The summary says "he stuff was stolen". But the article itself is much less clear:
He added that he had opted to stay in a tent as it was easier and cheaper than commuting from his home in Perth, although his camping equipment had disappeared by Friday afternoon.
Did he say it had vanished? Or did the article writer find it had vanished on Friday? Not at all clear.
Also no aspect of the interview really asking the guy if he "had to" camp as the Willie bloke claimed, they just want you to assume that is the case. The actual guy who was camping just said it was cheaper and easier - if you are just going to be there a few week or two for seasonal work why wouldn't you prefer this to any kind of commute? Back when I used to work insane hours programming I slept under my desk for a week. It wasn't because I had to, it was just way easier at the time.
Also low 30's (assuming F) is not "battery cold", it's just mildly chilly and most sleeping bags would handle that temperature easily. I've camped before in sub-zero (again F) temperatures before and that's not at all uncomfortable with the right equipment.
Basically the whole thing seems written with a pre-determined viewpoint in mind and hardly any real research or interviewing done.