If you're thinking of escaping to the sun this winter, then Bali might be a good choice. In the wake of Schapelle Corby's conviction for drug smuggling there is great enthusiasm on both sides of the Tasman for a boycott of Indonesian tourism destinations.
You can just about guarantee that, as a result, there will be plenty of vacancies and great special offers.
I've always seen Bali as one of the best value and most interesting winter holiday destinations around. Now, thanks to the boycott calls, it will be even cheaper.
But, hang on, some may say, shouldn't we be joining the boycott rather than taking advantage of it? I'm not so sure.
For a start, before rushing to impose sanctions, we should think carefully about whether such drastic action is warranted.
Those calling for a boycott justify it on the basis that Corby is innocent. But that belief is based on nothing more substantial than her youth and clean-cut good looks.
There is, in reality, a compelling case to answer - spelled out in some detail in the Weekend Australian of May 21 - starting with the fact that more than 4kg of marijuana was found inside her boogie board cover and four Indonesian officers testified that she tried to stop it being opened.
Some of the concern about her trial doubtless arises from the fact that the Indonesian justice system is descended from the European inquisitorial approach rather than the adversarial British system. But a kneejerk condemnation of the unfamiliar as inferior isn't necessarily correct.
I've often thought the European concept of judges being charged with getting to the truth might offer some advantages over our belief that if two sides battle it out under an esoteric set of rules, the truth will miraculously emerge.
In any event, as several Australian legal experts have conceded, the verdict of the Indonesian court is almost certainly the same one an Australian or New Zealand court would have reached on the same evidence.
Most people caught with drugs, or anything else illegal, in their luggage will claim that someone else must have put it there. But in the absence of some verification of that excuse, most courts anywhere in the world would convict.
Try arriving at Auckland International Airport with a mango in your bag, blame it on some unknown miscreant and see what happens.
As for the penalty, the prospect of this young woman spending 20 years in the appalling conditions of Bali's Kerobokan jail is indeed scary. But that is what it is intended to be.
The Indonesian Government is concerned at the huge damage being done to its young people by drugs and determined to stamp out the smugglers who foster this scourge. That is a stand it is entitled to take.
Like it or not, unless there is some fresh evidence that hasn't yet seen the light of day, it is hard to quibble too much with either the guilty verdict or the penalty.
But, even setting that aside, those who insist on Corby's innocence should still consider the likely impact of their proposed boycott.
If Australians and New Zealanders stop travelling to Bali, who will it hurt? The judges? The police? President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono? Or ordinary Balinese who work in the tourist industry?
It's obvious, isn't it, that it's the tourist industry workers who will suffer. As anyone who has been to Bali will attest, these are delightful, hard-working people whose livelihoods have been hit successively by the political upheavals in Indonesia, the fighting in East Timor and the Bali bombings. Is there any logical reason they should be punished again?
Furthermore, even if we decide that the lives of ordinary Balinese don't matter when lofty issues of justice are at stake, those campaigning on Corby's behalf should consider the likely effect of a boycott on her situation.
Any change in her status almost certainly depends on the Indonesian Government agreeing to a deal with Australia to allow convicted felons to serve at least some of their sentence in their own country.
Is a boycott, accompanied by noisy criticism of the Indonesian justice system, likely to make Indonesia more or less amenable to such a deal?
Consider, on the one hand, that this is a regime which showed no great concern when events in East Timor damaged its tourist industry, and had little difficulty ignoring international calls for those involved to be brought to justice.
On the other hand, Indonesia is a proud country which is far more likely to allow Corby to go home to serve out her time if Australia asks nicely, rather than if a lot of brash white folks start shouting abuse and making threats.
Overall, if the aim of a boycott is to give its advocates a bit of cheap moral satisfaction, while at the same time wrecking the lives of a few Balinese waiters and ensuring that Corby stays in her Indonesian hellhole longer than necessary, then by all means go for it.
But if the object is to get her home as quickly as possible, the best thing anyone can do is to stay quiet, rely on the Australian Government's gentle diplomacy, and book a trip to Bali.
* Jim Eagles is the Herald's travel editor.