Targeting “high quality” tourists is not the answer

Upton proposed a distance-based departure tax that ranges from NZ $ 25 for an economy flight to Australia to $ 155 for an economy flight to the UK.

It is estimated that such a tax would raise around $ 400 million each year. This could then be used to finance environmental and climate change projects and infrastructures.

These suggestions certainly have potential. However, targeting a certain type of “high quality” traveler is unrealistic, and it is not the best way to base a tax on distance traveled alone.

Backpackers may spend less per day, but overall they spend more because they stay longer. They are also more likely to spend more on local businesses than on products and services from large international companies.

As such, backpackers can be of greater value to the country than high-end short-term visitors. There are also proofs These budget travelers are valuable word of mouth ambassadors who often return in old age and book upscale accommodations, attractions, and tours.

Tax based on length of stay

Instead of just charging a distance tax, it would make more sense to add a length of stay component. This could be staggered: the longer the visit, the lower the departure tax.

Long-haul flights cause considerably more emissions per passenger than other modes of transport such as train, bus or car. Due to the remoteness of Aotearoa New Zealand, the vast majority of international visitors (except Australians) arrive on long haul flights.

Flights to and from a destination like Aotearoa account for a much higher proportion of energy consumption and emissions than activities within the country. Spread over an entire vacation, the consumption per day decreases as the length of the stay increases.

A tiered tax would be relatively easy to calculate. Incoming temporary visitors must have a return ticket. Holders of an open ticket and an outgoing one-way ticket can charge a flat fee.

Given that long-haul tourists have already paid relatively high airfares, an adequate tax should not be a burden. If they know that the money is going to be used for environmental and climate protection initiatives, they can even embrace it. The impact on demand is likely to be negligible.