Should NZ's Great Walks be privately-run?

Totally disagree Gaiters. So you'd be happy if hiking in Europe, if they introduced charges where Europeans could hike in their huts/refuges (admittedly there aren't as many) for cheaper prices, and charged Kiwis double? or likewise on ski lifts? As to young backpackers coming here an living on the cheap, that's no different to kiwis OE. Even staying cheap they are spending money here, that would be elsewhere.

you cant compare nz to a lot of overseas tourist destinations, nz is a small country with a very small population and budget to maintain its conservation and tourist infrastructure and we're being inundated by overseas tourists on an increasing scale that the infrastructure cant cope with because there isnt enough money to maintain it. If we keep going the way we have been going, the problems created by high tourist no's are going to increase without generating more revenue to increase the infrastructure or limit access to some destinations.

Railways should be a lesson for all. A situation that I believe law changes have made sure can never happen again although this will only be proven when someone tries again. 3 people should of been put in jail for the rest of there lives on that one. I wont name them but one was a government minister and one of the other 2 holds the NZ record for biggest out of court settlement for insider trading ( an amount that meant the budget had to be re written)

Firstly I'd have absolutely no problem paying more than the locals to hike in Europe, Patagonia, Peru, Nepal or anywhere? It seems totally fair to me, it's their country? My problem with this country is we compare or base ourselves on what is done elsewhere. What they or we get up to in Europe is Europes problem. Over here we stand all alone with limited infrastructure, resources and capital. I am all for a different pay scale for us and them. I travelled through Nepal tramping and would always ask the locals why everything is so cheap. They would always say they were scared to charge more because that's what they were known for and people may stop coming. I would always reply the mountains are what you are known for we will always come. I'm looking from a New Zealand perspective, not a European or Global perspective. I say charge a heck of a lot more for foreign visitors. Stop this free ride that our country is now struggling to afford. Stop being taking for a ride by cheap students on O.E.

"I personally think that foreign tourists should pay top dollar to hike the great walks. It's win win all around. They can start to make a profit or at least pay for themselves. It will also potentially mean less foreign tourists doing them so less strain on the infrastructures." Wouldn't it cause foreign tourists to spread out and put much more strain on the infrastructure everywhere else? Unless access to the entire conservation estate were somehow locked down, of course. Going back to their origins in the '90s, Great Walks were never intended to be profitable. Much of their reason was to attract the masses, whether international or domestic, to specific places where the masses could be more easily and more efficiently managed. Make certain people pay through the nose for that experience, and there's a much higher incentive to go back to dispersing through all those places which are harder for DOC to predict and preempt management for higher visitor numbers. That's especially the case when everyone's so easily trading secrets in the internet forums and back rooms of backpackers about the best next place to go which authorities haven't yet caught up with.

This is a day of social media and lonely planet guides. They go on great walks to say they've been on great walks, just as we go on the Everest base camp trek, or the Torres del Paine circuit. We all want to do it. They don't come here to visit mungo hut. We do. That's why only twenty people a year visit it. Of course there are those who seek the special spots the places only locals know but they are the minority here and everywhere else overseas. It's a mentality think about how many locals stop at Powell hut and how many carry on to mid waiohine. It's us and them and them is a big number. To be honest it makes totally sense to charge more for these great walks. People will not go else where in this country if the great walks rise in price. They want a nice comfortable walk with a little sweat, great comfort and amazing views. I've met these people all over the world. They don't want to grovel on typical New Zealand tracks. We will be beyond bursting before you know it and then what?

tourists have already spreadout onto other tracks, the great walks book out and the tourists move on and overload the huts in the surrounding area, been happening for years in aspring and fiordland parks... the private overnight walks dont book out, not enough people want to pay the extra money involved

In case anyone wants to actually read the report, here it is, apparently. (Still an executive summary but it says more about the whole thing.) https://tia.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Tourism-Infrastructure-Executive-Summary2.pdf I've only skimmed it, but on Great Walks, page 16, there's not much more specifically about it than what was quoted in the RNZ article: "New Zealand could consider the following options: "* Improve high-end offering: The Department of Conservation currently provides differentiated accommodation offerings and prices on popular “Great Walks” such as the Milford Track, Routeburn Track and Abel Tasman Track operated by private operators. This model of working with private concessionaires is a strong one and has more potential. The model could be logically extended to differentiated pricing for access to iconic scenic sites for international tourists, and working with private providers to develop commercial models for a wider range of infrastructure, while maintaining the public right to access for the conservation estate. " So rather than absolute privatisation of Great Walks, it sounds like they're suggesting much more allowance for private operators to run facilities along Great Walks and elsewhere. eg. Maybe someone gets to build a fancy giant viewing platform somewhere and charge people for access to use it. Page 23 also has suggestions of expanding the number of Great Walks to increase visitor fee revenues, and to increase the capacity of accommodation on existing Great Walks, and also to issue concessions for more private accommodation development. Then it suggests having a permit-based entry fee system for visitor dense pars, whilst leaving "2nd tier" parks free to access.

The number of visitors availing themselves of our great outdoors is diverse and varies from the high paying Glampers who seem to inevitably spend up, to the humble cash strapped backpackers who are averse to paying $15 charge for a camp site where communal kitchen, showers, and washing facilities are available. I stand in the camp that advocates a charge at the border. A charge that is levied on every single visitor to this country. We already have departure taxes that nobody complains about. Why not levy a charge that is directly allocated to the infrastructure that supports our outdoors facilities? The only real problem with that is ensuring sufficient governance is in place to ensure the monies are allocated to the appropriate authorities and don’t end up disappearing to the general tax take. I have been closely following “TA” walkers this season with a view to doing the trail next year. I am surprised, probably not really, at the number of comments on prices here in New Zealand by the overseas visitors. Back Packers/Hikers/Walkers looking for places to freedom/stealth camp because they do not wish to, and will not pay for a camp site as mentioned above. On the other hand, they seem to be quite complementary of the hut pass system, those that have found and pay for it that is. Others will stay in the huts regardless or use the facilities on passing through and then camp off track somewhere. I will point out that I know of New Zealanders that will do the same, when they should be setting an example. Yes, I am of the belief that we should levy all visitors or non-New Zealand citizens irrespective of what they are here for. New Zealanders returning home would be exempt. All revenues so collected should be applied to the infrastructure to maintain and improve the great outdoors facilities we already have. Part of that revenues could be applied to establishing I-Sites at all the major international entry points in the country so that information and the likes of hut passes etc. can be obtained, or information at least promulgated to arrivals that look likely to use the outdoors. The outdoors is one of the great attractions for this country, if we do not maintain it we will lose it. Along with that loss goes a substantial chunk of tourism revenue. We will not lose a vast amount of tourism revenue from levying an entry fee on all who would come here. There is more to be gained than lost. Provide the funds improve the structure as it stands and we won't have to place the Great Walk system in a position of privatisation where it could eventually end up being foreign owned and New Zealanders as a whole find themselves excluded.

the northern part of the TA has a lot of restrictions about where you can camp because of the amount of private land it runs through and a lack of suitable camping sites in the forests and it goes through a lot of towns, also theres more temptations to blow your money in towns. those wanting to do the trail legitimately face a lot of bills paying for campsites or accommodation that they dont usually encounter on american trails... some of the complaints are about their budget being blown early so they are often forced to stealth camp to make their meagre money stretch for the entire journey...