KI Traveller's Levy Economic Impact Assessment - Kangaroo Island ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Commercial-in-Confidence KI Traveller’s Levy Impact Assessment Ultimately, however, the net impact on KI is a function of how the funds raised are expended. The benefit to the Island and its residents is not the generation of revenue per se, but rather the benefits derived by residents and visitors from improved on-island infrastructure. 35
Commercial-in-Confidence KI Traveller’s Levy Impact Assessment 5. ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION To this point in the study, the report has analysed a potential Traveller’s Levy without close consideration of how it might actually be administered and collected. Drawing on the desktop research undertaken as part of this study, and in particular, consultation with key stakeholders, this section discusses the logistical and practical issues surrounding a levy’s potential introduction. 5.1 HOW WOULD A LEVY BE CHARGED AND COLLECTED The method employed for charging and collecting a levy would be one of the factors critical to ensuring its cost-effectiveness and efficiency. The greater the extent to which it can integrate into existing charging and pricing mechanisms, the greater its administrative simplicity and the lower the burden of compliance. Given the magnitude of revenue involved, dedicated fee structures or collection mechanisms would simply be too costly to administer. The method of administration and collection also hinges heavily on Council’s capacity to introduce regulation mandating that operators charge and collect the Levy as specified by Council. This issue is noted but not analysed here and would need to be subject to a subsequent, dedicated investigation. With these points in mind, and given the discussion of the economics of a Traveller’s Levy (Section 2), it would seem there are three broad options for administering and collecting a Traveller’s Levy: a direct charge; an indirect charge via landing and wharfage fees; or a pervehicle charge. Though the legal incidence of a levy would differ in each of these cases, the economic incidence would be similar. This subsection overviews the merits and feasibility of each of these options. Option 1: Direct charging With participation from SeaLink and the airlines, one possible method of collection would be to integrate a levy into existing fee structures as a direct, per-passenger charge set by Council. In the case of ferry travellers, this would allow for a myriad of options including exemptions for residents or children and family passes. However, as the airlines’ charge is simply a per-seat fare, the scope to differentiate between travellers who commute by air would be minimal, if at all. Indeed only a flat, per-passenger levy applicable to all air travellers would appear feasible. Given the importance of neutrality between the alternative modes of travel, this would suggest a flat, per-passenger charge for all ferry and air travellers as the only option for a direct charge. The Levy could be collected as part of fare revenue and remitted to Council periodically, making collection and administration an inexpensive activity. Provided data were collected independently, visitor numbers would provide Council with a simple cross-check, ensuring compliance and enforcement are similarly straightforward. Option 2: Indirect charging In light of the potential obstacles to the introduction of a direct charge (discussed in greater detail below), the alternative mechanism for levying a fee on commuters would be to collect a Levy from travellers indirectly though wharfage and landing charges. For ferry passengers, this would mean estimating projected visitation for the forthcoming year and increasing 36
Page 1 and 2: Commercial-in-Confidence 28 July 20
Page 3 and 4: Commercial-in-Confidence KI Travell
Page 37: Commercial-in-Confidence KI Travell

KI Traveller's Levy Economic Impact Assessment - Kangaroo Island ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?