Regional tourist body likely

Press, 1 November 1984, Page 3

Regional tourist body likely

The Canterbury Promotion council seems likely to become the regional tourist body:

The idea was first mooted by a Canterbury United Council sub-committee and accepted in principle by the council yesterday.

In a report to the regional planning committee the subcommittee said that if Canterbury were to realise its full tourism potential it must have an effective, unfragmented tourism body. The Canterbury Promotion Council with its expertise and experience seemed to be the simplest and most cost-effective solution and had responded enthusiastic•ally to the proposal.

sit was envisaged that this would lead to a more comprehensive service by the Promotion Council and make it the adviser and consultant to local authorities.

To cope with its proposed new functions the Promotion Council planned to establish a new regional promotion . committee and employ two extra staff members, an executive director and a secretary. 3

It will mean an increased burden on ratepayers and this proved the stumbling block for some councillors yesterday.

It was estimated that in the 1985-86 year local authorities would pay about $lBO,OOO towards the regional tourist body. This represents a 65-35 split between the contributions from local government and the private sector and a per capita levy of between 54c and 67c. The present levy for the promotion council is 31c.

The chairman of the tourism sub-committee, Cr R. W. J. Harrington, said that he hoped the new body would eventually be self supporting, but the president of the Promotion Council, Mr V. R. Claude, said that in the medium term a 50-50 split between local authorities and the private sector would be the most to be hoped for.

Some councillors believed that the ratepayer was being asked to pay too much and that the people involved in the tourist industry, who were most likely to benefit, be

paying more. However, Cr Harrington said the United Council had to be seen to take the lead and only then could it ask the tourist industry for more money.

Sir Hamish Hay said that the matter was a crucial issue for the United Council. While it endorsed the idea in principle, it would be a pity to be too timid to endorse the necessary finance to do the job properly.

He believed an accommodation tax could provide the ultimate answer, but that unless the United Council was prepared to make a commitment he did .not think the Government would be prepared to help in this direction.

Mr Claude also indicated that the Promotion Council wanted a long-term commitment from the United Council before it was prepared to go along with the proposal

After a long debate, the proposal was agreed to in principle and constituent councils will be asked to indicate their support before the United Council’s

December meeting. Councils will also be asked to confirm their first-year contribution based on the 65-35 split and an ongoing contribution to be negotiated on a reducing scale. The Minister of Tourism, Mr Moore, will also be asked for his support Video grant The United Council agreed to give $5OOO to the Canterbury Development Corporation for the preparation of a video, “Enterprise in Canterbury,” portraying business in Canterbury. The 10-minute to 12-minute video is expected to cost about $22,000, of which the Regional Development council has contributed $5OOO.

Rate relief In response to another letter from the Canterbury Development Corporation, the council gave its support to the extension of raterelief provisions to help develop employment The council will seek the support of constituent councils for general rate-relief provisions to be included in the Rating Act.