Dialogue: A costly call to arms for tourism operators

By SIMON MILNE*

The New Zealand Tourism Strategy has been heralded as a visionary document, a call to arms that will help to develop this vital industry while sustaining the natural and cultural resources that attract visitors and are cherished by New Zealanders.

The World Tourism Organisation estimates that by the year 2010 there will be more than a billion international tourists. New Zealand's share of the international trade is small (as little as 0.25 per cent), but the growth in arrivals to our country is predicted to be significant: an 81 per cent increase between last year and 2010, bringing 3.2 million visitors to our shores.

The sheer size and pace of this growth make it imperative that more effective management strategies be developed. To this end, the Tourism Strategy focuses on sustainability and yield rather than the "more bums on seats" philosophy of the past two decades.

The strategy also emphasises the need to improve partnerships between industry and the Government, create a more focused overseas marketing campaign, train small businesses, and create a stronger link between marketing and management.

Sounds good, doesn't it? In fact it seems, on the surface, to meet the needs of so many groups either involved in, or influenced by, tourism that it has stirred very little debate.

I would argue, though, that a thorough review of the strategy raises some real doubts about its visionary nature.

To begin with, let's look at the notion of building a stronger Government-industry partnership. Tourism New Zealand becomes New Tourism New Zealand, with a focus on overseas marketing driven by collaborative funding from the public and private sectors.

A new Ministry of Tourism is created to fill the role played by the Office of Tourism and Sport. The New Zealand Tourism Industry Association continues to play an important role in lobbying, research and marketing.

The Regional Tourism Organisations are rationalised and become New RTOs.

Although some have argued that the restructuring is unnecessary, and reflects our national preoccupation with re-organisation, I would suggest that it does not go far enough. We still have our industry headed by three separate entities that have, to date, shown only limited ability to work together and create a cohesive game-plan.

New Tourism New Zealand appears to be based on the private-public cooperative model provided by the highly successful Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC). But there is a fundamental difference: the CTC is the voice of Canadian tourism.

In contrast, the New Zealand model will see the same three players (albeit in different guises) again jockeying for position as the mouthpiece of the sector.

It is also hard to see how the continuing split of core management and marketing functions between different bodies will help to achieve the link-building that is one of the strategy's goals.

Another issue that should be of interest to all New Zealanders is just who will fund the marketing, management and research that is necessary to develop tourism in a sustainable fashion.

The need for more taxpayer funding and support is repeated mantra-like throughout the document.

There is no doubt that securing central and local government long-term funding commitment is important, and it has been pleasing to see the Minister of Tourism acting quickly in this respect. But where is the strategy to get the industry to put its money where its mouth is?

I searched in vain to find reference to models or approaches that might encourage the industry to see the benefits of increased marketing and general R&D spending.

Achieving more sustainable tourism development will require major financial commitment. Not all of this can (or should) be funded by the public.

Perhaps most worrying of all is the notion that if we simply follow the strategy, we will see continued growth in tourist numbers.

Changing economic circumstances in key markets, increasing fuel costs, changing airline ownership, natural disasters and a myriad of other factors can, and will, influence our industry from time to time.

The world's best companies build contingencies and worst-case scenarios into their strategic planning, and yet we as nation appear willing to place our trust in steady tourism growth.

In summary, this strategy represents a good start, but we are lagging way behind countries such as Australia and Canada in developing a comprehensive tourism strategy.

It is refreshing to see notions of sustainability and yield featuring so strongly but both the public and the industry need to realise that nothing comes without a cost.

The challenge, and where vision is now needed, is in making all stakeholders realise that this cost has to be borne if we are to create and sustain a competitive tourism industry, and that it represents an investment in our nation's well-being.

* Simon Milne is Associate Dean - Research, and Professor of Tourism at the Auckland University of Technology.