Editorial: Risks for travellers to decide

What is a travel agent to do when a customer wants to visit a country that the agent knows is the subject of an official warning of risk? The answer seems obvious: it is the agent's moral duty to bring that fact to the client's attention. But what if the warning has been in place for three years and nothing untoward seems to have occurred in that time? That was the case for Bali, where a warning was issued after the bombs at Kuta Beach in 2002, and the decision to keep the notice in place for three years was vindicated last weekend. But can any agent be blamed for downplaying it?

Two of the country's largest agencies admit they had stopped advising against Bali before the latest bombings killed 27 people and injured more than 100 in restaurants filled with tourists.

Holiday Shoppe general manager Digby Lawley compared terrorism warnings with cautions against malaria in Africa. "It is almost like an obligatory thing for the Government to do," he said. "It's a free world. Customers can travel to where they want." He is right on both counts. It is obligatory for the Government, and his company ought to recognise an obligation to pass it on. And since it is a free world, agencies have little to fear.

People can assess warnings for themselves, so long as they are made aware of them. They might well calculate, even after a second Bali attack, that the likelihood of being in range of a bomb there is somewhat less than the risk of a road accident on the way to the airport. It is in the interests of travel agents to help them make that calculation and within their business rights to do so. But free choice demands fair information; agents should mention the warning.

Officials, too, might learn something from the latest Bali experience. It is only good fortune that no New Zealanders are in the toll of dead and wounded this time. There were 1500 from this country visiting the island at the time, despite the warning that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has had in force since the last blasts. It also issued what it calls "a very strong advisory" against non-essential travel to Indonesia soon after receiving a warning from the Government there on August 30 that a terrorist attack could be imminent. But if essentially the same advice has been in force for three years, it must lose its impact.

It is only politic for officials to err on the side of warnings. Better they be accused of excessive caution, they will reason, than fail to relay a warning that might have saved a life. But they know the tale of the boy who cried "wolf". Crying wolf too often or for too long also puts lives at risk. It is a little disturbing that the Foreign Ministry's strongest category of warning currently applies to 33 countries no less. Can there be that many places where the ministry thinks it unsafe for New Zealanders to tread? The list includes just about every area of military conflict or civil unrest in recent years and it is hard to quibble with any of it.

The ministry's website warnings detail which parts of a listed country may be dangerous and give reasons. For places such as Israel, Iran, India and Sri Lanka the no-go areas are obvious and leave plenty of room for a reasonably safe visit. For others such as Bali, Kenya, Nepal and Saudi Arabia, the warning covers the whole territory. It should not be difficult for travel companies - taking bookings over the counter or on computer - to check customers' plans against warnings as a matter of routine. Agents can be relied upon to relay the advice in a manner that does not give it more weight than it deserves. Travellers with children will be deterred but the young and the intrepid will not be inhibited unduly. The industry should ensure all go with their eyes open.