According to this RNZ item, Stuart Nash – now the tourism minister – wants to bring ‘high value low cost’ tourists to New Zealand who pay their way by shelling out loads of dosh without burdening our environment and resources. In other words (as I read it), ‘luxury’ tourism.

There is nothing wrong with this. If we can offer people with lots of money a pricey experience they value, why not? It benefits them and us. But something like this can easily veer off course and become counter-productive by turning into a ticket-clipping exercise, sending tourists away feeling like they have been fleeced. There also seems to be an implication in Nash’s statements that ‘low value’ tourists should not be catered to, or encouraged to visit.

If so, I find this alarming and short-sighted. For one thing, low rent visitors don’t always remain that way. Many grow up to become wealthy entrepreneurs, and they will remember the reception they received when they were young backpackers. I travelled the world on a shoestring for years, and in fact that is how I first came to New Zealand. I could not have afforded it any other way, and I am very grateful for the experiences I was able to enjoy on a limited budget. As a side note, I did not crap in the bushes. It is possible to do things on the cheap without behaving like a barbarian.

Should budget travellers be discouraged? Is this a good idea? Do people with money want to pay more for the privilege of coming here? Can we offer them things they do want to pay more for? Is it bad policy to slam the door on backpackers? Can we still give them what they seek without becoming overwhelmed?

I don’t think budget travellers should be turned away to accommodate high fliers. I don’t think this reflects New Zealand values. But I also don’t think we should have to put up with anti-social behaviour or having our attractions degraded through overuse. So how should we deal with this? Is there a fair middle way?