great walks fees for foreigners up to double price

@izogi I don't think it matters what the semantics are in overhauling the system or how many apps are involved it will still end up as being a next to useless exercise incapable of being policed effectively and totally detrimental to any collect of increased fees. I note your caution on cards, kiosks, and whatever, but as you point out how will the costs be covered. Especially when you have to expend vast amounts trying to recover whatever the overpriced fees might be. It doesn't really matter what price the loony brigade want to put on the Great Walks. The right minded tourists that want to do them will pay. The others that don't now won't in the future, that's the reality. Unfortunately politicians have no concept of reality. You only have to look at many of the decisions they make, they are a bloody joke. The whole put up at present is an attempt at a vote grab. Those with an ounce of common sense can see that. And if you don't think that is correct go and get a beer at Bellamy's and sit quietly in the corner listening to the buzz of conversation that abounds therein. If that doesn't change your mind real fast nothing will.

The cynic in me also wonders if spending $11.4 million on an upgrade in Online Services will result in the most efficient benefit for $11.4 million of spending. Without any specs on what they're actually doing, though, it's really hard to know. Edit: I have emailed DOC and politely requested an approximate breakdown of what it actually plans to do.

Yes, I think you got that right. Plus I doubt any specs will be forthcoming in the next 12 months. Then when we hear about them they will be well into the project and bemoaning the blowout costs. Then everyone will be wondering why they weren't consulted. Thus the Merry go Round goes round and round with no definitive result at the end. Just another gravy train to bleed the general taxpaying public. If they want to make it user pays then make it user pays, and that starts with the the general tourist. They come here with expectations and bemoan the fact when it doesn't quite live up to what they are accustomed to. Well lets give them what they want and nab them at the border to pay for it. The government is only too willing to ignore the general taxpayer and make them the butt end of a user pays system, so whats the difference with all the others. Heaven forbid that we might upset some poor tourist, or one of the wealthy. Its like ACC why the hell are we the taxpaying public paying for tourists that have an accident. Well guess what would happen if we went to their country without comprehensive travel insurance. The inequity of the whole situation in this country is just plain stupid. We have the resource, we have the tourists that want to see this country, so charge for the privilege and provide the means. The logic and the reasons are simple provided we have a government with the backbone to implement the change. Perhaps we the people who in our wisdom elect the government need to be more noisy about why we elected certain people to represent us. And thus remind them of who their employers are.

The trade-off for the AAC was not being able to sue the operator (other than for negligence). Consequential benefits include reduced public liability insurance. I think it's another area that NZ leads the world.

it can be policed alright, rangers could throw peole out of huts or they will hit them with extra fines on the spot or throw them out if they dont pay up on the spot, DOC are looking at beefing up the powers of DOC rangers, in the states, rangers can arrest you, they are effectively police in parks, they can handcuff you, pull a gun on you. issue massive fines up to $5000.... obviously nz isnt going to go that far but expect DOC rangers to carry more clout and enforce it...

Good idea Then the tourist has 28 days to pay but they are leaving the country in 26 days. They cant be arrested at the airport unless they default on the fine another 2 days later

If we assume for a moment that DOC rangers are always reasonable and correct in their application of the law, what does DOC actually do, in practice, when rangers encounter unreasonable resistance? It's not exactly like suburbia where an out-numbered officer can back off, watch from a distance and call in backup because someone's refusing to hand over their name when they're legally required to.

Also @geeves, that's another thing that's confused me for some time. How is it that we have a system which apparently lets people simply leave the country and vanish, without any guarantee of resolution, when they have fines owing to local authorities or anyone else?

Most countries have that issue. Nothing unique about NZ in that respect.

So what is it that prevents a register being kept, and non-resident visitors with short-term visas being stopped at the border when they have fines owing?