[Harms and Risks of Camping in Public Places]
[Discussion Document]
Problems with the freedom camping
regime
1. The freedom camping regime is designed to prevent and mitigate the primary
harms occurring in unsuitable locations and it can be used to reduce the risk of
secondary harms. The regulatory mechanisms in the legislation act upon the
supply of available camping areas by:
Identifying unsuitable locations and preventing camping, e.g. suburban areas
Restricting the type of camping activity to minimise the risk of harms, e.g.
maximum number of consecutive nights, self-contained vehicles only.
Because the regime acts on supply of available camping areas, the regime itself
favours reducing supply to mitigate secondary harms. However reducing supply
increases the risk of primary harms because it increases density, focusing the
number of campers into a reduced number of locations.
The freedom camping regime also includes a New Zealand Standard for self-
containment of motor caravans and caravans: NZS 5465:2001. The Standard sets
out a basic standard for containment of waste water and solid waste to help
provide a solution to the problems associated with the use of motor caravans
and caravans in areas where there are no sewage or waste disposal facilities.
Overcrowding
2. Overcrowding observed during peak season may lead to overestimating the
presence of campers. An influence on overcrowding is the highly seasonal nature
of visitors to New Zealand. Although recent years have been consecutive record
breakers for the country, New Zealand is still only ranked 60th internationally for
Comment [AW2]: This seems low.
total visitors per capita. However, a large portion of annual visitors are
What’s the reference for this fact?
concentrated into a 3 or 4 month peak summer season. During peak periods,
accommodation can see near 100% occupancy rates, while in the off season rates
can drop back into the teens. Popular camping and hiking areas experience similar
peaks. For example, the Tongariro Crossing receives 100,000 visitors annually,
though in a single peak day 3,000 visitors can be on the trail16. It is not surprising
that the focus on irresponsible freedom campers tend to be on overseas visitors
since they are more likely to travel in the peak season than domestic travellers,
such as ‘grey nomads’.
Data from the NZMCA provided to the Far North Council taken from GPS
monitoring, confirms that most visitors are travelling up and down a relatively
small number of main State Highways. The number of non-commercial campers
may not have increased so much as their concentration, accentuating the
observed overcrowding. The Freedom Camping Bill Regulatory Impact
Assessment (2011) states:
16 Wright, 2016
[27 September 2016] – [Version3]
Page 14 of 25
Not Government or Local Authority Policy
[Harms and Risks of Camping in Public Places]
[Discussion Document]
There are three significant sources of demand, two of which are increasing:
1.
International tourists – year on year tourist numbers are increasing. This
increase is reflected in the demand for freedom camping areas. This demand
is also lumpy and seasonal. Events can give rise to intense periods of high
demand.
2.
Domestic tourists – there is no evidence to suggest these volumes are
changing.
3.
Internal displacement (homelessness) – this appears to be a fast growing
group which is adding unplanned demand and competing for public camping
spaces.
Increasing demand when coupled with stagnant or reducing supply exacerbates
the problem of concentration. Where demand outstrips supply this creates a
problem of ‘offending out of necessity’.
4.
Problem 2 – offending out of necessity. Where supply is constrained to a
significant extent, campers may be faced with no legitimate viable alternatives.
Constrained supply may force campers to choose between three undesirable
options: break the law, incur commercial campsite costs, or suffer significant
inconvenience, e.g. go to a site further away from their desired location.
While breaking the law carries a risk of a cost, i.e. infringement fee, the
alternatives impose certain costs upon the camper. Where demand for camping
areas exceeds supply, the incentives may favour breaching the regime.
International campers that have hired vehicles for the purpose of camping may
not have allocated budget to use alternatives to free sites.
If rental companies underplay the limited camping areas available in popular
locations, especially for non-self-contained vehicles, campers may be
unprepared. As night approaches, they do not have the local information,
money, or understanding of enforcement risk, to choose an alternative that
complies with the local bylaw.
The problem of regulating offending out of necessity is that it makes offenders
out of people with low culpability for their breach. There are issues of natural
justice where it is almost impossible to comply. They may have had limited
options or had insufficient information to understand and appreciate their
options. Their actions may not have given rise to any real harm or costs to the
community, except for the breach of the regulations itself.
5.
Problem 3 – bylaws not suitable for homelessness and permanent ‘freedom
camping’ living.
Comment [AW3]: This problem is
mentioned at the top of this page, but is
There appears to be an increasing group of local people who are living
not elaborated further. If the focus of the
review moves from ‘freedom camping’ to
temporarily and permanently in motor vehicles [also see problem 1(3) above].
more general ‘camping in public places’ as
This activity can cause primary and secondary harms, especially when vehicles
per page 4, this aspect of public camping
seems like an important one to address.
are grouped together. People living in these vehicles are also at increased risk of
harm from harassment and theft [see Christchurch example on page 15].
[27 September 2016] – [Version3]
Page 16 of 25
Not Government or Local Authority Policy
[Harms and Risks of Camping in Public Places]
[Discussion Document]
Existing bylaws and public services do not manage this group well, with few
places to park, limits on nights spent at any one place, limited litter bin capacity,
and few public toilets open at night. ‘Homeless’ campers may be caught by
enforcement action under the Freedom Camping Act, which just moves them to
a different location and adds to their existing financial burdens. This does not
address the campers’ needs or the effects on public areas generally.
Weak relationship between camping in a public place
and secondary harms
5.6. The freedom camping regime treats all campers equally and is not capable of
targeting problem campers. As such it is a blunt regulatory instrument with
respect to the secondary harms which are targeted through specific offences under
other regulations.
In general secondary harms are all illegal and specific disincentives are provided
through separate regimes. The practicality of enforcing these regimes limits
their effective use. The freedom camping regime is proactive and precautionary
rather than the other regimes which respond to actual harms and would require
costly surveillance to give effect to.
Problem 3 – mismatched perception. While international tourists may engage in
some irresponsible and anti-social behaviour, the media and local authorities
appear to be over reporting the frequency and scale of incidents. More typically
concerns may be more closely related to the problem of concentration.
There is a public perception that there is a link between campers using a public
space and harm, as opposed to other users causing harm though their use of a
public space. In particular, there are sites that are being frequented by domestic
campers and people who are homeless.
Regulatory ambiguity and accidental non-compliance
6.7. Regulatory regimes need to be clear to regulated parties. Camping regulation in
New Zealand is complex. The complexity comes from two main variables: local
variation in rules and people not knowing how to comply with the rules.
Problem 4 – Local variation in rules
There is a patchwork of regulatory regimes in place across New Zealand. There
are multiple regulatory regimes capable of regulating camping in public places.
Each is available under different circumstances and each allows for different
enforcement practices. The Freedom Camping Act 2011 and Reserves Act 1977
provide specific bylaw making powers to control camping. The Land Transport
Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 2002 provide general bylaw making
powers that could be used to control camping.
[27 September 2016] – [Version3]
Page 17 of 25
Not Government or Local Authority Policy
[Harms and Risks of Camping in Public Places]
[Discussion Document]
Solution four - local variation in rules. Careful and comprehensive assessments
should take place prior to a decision to adopt bylaws, including under section
155 of the Local Government Act 2002. What is the evidence of harms and
benefits? What is the most appropriate regulatory mechanism to manage those
harms? It is illogical to attempt to have a nationally consistent bylaw regime
because the purpose of a bylaw is to adapt to fit local circumstances. A regional
approach makes more sense than the current regime which changes within and
across administrative boundaries. Adjacent areas with similar circumstances
could adopt similar rules. This is possible under the current legislative
framework, but requires policy leadership. However it must be acknowledged
that even within regions there will be differences in the issues faced and the
preferred approach for tackling the issues.
Solution five - not knowing how to comply. The legislative framework is
ambiguous and complex. To simplify and rationalise this framework may be
facilitated through analysis of the bylaw regimes more generally, of the interface
of bylaws with primary legislation and of how bylaw enforcement occurs. The
first step could be a consistent interpretation of the Road Code so that
infringements fines are not issued unfairly.
The current approaches to the regulation of camping in public places appear to
have been insufficiently evidence-based. It may be that regulation and
punishment are being put ahead of a strategic approach to managing demand,
increasing supply and reducing harm. The alternative is likely to be fewer visitors
and less expenditure in the New Zealand economy. A proactive communications
and engagement strategy with the tourism sector and councils will ensure there
is more consistent messaging especially for international tourists with regards to
freedom camping in New Zealand. Whilst there may be regional variance the key
messages and signposting to sites for further local information should assist with
compliance.
Solution six – effective implementation of NZS 5465:2001. Effective
Comment [AW4]: This is an option
implementation of the Self Containment of Motor Caravans and Caravans
suggested by our Senior Analyst on waste
from freedom camping, that may benefit
Standard (NZS 5465:2001) can have a significant role in addressing problems in
from further discussion and analysis. It ties
the freedom camping regime.
in with a number of the other solutions,
such as more information on how to
comply, standardising variations in rules,
Ensuring that all private and rental vehicles used for freedom camping in New
and managing demand. It does not address
people sleeping rough in cars.
Zealand comply with the Standard would be a broad-brush mechanism to reduce
From an economic perspective, there
impacts of freedom camping. Compliance with the Standard is currently
would be fewer tourists in non-self-
contained vans touring NZ because some
confirmed by a self-containment certificate and mandatory display of the
will be less willing to pay to stay in camping
warrant on vehicles.
grounds and so decide not to travel NZ this
way. However these tourists are likely to
spend less money in NZ anyway than those
Including a clause on Standard NZ 5465:2001 in a common national bylaw,
who hire or tour in self-contained vehicles.
ensuring that vehicles used for freedom camping comply with the Standard,
would clarify the compliance requirement and allow for more effective
enforcement and consistent messages.
[27 September 2016] – [Version3]
Page 22 of 25
Not Government or Local Authority Policy
[Harms and Risks of Camping in Public Places]
[Discussion Document]
The Standard will be reviewed soon. Revisions to the Standard will provide clarity
for council enforcement officers where rental car agencies currently provide
vehicles that do not comply with the Standard (i.e. have no containment or
limited containment of waste).
[27 September 2016] – [Version3]
Page 23 of 25
Not Government or Local Authority Policy
Document Outline
