THE TOURIST DEPARTMENT

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 80, 1 October 1924, Page 9

THE TOURIST DEPARTMENT

TO TUB EDITOR.

; Sir,—ln reply to the letter in your issue of the 26th inst., from Mr. B Wilson, . General Manager of the Tourist Department, I may say_ that the Welfare League does not wish to enter into a controversy with him on matters of detail, because our criticism was directed against the general system. Twice in tho interview I was careful to emphasise that it was the system that was to blame and not the officers, and expressed the opinion "That tho Tourist and rublicity Services should be under one head."

Mr. Wilson makes a great deal of the one case I mentioned. As a matter of fact, a great many instances could have been given, but this one was used as a fairly typical case to support our genoral contention. In mentioning this case, he quotes from a letter oi mine, which was not intended for publication. We have no objection to the letter beiimpublished, but it is an unusual course lor him to tako, especially as ho only quotes one part of it. The letter was m reply to ono in which Mr. Wilson inter aha, suggested that tho American visitor may have mistaken a private agent for a Tourist Department officpr and it is quite true that in my reph I said : It was feasible and I hoped that it was a correct explanation of the incidont.

Now, Sir, I did not say this because I believed it was the explanation, but because I was quito willing that he should take whatovor comfort such a supposition might afford, so long as he would reahsa that a controversy on minor details was futile, because "the charge raado by the league was the broad accusation that tho system on | 'which tho Tourist and Publicity Services aro run is unbusinesslike ami weak ■Dual control cannot make for efficiency— and thoro was apparently a great deal ot waste effort and overlapping a jid sometimes also actual antagonism between the Departments." In that letter 1 again assured him that tins league had no feeling of hostility to _ himself or his officers, but was onlytrying to bring about improvement in the system. If X, r . Wilson will not accept this assuranco wo can say no moro.

As ho has invited quotations from our correspondence he will not take excoption to the following from his last letter to mo:—"Tho system on which, tho lourist Department works is tho outcome of years of thought and work, and is, I behove, as nigh perfect as possible. Without wishing to tako any undue advantage, may I say that in these words Mr. Wilson indicates tho trouble? Iho ays torn is too perfect-so much so that (as stated in my interview)—"it does not appear to look at matters from tho travellers' point of view, and not only discourages, but ignores suggestions evon when they are mado by experts." If it were not so perfect it would bo more opon to improvement, and the public would havo more confidence in it.

In conclusion, in order to avoid any misunderstanding may I recall tho fact that tho original question under discussion was the broad ono of advertisiii" New Zealand, and I still maintain that it is absurd to havo sovoral Departments carrying on independent, publicity when fTr , ' S, , a ? ]>mh[ Department established for that purpose which is not only doing a great deal moro than i.i gonorally realised, but whidi as far as my experience goes, appears ready to accept suggestions from outside. The \\ olfaro Lcaguo nearly a year ago pointed out some weaknesses, and, in coninion with other bodies believes that this phase of Stale activity could be much strengthened by a capable remodelling of tho whole system. Elinor details can bo remedied afterwards.—l am, etc ARTHUR P. HARPER. Secretary, N.Z. Welfaro League. 29th September.