Jones took most campaign cash
But Bezzant, Lorck and Luxon not far behind in donations
Former NZ First MP Shane Jones took in the most in donations during the last election campaign, declaring $87,099 — and new National MP Christopher Luxon was not far behind him.
The Electoral Commission’s release of candidate returns from the election shows Jones’ largest donor was Paul Norris, who donated
$25,000.
Jones also declared $4499 from fishing magnate Peter Talley — an old friend of his — and $4000 from former Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove. There was a $2000 sum from Business NZ, and $2000 from lawyer Brian Henry.
Luxon got a total of $73,000 in donations for his Botany campaign but no individual donors are named: the amounts were listed as coming from the Botany electorate branch. Candidates have to disclose individual donors who give more than $1500 in either cash, services or goods.
Luxon was the fourth-highest overall; unsuccessful National candidate Jake Bezzant came in second with $77,228.
Third was Labour MP Anna Lorck, who reaped $77,000 — more than $20,000 more than any other Labour candidate. Almost all of that was declared as from her own electorate.
Public Party leader Billy Te Kahika could find himself in a spot of trouble with the Electoral Commission for over-spending: candidates can only spend up to $28,200 on their electorate campaigns, and Te Kahika tipped over $30,000 on his Te Tai Tokerau campaign.
All up, 21 candidates declared more than $40,000 in donations — and many of those with the highest tallies discovered money did not help them get the seat, including Bezzant and Jones. Labour’s Willow Jean Prime took the Northland seat, and declared only $3000 in donations and $3000 in expenses. Jones spent $12,017 to try to win the seat, while National’s candidate Matt King spent the most: $23,000 and listed about $13,000 in donations.
A Glen Eden homeowner has filed a fresh complaint to Auckland Council, claiming his neighbour’s chickens have gone feral and continue to cause a nightmare even though the property has been sold.
Chao Su, 82, first filed a complaint in February last year about his neighbour having more than 100 chickens — with some roosters “taller than dogs” — that were causing a nuisance on his property.
Auckland Council’s manager compliance response and investigations Kerri Fergusson said council staff had “decreased the number of fowl at the site dramatically” to about four or five.
However, Su said many others had gone feral and appeared only in the evening and early hours, unseen by council officers. In his latest complaint this week, Su said the chickens blocked cars on the main road and soiled other properties.
“It attracts flies which invade the neighbour’s courtyard, bedroom, and kitchen,” he said. “I wanted to sell my house a few years ago to escape, but . . . many buyers came and were put off.”
Su said his neighbour hadn’t taken his chickens away: “The chickens . . . continue to be a nuisance and health hazard to the neighbours.”
Su wants $1 million compensation from the ex-neighbour because the chickens made it impossible for him to sell his own house.
Under bylaws, urban properties smaller than 2000sq m can have just six chickens while larger ones can have 12. Su’s ex-neighbour’s property is under 2000sq m.
Fergusson said: “We visited the property again on Monday afternoon and did not find any fowl at the site, although because they are wild, the small number we have estimated may still be in the area.”
Freedom camping has a long tradition in New Zealand. Using your own vehicle as accommodation and parking in public spaces is seen as something of a birthright.
But when international tourists cottoned on to this cheap and cheerful way to see the country, things began to change. Foreign freedom camper numbers grew from 10,000 in the early 2000s to an incredible 123,000 by 2018.
This massive growth inevitably led to resentment in local communities. Crowding at car parks and beach fronts, road congestion, littering and campers using the natural environment as toilets became a major concern.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the latest tourism report this month from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment devotes one of its four main recommendations to better regulation of freedom camping in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The report, entitled Not 100% — but four steps closer to sustainable tourism, argues for using the disruption caused by Covid to reset the tourism industry as sustainable and internationally competitive in a climate-conscious world. As such, the old freedom camping model was arguably overdue for reform.
Freedom ‘freeloaders’
This is not the first time it has been a regulatory target. Perception of freedom campers as freeloaders came to a head when New Zealand hosted the Rugby World Cup in 2011.
The Freedom Camping Act 2011 (FCA) set out clearer conditions and definitions. It referred to camping in a tent or vehicle in a public space 200m off a road, coastline or Great Walk hiking track.
Local governments are empowered to pass bylaws that regulate freedom camping more tightly. In 2019, the central government announced investments of $8 million in public amenities and education as well as technology, such as the Ambassador app (for Android and Apple) to help monitor freedom campers.
Based on the controversy around freedom camping, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment made the following recommendations:
● Vehicles to have a permanently plumbed toilet in order to be certified as selfcontained, and they should also have separate holding tanks for grey and black water.
● The Government reintroduce national oversight of the certification process . . . and a national register of selfcontained vehicles.
● The Government ensures freedom camping penalties represent a serious deterrent to undesirable camping behaviour.
Tourism rethink
Since the early stages of the pandemic, many have been asking to “reset the tourism button” and redevelop tourism guided by sustainability principles. We believe the absence of international tourists offers the perfect opportunity.
Our research with participants from central and regional governments, regional tourism bodies, tourism firms, community groups and individual citizens revealed mixed feelings about freedom camping, and how it should be regarded and managed.
Many were sceptical about putting the blame on international tourists for disrespectful behaviour, and argued many Kiwis were stuck in the past.
As one said: “My theory is that most New Zealanders have had the pleasure, thanks to some friendly farmers, in the past [of] being able to camp wherever they like and they do believe that is a God-given right. Even though no longer they have a little car and a little tent, but they all have these larger motorhomes.”
Regarding rubbish left in carparks, a story from the South Island shows the misconceptions about (international) freedom campers: “Some locals got together and set up a camera and they watched it back and they noticed that pretty much every person that left some rubbish wasn’t the freedom campers, it was local teenagers . . . the freedom campers, by and large, picked up their rubbish and took it with them.”
In terms of congestion, some participants noted that freedom campers clog up small roads in communities, and should be kept out of town centres (such as in Akaroa), and from beach fronts (such as in Napier).
A carpark at the town entrance would be a solution to alleviate such problems.
Reform needed
We agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the self-contained certification of vehicles needs to be strengthened. Smaller vans with portable camping toilets would not qualify as selfcontained.
Vehicles should have permanently-fixed toilets and holding tanks for wastewater. Portable camping toilets are inconvenient and are far less likely to be used. Larger motorhomes are less likely to release wastewater and sewage into the environment.
Most of our participants, while often critical, did not see freedom camping as the problem it was often portrayed.
In particular, they noted that international freedom campers bear the brunt of the blame when Kiwis are equally problematic, leaving rubbish or parking in unsuitable spaces, due to a sense of entitlement.
So the commissioner’s recommendations have the most potential to lead to a sustainable future for freedom camping by both international and domestic tourists.
Michael Lueck, Professor of Tourism, Auckland University of Technology. Sabrina Seeler, Senior research fellow, Nord University.
Go to nzherald.co.nz to watch the video