International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy Review 2024

Agenda

Patrick: Thank you very much again for joining us today. The agenda for the meeting is on the screen.

We will start just by introducing ourselves here at MBIE and we have a colleague, as well, from the Department of Conservation joining. And then, I will talk through the context for the changes which have been proposed in the Discussion Document and that will include a bit of a background on the IVL. Then, my colleague Sofia will talk to the draft proposals which were shared in our Discussion Document and explain how you can have your say on those proposals and that responses to the survey will be done via our website. There is a survey link on there, and you are also very welcome to email in your feedback as well.

Just as a trailer for that section, just to remind people, we’re seeking feedback on the amount of IVL that’s charged to those who are liable to contribute via the IVL and also where money raised through the IVL should be spent across tourism and conservation. And then, at the end of today’s session, there will be time for questions, so please add your questions to the Q&A function as we go along. And then, at the end, Sofia and I, and maybe Magnus, our colleague from DOC, will respond to things as we have time to. We expect the presentation to last about 20 minutes, and then there’ll be plenty of time at the end as well for us to go through those questions in the Q&A.

Today is not us seeking feedback or submissions on the proposals. Though we are very keen to hear your feedback. Today is just us taking the time to talk to you about the proposals and answer any questions you have about them. If you do have feedback, we just ask that you make that via the survey or through sending us an email. The reason we ask that is just because it helps us to keep track of comments to make sure we are recording things appropriately and that we can then use your feedback for our advice to the Ministers at the end of the consultation process. The content in the webinar today—that’s all available in the Discussion Document, which MBIE has published and that’s available on our website, so you’re obviously welcome to take notes and so forth, but there’s nothing in here that you can’t actually see in the Discussion Document, so you don’t need to worry if you missed something as we go along. Although, we can repeat things obviously if you’d like us to.

Introductions

Patrick: To introduce ourselves, my name is Patrick West-Oram. I am a Principal Policy Advisor here at MBIE. I work in the Tourism Stewardship and Systems team, and I am leading on the IVL work at the moment, and I am joined by…

Sofia: Kia ora tātou, ko Sofia Morrell taku ingoa. I am a Policy Advisor in the Tourism Stewardship and Systems team as well, and we are joined by our colleague from DOC.

Magnus: Kia ora koutou. I am Magnus Monahan, a Policy Advisor at the Department of Conservation and supporting on the Conservation side of the IVL and hopefully able to answer any questions you have on that today.

Patrick: Thanks so much, everyone. Again, just welcoming you to the session today.

Context

Patrick: We’ll start with: I’ll talk through some of the context and background for how we’ve got here. Just to reiterate, all of the information I’m about to provide is available in the Discussion Document as well, so you don’t need to furiously scribble down any figures or anything if you don’t want to.

What is the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy?

Patrick: So, the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy—or the IVL, as it’s most commonly known—was established in 2019, and it’s paid alongside a visitor’s visa or NZeTA when you make an application to come to New Zealand through those systems. It’s charged at $35 for every eligible person to pay, and it was assumed in 2019 that if we had visitor volumes equivalent to 2019—which was our peak visitor year—it would raise roughly $80 million a year. That funding is shared equally (50/50) between projects for Tourism, which is administered by us here at MBIE and for Conservation projects, and those are administered by our colleagues at DOC. The legislation, which we will talk a little bit about, it’s clear that funding from the IVL can only be for Conservation and Tourism-related projects but a fifty-fifty split—that was a Cabinet agreement at the time in 2019. The amount of money which we raised through the IVL fluctuates with visitor numbers, so because of the impact of COVID, we’ve never actually raised the $80 million. We’ve raised some, and then not very much when the border was closed, and then it is rising again as International Visitor volumes are trending backwards back up towards that 2019 figure. So, we say $80 million a year. That number is often repeated, but just to clarify that it’s naturally up and down depending on tourism volumes.

The following visitors do not pay the IVL…

Patrick: I’ll talk a little bit about the people who are eligible to pay, but to be clear, there are a number of people who do not pay the IVL, and that includes any New Zealand citizen or resident, so it includes people like myself who have a residency visa, we don’t have to pay when we come back into New Zealand. Australian citizens and permanent residents are not eligible to pay. Most visitors from Pacific Island nations are also not eligible. People in transit, recognised seasonal workers, people using business visas, ambassadors and diplomatic staff, those kinds of people—they don’t pay the IVL either. And to be clear that this consultation isn’t asking about who is eligible to pay. There’s no question at the moment that that will change. So, if anyone is interested in more people being charged, fewer people being charged, that isn’t something we are asking about at the moment.

Visitor numbers

Patrick: I’ll talk a little bit about visitor numbers trending back upwards towards those 2019 figures, and at the moment, our currently comparisons suggest we’re at about 80-81% of our arrivals compared to 2019. So, a very positive signal since the end of COVID to NZ and also tourism worldwide is recovering much faster than I think people expected. That’s a sign that things are going well, and we’re very positive about that.

However, we do acknowledge that last 20% might be more challenging to recover, given some of the headwinds that the world is facing at the moment. There's a bit of a global economic slowdown. There's some fiscal pressures in our key markets both close and further away, and that will impact on some people's decisions to travel. So, when we talk about the amount of IVL, it's very much been taken into consideration, that yes, visitor volumes are increasing, but we know it's not a given that that that 100% of 2019 figure will be reached.

The reason that rising visitor volumes is an important issue for us is that we know that the more people there are that travel to New Zealand and use the infrastructure and the public conservation and make up the tourism experience here—that means that we create pressure on that infrastructure and land and that will over time—if not addressed—will erode the viability of those facilities and that will reduce our ability to offer high-quality experiences that we want to be able to offer as a tourism destination. When the IVL was introduced, it was introduced as a way of supporting visitors to contribute to the costs that can be created through international tourism. But we know that the IVL does not create—does not raise enough revenue—or does not raise all the revenue. And that is needed to address those costs.

And so, the government is seeking to ask stakeholders and members of the public what rate of the IVL would be appropriate and to address some of these costs. And that's not necessarily one-for-one and paying for the full range of costs, but it's understanding what's an appropriate mix of people paying, bearing those costs between taxpayers, and ratepayers, and international offices.

The cost of tourism

Patrick: I’ll talk about the costs of tourism. And these figures are from 2016 and 2019, we estimate that the costs were around 200 to $250 million annually. And that's split between about 100 to $150 million for tourism infrastructure and about $96 million of costs on the DOC estates. So, on our public conservation land and water. And that cost is paid for either by the Crown, which, of course, is raised through tax and ratepayers through the IVL or is not addressed at all.

And so, the question now is about, well, should international visitors contribute more to those ongoing costs and what rate is appropriate and fair? But we do just want to acknowledge that, obviously, when visitors come to New Zealand, they generate a huge amount for us, both for our economy and for our society. And they spend money here, they pay GST. And that's all very important and something that we want to ensure is continuing, and the government is pushing for continuing growth in tourism and looking to double export income by 2030 and across a range of areas, which will, of course, include tourism.

So, we're not suggesting that we want to reduce international tourism or international tourism is negative. It's just that there are these external costs which have to be met. And so, what's the best way of meeting those external costs? We talk about things like GST, and we do acknowledge the contribution made there and GST is slightly separate in that it goes towards wider costs across New Zealand's economy. So, things like roads, schools, and hospitals—all of the things that make New Zealand a safe and welcoming place to visit.

And I would like to add that New Zealand isn't alone in considering these additional charges. There are several other countries in the world that have similar costs in place. And the question of tourism volumes and tourism impacts is being considered by a wide range of countries at the moment. For instance, in Athens, tickets for the activities of the Acropolis are now timed and limited to manage visitor volumes. And in Venice, we've seen the introduction of a daily visitor fee to help manage the impact of daily visitors into the city and to try and manage demand.

We know also that Australia, our closest neighbour, has something called the passenger movement charge, which at the moment is $60.00. And that we understand is increasing to $70.00 in July. And that's charged to all visitors when they leave Australia on an aeroplane. And that that money goes back to central government for it to be spent on a variety of different things, including the cost of managing the border but other items as well.

The Government is focusing on rebuilding the economy

Patrick: Last point I think that's important to be clear about is the focus of this government, which is on rebuilding the economy in a number of different ways. And the government has to focus on a wide range of priorities, including tourism but many other things as well. And at present, the Crown invests significantly into tourism, including through international marketing with Tourism New Zealand, investment into mixed-use infrastructure and support, of course, for conservation land and water in the DOC estate. And it's appropriate, therefore, for government to consider the balance of contributions that are made by taxpayers and ratepayers to the Crown account and also by international visitors to continue to support these functions, which we see as important.

So, part of the discussion that's in the discussion document, and there are questions in there that are asking for your opinion, is whether or not funding from the levy should be used in part to fund activity that's currently provided by the Crown. So, we're interested in hearing your views on this funding mix or, how much should international visitors contribute to these activities, and what's the correct way to apportion that?

That's the end of me talking, you'll be pleased to hear. So, I'm going to pass over control of the slides to my colleague Sofia Morell.

Draft proposals

Sofia: Thank you, Patrick. Bear with if there's any lags with pressing next on the next slide, only so much technology can do.

Consultation

Sofia: So, as Patrick mentioned today, we're kind of giving a bit of an overview of what we're consulting on, and that's the amount of the IVL and where the money generated through the IVL is spent. And again, we just like to draw attention to our Have Your Say website, where we welcome your feedback by our survey.

The amount

Sofia: So, I'll just run you through these options briefly. So, the first thing we're consulting on is the amount. So, we're seeking feedback on four different options within that. So that includes keeping the IVL at the current status quo amount of $35.00 or increasing it to either $50.00, $70.00 or $100.00 per eligible person. And, as Patrick mentioned earlier, we're not looking at revisiting who those eligible people are in this consultation.

When landing on these four options that we're consulting on, we've considered a range of factors. For example, if we were to adjust for inflation from 2019 when the IVL was first introduced, the IVL would be looking at around $42.00 now.

Another thing with being kind of keeping in mind is, as Patrick mentioned, what are other overseas jurisdictions charging at their borders or for tourism activities because we want to make sure we kind of keeping that comparative level with other countries.

We've also been keen to keep in mind that visitors face a range of costs when they come to New Zealand, both when they enter here at the border but also costs maybe from their home countries or wherever they may be departing from. So, we just want to keep that one at top of mind.

Estimated Revenue

Sofia: To put the four options into numbers, we've got this handy table here, which a version of this table is also in the discussion document. So, feel free to have a look at that table there.

This slide demonstrates the revenue that we'd expect any new amount or the status quo, as Patrick mentioned earlier, to raise. And these are based on the arrival numbers from 2019.

So, as Patrick mentioned, we've got the status quo amount estimated to raise around 80 million per year, and then each option above that one.

One thing that we're kind of keeping in mind when we're looking at these options, too, is thinking about those range of costs that Patrick mentioned earlier. So, that $200 to 250 million is a baseline idea of thinking about the costs for tourism.

Again, these numbers are in the discussion document, which also includes a column that shows a bit of variance in revenue that we might expect if visitor numbers were to fluctuate.

At present, we don't have a kind of a current or up-to-date model to suggest an accurate impact on visitor numbers if any change to the IVL may occur. But we do have a UK visa cost study that we can call on, which is just that the impact of our potential IVL cost change would be minimal on visitor demand.

But we're really interested to hear from stakeholders if you do have any data or insights on potential demand to visitor arrivals if the IVL were to increase, for example.

It would be really handy, so if we do have that from you, we can provide that one on to ministers.

And as I said earlier, we’re making sure when we're looking at these $50.00, $70.00 or $100.00 increase options alongside the status quo that we keep in mind how that compares with other costs at the border that we already have and as well as other costs for visitors, including air travel and fuel costs and that kind of thing.

How should revenue be spent?

Sofia: So, the second part of our consultation is looking at how the IVL is spent. So, just from the outset, the legislation that governs the IVL states that the IVL can be used on conservation infrastructure used for tourism and other initiatives related to tourism. That's quite a broad legislative framework, but then, within that, we have choices about how money may be spent from the IVL.

Tourism and Conservation Spending Options

Sofia: Sorry for the lag. Our discussion document covers off these six spending options. And we're really keen to hear your feedback on how you rank and feel about these six options. But also, if you have any other additional spending options you can think of, feel free to send those through. We really encourage that. Just noting that any additional spending options would need to be within the legislative framework that I noted earlier.

Another thing to kind of point out about these six options is that, as I mentioned, these aren't the be-all and end-all, and we really want to kind of see how you are ranking these different options—to see if there's some you feel particularly strongly about because it could be a combination of any of these options, but I'll run you through them just to kind of give a bit of an explanation and examples.

So, the first one we've got here is tourism infrastructure and assets. So, with this, some examples we could be looking at is your mixed-use infrastructure. So, think public toilets or car parks. And another thing here could be tourism data and New Zealand cycle trails, and that's what is fitting around that spending option. The second one we've got here is the public conservation estate. So, if there's any specific questions about that, maybe Magnus can speak to that, but that's focusing on the DOC side of things.

As Patrick mentioned, there's some estimated costs to DOC that the visitor may impose and some values from 2019 that we can draw on. And so, this option would be looking at how could the IVL be used for those. Maybe DOC maintenance costs of the visitor state and assets or wider conservation goals. So, thinking about things like Kākāpō recovery and that kind of thing.

So, the third one we're looking at is a bit of a fun economic-sy term called ‘investing into club goods.’ So, I know another way of thinking about that is things where the sector might have shared goals that we could help address. So, there might be areas of concern or challenges for the sector where there's no incentive or ease for one player to address them. So, it could be an opportunity for the IVL to help be a funder with those things.

Some things we could be thinking about under that third pillar would be industry investment plans or strategies. We know that there's several that have been released over the last year or so. So, we could be looking at maybe there's some shared goals within them that the IVL could be used to address. But then, similarly, we could be thinking what are some shifts and conservation goals that the sector is trying to strive for that the IVL could be used for.

The fourth one we're looking at is international tourism marketing. So, looking at that funding mix of Crown and IVL funding, as Patrick mentioned earlier, looking at the funding mix and contribution from visitors and ratepayers or taxpayers. So, an example there would be looking at Tourism New Zealand funding.

The fifth one, similarly, is looking at Crown investment. Again, that relative contribution that is our visitors versus taxpayers paying for a range of functions that the Crown currently invests in.

That sixth one there a bit more broad, but again, focusing on the bounds of legislation that we have, we're aware that tourism is quite cross-cutting, so touches on a lot of different parts of the economy. And so, we want to see if there's any other areas that may be the IVL could be used to support services for international visitors or that international visitors use and can benefit from.

Again, the discussion document covers off these six options in more detail, so feel free to flick through there to your delight and again, in your submissions, feel free to pull on any 7th or 8th—or however ambitious you want to be—options for spending. In the end, caveating with that, again, they have to fit within those legislative bounds that I mentioned earlier.

How to have your say

Sofia: Before we move on to answering some of the questions that have been coming through, and again, just a reminder—feel free to be sending those through the Q & A function—just want to cover off how you can have your say.

Have your say
Sofia: There we go. The deadline for providing your feedback is 5 p.m. on Tuesday, the 11th of June. And so, just about 20-ish days to go.

The easiest way for you to provide your feedback is through the survey that's on our MBIE Have Your Say website. Easy way to find that website is just by going to any web page and clicking that Have Your Say button at the top that we've got circled there. That will take you to all of our consultations, and you'll see the IVL one there at the top.

You're also welcome to e-mail them a written submission to our IVL consultation inbox we've got listed there, and that's also on the website. We just ask that you consider limiting your written submission to under five pages, and that's just to assist us in summarising and analysing the submissions, similarly to the surveys. [It is] really helpful for us in doing that, too.

Next Steps

Sofia: Again, just before some questions, just have a bit of a summary of next steps from what the consultation's going to be doing. Well, as I said, we'll be ending on the 11th of June with the view then to provide a summary of what we've heard in the consultation to Ministers, and we'll be publishing that summary of submissions around August with the view then that should any changes to in any decisions being announced in August 2024.

If any changes were to be, I guess, made, that would be going live around quarter four later this year.

Questions?

Sofia: So, I'll have a flick through the Q&A box and just see some of the questions.

Question: I've got a question about how widely this consultation has been sent.

So, this is a public consultation with welcome feedback from everyone. And we've pushed out a stakeholder alert on the MBIE and DOC side. But yeah, we welcome any feedback, and you're welcome to pass on the website to anyone you think would have a great piece of feedback.

Patrick: [I’ll] maybe pull out some of the questions.

I see that Danielle, who's our manager, has been also fielding some. So, thanks, boss. So, Dave, it's [like] Danielle said, we're not seeking feedback through the call today, but please do complete the survey or send us an e-mail. That would be really helpful on the indication of total IVL funds. As Danielle says, that's in the Annex of the Discussion Documents, and you can see all of that information there.

Question: In terms of costs, domestic versus international tourist by proportion.

I don't have that figure in my head, I'm afraid. I think there's a challenge for us in identifying across the two groups just because of the way tourism operates. But I know that we are able to find some information about international tourists by mechanism of how they pay. So, overseas card transactions is one piece of data that we have, but I'm not sure. Sofia or Magnus, [do you know] if we're able to attribute specifically across those two groups?

Sofia: I'm not sure on that one, sorry.

Magnus: I believe the figure that we've used for the DOC cost was based on international visitors. We were able to collect data through our booking systems of international versus domestic visitors.

Patrick: Yeah, I suppose that's a good point there is that it's about how you interact with the system. So, because a lot of quote-unquote tourism is not DOC-related, things are spread across quite a wide range of areas. It's harder for us to track some of that in this level of specifics there. But for DOC, obviously, they have their own systems, so they can track some of that information more clearly than we can.

Question: IVL numbers matching current visitor numbers, do you mean the amount of money we've raised this year?

I think it's something like 50 million. I think. Off the top of my head, but I'm not entirely sure. But yeah, like I say, it fluctuates year on year to do with visitor numbers. So, and it's changing daily because people are arriving and paying daily, which is excellent.

Sofia: Got a question here that I can start answering and then Magnus, you can jump in if need be.

Question: Of the sixth meeting options, one of those is the DOC estate. 50% of the IVL already goes to the DOC estate, so why would some of the tourism component also go to the DOC estate?

So, just to clarify for this, as Patrick mentioned, there's a previous cabinet agreement that says that 50% of the IVL goes to tourism, 50% goes to conservation. In this consultation, we're kind of looking at the range of spending options. So, this isn't just the tourism side. This is tourism and conservation side, if that makes sense.

Patrick: Yeah. And another one that sort of relates to DOC about this from Rob Paul—thanks, Rob— in charging for DOC sites.

And that's a separate question really from the IVL question, although it is a useful piece of feedback if you feel that's something that Ministers should consider. There's some free text boxes in the survey that give you the opportunity to provide that feedback. And that's very useful for us as any feedback of any kind like that.

So, definition of club goods.

Sure. This is a very, like Sofia said, it's a very economic-sy term. It’s used to refer to a benefit that is felt by a wide range of people but where there's no clear incentive for an individual in that group to do it on their own.

Because of the nature of tourism and the nature of many of our tourism firms, that are often small businesses, they often don't have the size or scale to invest in something that might benefit, say, themselves plus all the other tourism operators in their region and there's often not — they might be doing something themselves as an as a business and spending money, which actually benefits not just themselves, but also their competitors. So, that prevents some development of tools, which could see why they want support across all the sector. So, that's what we would call a club good. It's something that will benefit everybody, but there's no incentive for an individual in that group to do it themselves. And that's where government can be a supporter of the development of product like that.
I don't know if that's any clearer, but that's sort of what we mean by ‘club good’. 

The consultation request [has] gone to stakeholders to on MBIE stakeholder alert.

Which our stakeholders and put themselves on. And there's also some marketing which has gone out on social media, and I think that went live yesterday. So, we're hoping to get responses from members of the public as well as from our stakeholder groups as well. 

Hamish, so there's a review requirement for MBIE every five years to consider the rate of the IVL.

We've actually reached five years in 2024 from when we were introduced in 2019. And there will be reviews going forward, and that's for us to manage. And also, the review can be anytime if the Minister is interested in it. 

A staggered approach.

We haven't considered a staged approach in part of the consultation this time around. But again, if you think that would be preferable, then please do provide that feedback because it's helpful for us to be able to tell that story of what people are saying. 

Theresa, so, again, you're right. The 80 million, it isn't generating 80 million a year at the moment because we're not at the levels of 2019.

We just used that figure as a benchmark of what it was expected to raise if we were at the 2019 visitor numbers. But it fluctuates annually based on visitor volume. So, when the border was closed for most travellers during COVID, it raised very little, I think something like $2 million because of the nature of the volumes coming in. So, it's just used as a benchmark figure to give a sense of the scale of what it can raise. 

Janet, in terms of price sensitivity

I think, as Sofia mentioned, we don't have an accurate model to measure that price sensitivity or elasticity. Unfortunately, we don't have data that's up to date enough for us to accurately give an indication of that. We have got some older data that we've used internally, but we don't think it's really strong enough to support the public compensation on it, though we have asked, through the consultation, for anybody that does have some of that data and to provide information to us, again, to help us make the recommendations to the Ministers.

As Sofia said, there is a study that was recently published by an institution in the United Kingdom which tracked price-sensitivity to visa costs, which showed that there was a pretty low-level of price-sensitivity. And we've used that to estimate that it’s probably similar for the IVL. And I think the other point that's useful for us at least to remember is that our most price-sensitive market is Australia, and Australians don't pay the IVL. So, that is another way of just supporting our thinking.

I've lost the order, apologies. 

Julie, funding RTOS and information centres.

Yes, so that is sort of included in some of the options there. And again, if that's something that you think would be positive for the sector, then please do provide that feedback through the consultation document.

Tom. I think maybe this one might be more for you, Magnus.

Magnus: [I’m] just taking a look at that one now. 

[I’m] not sure if that would be directly related to the to an IVL rate increase, Tom. [I’m] not too sure about consultation with private landowners on high-value areas.

I don't have an answer for you on that straight away, but as I say, I'm not sure it's directly relating to the rate increase question.

Patrick: I read that as maybe more relating to perhaps a farming question, but I'm not sure. I'm a tourism official, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think that may be slightly separate to what we're talking about today, if that helps. 

Don, your question about equivalent charges levied by Australia.

So, Australia has a $60.00 passenger movement charge, that $AUD60.00 that we understand is going up to $70.00 in July. And there is further information on comparators in the discussion document as well, and that you could have a look at. There are various other charges. So, I'm British from the UK; there's a carbon-related exit tax that's something like, I think, £110 per person, and that's paid on all people using an aeroplane going out of the country. But I would check that number because that's just on my head. 

How much the IVL will generate over the next few years at the current settings?

Again, it would depend on visitor volumes, but I think it's around $75 million. But that, again, depends on volumes, and that's just a bit of a rough estimate.

Lydia, thank you. That's a good question. 

Mixed-use infrastructure assets can be quite hard to describe when we often use things like car parks and toilets because they’re really easy. But yes, it can relate to a wide range of things.

So, you've used the example of wastewater treatment and also included in that as that point around areas with a high number of visitor footfall compared to local resident ratepayer population. The IVL— you'll be able to see in the annex of the Discussion Document—that in the past, the IVL has been used for investment into wastewater infrastructure and say that that is sort of considered as part of that conversation. But, as Sofia said earlier about the way the legislation works, we'd have to be very clear about making sure that that investment was a tourism-related investment rather than anything wider to make sure that we're not falling foul of any of the law that we're required to follow.

And Paul. Why is not charging Australians up for review?

That's a ministerial decision to not do that. And that's to do with our international relations with our partners and price sensitivity in a number of areas. But, yes, that's not on the table at the moment.

I'll just have a quick look in the chat to see if anyone's put anything in there.

[Let’s] see, I think I mentioned... Joe, you repeated your question, so that's great.

Karuna. So, that is really that we're not able to give it any indication about what could be covered by the Crown. 

And again, it's just about that mix of funding for things that are currently paid for by the Crown and possibly could be supported by IVL funding, but that would be a decision for ministers. And again, if you have a view, please do [the survey]. It's really helpful to help us guide that decision-making process.

And then, Don, I think I've answered that question as well.

Okay, I think maybe we've covered them. [I’m] just having a quick flick through again. Yes, I think we have.

Thanks so much. We still have a little bit of time, so if you do have another question, please do put it in the Q&A. And if not, I don't want to hold anyone here any longer than you want to be here. So I'll just leave a bit of a little. Oh, someone–

So I suppose—thanks, Tom—I guess that speaks to the idea of spreading visitors around the country, and where there are pressure points, and on assets and infrastructure, and maybe where there's an opportunity elsewhere.

And that is more of a question for how we talk about tourism broadly rather than, I think, one about the IVL. But yeah, it is definitely an important issue that we think about a lot here, and so do our colleagues at Tourism New Zealand. So, yes, it's a good point.

And international visitors—thanks, Beth—are not covered by the question, but we do have some stakeholders that work with obviously international markets and businesses that work in international jurisdictions. And so, they will have an understanding about how visitors might respond to a change in the charge.  And that's part of that desire on our part not to impact visitor numbers significantly.

Okay, I think that's, that's a long enough bit of silence. So, I just want to thank you all again for joining us today and taking the time. We really appreciate it and thank you all for your questions and comments.

Please do fill out the survey. It's really, really helpful to get all those views—agree, disagree—it’s really useful for us to understand where people are coming from with these points. And so, I just want to thank you again for taking the time.

I'll just close with MBIE closing Karakia and thank you all. And the recording for today will be on the MBIE website. I'm not sure how long it takes, I'm afraid.

Ka hiki te tapu

Kia wātea ai te ara

Kia tūruki ai te ao marama

HUI Ē TAIKI Ē

Thank you so much, everybody. Have a good rest of your Tuesday. Thank you. Bye-bye.

Magnus: Thanks, everyone.

Sofia: Thank you.