By all means, charge tourists – but show us the money

Newsroom

a day ago

Comment: The Government's plan to introduce targeted charges for international visitors accessing our tourism hotspots is entirely reasonable, but it's crucial that we get to see how the money is spent.
Charging visitors to experience our most treasured natural and cultural sites is hardly radical. Italy has trialled a small visitor fee of €5 for day-trippers in Venice. Bhutan's high-value, low-impact tourism strategy includes a daily sustainable development fee of US$100, and in the Galápagos Islands, international tourists pay a US$200 fee to support conservation and community development.
These cases are not merely about revenue, but ultimately about responsibility. While I am not opposed to the charge itself, it is important to consider a bigger picture.
Too often, this type of government income is treated like a black box: Takings go in, and we are never quite sure what comes out, or where.
Take New Zealand's current International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy, for example. Most tourists are happy to pay the NZ$100 fee, and while this mechanism is sensible in theory, in practice it has struggled to demonstrate its value.
Few tourists, and indeed few New Zealanders, could confidently name a project the levy has funded. The money may be well spent, but the lack of clear, compelling communication on what exactly it has achieved is a missed chance to generate understanding and appreciation.
If we introduce further charges for international tourists to access iconic sites such as Milford Sound, the Tongariro Alpine Crossing, or Aoraki Mount Cook, then the revenue must be returned to those regions, allocated transparently to destination-specific infrastructure, conservation, visitor education, or community support.
And let's go a step further. Destinations should proudly and publicly tell the story of where the money goes. Why not install signage in prominent spots showcasing projects funded by visitor fees, short videos in airports or buses, or 'You helped fund this' campaigns promoted online?
We should be transparent, creative, and even celebratory about what these visitor dollars are doing.
The destinations themselves must play an active role in telling these stories. Visitors are far more likely to welcome a fee, perhaps even feel good about it, if they understand its purpose and relevance, knowing exactly what it funds.
Imagine a visitor arriving in Te Anau, ready to take the journey to Milford Sound, and encountering signage that says: 'Your $40 contribution helps fund predator control to protect native birdlife.'
Or walking the Tongariro Crossing and seeing: 'Visitor fees this year enable the restoration of 15km of alpine track and support local iwi to provide cultural interpretation.'
These are not just niceties. They are powerful tools for building goodwill and shifting the narrative from extractive tourism to shared stewardship. Because the truth is, many tourists want to feel like they have given something back.
The rise of regenerative travel (where visitors leave a place better than they found it) demonstrates that offering meaningful ways to support destinations can be a powerful element of an authentic visitor experience.
Some will argue that charging visitors risks deterring travel, or pricing out younger and budget-conscious tourists. This is a legitimate concern. But most travellers accept that extraordinary experiences come at a cost.
Provided fees are reasonable, clearly explained, and reinvested into the cause, they are unlikely to provoke resentment. Indeed, research increasingly shows that travellers are not just willing to contribute to sustainable tourism, they actively seek opportunities to do so.
There are three principles that offer a useful framework for any future visitor charging regime.
First, local reinvestment: revenues should support the sites and local communities. Second, transparency: show how every dollar is spent, and make it easy to see the impact. Third, celebrate the contribution: destinations should proudly communicate the positive impact of these funds, helping visitors to feel part of the solution.
New Zealand's brand has long been tied to the country's natural beauty, evoking a sense of guardianship, kaitiakitanga. We now have an opportunity to invite visitors to contribute to our country's care.
Asking them to support our most iconic places is entirely justifiable. But we must make it easy for visitors to see how they are helping, and to feel that their contribution is both valued and valuable. Not with guilt, but with purpose.