Last year an Airbnb rental went up in flames, causing injury. The rental did not have fire escapes and other fire equipment which a hotel is required to have. Airbnb operators are not obliged to have their appliances safety checked, an expensive process which we must do every couple of years. Shouldn't Airbnb guests expect the same levels of protection they would receive in a hotel?
I am not saying Airbnb is not a valued part of our accommodation industry – it certainly is. But it's time the Government had a realistic look at the commercial accommodation sector to ensure all operators are treated equally, that all costs are distributed proportionally and that all guests, irrespective of whether they choose a backpackers, a five-star resort or an Airbnb, receive the same standards of protection provided by legislation and compliance.
And what about the poorly constructed and ill-conceived Auckland targeted rate on commercial accommodation providers? Is it fair that this additional tax burden is targeted at only parts of the accommodation sector?
Mayors and local councils around the country are often talking about introducing a bed tax. I understand a number of smaller towns, such as Franz Josef and Queenstown, cannot sustain the infrastructure in their areas while visitor numbers climb. But why is a bed tax or a targeted accommodation rate always suggested?
Where is the contribution from the bars, restaurants, retail or transport sectors, to name a few who also greatly benefit from the increased visitor nights?
If we take Auckland as an example, Tourism Industry Aotearoa data shows only around a quarter of visitor nights in Auckland are spent with hotels. So if Auckland Council wants visitors to Auckland to pay the targeted rate, it is missing up to three-quarters of this target.
As Tourism Industry Aotearoa has previously pointed out, visitors to Auckland spend around $7.5 billion annually. The commercial accommodation sector receives less than 10 per cent of this spend but is now being expected to contribute almost 100 per cent of the targeted rate. This is ludicrous.
There is a shortage of accommodation in some areas of the country but where are the incentives for me to put my personal money on the line and take the risk that the hotel will be able to cover itself financially while meeting all its legislative responsibilities? From where I sit, there aren't many.
With the ridiculously high cost of building in New Zealand, we could spend $60 million building a new hotel in Auckland and suffer all the inequalities already mentioned. Or we could buy 60 modest three-bedroom houses for the same money and rent the resulting 180 rooms on Airbnb with almost no compliance costs.
Option one would likely employ around 100 people, and pay rates and taxes on 100 per cent of its commercial activity. Option two would employ next to no-one and, if structured correctly, pay virtually no commercial tax and contribute little, if anything, to the targeted rate. So, let's make it fair.
This will ensure new hotels are built, and the industry continues to provide a positive guest experience, to employ hundreds of thousands of Kiwis and others, and to contribute to New Zealand's largest export earner.
The option of a border tax is being considered but once again the Government seems to want to make it difficult. Only some countries are targeted and they are often the ones already paying a fortune to even reach our shores.
Where are the funds from GST collected from the visitors? Why is that money not redistributed instead of creating yet more rates or taxes against our industry?
I want local and central Government to sit down with the accommodation sector in a constructive manner and reach a fair resolution for us all.
All we ask is for a level playing field. Treat us all the same, regulate us all the same, tax us all the same. Let's not kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
• Lani Hagaman is executive chairwoman of the Scenic Hotel Group.
