Great Walks Revenue versus Expenses

Really need to see a cost breakdown to really understand what is really happening. I suspect there might be quite a bit of paper expenses such as depreciation included in the figures. Also noticed they left out the one which goes around the lake.

Wanganui journey is an interesting one. I thought it was a canoe trip so only costs should be admin

Also believe there is a couple of huts, but I suspect they are fudging the numbers a bit. Maybe moving expenses into the Great Walks to make their accounts elsewhere look better.

I haven't been there but there are 3 huts and 11 campsites on the booking system. Whakahoro Bunkroom seems to have a dual booking system, though. If you're using it for the Whanganui Journey you're meant to book it in the system, otherwise it's first come first serve. ($10 either way apparently.) There must be some creativity with allocating expenses for this type of thing between the Great Walk and not. In related news, as this type of article inevitably gets linked to distinguishing between resident use and overseas tourist use, someone recently used FYI to OIA DOC about the use of each Great Walk. The response, covering the last 5 financial years in detail, is online at https://fyi.org.nz/request/4869-total-number-of-paid-users-of-great-walks-across-new-zealand-from-the-years-2010-2015?nocache=incoming-15886#incoming-15886 For each Great Walk and each year it shows total numbers, splits between domestic and international visitors, age ranges, and split between campsites and hut use.

No Waikaremoana? Funny that idea that visitors and non-resident workers don't pay taxes. We pay the same taxes as any kiwi, but we don't get access to healthcare, fees for uni and schools are steeper, etc. even though we contribute the same as kiwis or even more if you count heavy visa fees. And if they are unhappy with having too many visitors but not enough money on Great Walks, maybe they should ask Tourism NZ to divert some of the money they put in marketing those Great Walks to actually financing them… I don't understand why they keep putting so much money in marketing the great walks if they are already full and cost too much? What about taxing Air NZ which is benefiting too from the marketing of the great walks? And I don't see why locals shouldn't have to pay entry to DOC land either. They are comparing to Australia: Northern Territory, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and NSW all charge the same for locals and visitors for access to NPs (Victoria has free access to all of its parks). Locals just get a better deal with a one year pass usually. And it makes sense: we all use the parks and their facilities even if it's in different ways, so we all need to pay for their maintenance. If you compare with Australia you could also argue that huts are usually free everywhere in Australia. In WA you can walk the whole length of the Bibbulmun or in NT the Larapinta and benefit from the shelters, the water tanks, the toilets, the track maintenance without paying any cent towards the heavy costs…

Non residents = people with no ird number in this definition. My take on it So taxpayers benefit from a discount - including working holiday & temp work visas but tourists don't

We have to look at the profit as a whole, yes people are paying fees of some description for using the trail (commonly hut fees), however they are also contributing to the local economy during the rest of there trip to the regions of the trails, and as they paying taxes (GST) to the central government. With out doing a full analysis of cost verses expenditure for each person who is doing the great walk for there entire trip (e.g. transport to the trails, accommodation, food and drink pre there walk etc...) to visit the region it would been near impossible to fully identify if the economic benefits of the trails and if they are making a profit as a whole (remembering DOC is a government department and not an independent business). Furthermore we need to understand as a country that tourists find New Zealand an extremely expensive country to travel in, which is why so many choose to freedom camp.

The costs/revenue issue for great Walks includes track upkeep it will also include depreciation charges for all capital assets (including tracks) the GW tracks (walkways) are hugely expensive to build and maintain. There isn't the same "business " approach to the general track/hut network of DOCs. (correctly so IMO) question is, as with many other high use track networks, should a "profit" be expected for providing access to give more kiwis a backcountry experience, learn to appreciate our biodiversity etc Or are the great walks a "business"? If its the latter, then DOC probably need to operate like a business. But one possible result of this, is all of the backcountry networks gets regarded likewise, and that wouldn't be good news for much of our huts and tracks. They will never be self funding. The Nett cost of the low use hut/track network already has been reduced/poorly maintained because of the perceptions about return on investment ie $ per head

The fundamental issue I have with this whole discussion about charging visitors (tourists and/or residents) for park entry isn't specifically about the concept of charging. New Zealand's conservation estate, and the agencies charged to look after and advocate for it, are not underfunded because visitors haven't been compelled enough to pay for scraps around the edges. They're underfunded because of ongoing political decisions to underfund them. Creating a new bureaucracy to collect some extra revenue from visitors isn't going to address that fundamental problem. It'll most likely result in new problematic consequences, and meanwhile the estate and DOC, including its other inconvenient responsibilities, like advocacy, will continue to be underfunded.