self-contained or not
• how long freedom campers can stay in one place
• how many freedom campers are allowed in a place at any one time.
Note that this is a different question to how we expect freedom campers to behave, which is
covered off in more detail later in this discussion document [link].
What are the choices?
One view might be that freedom campers should be able to choose how they freedom camp –
1982
including what they are camping in (e.g. a self-contained vehicle, a non-self-contained vehicle or a
tent), how long they stay and no matter how many other people are staying there – assuming that
Act
they are staying in a place where freedom camping is allowed. This would give the widest range of
choices to freedom campers.
Another view is that we should have much more control over the way in which freedom camping
happens as wel as where it happens.
One part of this might be that we ban or significantly limit freedom camping for all vehicles that are
Information
not self-contained.
3 For instance, it could be a requirement that people camping without the means
to deal with your own waste (for example in non-self-contained vehicles or tents) have to be within
100m of a toilet or facility block.
[Signs showing example restrictions]
Official
This would probably help to reduce some of the environmental impacts associated with freedom
camping. However, it would significantly constrain who could freedom camp and where they could
the
freedom camp – for instance people sleeping in their car over night before heading off on an early
morning hunting or tramping trip might not be able to do so. In addition, there are people who
freedom camp responsibly with a vehicle that isn’t self-contained.
under
Setting time limits for freedom campers, or setting limits on the numbers of freedom campers that
can stay at one location is another way in which freedom camping can be managed. This would help
to reduce the impacts on those places that get especially busy, particularly during peak season.
Again, it does impact on the ability of freedom campers to choose where and how long to stay. The
effects of these limits might be particularly restrictive if a region is also significantly limiting the
number of places availab
Released le to freedom camp.
A related idea is that we could require all freedom campers to have a permit to freedom camp. The
rules of a permit might include restrictions on the types of vehicles, the duration of stay and other
controls, and the permit could be cancelled if a freedom camper didn’t obey the rules. This would
give regions much more control over who is allowed to stay in a particular place or what sort of
3 A certified self-contained vehicle has been inspected and certified that it meets minimum standards for a
toilet, storage of waste water, storage of rubbish and the supply of potable water for drinking and sanitary
needs. The standard for self-containment is managed by the public and private sector.
8
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
vehicle they could use. Again, however, this would take away much of the freedom associated with
freedom camping.
What we currently do
The Freedom Camping Act does not place any restrictions on how people should be able to freedom
camp. But it does enable Councils to create bylaws restricting or prohibiting for the purpose of
protecting an area (link to more info). Some types of restrictions placed include on length of time
stayed or on whether the vehicle is self-contained or not.
When making these rules Councils must be satisfied that they are the most appropriate and
proportionate way of protecting the area, protecting the health and safety of people who may visit
1982
the area and/or protecting access to the area.
Act
Case study / examples
Places that freedom camping can happen, and ways in which people can freedom camp. Maybe
carry through examples from trade-off 1.
[Case studies wil be shown in pop-up boxes or clicked through to]
Information
What do you think?
Does
how people freedom camp matter?
Should we restrict freedom camping based on whether the vehicle is self-contained or not?
Official
If we were to restrict
how freedom camping happens, should we make more places available to
freedom campers?
the
Should freedom camping be subject to time limits and/or limits on the numbers of people al owed at
any one spot?
What do you think about making freedom campers get permits?
under
Released
9
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
Who should be responsible for making decisions about freedom camping?
One of the big choices we need to make about freedom camping is who sets the rules – particularly
rules about where freedom camping should or shouldn’t be al owed.
What are the choices?
We could decide to make central government responsible for deciding when and where freedom
camping should take place. In this case, a set of rules around freedom camping might specify some
types of places that freedom camping isn’t allowed (for instance, freedom campers might not be
allowed to camp too near to waterways, or might have to make sure they are within a certain
distance from a public toilet). The same set of rules could then be applied across New Zealand.
The big benefit of this approach is that this is less confusing for freedom campers – we could provide
them with one set of rules when they enter the country, and these would apply no matter where
1982
visitors went. Local government would also not have to go to the expense of making and consulting
on local rules (bylaws), or on educating freedom campers about where they can and can’t go.
Act
However, regions and communities would have little say in where freedom camping is allowed, and
local circumstances would not be able to be taken into account. Communities would still also need
to meet the costs of freedom camping – such as providing and maintaining facilities.
On the other hand, we could al ow councils to decide where and how freedom camping takes place
in their region.
Information
This would enable each community to make a decision about where they think freedom camping
should take place in their region, or maybe even whether it should take place at all. Differences
between regions – for instance in varying local attitudes towards freedom camping between regions
or the need to protect places the community does not think are suitable for freedom camping -
Official
could be reflected in the rules for that region. This could also allow those regions that welcome
freedom camping to attract more freedom campers, while other regions might discourage it.
the
The downside of this approach is that it would be much more confusing from the point of view of
the visitor, who will not necessarily be aware of where different rules apply. This includes across
different districts or even in the same district with different agencies responsible for managing
under
neighbouring plots of land.
If regions had total control over freedom camping, some might ban freedom camping altogether, or
put severe restrictions on freedom camping, which would prevent New Zealanders as well as
overseas visitors from freedom camping in that region. Banning or severely restricting freedom
camping in a region might also put increased pressure on surrounding regions.
Released
A mix of these two approaches might see central government setting some national rules. For
instance, central government could decide freedom camping is allowed everywhere (or only allowed
in places identified by regions) with regions then identifying some places they don’t (or do) want it
to take place.
10
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
What currently happens?
The current rules are based on who manages the land. Councils and DOC can set rules on land they
administer, but not on LINZ or NZTA land.
[Jurisdiction complexity image]
At the moment, freedom camping is allowed anywhere, unless an area is identified as restricted or
prohibited by local councils or DOC. The reasons that councils can restrict or prohibit freedom
camping to take place include protecting the area, protecting the health and safety of people who
may visit the area or protecting access to the area.
DOC can also restrict or prohibit access to some areas, which allows them to take local situations
into account.
1982
Rules therefore change between districts and between agencies who manage land in the same
Act
district. To understand what rule applies where, visitors would need to know who is responsible for
the land so they can identify the rule that applies.
Information to help visitors identify where they can freedom camp is often provided through apps
and websites - these are often crowd sourced and the information is not always reliable (though the
creators do work with councils to make changes as necessary).
Information
Case studies / examples
Councils’ different approaches to freedom camping bylaws (in a neutral manner).
[Case studies wil be shown in pop-up boxes or clicked through to]
Official
What do you think?
What do you think is the right balance between having the same rules across the country or enabling
the
regions to make their own decisions about where and when freedom camping takes place?
If you think having the same set of rules across the country is important, how do we get al regions
to agree to this, given the difference in views across regions?
under
If you think enabling each region to make its own choice is important, how can we make things less
confusing for our visitors in terms of where and when they can freedom camp in a region?
On what basis should regions or DOC be able to restrict or ban freedom camping?
Do we need to protect th
Released e rights of visitors – particularly New Zealanders - to freedom camp in
regions that do not want freedom camping to take place?
Should the ownership of land in public places matter for setting the rules?
11
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
Who should be responsible for providing the facilities freedom campers
need?
Another choice we have to make is how far central and local government should go in providing
these facilities.
Many freedom campers rely on public facilities. The facilities needed by freedom campers will vary
depending on the type of vehicle. Self-contained vehicles may have no need of a toilet, but they will
require a dump station for the emptying of waste, somewhere to fill up with fresh water and to
empty rubbish. Other campers may need toilets, showers and facilities for washing dishes.
What are the choices?
There is an argument that local government and DOC should simply respond to the demand for
1982
public facilities from freedom campers.
Local government provides facilities for the public which are used by visitors to their district, as well
Act
as locals – including public toilets, public spaces and pull off areas for cars. Similarly DOC is generally
responsible for providing these facilities on public conservation lands. Other agencies, like NZTA, also
provide public facilities on the land that they manage.
[Key freedom camper facilities images]
However councils and government agencies have other pressures and priorities on their finances –
they can’t fund everything. Central government has recognised this constraint with funding for
Information
infrastructure needs through the Mid-Sized Facilities Fund and the establishment of a new Tourism
Infrastructure Fund.
Another issue is that government providing facilities to freedom campers might stop businesses
Official
from providing them or coming up with innovative ways to make money from freedom camping. For
instance, there are new products on the market that allow people to rent a space on their property
to people staying in a campervan, or that pro
the vide parking spaces and charge for the use of showers
and laundry facilities. There might be less incentive for these products to be developed if such
services are being provided for free by central or local government.
under
Local government providing facilities to freedom campers could even undercut businesses already
providing these services – in particular, campgrounds. People who might otherwise have stayed in a
private campground might decide to use free council-provided facilities instead.
Released
12
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
link to page 13
Not Government Policy
What we currently do:
At the moment, there are a couple of options for low or no-cost camping.
DOC and many councils provide free and low cost campsites (often less than $10/night). The private
sector is also providing some innovative options – club services to access free sites, hiring spaces on
private land, and providing free parking but charging for services used by campers (like showers and
wifi). New Zealand also has a network of paid-campsites, and these can range in price, depending on
facilities provided and location.
At the moment local councils bear the majority of the cost of providing the types of infrastructure
used by freedom campers (with some support provided from central government). This includes
facilities like car-parks, toilets, wastewater dump stations, rubbish and, in some cases, showers.
1982
This infrastructure is used by more than just freedom campers – for instance, toilets and rubbish
bins will be used by locals and visitors to an area, as well as freedom campers.
Act
Campgrounds are covered by the Camping-Ground Regulations 1985, meaning anyone who sets up a
campground has to comply with these rules.
4 These regulations set out the requirements for fresh
water supply, and for ablution and sanitary fixtures, and the hygiene requirements for campgrounds.
Case study / examples
Options for camping in New Zealand – free and paid. Innovation in freedom campin
Information g
[Case studies wil be shown in pop-up boxes or clicked through to]
What do you think?
How can we make sure adequate freedom camping facilities are provided while not discouraging
Official
private development/investment? the
What is the role of government (local and central) to provide options for freedom campers?
How can we make sure private operators like campgrounds aren’t impacted on by local councils
providing facilities to freedom campers?
under
How can we ensure appropriate use and maintenance of facilities that have not been provided with
freedom campers in mind?
Released
4 Camp grounds may seek an exemption from the local council for special circumstances. One such reason for
an exemption may be that the camp ground is only available to certified-self-contained vehicles and visitors
are expected to meet their own sanitation needs.
13
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
Who should pay for freedom camping?
Despite the name, freedom camping isn’t free. For freedom campers, many of the day-to-day living
needs are met through free public services including toilets and other facilities (installing and
servicing) and making sure people obey the rules. One choice we need to think about is who should
pay for these costs.
What are the choices?
One option is that councils and DOC (and ultimately ratepayers and taxpayers) pay for the costs of
freedom camping.
There are three ways that councils can raise revenue to fund the costs of building and maintaining
facilities –charging a fee for use, revenue from ratepayers and government grants.
1982
Funding from ratepayers doesn’t reflect the demand for services and this means that, in popular
destinations where there are few ratepayers, funding those public services is likely to come at the
Act
expense of other community services. Charging fees for services directly may also make freedom
campers less likely to use them.
In addition, while councils get funding from rates, they are limited in their ability to raise further
revenue in response to increased visitors and therefore increased demand on services. Councils
cannot raise revenue directly from people freedom camping in order to meet the full costs of
providing facilities.
Information
DOC is currently only able to collect fees from users of specific facilities, like huts and campgrounds.
Toilet and waste facilities on public conservation land used by free campers are paid for by
taxpayers.
Official
Another option is that these costs are met more by freedom campers through a fee or levy charged
when someone uses freedom camping facilities, or when they hire a vehicle to freedom camp. This
the
could be seen as more fair because those using the services are the ones paying for them.
One big issue with charging for facilities is that locals will have paid for these facilities through rates
and taxes - so a charge for using facilities might not be as fair as it first sounds. And, as noted above,
under
charging for facilities does not tend to cover the full costs of providing them.
Levying a tax on freedom camping vehicles - hired campervans for example - would also be
problematic. It would not cover all freedom campers as those who use tents or those who purchase
or own their own vehicle would not be captured. A tax on specific types of vehicle would either miss
those who sleep in vans (or other vehicles not specifically designed for sleeping in), or capture those
Released
who use those vehicles for purposes other than sleeping in.
A further question would be how to fairly distribute the revenue received from such fees/levies or
taxes on campers. Freedom campers move around the country, and working out which regions bear
which costs (and therefore what proportion of the revenue they should receive) would be hard if not
impossible.
14
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
What we currently do
Councils provide infrastructure used by freedom campers and others. Central government provides
some funding – through the Tourism Infrastructure Fund, and through NZTA, LINZ and DOC on land
owned or managed by these agencies.
As an alternative to these facilities, paid campsites (with a range of costs and facilities) are also
provided for a fee, by DOC and also commercial operators and community trusts.
Case studies / examples
MBIE’s Mid-sized Facilities Fund and Tourism infrastructure fund broadly – examples of what has
been built
1982
[Case studies wil be shown in pop-up boxes or clicked through to]
Act
What do you think?
Who do you think should pay for the costs of freedom camping and how?
Information
Official
the
under
Released
15
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
How do we deal with problems caused by freedom camping?
No matter what approach we take to freedom camping, we will need to find a way to deal with any
problems that is effective in both preventing and addressing these problems, while also being value
for money for taxpayers and ratepayers.
What are the choices?
One option could be to design a wide-reaching, comprehensive system with constant monitoring at
busy sites, but such a system would be very expensive. When determining whether these costs are
worth it we need to look at other priorities for the agency responsible for enforcing the rules, and
also at how much revenue would be raised compared to the cost.
On the other hand, there is no point in having a system that is cheap to enforce but does not act as a
deterrent to breaking the rules.
1982
We also need to look at how the enforcement regime fits in with New Zealand’s overall justice
Act
system, and whether any punishment is proportional to the harm caused by the activity.
One possible approach is to require international visitors to pay any outstanding infringement fees
at the border before leaving New Zealand. This would require a change to how infringements are
recorded, and then shared with the Ministry of Justice and the border sector agencies. It would also
be out of step with other parts of the justice system – currently only border security infringements
are col ected from international visitors prior to departure and large court fines.
Information
Another approach is that fines should be paid at the point they are issued. New Zealand does not
currently have a system to allow for this type of fine to be issued – the right to dispute a fine before
paying is an important part of the Summary Proceedings Act. It would be possible to implement such
a system, but this would likely require changes that would have implications far wider than freedom
Official
camping.
the
One way to deal with problems is to prevent them in the first place. We can do this by setting clear
expectations on what the rules for freedom camping are, and to communicate these rules clearly
and consistently.
under
Released
16
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Not Government Policy
What we currently do
The current infringement system is based on $200 infringements to people who do not comply with
the bylaws, for example those who stay within a prohibited area. In contrast parking infringements
are between $40 and $150 for parking in a prohibited area. Freedom camping infringements can be
given out by Council officers or DOC, and are payable within 28 days of receipt.
DOC and Councils currently meet cost of enforcement, and the amount of money a council chooses
to spend on monitoring is a decision made by each council and not consistent across districts. Most
councils recover between 40% and 60% of freedom camping infringements.
Some councils and DOC focus on responsible camping educating campers as part of their freedom
camping management strategy, and the Responsible Camping Forum led a responsible camping
1982
etiquette social media campaign over the most recent summer peak season. This was effective,
reaching 38,350 people. NZMCA also has a code of conduct that encourages responsible camping.
Act
Case studies / examples
Chal enges with the current enforcement system
[Case studies wil be shown in pop-up boxes or clicked through to]
Information
What do you think?
What is the right way to deal with problems caused by people not following the rules for freedom
camping?
How do we balance the cost and the effectiveness of an enforcement system?
Official
Should we put more resources into educating campers or into taking enforcement action?
the
Central and local government and the tourism industry all have a role to play in relation to education
of freedom campers. What should be the role of each group?
under
Released
17
Draft freedom camping discussion document – Consultation 14/06/2017
Document Outline