Editorial: Tourism more than high prices

Auckland's Viaduct Harbour. Photo / Babiche Martens

Opinion

It is often informative when visitors arrive cold in a country and give their impressions.

Sometimes, they detect things that have gone unnoticed by people going about their daily lives. Sometimes, their findings are not all that welcome.

So it is with international writer Peter Bills, who has warned this country it risks being known as "rip-off New Zealand".

It is something of a rude shock, given that we have always prided ourselves on being a tourist destination offering excellent value for money, as well as a welcoming attitude.

Bills' complaints are many. Being charged $28 for two ordinary-sized glasses of New Zealand sauvignon blanc at an Auckland waterfront restaurant, a $300 drop-off fee in Wellington for a rental car driven from Auckland, and $410 a night for a room at Wellington's InterContinental Hotel.

These prices, he observes, are more than he would expect to pay while enjoying the very best of Paris or London.

It is possible, of course, to argue the toss about these examples and to question the validity of any comparisons. Equally, it is easy to say that tourists should be trying to get off the beaten track to where restaurant, hotel and other costs are much cheaper.

But that is to deny the fact that most visitors will, inevitably, be sucked into tourist spots. It also serves only to detract from Bills' central concern. New Zealanders, it seems, have without too much complaint become accustomed to costs going up for certain things.

That, in turn, has made this country a far different destination to the one we like to imagine.

Bills warns, in particular, about the sour taste that may be left in the mouths of many who come here for next year's Rugby World Cup.

New Zealand, he says, must resist the temptation to make a short-term money grab by ramping up prices, a tactic that fell flat on its face in South Africa during the soccer World Cup.

It must think longer term to six or even 16 years of profits derived from World Cup visitors singing this country's praises. In that, he is undoubtedly correct.

It is all too easy for countries to acquire a "rip-off" tag. Britain has suffered from this, especially with American tourists, who cannot understand why it is so expensive. Some talk of the "Basil Fawlty factor".

Britain is fortunate, however, in boasting many tourist magnets and of being close to big population concentrations. To a large degree, it can get away with being considered very expensive.

New Zealand, however "clean and green", does not have that luxury to anything like the same degree. Most tourists travel a long way to get here.

They expect something special for that effort. When they return home, they act as salespeople for this country - or they discourage others from making the long trip.

The Rugby World Cup is hugely important in this process because New Zealand will welcome a particularly large group of visitors from all around the globe. Their impression, not least in terms of value, will help determine whether others come here or opt for a holiday destination closer to home and offering cheaper prices.

It is easy for New Zealanders to point out that ripping off tourists, sometimes by charging them twice the price applicable to local people, is common around the world.

Most have their own doleful experiences to relate. But they should also remember the destinations where they were treated well and received value for money, and which they had no hesitation in recommending to friends and family.

Given the growing importance of tourism, there is every reason for wanting New Zealand to be thought of that way.

Those in the industry have much at stake.

This country has gone to great lengths to market itself as something special.

It would be folly to puncture that in the interests of short-term profit.