Taonga tax

77 comments on “Taonga tax ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Craig H 1

   13 August 2016 at 9:55 am

   I think the government should use some of the GST collected from tourists to pay for these things.
   • Graeme 1.1

     13 August 2016 at 11:08 am

     The best way to go with this. James Shaw and Greens have gone down in my book with this piece of shallow thinking. It’s reactive and shows they have very little understanding of how tourism taxation works.

     At present tourist’s can’t claim GST back at the border, as they can in some other countries. If we put a dedicated levy on at entry there will be strident calls to refund GST on departure, and that discussion goes down hill fast from a tax revenue perspective.

     This discussion needs to be turned around fast, to pinning our Minister of Tourism down on why virtually none of the GST collected in tourism gets back into facilities for tourism. Like why aren’t there any toilets.

     He was down here yesterday making excuses and promising to do things, but mainly to facilitate property speculation.

     https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/queenstown/key-promises-do-more-and-spend-more-resort
     • weka 1.1.1

       13 August 2016 at 11:23 am

       Strident calls from who?

       We do have toilets in NZ. Do you mean toilets in the wilderness or roadsides?
       • Graeme 1.1.1.1

         13 August 2016 at 12:49 pm

         Strident calls from visitors. Australia refunds, we don’t, and it’s an interesting conversation explaining why we don’t. That we don’t have other charges defuses the conversation, and usually turns it right around. Start having other charges and the GST acceptance will get tenuous.

         I mean toilets on the sides of roads, at main stopping points, and road infrastructure around those stopping points. Most of them stink, literally.
       • Ralf Crown 1.1.1.2

         14 August 2016 at 10:41 am

         Longdrops. Real modern and latest technology in New Zealand.
     • Ad 1.1.2

       13 August 2016 at 11:51 am

       GST definitely the right way to go.
       Use the existing tax instruments and hypothecate, rather than making the border and airport experience any more stressful than it already is..

       I came back from Europe after five weeks, and what I got refunded and loaded onto the Visa really took the sting out of the total Visa bill at the end.

       Since New Zealand is already one of the hardest places to get to in the world by time and distance, why not look grateful, rather than punitive?
       • weka 1.1.2.1

         13 August 2016 at 12:25 pm

         Because we need to be targeting high end/low number tourism, instead of mass tourism. We need to do that because of climate change, and because there is only so much tourism infrastructure these islands can handle before we start damaging the place (many of us feel we’ve already passed that point). If taxation puts tourists off, that’s a good thing.
         • RedLogix 1.1.2.1.1

           13 August 2016 at 12:50 pm

           Agreed. There is a real spread of ‘tourists’ of all types. Now while I’ve nothing against low cost travel that’s undertaken in a respectful manner, the sad reality is that there are too many here taking more than they are giving.

           The whole global backpacking scene has some fairly unattractive aspects. I don’t particularly see the need to accommodate it more than we already do.

           If someone really wants to come here to tramp or climb in our backcountry … and they value that experience as much as the local community does … then even a $100 border tax would be nothing.
           • Graeme 1.1.2.1.1.1

             13 August 2016 at 12:59 pm

             It’s not that they are taking more than they are giving, GST even on your freeloading backpacker’s spend is still considerable, it’s that our government is not putting that GST back into where it’s being collected.
             • RedLogix …

               13 August 2016 at 1:31 pm

               I think the argument against re-directing GST in this manner is that it is by nature a tax intended for the Consolidated Fund to be spent across the whole of government. It simply isn’t designed as a targeted tax.

               Even visitors who are here for a few weeks, still indirectly benefit a LOT from being in a country with a functioning civil society. By contrast travelling in countries with weak or non-existent public services may be fun and adventurous … but that wears off the moment you need something. Like SAR, medical or a safe police service. So my argument is that visitors DO benefit from their GST spend, even if it indirect. There is no justification for refunding or re-targeting it into Conservation.

               But what we have at the moment is a very large industry that is making a great deal of money from our Conservation Estate … but is paying almost nothing directly towards it’s upkeep. Border taxes are simple and transparent.
               • Graeme …

                 13 August 2016 at 1:55 pm

                 “Border taxes are simple and transparent”

                 Not really, we want them to be simple and invisible. Machiavelli’s quote about plucking geese applies here in spades.

                 Transparency in tax is RWNJ was of being able of nit picking it to it’s eventual demise.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   13 August 2016 at 9:32 pm

                   Not really, we want them to be simple and invisible.

                   We most definitely do not want them to be invisible. That would be fraud and massively open to abuse.
     • Kelly-Ned 1.1.3

       13 August 2016 at 12:21 pm

       Rubbish.
       Just returned from Fiji and the fee charged on bed nights has been increased by about $200 on a 2 week stay.
       Makes no difference to anyone – there was 100% occupancy rate.
       $14-18 wouldn’t even raise a blink.
       • Graeme 1.1.3.1

         13 August 2016 at 12:55 pm

         Fiji has a GST refund scheme,

         http://www.frca.org.fj/tourist-vat-refund-scheme/

         The way it’s designed works in Fiji, here it’d be unworkable and favour the largest retailers.
         • Draco T Bastard 1.1.3.1.1

           13 August 2016 at 1:51 pm

           That failed to address Kelly-Ned’s point that a small increase won’t make any difference. IMO, a small increase and better facilities brought about by that small increase would probably result in more tourism – not that I’m really in favour of tourism per se.
           • Graeme 1.1.3.1.1.1

             13 August 2016 at 2:14 pm

             Have a look at how the Fijian system works, they are taking with one hand and giving with the other, and probably raising negative revenue. In Australia’s case their refund scheme is almost a subsidy of international tourism.

             A better approach is to allow local authorities to recover more through rating differentials on accommodation. That becomes a small, invisible, increase that gets tourists, international and domestic. Domestic spend / activity is greater, and more of an impact in most areas, than international. Have a look at the numbers in here
             http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7571
             and compare with the international table.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               13 August 2016 at 4:39 pm

               In Australia’s case their refund scheme is almost a subsidy of international tourism.

               Which is essentially what we have now and which you want to increase by giving tourists the GST that they paid back.

               A better approach is to allow local authorities to recover more through rating differentials on accommodation.

               It could be but it would also be more expensive. Far easier and cheaper to grab the money at the gate and then distribute it through an existing national agency such as DoC.

               Domestic spend / activity is greater, and more of an impact in most areas, than international.

               Actually, according to those tables they appear to be much of a muchness based upon spending which is all that you could safely compare with those figures.
               • Graeme …

                 13 August 2016 at 5:45 pm

                 “Which is essentially what we have now and which you want to increase by giving tourists the GST that they paid back.”

                 Sorry, I probably didn’t make myself too clear there. I’m trying to argue that we don’t want to be refunding GST. But if we bring in a border levy then there will be calls for GST refunds.

                 The real solution is to properly fund DOC to do it’s job and to be able to keep up with changes in tourism activity. And I think there’s better ways of doing that than border levies.
                 • Matthew Whitehead …

                   14 August 2016 at 5:18 am

                   Do we actually have an example of any other countries that don’t refund sales tax to visitors but introduced a border fee? Did they have similar calls to start refunding sales tax? And if so, did they cave and either repeal the fee or start refunding tax? And if they didn’t, were there any actual consequences?

                   Because I’m not exactly sure I buy that argument at this stage.
                   • Graeme …

                     14 August 2016 at 11:39 am

                     We’re members of the Retail Assn and get their Retail magazine each month. I got this month’s yesterday and there’s a feature on tourist retail, with an editorial by Greg Harford bemoaning the lack of a GST refund scheme. It would have been written long before Shaw’s announcement, but I’m sure that had the timing been different we would have seen the strange sight of Harford supporting the Green’s proposal, but as an excuse to introduce a refund scheme. Unfortunately the article won’t be on line for ages, if at all. Retail Assn does not get the online world. At all.

                     But the numbers are pretty stark. International tourist spend last year, about 11 billion, GST on that, 1.3 billion. And that figure is up around 15% on the year before. 5% of the GST take going to DOC would equal Shaw’s proposal.
                   • Matthew Whitehead …

                     14 August 2016 at 11:49 am

                     Sure Graeme, but that’s not exactly what I was asking. I’m sure that directing a percentage of GST to DoC would absolutely fund a reasonable program to cut down on pests. The question I had though was is there actually evidence that running a levy in addition to GST is going to have a bad effect? Because remember we are running a deficit at the moment, so redirecting GST for this program means worsening the deficit to do it, unless you have a proposal to cut spending instead.

                     Add to that the fact that GST isn’t really intended to fund the costs of tourism, so purely in revenue terms, a levy is the best way to directly offset those costs because tourists share in them equally and it identifies the number of tourists we have in the country, so if there’s not going to be economic side-effects, a levy is definitely the winner.

                     I’m sure if it really is a choice of either GST rebates or a levy that avoiding the levy is the best option, but I haven’t really seen a convincing case of “well someone else tried having both a levy and non-refundable sales tax and look what happened,” it seems to be based on people speculating based on economic theory, and as we all know, everything that isn’t backed up by hard examples can vary wildly in practice.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.4

       13 August 2016 at 1:48 pm

       At present tourist’s can’t claim GST back at the border…

       Why should they be able to come to NZ, use our services and not pay for them?

       Like why aren’t there any toilets.

       Have you ever considered that we’re just not taxing enough?
       • Henry Filth 1.1.4.1

         15 August 2016 at 1:36 am

         Tourists come and use services and pay the normal tax at the normal rate. They claim GST back on goods that are bought here and which they then take away with them.

         The services consumed within the country are taxed, the goods which are exported are not. That’s how it works in other places.

         So if I wanted a “thing” when I was in NZ, I would buy it later, online from my home country, which transaction is zero-rated for GST. Like all exports.
     • Ch-ch Chiquita 1.1.5

       14 August 2016 at 3:42 pm

       Why should tourists get a refund of GST? They buy goods and services while in NZ so need to pay the tax on it. I have never requested a refund of any tax I paid anywhere in the world as I see no reason to be treated differently to locals as I use many of the services that tax is supplying (and especially in NZ where tourists are covered by ACC). $18 per visitor is nothing compared to the cost of coming here and people will continue coming even with this extra tax.

       I had a look now how GST refund is done in other countries, and boy it’s a complicated process. Canada for example have let go with the old scheme and now only has a possible refund on some convention packages. In other countries, you need to have a tax invoice with your name on it to be eligible to a refund, EU is specifically saying you will not get all the tax back and whenever you purchase something you should check what is the eligible threshold and how to do it. And after all that there is the actual process at the border.
       • Henry Filth 1.1.5.1

         15 August 2016 at 1:39 am

         For some reason, the bureaucracy around tax is usually mind-numbing in its badly designed awfulness.

         Tourists get the refund on goods which they are, in effect, exporting. Like Fonterra flogging off milk powder to Asia. It’s a consistency thing.
2. marty mars 2

   13 August 2016 at 10:16 am

   Seems like a reasonable idea although I’d use the money to get the rivers/water clean and build resilience – not for tourists but for citizens. Shaw please forget the predator-free – it is waste of time to get sucked into that one.
   • weka 2.1

     13 August 2016 at 11:17 am

     “I’d use the money to get the rivers/water clean and build resilience – not for tourists but for citizens”

     I totally agree.

     Unfortunately it’s not politically viable for the Greens to oppose or downplay the Predator-Free thing. I’m hoping that once in govt L/G will quietly convert the scheme to something more sensible and achieveable.
     • marty mars 2.1.1

       13 August 2016 at 11:22 am

       at some point ‘politically viable’ will be moot – if the Greens aren’t going to stand up and be counted, such as saying it is impossible to make these islands predator free then why bother having them there, they are just supporting the insupportable and thus become part of the problem not the solution.

       and anything aligned is better than nothing so it all becomes moot anyway #sigh#
       • weka 2.1.1.1

         13 August 2016 at 11:27 am

         Once in government they can take the revenue and do something real with it. They stand up and are counted on many things, this one, while annoying, is not something they can do much about. I don’t like it (I’d prefer them to have just not gone there at all), but I can see the sense in using National’s stupidity to make hay. Their core environmental policies do include predator control, so working with what they’ve got (as opposed to what we want) makes sense.

         I think the battle over all that was lost some time ago, not just within the Greens but within the wider movement. The vehemence of some comitted 1080ers against 1080 protestors is going to be a problem at some point.
         • Alethios 2.1.1.1.1

           13 August 2016 at 6:39 pm

           I reckon we can get there, at least for islands like Rakiura and Great Barrier. What a achievement that would be though! I see 1080 as something of a stopgap, hopefully when the next generation comes along we can do the PR better, and nip the vehemence in the bud.

           More immediately though – have you hear what the folks in suburbs like Crofton Downs have been getting up to? Predator free, with species like Kaka nesting in the parks! Imagine we could do if we mobilised people up and down the country to get involved in their backyards.
           • weka 2.1.1.1.1.1

             13 August 2016 at 9:23 pm

             I agree about the islands. That’s a completely different scenario than the whole of the North and South Islands though. Controlling predator populations seems a better bet there, and I’d like to see more research into what the optimal numbers are, and how the different predator species interact and limit or boost their respective populations. We’re talking about ecosystems here and short of complete eradication, those relationships are important.

             The problem with doing predator-free where people live is cats. I think we should be doing predator fenced sanctuaries, and letting the over flow happen into the neighbourhoods but the neighbourhoods are always going to be mixed native and introduced species.
             • Alethios …

               14 August 2016 at 3:54 pm

               Yeah, cats. To a lesser extent dogs too. I think ridding a neighbourhood of cats and mustelids is demonstrably worthwhile for its own sake, even if cats remain – and I suspect that folks living in an otherwise predator free neighbourhood are going to be more likely to properly control, train or even eschew replacement of their pets while potentially being more interested/involved in conservation work generally.

               One of the problems with conservation in New Zealand at the moment I think is that we’ve altered the environment so drastically that most people have no idea what the place was like 50 or 100 years ago, or see much in the way of native wildlife in the backyard or local park. Conservation, if it’s thought about at all, is something that the government does way out in national parks. Bringing some native biodiversity back into the urban/semi urban environment gives people to interact with it more directly and in the every day, thus valuing it more. Giving people a way to meaningfully and directly contribute to it (rather than in an abstract way through tax or whatever) gives a much greater feeling of ownership and engagement, and is just gold.
         • mauī 2.1.1.1.2

           13 August 2016 at 10:03 pm

           I don’t know how the cultural differences can be resolved, at the moment it’s the best answer science has got for pest control and increasing conservation values. Other groups like many Māori, animal lovers and hunters have values that override getting the best conservation results. Conservationists are the larger group at the moment and so far have won out.
           • weka 2.1.1.1.2.1

             14 August 2016 at 12:14 am

             I agree it’s tricky. I don’t think science should be the only discipline holding answers, nor that it should dictate solutions. I think 1080 is the best economic answer the neoliberals will allow 😉 We do have other options, and the huge increase in 1080 use, not just for conservation but general land management is being pushed by vested interests beyond conservationists. People see it as easy and cheap, and it’s become a symbol of our short-sighted, ‘money is all’ approach. We can still destroy habitat under that philosophy because hey! we’ve got 1080 and the silver bullet tech on the horizon. Which misses that species live in ecosystems and we need to conserve them too.

             “Other groups like many Māori, animal lovers and hunters have values that override getting the best conservation results.”

             I’m not sure about that. Humans are part of the landscape too, and it’s a mistake IMO to see conservation as inherently separate from humans. An integrated approach is likely to be more sustainable than an imposed one that creates factions.
3. vto 3

   13 August 2016 at 10:44 am

   Isn’t this a bit like the ‘build-more-motorways’ argument, in that if you build more motorways to ease the congestion then more people drive more and the congestion never in fact eases – it just gets more…

   Build more tourism infrastructure to ease the congestion and more people will tour more and the congestion wont in fact ease – it just gets more ….

   this tourist tax does not deal with the fundamental issue
   • weka 3.1

     13 August 2016 at 11:14 am

     Pretty much. Taxing tourists is good, but it should be paying for conservation and mitigating the impact of tourism, not increasing it.

     The ‘Taonga’ name and concept grates too. If we really considered our natural spaces taonga we would be capping tourism, and moving to high end/low number tourism asap. Tourism as we do it now is an extractive industry with negative impacts on NZ that we are trying to sweep under the rug.

     Plus, climate change, ffs.
     • marty mars 3.1.1

       13 August 2016 at 11:59 am

       + 1

       Yep I am not sure about the use of Taonga and I agree with vto and you regarding lessening not increasing tourism.

       also climate change (if we don’t talk about it it will go away) ffs x 2
       • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1

         13 August 2016 at 1:59 pm

         Yep I am not sure about the use of Taonga and I agree with vto and you regarding lessening not increasing tourism.

         QFT
4. Garibaldi 4

   13 August 2016 at 11:11 am

   We can’t accurately guess the future, so I don’t think it is wise to look six years ahead with so many variables to consider. Action should be taken now to get more money out of tourists. Every economist raves about how great tourism is but bugger all is done about he hidden costs. As the Eagles so aptly said in their song “call something Paradise ,kiss it goodbye”.
   • RedLogix 4.1

     13 August 2016 at 11:53 am

     Putting this into figures, last year the tourism industry had a turnover of about $30b, while it contributed something in the order of $15m in direct Concession Fees to DoC.

     The Conservation Estate is the core asset of the industry. It would scarcely exist without it, yet it effectively pays nothing towards it’s upkeep.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1

       13 August 2016 at 2:04 pm

       The Conservation Estate is the core asset of the industry. It would scarcely exist without it, yet it effectively pays nothing towards it’s upkeep.

       And when we demand that they pay for the damage that they do they’ll whinge about it. Say that we’ll be taking away their profits unjustly.

       Time to ensure that all costs are properly accounted for at the point that it occurs.
       • Philj 4.1.1.1

         14 August 2016 at 8:40 pm

         So true, but totally unpalatable for the current neo—liberal ideology. Politicians and people are looking for ‘accountability’ and a better tomorrow. There are so many issues coming to a head that folk have to realise that there may not be one. Mitigation and a fundamental reality audit is necessary.
5. Stuart Munro 5

   13 August 2016 at 11:39 am

   Key thought the measure was a good idea – so he slipped a poison pill on it for kiwis to promote hatred of the Greens. As a Brown, Key knows that once Green support matures his generation of ethical limbo dancers (how low can he go!) are gone.
6. RedLogix 6

   13 August 2016 at 11:50 am

   The tramping/hunting/fishing community are pretty solidly behind this. Most of us are very aware of how shamefully DoC has been underfunded and undervalued by this govt. And while DoC isn’t neccessarily the only entity with the potential to contribute in this area, it will be for the foreseeable future the dominant one … and it’s funding needs to be doubled.

   Minimum.

   Crucially there must be a clear understanding as to where and how this extra funding will be spent. Yes a modest portion needs to go on improving ‘front-country’ visitor facilities; but there is a massive shortfall in predator control and biodiversity protection at present which urgently needs hundreds of millions allocated to it.
   • Ad 6.1

     13 August 2016 at 11:53 am

     Definitely agree that DoC need huge funding boost.

     B ut is this the right way to do it?
     • RedLogix 6.1.1

       13 August 2016 at 12:05 pm

       Yes. It’s been a topic that’s a perennial discussion on tramping forums I participate in for years. While there are naturally a range of opinions, the thread usually falls back to some form of Arrival/Departure tax as the simplest, most effective and least problematic solution.

       The other aspect is the sheer numbers now arriving, and how they are now spreading from their traditional easy access ‘front country’ locations, deeper into the mountains than ever before, placing real strain on tracks, huts and toilets that were never intended for these numbers. In particular the Te Araroa trail.

       There is a rising number of low-end backpackers treating our hut network as ‘free’ accomodation, and this is pretty unattractive to many of us.

       We’re also seeing a rising number of visitors placing more demand on SAR, and while the local community is adamant it must remain a free service to those who need it, we also recognise that it cannot remain underfunded as it is at present.

       Charging for Park access is deeply impractical on many levels, and an anathema to our unique outdoors culture. Increasing direct taxation on tourism businesses is complex to administer and hard to make it fair.

       You can also consider the Bhutan model that charges something in the order of U$200 per day to visit that country.

       Airport taxes are very common around the world, and the amount being proposed here is in the usual range. Simple and effective.
       • Graeme 6.1.1.1

         13 August 2016 at 2:56 pm

         I’m with you on the dilemma of how we get more funding into DOC and retain our traditional values. The obvious one is to just fund them properly to do their job. The flag debacle and those sheep in Saudi would have nearly doubled what DOC get in concessions and employed some staff to build / fix some huts and collect hut fees.

         Hopefully this debate makes our muppet government, and the tourist industry realise that they have to put more into DOC.

         If you surveyed tourist operators most, maybe all would want more funding going into DOC, but would rather see it coming from tax / GST and concessions / fees rather than a border levy.

         There’s a perception that a border levy would create an expectation of entitlement that could make the situation worse around visitors swamping DOC resources.
       • Rosemary McDonald 6.1.1.2

         13 August 2016 at 3:01 pm

         At the very least, ‘low cost’ travelers, ‘whiz bangs’, ‘happy crappers’ call them what you will, should be made to pay for a DOC Pass.

         Indigenous motorhomers like myself pay about $175 per year to park over in DOC camps. (The ‘silly season’ is excluded.)

         Rental motorhome companies also offer DOC passes…this should be extended to the non CSC mob…

         My theory, if they have already paid ($150 per head) to stay in DOC camps…that is where they’ll head rather than risking the wrath of local councils….who believe me…have had a gutsfull of indiscriminate Freedom Camping.

         DOC Staff can then spend less time on chasing up camp fees and more time on education (‘No one ever died from sitting on a long drop toilet, fraulein.’).

         And ALL pay an Conservation Levy of $20 per head.
         • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.2.1

           13 August 2016 at 10:11 pm

           No one ever died from sitting on a long drop toilet, fraulein.

           Actually, they probably have:

           Disadvantages of pit latrines may include:[2]

           Flies and odours are normally noticeable to the users
           The toilet has to be outdoors with the associated security risks if the person is living in an insecure situation
           Low reduction in organic matter content and pathogens
           Possible contamination of groundwater with pathogens and nitrate
           Costs to empty the pits may be significant compared to capital costs
           Pit emptying is often done in a very unsafe manner
           Sludge (called fecal sludge) requires further treatment and/or appropriate discharge
           Pit latrines are often relocated or re-built after some years (when the pit is full and if the pit is not emptied) and thus need more space than urine-diverting dry toilets for example and people are less willing to invest in a nice high-quality super-structure as it will have to be dismantled at some point.
           • Rosemary McDonald 6.1.1.2.1.1

             13 August 2016 at 11:01 pm

             Ha!

             We have a wee competition going called “rate that DOC longdrop”….the beginning of a whole new movement…

             Some are better than others admittedly, but the ones we frequent are actually very clean and well maintained.

             LD tech has come a long way from the old days…well ventilated with concrete lined vaults that get regularly emptied.

             No flies, maybe the odd mozzie, and I always check for weta lurking under the lid…

             But still…they will, in broad daylight, wander down into the dunes with a roll of non-skid tucked into their wee armpits…. Achtung, baby!

             (Having said that, a friend of a friend did nearly bite the big one when he dropped his lighted ciggie down the ‘bush’ longdrop, after adding a bit of lime…)
             • weka …

               14 August 2016 at 12:18 am

               Give me an old fashioned long drop any time. I’ll not use the newer DOC ones, they’re gross, mostly from the fumes (last one I tried was a high use one admittedly). They should be using composting systems anyway (in appropriate places). The savings from the helicopter fees could be used to pay trappers 😉
               • RedLogix …

                 14 August 2016 at 12:57 am

                 The composting toilets I’ve encountered are extremely effective and I’ve often wondered why DoC haven’t adopted them more.

                 There is a need to provide a carbon source like wood shavings and to educate users which may well be the primary hurdle. Also I wonder if they work well in a very low use setting, or in cold locations in the mountains.

                 But in principle I suspect they could be used a lot more than they are.
                 • weka …

                   14 August 2016 at 2:17 pm

                   If we’re talking low tech type systems then yes they work in varying temperatures and low use. I think in high altitude cold, you’d get a kind of drying thing happening rather than a composting break down.

                   I reckon the cover material is the main hurdle (after attitude and knowledge). I seem to recall some councils trialling composting toilets though, wonder what happened to those.
               • Rosemary McDonald …

                 14 August 2016 at 9:08 am

                 “I’ll not use the newer DOC ones, they’re gross, mostly from the fumes…”

                 So, you’ll be joining meine freundin down in the dunes then weka?

                 When you say ‘newer’ ones…do you mean the plastic ‘can’ type portaloos?
                 • weka …

                   14 August 2016 at 2:25 pm

                   Yes, the plastic ones designed for high use seem to be especially problematic. Not sure why, although I guess if they’re using tanks there is bugger all decomposition going on, but lots of unsavoury chemistry.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 14 August 2016 at 11:44 am

                 Give me an old fashioned long drop any time. I’ll not use the newer DOC ones, they’re gross, mostly from the fumes

                 I recall being sick because of the stink in one of the old ones.
                 • weka …

                   14 August 2016 at 2:14 pm

                   Yeah, they can be badly managed too. Also, campervan people empty their toilets into any kind of long drop and the chemicals mess up how the long drop works. Cleaning and deodorising chemicals do the same. Long drops should be chemical free and have cover material added each time they’re used.
                   • Rosemary McDonald …

                     15 August 2016 at 3:56 pm

                     “Also, campervan people empty their toilets into any kind of long drop and the chemicals mess up how the long drop works. ”

                     If anyone ever sees this happening…please report the rego to the nearest DOC office. If the offender is a member of the NZMCA (the ‘red wing’ brigade) they must be reported to NZMCA head office…include vehicle rego AND membership number (on the ‘wings’, or on a card inside the windscreen).

                     Its dickheads like this who give all us travelers a bad name.

                     They mostly put cassette toilets in motorhomes these days, and without the chemicals they can stink up the inside of the motorhome. The ‘good’ thing about cassettes is that they can be removed and emptied more easily….hence the use of public/camp toilets rather than proper Dump Points.
   • weston 6.2

     13 August 2016 at 5:56 pm

     Or we could spend all of the available funds purchasing what wilderness there is available for sale left both for the current population and for future populations to enjoy and as a much needed carbon sink .Much ado is being made about predator control but almost no attention is being given to the very real threat of invasion by foreign weed species .For some so long as it looks green it is sufficient but if people are seriously considering what is a taonga predators are by no means the only thing to worry about .
7. b waghorn 7

   13 August 2016 at 12:16 pm

   Great move by the greens in one move they have found a way to fund the nice to haves like pest control , cornered national , and more than one reporter / public voice has pointed out that national like to make promises but don’t actually fund them so that their promises can be achieved .,
8. red-blooded 8

   13 August 2016 at 12:19 pm

   Another thing I like is the simple little comment at the end, “Labour leader Andrew Little said a tourist tax was a good idea in principle.” No mention of reaction from other parties; no need to, as it’s understood that these two are looking to work together.
9. Graeme 9

   13 August 2016 at 1:44 pm

   One of the things around tourism taxation ( and really any taxation) is that you have to make it as seamless and invisible as possible. With our current GST and rating system we do that quite well. A dedicated levy just puts the whole thing up in lights.

   The objective should be to get visitors to spend as much as possible and think that they are getting value for what they are spending. My view across the counter is that nearly all the visitors I interact with feel they are getting good services, and good value from New Zealand. A lot of that perception is because we don’t separate the tax out and put it up in lights. Reality is that they are paying a very solid share of GST and, indirectly, rates.

   One area where we have gone backwards in the last 20 years is in tightening up on councils ability to be a bit lateral with their rating differentials. WE have a fairly solid differential on accomodation in Queenstown Lakes, but used to have a lot more, until amendments to LGA constrained that. The difficulty tourist areas have in rating visitor services is a live debate at present all around the country and a few adjustments to councils discretion would be nice.
   • RedBaronCV 9.1

     13 August 2016 at 2:24 pm

     “The objective should be to get visitors to spend as much as possible and think that they are getting value for what they are spending.”

     and hanging onto that money for the benefit of the locals.
     What’s the use of tourists who come here, spend money, provide a few low rate jobs and then the profits are sucked off overseas whilst the ratepayers and taxpayers fund all the community overheads and social benefits.

     While we could have bed taxes for local communities as they do in places overseas a border levy is a lot simpler – foreign passport you pay – and while it is tempting to use it to fund DOC etc these are things that should be decently funded out of the current tax take instead of the rubbish the current govt spends it on . $20 Billion for Defense, $25m for the flag= the predator $25m.

     So yes I think we should have visitor levies but equally as important a government that spends wisely
   • RedBaronCV 9.2

     13 August 2016 at 2:28 pm

     Oh and yes to allowing Local councils the discretion to have better rating differentials – why not?
     • Graeme 9.2.1

       13 August 2016 at 3:23 pm

       Yeah, a much better way than a separate bed tax. And it’s invisible.

       I’m often asked by Americans, ” How do you get your taxes? We don’t seem t be paying tax on anything” I just smile and gently inform them how much they just paid. Our way of included and invisible taxation is appreciated, and the more productive relationship we have with our various levels of government because of it is noticed.

       Don’t think that all money from tourism goes back overseas. Most of it stays in New Zealand, and probably at a greater percentage than from your supermarket spend. They generally try and buy New Zealand made, and you’ll find a greater percentage of NZ made or produced goods in tourist areas than in your local mall.

       In our gallery we are totally new Zealand made, we’ve to around 60 artists and crafts people represented and sell to a mix of international and domestic customers.

       In both dollar terms and numbers domestic tourism is equal to international tourism, and a at pretty much all levels. Most of the facilities, accomodation and restaurants you enjoy when you go on holiday at home wouldn’t be there, or be at a much lower standard if we didn’t have the international visitors.
     • Graeme 9.2.2

       13 August 2016 at 10:03 pm

       “Oh and yes to allowing Local councils the discretion to have better rating differentials – why not?”

       I gather a change to the Local Govt. Act in 90’s meant that differentials had to relate directly to expenditure in that rating group. So councils couldn’t rate accomodation to fund public toilets, or carparks. Queenstown had quite hefty differentials, I think tied to the number of toilets, before this and had to adjust things, so a lot of tourist funding has to now come from general rates.

       Also explains why the tourist industry is a bit grumpy that the same logic doesn’t apply to central government.
   • Lanthanide 9.3

     13 August 2016 at 7:40 pm

     Legally tourists to NZ don’t have to pay GST. However the way the system is implemented, only 200 retailers have signed up to the system, so it’s not a generic solution that tourists can avail themselves of.

     http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1001/S00069.htm
     • Craig H 9.3.1

       13 August 2016 at 8:28 pm

       From the article:

       “Current law dictates that GST can only be refunded on purchases if goods are exported or are not taken possession of within New Zealand.

       For most retailers any enthusiasm to promote themselves as GST-free is quickly evaporated with the realisation they have to go through a process of registration. Not to mention the fact that participating retailers have to pay seven percent of the retail price of the goods to the airport authority.”

       That’s effectively a duty-free scheme – to use it, the goods have to be couriered to the airport directly and collected prior to departure, and the airport charges 7% of the retail price. It doesn’t apply to goods or services purchased in NZ for use in NZ, so would not be applicable to accommodation, for example.
       • Henry Filth 9.3.1.1

         15 August 2016 at 1:44 am

         You just get the retailer to ship it, and pay excl GST but incl freight. It works that way in a lot of other countries.
     • Graeme 9.3.2

       13 August 2016 at 9:27 pm

       That scheme only works for very high value items and they are effectively delivered outside of New Zealand, so exempt from GST anyway, same as airside. Also bloody expensive, so only works for very high value items. From what I gather it’s pretty much collapsed and been replaced by airside retail.

       We ship a large proportion of sales to the customers home address, but generally the shipping cost equals the GST. So effectively free shipping from the customers perspective.
     • b waghorn 9.3.3

       13 August 2016 at 9:33 pm

       why give back the gst?
       while they are here they are adding to the wear and tear of every thing they use, we also provide free search and rescue and a and e .
       add to that most of them are getting $1.30 to the $ at least , make em pay i say
       • Graeme 9.3.3.1

         13 August 2016 at 9:51 pm

         It’s interesting comparing the attitudes of visitors to our lack of GST refund.

         Those that get it, and understand how NZ works, really like it that we don’t refund and that we tax in an invisible way. It gives us a different attitude to government. These are the people who come back and want to contribute. They also talk positively about New Zealand when they get home. This selects for more visitors who work for New Zealand.

         Those that don’t get how we work, probably aren’t going to be back. I just give them their GST recipt and wish them a happy holiday.
         • b waghorn 9.3.3.1.1

           13 August 2016 at 10:25 pm

           I bet 99% of the people that claim it back will be the very people that could easily afford to not bother. Juss saying know what I mean.
           • Graeme 9.3.3.1.1.1

             14 August 2016 at 11:44 am

             You’re on the button there, pretty much dead centre…

             Although a better generalisation would be that they should have gone to Dubai rather than New Zealand for their holiday.
           • Henry Filth 9.3.3.1.1.2

             15 August 2016 at 1:42 am

             Happy to be in the 1% !
       • Henry Filth 9.3.3.2

         15 August 2016 at 12:04 pm

         “while they are here they are adding to the wear and tear of every thing they use”

         And they’re paying tax on everything they buy. And on the services they consume.

         They truly are paying as they go. . .
10. Ralf Crown 10

    14 August 2016 at 10:39 am

    ”Clean and Green” is just the image, not the real world. Why should visitors even consider paying for cleaning up the garbage kiwis spewing around them? New Zealand is the third worst polluter in the world (UN numbers) per capita with just about every lake and stream polluted to the degree that it is unusable for anything but a sewer. Why would foreigner come here at all to look at a theater prop? New Zealand already got some of the heftiest taxes and fees in the world, and visitors are paying for it, so why not using all that money.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS