First of all, I assume you meant to say non-residents, rather than non-citizens.
Second, the obvious pitfall here is that tourists don't like feeling like they are visiting a tourist trap, and openly charging them different prices makes it seem like one. I've visited plenty of sites that charge significantly more for non-citizens (in India, in this case) and it feels more exploitative than paying a fee in a country that does not do this. Some museums in Spain, for instance, reach a middle ground by providing free admission to EU citizens during a low-traffic time of the week.
I'm sure he did mean to include, here in NZ there's little difference, for example everyone gets to vote (no taxation without representation after all).
Charging for public goods is very un-kiwi, even for visitors ... it also means having to pay for people to collect the money (in the US that person in the little hut collecting fees when you enter a public park) .... probably something more indirect like a hotel tax would be culturally more acceptable
I like Sweden's compromise. Only citizens can vote in the national elections, but non-citizen residents can vote in local elections (after they've lived in sweden for 3 years)
So you're fine with many foriegn-raised citizens who have weak cultural ties to the country being able to vote as soon as they move there, but residents who have lived in the country for years not being able to until they qualify for typically intense citizenship by naturalization timelines and delays?
I'm just trying to point out that citizenship is in many cases effectively arbitrary if a country is trying to protect its cultural and social values.
Is it true that gardening is illegal in NZ? I've heard of a ban on it, but I couldn't imagine a place where your not allowed to grow some carrots, rosemary, strawberries, tomatoes, etc. Its one of the few things that draws me outside in the summer.
Lots in the States too, usually at regional parks with low traffic. It's not worth it to station someone there, and the people visiting are generally the types who care enough about the livelihood of the parks to attempt to pay. You fill out an envelope and tear off a paper tag to stick on your dashboard as a receipt. In reality, rangers rarely come and audit parking lots for slips, but again it usually actually works.
The modern art gallery MONA in Tasmania charges for admittance, unless you're a resident of Tasmania. I've never heard anyone complain about unfair treatment there. The kind of tourist who would consider that a deal-breaker would probably be the kind of low-quality tourist you wouldn't want anyway.
A tourist trap isn't "you're charged more than the locals", a tourist trap is "you're charged for crap".
Last time I was in the British Museum (about 15 years ago I think) there was just a huge glass box in the foyer where you could put a donation. I don't know how much of the costs it covers but I saw quite a few people put substantial amounts of money in there. I paid five pounds and had a rather pricey snack in the café as well. No queue to get in.
Perhaps we have somewhat different definitions for the term. I have heard many refer to "tourist traps" or similar when talking about a store that overcharged them compared to a local, for example. I don't mean to cause confusion by the expression I used, which is why I tried to explain my justification.
>> charge significantly more for non-citizens (in India, in this case)
Out of curiosity, in India specifically, are the prices targeted at tourists truly exploitive, or are they simply in line with what we can afford in terms of currency exchange? There is a vast gap between "prices are ridiculous, even for tourists", vs. "the tourist is paying more than locals, but they're still getting a bargain or similar to what they'd pay back home".
As a tourist, I don't care if I'm being singled out and paying "reasonable prices based on my wealth". I'm smart enough to "nope out of" paying $100 USD for something that should be $20 USD, but I'm not going to complain because a native is trying to earn a decent wage in their poor economy (eg: $100 USD vs. $70 USD).
At last check, visiting (say) the Taj Mahal cost tourists 10x more than locals - but it was still only around US$10. So "exploitative" would be a stretch.
Visiting Bhutan, on the other hand, incurs fees of at least US$150/day. While justified in terms of minimising impact etc, one politically convenient side effect is to ensure that tourists never interact with anybody not employed by a five-star hotel or visit places without them.
$10 to visit the Taj Mahal - oh my God, so exploitive! That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. It really isn't exploitative at all. Should it technically be free? Yes, but no first world visitor is going to be put out of their way for $10. shrug
Of course, there is a huge difference between making your own way to a tourist trap, vs. being "guided" there. One should always be prepared to be scammed if one is paying someone just to travel to a given destination, vs. paying to actually enter that location by the authoritative body at an official entrance. If you're not paying someone at a physical barricade to the location, you're being scammed. Not too hard to understand.
There's also the informal tax that a tourist would pay. I've even traveled there with someone that is a non-resident Indian (NRI) and he joked with me that while I was getting "ripped off" at one rate, he still wasn't getting the local rate, but "ripped off" a little less. Honestly, the ripped off part came to a few rupees here or there for the most part.
Many tourist towns in New Zealand do the same thing.
By the way, if you're going tramping in New Zealand, then join the New Zealand Alpine Club. They run a separate system of accomodation for the serious outdoors people. In many of these places, there is a simple and cheap NZAC lodge tucked away in a quiet spot about 5 minutes walk from the overcrowded tourist hostels.
I'm not asserting it wouldn't work well, but I just wanted to add my personal experience from the few times I have experienced it. Thanks for informing me about the Hawai'i discount, though.
Second, the obvious pitfall here is that tourists don't like feeling like they are visiting a tourist trap, and openly charging them different prices makes it seem like one. I've visited plenty of sites that charge significantly more for non-citizens (in India, in this case) and it feels more exploitative than paying a fee in a country that does not do this. Some museums in Spain, for instance, reach a middle ground by providing free admission to EU citizens during a low-traffic time of the week.