Chapter 5: Exclusions from regulatory requirements
On this page
Regulatory exemptions
Sometimes requiring a person to comply with the law might be impractical or result in hardship to that person. In such cases, it may be necessary to empower a government body or office holders to exclude or exempt a particular person or class of people, transactions, or things from all or part of an Act or regulations[20].
Current freedom camping exclusions
Because there is no regulatory system for self-contained vehicles, there are no current freedom camping exclusions and exemptions for self-contained vehicles.
What the Bill would change
The Self-Contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill would provide for regulations to exclude a specific set of motor vehicles from some or all of the regulatory requirements.
We are consulting you on options for exclusions from regulatory requirements
In this section, we are consulting on the following options for exclusions from regulatory requirements:
- Option 1: no exclusions from new regulatory requirements.
- Option 2: excluding smaller freedom camping vehicles from the requirement to have a fixed toilet.
- Option 3: excluding vintage vehicles[21] from the requirement to be certified as self-contained.
Option 1: no exclusions from new regulatory requirements
Under this option, there would be no exclusions set out in regulations. This would mean that vehicle owners would need to have their vehicles certified self-contained under the new regulatory requirements (including having a fixed toilet) if they wish to camp in designated freedom camping areas managed by local authorities, the Department of Conservation, or Land Information New Zealand.
Option 2: excluding smaller freedom camping vehicles from the requirement to have a fixed toilet
Under Option 2, smaller freedom camping vehicles, such as “tear-drop”, “retro”, and other smaller or older freedom camping vehicles[22] would be excluded from the fixed toilet requirement. These vehicles are practically unable to have a fixed toilet inserted into them, given the amount of space required to put in a cassette toilet. Such vehicles could continue to have a portable toilet. Other than this requirement, these vehicles would still need to meet other self-containment regulatory requirements and pay the self-containment monitoring levy.
The exemption would be written into regulations. Given the potentially wide range of vehicles that could be captured under this exclusion, MBIE would need to do further policy work to determine:
- what the threshold for meeting the exclusion would be. We note that there would be challenges in trying to define what vehicles are “retro”, “smaller” or “older”
- the sort of documentation that would be issued to owners of vehicles that qualified for an exemption
- the impact on PGDB/certification authority resourcing of having an unknown number of smaller vehicles entering the self-contained vehicle regulatory system.
Option 3: excluding vintage vehicles from the requirement to be certified as self-contained
Under Option 3, so-called vintage vehicles would be excluded from the requirement to be self-contained. These vehicles may be vintage caravans built in the 1960s or earlier or older campervans and vans built before the 1980s. Not all models included fixed toilets, kitchens could be very small, and bathrooms could be non-existent or rudimentary. Although, in many cases vehicle owners have renovated such vehicles to make them compliant with the voluntary Standard, this can be costly to do, and we have heard concerns that doing this can compromise a vehicle’s vintage status. Though as noted above there are groups that consider “vintage” to also include more recent models of campervans and vehicles; i.e. those that were manufactured in the 1980s up until the mid-1990s.
For the purposes of Option 3, a “vintage vehicle” would be any caravan or campervan that is at least 40 years old. Regulations would state that a vehicle would be classed as vintage if it is at least 40 years old on the date it is registered, reregistered, or licensed under the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2011, and was manufactured on or after 1 January 1919. This would align with the definition of “vintage motor vehicle” in those Regulations. We think this strikes a balance between different ideas of what is classed as “vintage” and aligns with a comparable regulatory regime.
MBIE would need to undertake additional policy work to determine:
- whether these vehicles would still need to be tested by a vehicle inspector and certified by a certification authority
- the sort of documentation that would be issued to vehicle owners
- whether owners would be required to pay the monitoring levy
- the impact on PGDB/certification authority resourcing of having an unknown number of vintage vehicles entering the self-contained vehicle regulatory system.
Assessment of options for regulatory exclusions
We are assessing the options against the status quo, which in this case is that there are no exclusions under the voluntary Standard.
| Option | Costs – the costs on participants in the regulatory system | Practicality - how easy each option is to implement | Effectiveness – the potential to drive freedom camping reform and regulatory outcomes | Overall score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Option 1: no exclusions from new regulatory requirements | There are some vehicles that are unable to be certified under the self-containment regulatory requirements. -1 |
Very straightforward to administer a system of no exclusions. 0 |
Promotes the integrity of the regulatory system, whereby there is one standard for all vehicles to meet. 2 |
1 |
| Option 2: excluding smaller freedom camping vehicles from the requirement to have a fixed toilet | These vehicles would be able to be treated as if they had a fixed toilet, for the purposes of staying in designated freedom camping areas. 0 |
Adds a lot of complexity to the regulatory system in terms of designing and implementing an appropriate system. Also adds on-the-ground difficulties for enforcement officers in terms of identifying an excluded vehicle. -2 |
Undermines integrity regulatory regime, as it creates two tiers of vehicles. More likely to see inappropriate disposal of waste as research indicates portable toilets are less likely to be used. -2 |
-4 |
| Option 3: excluding vintage vehicles from the requirement to be certified as self-contained | These vehicles would be able to be treated as being self-contained, for the purposes of staying in designated freedom camping areas. 0 |
Adds a lot of complexity to the regulatory system in terms of designing and implementing an appropriate system. Also adds on-the-ground difficulties for enforcement officers in terms of identifying an excluded vehicle. -2 |
Undermines integrity regulatory regime, as it creates two tiers of vehicles. Encourages owners not to upgrade their vehicles to meet new requirements, and wait until their vehicle meets the vintage threshold. Vehicle owners who have already upgraded their vintage camping vehicles to be self-contained are likely to be unhappy. More likely to see inappropriate disposal of waste as portable toilets are less likely to be used. -2 |
-4 |
Our preferred option
At this stage, our preferred approach is Option 1 – that there be no exclusions from the new regulatory requirements. We do not consider there is a strong case to be made for any exclusions. We considered whether the regulations should specify exclusions, and whether a case could be made for certain types of vehicles to be excluded from the requirement that freedom camping can only occur on local authority land if the vehicle is self-contained, or from the requirement for a fixed toilet in order to be certified.
Ultimately, we think that excluding specific vehicles in regulations would result in unnecessary complexity, make enforcement difficult and undermine the integrity of the regulatory system.
We further note that under the Bill there will be a two-year transition period to the new regime (this transition period is set out in further detail in Chapter Seven). This will provide time for owners of smaller vehicles or vintage vehicles to consider whether or not to upgrade their vehicles to meet the new regulatory requirements.
Owners who decide not to upgrade their vehicles have the option of staying in one of the hundreds of conservation camping grounds that allow non-self-contained vehicles, or commercial camping grounds around New Zealand. They will also be able to stay at places designated by local authorities as suitable for non-self-contained vehicles.
Questions
Question 19. To what extent do you agree with Option 1: no exclusions from new regulatory requirements?
Please explain your reasons.
Question 20. To what extent do you agree with Option 2: excluding smaller freedom camping vehicles from the requirement to have a fixed toilet?
Please explain your reasons.
Question 21. To what extent do you agree with Option 3: excluding vintage vehicles from the requirement to be certified as self-contained?
Please explain your reasons.
Question 22. Are there other types of vehicles that should be excluded?
Please explain your reasons (for example, what regulatory requirements do you suggest the vehicles be excluded from? Why should these vehicles be excluded from the identified regulatory requirements?).
Footnotes
[20] Exemptions and exclusions can also be known as waivers, dispensations, concessions or other terminology.
[21] There is no agreed definition of what a vintage camping vehicle is. Some argue that “vintage” refers to any caravan built before 1970
Retro revival; why we love vintage caravans(external link) — Ginger Brown
Others consider a vintage camper to be one that is at least 25 years old(external link)
How old does a camper have to be to be vintage?(external link) — Justdownsize
[22] The models of vehicles we think could be captured by this exclusion include, for example, older Toyota Hi-Ace vans, Volkswagen Combis, Ford Bedfords through to, smaller newer camping vehicles like the Volkswagen California 6.1 Ocean and the Mercedes Marco Polo.