Most people would readily accept that public services need to be financed through contributions to the coffers of the State.
However, a fundamental principle of good taxation is that a tax should be perceived to be fair on all those who are expected to pay it and that the process for collecting such a levy is simple and cost effective.
When the government announced in the last Budget that 50c a night would be charged to tourists to help defray some of the expenses that are incurred to improve the public infrastructure visitors to the country benefit from, most operators understood the logic of the new tax.
Few could deny that the upgrading of the environment that directly affects the product we offer visitors is an investment that also needs to be financed by those who operate in the industry. But there is a difference between knowing what needs to be done and knowing how to do it.
The introduction of the new tourist bed tax as from April 1 has been botched because of bad planning and execution. Now the government has agreed to delay the introduction of the levy. In an evident damage limitation exercise, a spokesman for the Tourism Ministry said that while the model will still be launched on April 1, the collection of the contribution will commence on June 1 to further ensure the industry is geared for the new development.
It is not just the tourism industry that needs to get its act together for the successful introduction of the new tax.
Sadly, it has become quite normal for public policymakers to announce new initiatives that impact on economic operators without first engaging in some deep and meaningful consultation on the likely effects of new policies.
It would appear that the tourism tax was launched before proper consultations were held by the tourism authorities with the operators on how the levy would be levied to ensure that it applied to all operators and to avoid unnecessary burdens caused by complex collection processes.
Tony Zahra, president of the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association, understandably argues that the introduction of the new tax is not tenable because there is no agreement on how the levy would be collected.
The Tourism Ministry spokesman may have wanted to make the introduction of the new tax more palatable by insisting that the tax contribution would be allocated to the Foundation for Tourism Zone Development whose main objective was to ensure an effective upkeep and maintenance of the overall tourism product.
To many, this could even smack of more bureaucracy that could lead to the fragmentation of the overall management function of the industry.
What public policymakers need to do is to come up with a clear strategy agreed with private operators to define how the public infrastructure of the tourism industry would be planned and financed. This strategy then needs to be translated into a business plan and an action list that clearly lays down the priorities that must be achieved on a yearly basis.
Like in any other business plan, any agreed public investment in the tourism infrastructure has to be costed and approved subject to a viable financing model agreed with private operators.
Once this planning phase is completed, the tourism authorities would then have to ensure that the implementation of the plans is underpinned by good project management to ensure that the objectives are achieved in the most effective way.