Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Government should definitely look at park fees

Speaking as someone who grew up in New Zealand - and like most kiwis, spent a great deal of time tramping, camping, and otherwise enjoying the public parks - any tpye of entrance fee to those places would be a huge shift in culture.

Easy and free access (notwithstanding taxpayer funding) to publicly owned parks is something I regard as a birthright. User-pays might sound sensible and fair but I can guarantee you that a large part of NZ's population will choose not to visit the parks instead of paying a fee (even if it is very small). Many of them wouldn't be making that choice themselves (e.g. the children of poor families). For them to miss out on what is an essential part of growing up and living in NZ would be a very bad thing.

Besides, when this was last suggested a month or two ago t was touted as a solution to the Department of Conservation's funding shortfall for maintaining the most popular 'great walks'. That shortfall was said to be around $1.5m - less than the cost of many tourism campaigns.

The solution doesn't have to be user-pays.




Hawaii state parks are free -- for residents. Tourists usually have to pay. That seems like a good strategy.


Speaking as almost your antipode, from a country with similar culture that has a lot of tourism, I'd like it if the people on tourist visas in my country paid access fees to similar places and we'd understand that my taxes go in part to paying my equivalent fee.

It costs something to maintain access to these places. It's fair that the people who see them help support that.


Maybe tourist visa fees could cover some of this


our tourist visas are free at the border for many countries - for a lot of our visitors (Oz, Canada, US, UK) you pass through a machine, never talk to a person (well except for the ag inspection)

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas/apply-for-...


Does New Zealand have a hotel tax? That might potentially be a way of specifically helping to fund tourism related problems.


So then there's a question of why there are tourism campaigns? If you're at capacity, it seems like the first thing to cut?

But the article seems rather pro-growth on tourism, so maybe they don't want that.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: