ACT's vowing to share the tourism revenue already collected with councils, based on the number of bed nights. 

It wants to see one dollar given to councils for each guest night in their area, funded through GST and levies already paid by visitors. 

Leader David Seymour says it could be implemented at the next Budget, rather than needing legislation.  

He told Kerre Woodham the Government is not short of taxes and does not need a new one – it needs to use the money it has better. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

ACT's vowing to share the tourism revenue already collected with councils, based on the number of bed nights.&nbsp;
It wants to see one dollar given to councils for each guest night in their area, funded through GST and levies already paid by visitors.&nbsp;
Leader David Seymour says it could be implemented at the next Budget, rather than needing legislation. &nbsp;
He told Kerre Woodham the Government is not short of taxes and does not need a new one – it needs to use the money it has better.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE &nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

David Seymour: ACT Leader unpacks their proposed bed tax alternative

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/b08b9390-a4e1-44b1-9e80-b4a60024193f/transcript

There's a reason that people live in cities and towns that others love to visit. Beautiful beachside resorts down south, the gorgeous, gorgeous little villages nestled under incredible mountains and natural beauty, or vibrant hotspots where there's a million things to do and a melting pot of cultures and all the places of great historical relevance as well as great beauty. Of course people are going to flock to visit them. But it does cost to provide the amenities that serve the visitors and for small cities and towns, it's a heavy, heavy burden for the ratepayer.  

For a long time now, there's been discussion about whether to impose a bed tax on tourists, approximately 2.5% to 3% on short stay lodgings, and that would fund major cultural and sporting events and build the infrastructure in places where the ratepayer simply can't afford to put in the changing rooms, the loos, the motorhome parks, that sort of thing that are required. It would relieve the financial pressure on the ratepayers. Local authorities like Auckland Council face multimillion dollar budget gaps for attracting and subsidising major events that drive regional economic activity.  

Now, ACT has proposed a dollar a night from each guest night stay be given to the local council who is hosting that visitor, funded through levies and GST that tourists already pay. So not a new tax, but taking the money and taking a dollar out and giving it to the council. David Seymour estimates this dividend would give councils more than $40 million annually, but the strategic director of Hotel Council Aotearoa, James Doolan, told Mike Hosking that while it's a good start, it's nowhere near enough. 

“How do we share the massive amount of tourism tax with the people who actually host the tourists? You've got to do it everywhere nationally with a formula that doesn't change and isn't at risk of being changed by politicians from time to time. And $40 million for the entire country, I mean, Wayne Brown and Hotel Council, we agree that the number for Auckland alone should be about $40 million.  

“So there's some, again, good stuff from ACT, they've acknowledged the problem, but already we have $5 billion of GST, we have $230 million collected at the border, $230 million at IVL, and we need ACT to tell us whether that money is also going to deal with visitor pressure, which is what it was originally designed to do.” 

And it was. Remember when the international visitor levy was $35? Half went to conservation and DOC, the other half went into directly into infrastructure. Then the Coalition Government came in and changed it to $100, and now it's being used to pay for all sorts of things loosely associated with tourism. James Doolan didn't believe it should be spent on upgrading the cycle trails, given that it's mostly Kiwis that use them, but I don't know. I mean, regional tourism is still tourism, isn't it? At least it's not going on something like defence. It's not being taken out of one budget portfolio and going into another portfolio entirely.  

But if you live in a tourist town, a place that tourists flock to because it's beautiful, because it gives them an experience that they otherwise would not have, like Rotorua. Loved my time in Rotorua over Christmas, loved going back and seeing the city recovering and damn near fully recovered. Beautiful things to do there. But what do you need to spend the money on? I look at places like Whangamatā or Wānaka, and they're little, and for most of the time they chug along really nicely as a beautiful little community in a beautiful part of the world, and then woof, in comes the tourism, in comes the visitor influx. And it's not year-round, it's seasonal. How on earth do you deal with that with the huge fluctuations? If it was relatively steady, it would be so much easier to deal with.  

But when you're living in places, Ōhakune is another example, how do you deal with a massive influx of tourists all at once? Because what you need to sustain the tourists during that time is not what you're going to need for the rest of the year. And what sort of money do you need to look after the tourists properly, so it doesn't fall on the ratepayers’ shoulders? What sort of money are you talking about in the regions? What would you spend it on? Say all of a sudden, the international visitor levy gives you a windfall for your particular town, your particular region, what would you spend the money on to either attract tourists or to look after the ones who are already dedicated to coming and visiting your town? 

There's a reason that people live in cities and towns that others love to visit. Beautiful beachside resorts down south, the gorgeous, gorgeous little villages nestled under incredible mountains and natural beauty, or vibrant hotspots where there's a million things to do and a melting pot of cultures and all the places of great historical relevance as well as great beauty. Of course people are going to flock to visit them. But it does cost to provide the amenities that serve the visitors and for small cities and towns, it's a heavy, heavy burden for the ratepayer. &nbsp;
For a long time now, there's been discussion about whether to impose a bed tax on tourists, approximately 2.5% to 3% on short stay lodgings, and that would fund major cultural and sporting events and build the infrastructure in places where the ratepayer simply can't afford to put in the changing rooms, the loos, the motorhome parks, that sort of thing that are required. It would relieve the financial pressure on the ratepayers. Local authorities like Auckland Council face multimillion dollar budget gaps for attracting and subsidising major events that drive regional economic activity. &nbsp;
Now, ACT has proposed a dollar a night from each guest night stay be given to the local council who is hosting that visitor, funded through levies and GST that tourists already pay. So not a new tax, but taking the money and taking a dollar out and giving it to the council. David Seymour estimates this dividend would give councils more than $40 million annually, but the strategic director of Hotel Council Aotearoa, James Doolan, told Mike Hosking that while it's a good start, it's nowhere near enough.&nbsp;
“How do we share the massive amount of tourism tax with the people who actually host the tourists? You've got to do it everywhere nationally with a formula that doesn't change and isn't at risk of being changed by politicians from time to time. And $40 million for the entire country, I mean, Wayne Brown and Hotel Council, we agree that the number for Auckland alone should be about $40 million. &nbsp;
“So there's some, again, good stuff from ACT, they've acknowledged the problem, but already we have $5 billion of GST, we have $230 million collected at the border, $230 million at IVL, and we need ACT to tell us whether that money is also going to deal with visitor pressure, which is what it was originally designed to do.”&nbsp;
And it was. Remember when the international visitor levy was $35? Half went to conservation and DOC, the other half went into directly into infrastructure. Then the Coalition Government came in and changed it to $100, and now it's being used to pay for all sorts of things loosely associated with tourism. James Doolan didn't believe it should be spent on upgrading the cycle trails, given that it's mostly Kiwis that use them, but I don't know. I mean, regional tourism is still tourism, isn't it? At least it's not going on something like defence. It's not being taken out of one budget portfolio and going into another portfolio entirely. &nbsp;
But if you live in a tourist town, a place that tourists flock to because it's beautiful, because it gives them an experience that they otherwise would not have, like Rotorua. Loved my time in Rotorua over Christmas, loved going back and seeing the city recovering and damn near fully recovered. Beautiful things to do there. But what do you need to spend the money on? I look at places like Whangamatā or Wānaka, and they're little, and for most of the time they chug along really nicely as a beautiful little community in a beautiful part of the world, and then woof, in comes the tourism, in comes the visitor influx. And it's not year-round, it's seasonal. How on earth do you deal with that with the huge fluctuations? If it was relatively steady, it would be so much easier to deal with. &nbsp;
But when you're living in places, Ōhakune is another example, how do you deal with a massive influx of tourists all at once? Because what you need to sustain the tourists during that time is not what you're going to need for the rest of the year. And what sort of money do you need to look after the tourists properly, so it doesn't fall on the ratepayers’ shoulders? What sort of money are you talking about in the regions? What would you spend it on? Say all of a sudden, the international visitor levy gives you a windfall for your particular town, your particular region, what would you spend the money on to either attract tourists or to look after the ones who are already dedicated to coming and visiting your town?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Is ACT's bed tax alternative a good option?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e54f6a07-0f8f-44fa-ae46-b4a600070c7e/transcript

So that's it then, at least until the next time. Christopher Luxon and his camp stared down the would-be challengers to his leadership, and he lives to fight another election. What happens after that is anybody's guess – win or lose. Chris Penk, the stalking horse, paid the price for calling a confidence motion, stripped of his ministerial portfolios, kicked down to the bottom of the backbenches to sit in purgatory, and he's announced he'll retire from politics at the election. There are all sorts of reckons about who he was acting for, who was really behind the coup, why it failed, and no doubt that will keep the political journos and the Wellington cabal in a lather for the next few weeks to come. 

But the end result is, despite all the fevered speculation, another challenge to the Prime Minister's leadership was mounted and another challenge was bested. What a sorry, sorry state of affairs. Credit to the Prime Minister for having the cojones to stare down the perfidious ne'er do wells within his own caucus. He doesn't have to do the job, he doesn't need to do the job, yet he was determined to stick it out and finish the job in his own time and in his own way. Credit too to him for keeping excellent ministers where they are doing good work, when surely a dark deep recess of his heart must wish there was still the ability to hang, draw, and quarter traitors. Would have taken a big deep breath and then move on. The ministers are doing good work for New Zealanders while undermining their boss and their party, and to be able to set aside an entirely understandable desire for vengeance shows real maturity and leadership. 

But where does it leave erstwhile National voters? Quite clearly the caucus is full of liars and traitors and grasping opportunists, no different I suppose to most other political parties, but it doesn't make me feel great voting for them. I know I should accept that this is politics, but why? You wouldn't put up with that in friendships, you wouldn't put up with that in your own workplace. Why do you have to accept undermining, duplicitous, two faced, pledging loyalty with one hand, hugging with one hand while the other hand holds the knife? I find it despicable. Is loyalty an old-fashioned virtue? I wouldn't have thought so. Anyway, why should people be able to get away with pledging their loyalty, telling the public, “Oh yes look, we're absolutely behind the leader," only to be found to be actively undermining both the leader and the party? And what sort of thinking are you getting if a significant cabal within National thinks it's a great idea to roll a leader who is leading a party that could form a government 90 days before the election? 

It hardly shows the brains trust, does it? To have a group of people going, “Hey, I know, why don't we roll the leader of our party and the Prime Minister 90 days before an election? That'll really get people on side." What a waste of time, what a waste of money and what an absolute bloody gift to Labour. 

So that's it then, at least until the next time. Christopher Luxon and his camp stared down the would-be challengers to his leadership, and he lives to fight another election. What happens after that is anybody's guess – win or lose. Chris Penk, the stalking horse, paid the price for calling a confidence motion, stripped of his ministerial portfolios, kicked down to the bottom of the backbenches to sit in purgatory, and he's announced he'll retire from politics at the election. There are all sorts of reckons about who he was acting for, who was really behind the coup, why it failed, and no doubt that will keep the political journos and the Wellington cabal in a lather for the next few weeks to come.&nbsp;
But the end result is, despite all the fevered speculation, another challenge to the Prime Minister's leadership was mounted and another challenge was bested. What a sorry, sorry state of affairs. Credit to the Prime Minister for having the cojones to stare down the perfidious ne'er do wells within his own caucus. He doesn't have to do the job, he doesn't need to do the job, yet he was determined to stick it out and finish the job in his own time and in his own way. Credit too to him for keeping excellent ministers where they are doing good work, when surely a dark deep recess of his heart must wish there was still the ability to hang, draw, and quarter traitors. Would have taken a big deep breath and then move on. The ministers are doing good work for New Zealanders while undermining their boss and their party, and to be able to set aside an entirely understandable desire for vengeance shows real maturity and leadership.&nbsp;
But where does it leave erstwhile National voters? Quite clearly the caucus is full of liars and traitors and grasping opportunists, no different I suppose to most other political parties, but it doesn't make me feel great voting for them. I know I should accept that this is politics, but why? You wouldn't put up with that in friendships, you wouldn't put up with that in your own workplace. Why do you have to accept undermining, duplicitous, two faced, pledging loyalty with one hand, hugging with one hand while the other hand holds the knife? I find it despicable. Is loyalty an old-fashioned virtue? I wouldn't have thought so. Anyway, why should people be able to get away with pledging their loyalty, telling the public, “Oh yes look, we're absolutely behind the leader," only to be found to be actively undermining both the leader and the party? And what sort of thinking are you getting if a significant cabal within National thinks it's a great idea to roll a leader who is leading a party that could form a government 90 days before the election?&nbsp;
It hardly shows the brains trust, does it? To have a group of people going, “Hey, I know, why don't we roll the leader of our party and the Prime Minister 90 days before an election? That'll really get people on side." What a waste of time, what a waste of money and what an absolute bloody gift to Labour.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: National's leadership debacle – what a waste of time

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/5cb08c42-78c7-471d-a4f0-b4a5000cdc35/transcript

Do you know what? While those self-serving destructive quislings in Wellington are doing their very best to lose the election at the caucus meeting this morning, specially called, do you know who's not meeting? 40 mayors and councillors who were supposed to be attending a signing ceremony of a regional deal between the government, the Queenstown Lakes District Council, the Otago Regional Council and the Central Otago District Council. This is good work. This is perhaps not sexy work, but it's sound, sensible work that's going on, that's going to make life better for the ratepayers of these regions. It was all set to be signed at 10:30am, but now it won't because senior ministers can't attend. And why can't they attend? Because a group of traitorous idiots are attempting to roll the Prime Minister again.  

That just underlines how arrogant and ignorant these small minded, perfidious group of Nats are. Because they are terrified of losing their accommodation allowances, their travel allowances, their home security allowance, their jacked up Super, terrified of having to find a real job 90 days before an election. They're trying to roll a Prime Minister who at the latest poll was leading a party that was ahead and a party that had every chance of winning an election with a group of centre-right other parties. If there was any last one of us who thought that politicians were there to serve the people, surely this self-serving, self-seeking, self-aggrandising group of Nats has put that idea to the sword. 

If National had no chance of getting back in, if the leader of the Nats had committed an egregious crime à la McSkimming, if he'd been accused of something truly vile, then sure, get rid of him, utterly grounds for getting rid of him. But to get rid of him because he's not snazzy enough? Not glib enough? Not vibey enough, hasn't got the feels? Knows too much and wants to share it? They think Chris Bishop is snazzy? What a pack of fools.  

I do not know where my vote will go if the cohort of Nats within the party are stupid enough to roll their boss. If they prevail, they're people who simply cannot be trusted, their word is not good. I know men and women who can do million-dollar deals on the shake of a hand and a word. They are good people, they are sound people and they're the ones getting dicked around by these traitorous, duplicitous liars. “We back our leader," said Chris Bishop yesterday while testing the sharpness of his blade. Erica Stanford four days ago told journalists that they were interviewing their typewriters and that she's behind Luxon while the bagman Penk is alleged to have done the numbers. Ugly, ugly, ugly stuff. 

If Luxon prevails today, and I really hope he does, Chris Bishop should be relegated straight to the bottom of the list and consigned to history. Christopher Luxon came in and did a jolly good job of uniting a party that was a shambles. It was in absolute disarray. Simon Bridges was dumped, replaced by Todd Muller who retired hurt and then Judith Collins got the hospital pass and then into the 2020 election in which National were decimated. They had to rebuild from the ashes, and Christopher Luxon helped them do that.  

He might not have the jazz hands, but he had faith in good ministers, let them get on with their work, held them to account. What do they do with their renewed strength, the Nats? They disembowel themselves and eat their own entrails, which makes for really unpleasant viewing. For the lefty voters, oh, you must be thinking this is better than any Netflix drama right now. Grab the popcorn and watch it all unfold and who can blame you? This is an own goal of seismic proportions. If a small group of destructive Nats are responsible for the collapse of the centre right vote and Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori and the Opportunity party gets in, we should make a new crime and charge those snivelling quislings with economic treason. 

Do you know what? While those self-serving destructive quislings in Wellington are doing their very best to lose the election at the caucus meeting this morning, specially called, do you know who's not meeting? 40 mayors and councillors who were supposed to be attending a signing ceremony of a regional deal between the government, the Queenstown Lakes District Council, the Otago Regional Council and the Central Otago District Council. This is good work. This is perhaps not sexy work, but it's sound, sensible work that's going on, that's going to make life better for the ratepayers of these regions. It was all set to be signed at 10:30am, but now it won't because senior ministers can't attend. And why can't they attend? Because a group of traitorous idiots are attempting to roll the Prime Minister again. &nbsp;
That just underlines how arrogant and ignorant these small minded, perfidious group of Nats are. Because they are terrified of losing their accommodation allowances, their travel allowances, their home security allowance, their jacked up Super, terrified of having to find a real job 90 days before an election. They're trying to roll a Prime Minister who at the latest poll was leading a party that was ahead and a party that had every chance of winning an election with a group of centre-right other parties. If there was any last one of us who thought that politicians were there to serve the people, surely this self-serving, self-seeking, self-aggrandising group of Nats has put that idea to the sword.&nbsp;
If National had no chance of getting back in, if the leader of the Nats had committed an egregious crime à la McSkimming, if he'd been accused of something truly vile, then sure, get rid of him, utterly grounds for getting rid of him. But to get rid of him because he's not snazzy enough? Not glib enough? Not vibey enough, hasn't got the feels? Knows too much and wants to share it? They think Chris Bishop is snazzy? What a pack of fools. &nbsp;
I do not know where my vote will go if the cohort of Nats within the party are stupid enough to roll their boss. If they prevail, they're people who simply cannot be trusted, their word is not good. I know men and women who can do million-dollar deals on the shake of a hand and a word. They are good people, they are sound people and they're the ones getting dicked around by these traitorous, duplicitous liars. “We back our leader," said Chris Bishop yesterday while testing the sharpness of his blade. Erica Stanford four days ago told journalists that they were interviewing their typewriters and that she's behind Luxon while the bagman Penk is alleged to have done the numbers. Ugly, ugly, ugly stuff.&nbsp;
If Luxon prevails today, and I really hope he does, Chris Bishop should be relegated straight to the bottom of the list and consigned to history. Christopher Luxon came in and did a jolly good job of uniting a party that was a shambles. It was in absolute disarray. Simon Bridges was dumped, replaced by Todd Muller who retired hurt and then Judith Collins got the hospital pass and then into the 2020 election in which National were decimated. They had to rebuild from the ashes, and Christopher Luxon helped them do that. &nbsp;
He might not have the jazz hands, but he had faith in good ministers, let them get on with their work, held them to account. What do they do with their renewed strength, the Nats? They disembowel themselves and eat their own entrails, which makes for really unpleasant viewing. For the lefty voters, oh, you must be thinking this is better than any Netflix drama right now. Grab the popcorn and watch it all unfold and who can blame you? This is an own goal of seismic proportions. If a small group of destructive Nats are responsible for the collapse of the centre right vote and Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori and the Opportunity party gets in, we should make a new crime and charge those snivelling quislings with economic treason.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Those trying to roll Luxon are a pack of fools

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e1edfd58-9102-43f4-9679-b4a3016c7e11/transcript

David Seymour: ACT Leader unpacks their proposed bed tax alternative

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips