Editorial: Adventure tourism safety move essential

Photo / Alan Gibson

Adventure-tourism operators should keep the risk to those drawn to their activities at as low a level as possible. Not only is this the morally correct course but it makes good business sense.

People who take on the likes of bungy-jumping and quad-biking are seeking thrills but do not want their lives endangered. This means that, while a degree of risk is inherent in such activities, a fatality will have harsh consequences for the operator.

The publicity will prompt tourists to choose another company or another pursuit. If fatalities escalate, there could be equally serious repercussions for New Zealand and, more particularly, Queenstown, the self-styled Adventure Capital of the World. Tourists may simply choose another country.

That is why the Government had little choice but to take the steps announced yesterday by the Minister of Labour. A review of the sector has been the catalyst for a compulsory registration scheme and upfront and ongoing external safety audits for all adventure tourism businesses.

Successive governments have been reluctant to tread this path. They did not want a young and vigorous industry to be burdened by red tape.

Patience was exercised even when warning signs emerged with a spate of deaths 15 years ago. Intervention then was limited to stricter safety requirements for the most risky activities, jet-boating, rafting and adventure aviation.

Now, in the interests of protecting tourists from unnecessary risks, regulation will encompass the sector.

There is an unfortunate element in this. As is so often the case with self-regulation, the vast majority of the country's 1500 commercial operators are doing the right thing.

The Department of Labour report makes this abundantly clear. The accident and fatality rate for adventure tourism remains low in relation to the risks.

Equally, however, there are gaps in safety practices. For a variety of reasons, companies can start up and operate at a different standard to that accepted by the sector as best practice. "While these gaps remain, there is insufficient assurance that preventable accidents will not occur," says the review.

The situation came to a head in 2008 when a young British tourist, Emily Jordan, was drowned while river-boarding near Queenstown. An inquiry found the operator carried no rescue ropes and that its safety plan was not up to industry standards.

The Mad Dog River Boarding company was fined $66,000, a sum Ms Jordan's father called "an insult to my daughter and to us as a family".

The potential repercussions of this incident, and other fatalities, persuaded John Key, the Prime Minister and Tourism Minister, to order an inquiry and to vow to weed out "cowboy" companies that were placing tourists at excessive risk. The upshot, compulsory registration, should ensure all operators have a robust risk management plan.

The importance of the industry cannot be underestimated. The $3 billion spent by overseas tourists on adventure activities is more than half the total spending of international visitors.

Preventable fatalities that are the product of below-par safety standards inevitably threaten New Zealand's status as the world leader in this brand of tourism. Other countries, many far closer to home for most visitors, have recognised the potential of adventure activities and are eager to claim some of the territory.

Most of this country's operators are well aware of this, have reacted accordingly, and may feel miffed at the Government's intervention, especially the expense of safety audits. But they, too, will benefit, from the protection of New Zealand's reputation as a top destination for safe, adrenalin-fuelled holidays.