Tourism industry wants a say on how a new visitor levy will be spent

Friday, 15 June 2018

The proposed levy would likely be implemented in the second half of 2019 following a legislative process.

The tourism industry says it's important money gathered through a new international visitor levy is wisely spent and it is still unclear how it will be allocated.

Tourism Industry Aotearoa chief executive Chris Roberts is confident the $25 to $35 per head levy will not deter international visitors from coming here, even though those paying online via a new electronic travel authority (ETA) will face an additional $9 charge.

He said the decision to exempt short haul markets such as Australia and the Pacific Islands from the levy was undoubtedly tied to the closer economic relations agreement with Australia, but it was an important concession which the industry had pushed hard for.

'It was that trans-Tasman market where it could have an impact on because it's price sensitive, especially the holiday market, and with even a small increase Australians could decide to go to Bali or Fiji instead of New Zealand.'

* [Tourism levy news delights Mackenzie District mayor

* Dear tourists: It's time to pitch in

*](http://v) NZ Great Walks tourist tax 'leaves a bad taste'

* Foreigners to pay double on four of New Zealand's great walks**

A new visitor levy would be split between conservation and tourism infrastructure, but many questions remain about how the proposed system will work in practice.

Roberts said it was not clear how the money collected – an estimated $57m to $80m a year – would be split between conservation and tourism, what sort of projects should be funded, how the decisions should be made, and by whom.

Those details are yet to be hammered out in the consultation process launched on Friday but the range of options outlined in the Government announcement ranged from basics like building toilets to developing visitor attractions.

'It needs to be wisely spent …on behalf of the visitors who are paying, the tourism industry needs to have a say on where the money goes,' Roberts said

And it will also be important to explain the reason for the levy to visitors.

'Our international visitors will be more accepting of being charged to come to New Zealand if they can clearly see it is going to support infrastructure and services that enhance their visit,' said Roberts.

The Tourism Export Council, which represents inbound tour operators and other tourism businesses, is heartened by the prospect of more money to improve infrastructure.

Chief executive Judy Chen said members were supportive of the levy only if it was invested back into the industry, and she said collecting the money via the ETA was a good option.

'One seamless process of collection at point of entry is also a far better option than numerous and varying targeted rates put in place across the country by local councils, as we have started to see emerge.'

Queenstown Lakes District mayor Jim Boult said he was disappointed with the Government's proposal because a bed tax was a more 'logical' way of funding infrastructure, and he would continue to lobby for it.

'If 50 per cent of it goes to areas impacted by large number of tourists, then the minuscule amount would end up coming to us,' Boult said.

Tourism Export Council chief executive Judy Chen says a survey of members showed tentative support for a new visitor levy, provided it was invested in tourism and conservation.

'For us to continue to present Queenstown as a beautiful place, as it is, we need more money and a bed tax is the most painless way to do it.'

Federated Mountain Clubs, which represents 20,000 outdoor recreationalists, urged the Government to introduce a tourism taskforce to guide the way the money is being spent.

President Peter Wilson said the taskforce should include recreationalists.

'At the moment, we have no strategic plan for the tourism industry, which puts its social acceptance at risk, and the new taskforce could easily develop such a plan,' he said.

'We need a mechanism for communities to have a genuine say in how tourism is managed and how this money gets spent, and we can't risk leaving it to government departments alone.'

He feared that the tourism industry was where the dairy industry was 20 years ago, pushing volume over value. 'We can't afford to repeat the failures of that industry with tourism'.