Labour’s plans for tourism

Press, 19 May 1984, Page 16

Labour’s plans for tourism

The Labour Party’s policy on tourism, released by Mr Lange on Monday, traverses much the same course as that set by the Tourism Advisory Council report made public two weeks ago. Both documents acknowledge the need for increased efforts to promote New Zealand’s tourism industry. Both recognise the advantages that this could bring in the form of more jobs and foreign exchange. Labour’s policy appears to fail to give any specific undertaking to provide — should the party become the government — the substantial budget increases called for by the industry to allow a more effective attack on tourism markets overseas. Words of encouragement abound. The policy skirts the issue of money: “We will make tourism a frontline industry alongside agriculture and manufacturing.” “Ways of developing an independent and permanent source of funds to assist promotion ... will be investigated,” and “We are determined to sustain (tourism) development and realise its potential .. The main thrust of the policy is a new strategy, intended to lead to the marketing of New Zealand as a “total concept” linking tourism with trade. Both areas would be merged into one portfolio. Therein lies an inherent danger. Tourism might then lose much of its existing, hard-won identity as well as the very marketing thrust that the Labour Party properly identifies as essential for sustained growth. New Zealand’s Minister of Overseas Trade already has his hands full in trying to arrange access to international markets for the country’s primary products. Undoubtedly any Minister of Trade will face the same challenges and will need to fight on behalf of primary industry with equal determination and vigour. The added responsibility of the tourism portfolio could prove a weighty burden. The Government could then be open to attack for allowing tourism, which is now New Zealand’s fourth biggest earner of foreign exchange, to play second fiddle to agriculture. Some further thought might well be given to this proposal. Labour’s policy, like the Tourism Council report, looks forward to a steady growth. It

predicts that the expected increase of 200,000 in the number of visitors by 1989 will create an extra 20,000 jobs. Optimism needs to be tempered with a degree of caution. New Zealand has learned from bitter experience just how unstable the international tourism market can be. Optimistic projections of steady growth in the past have, in fact, fallen short on a number of occasions. For example, the 380,000 visitors to New Zealand in 1977 was a 1.1 per cent decrease on the total for 1976. Two years later the market had recovered to a 7.1 per cent annual increase. By 1982 the increase had slipped again to less than 2 per cent. Latest figures available show that 513,148 tourists visited New Zealand in the 12 months to the end of February, 1984, an increase of 6.1 per cent. Although a sound base of traffic remains, confidence in investment for steady increases can never be complete. On a more positive note, the party has not overlooked the needs of the South Island. It promises to encourage fares to allow overseas visitors arriving in Auckland to visit the South. To this end, Air New Zealand would need to be persuaded to show a greater degree of understanding for southern needs than it apparently shows at present. The airline has just launched in Australia an advertising campaign promoting low-cost “New Zealand” holidays for sAust4l9. The price includes fares and six nights accommodation, but the airline has limited the traveller’s choice to hotels in either Auckland or Rotorua. Perhaps it will take a Labour government to convince Air New Zealand that such a narrow marketing philosophy does nothing for the tourism needs of the South Island.

Anyone planning a tourism policy’ can run foul of international changes in the vogue that applies to travel destinations. Changes in prosperity overseas and changes in currency values can upset tourist schemes, especially those in which large lumps of investment are needed. Labour, however, is right to give plenty of emphasis to the importance of tourism as an earner of foreign exchange. How far it would go in putting up public money to promote the industry, and to invest in the industry, is still not known.