TOURISTS AND WEMBLEY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18929, 29 January 1925, Page 8

TOURISTS AND WEMBLEY.

There is something radically wrong with the Government's policy and administration in matters relating to tourist traffic. Its policy seems to be indifference, and its administration neglect. The former is indicated by the silence and inactivity of the Minister in charge of tourist resorts and the latter by the constant complaints from residents at the important resorts. Te Aroha is an illustration of this official apathy. Taking advantage of the visit of the Minister for Lands to reach the car of the Government, the Mayor of Te Aroha appealed for a, more active interest in the development of the resort. He remarked that Mr. Nosworthy had not been very sympathetic and at the end of the interview must have- concluded that Mr. McLeod had been equally unresponsive, for the only consolation he had to offer was a suggestion that if the town is not as well known and as well patronised by visitors as the people desire, the fault is their own. That is carrying the Minister's favourite gospel of self-help beyond reason, for it is the Government and not the local residents that is responsible for the management of the Te Aroha tourist resort, and so long as it is negligent the local residents are justified in protesting. According to the department's report, Te Aroha is run at a heavy loss. That is not because it is a poor proposition, but because the management is bad. Has any attempt been made to exploit the commercial possibilities of the

local mineral waters, in the way that the. French Government has developed a profitable business in Vichy waters? The enterprise has been very timid; according to the department's last report, 146 cans of No. 15 spring water were forwarded to Rotorua in the year. Never has there been a better opportunity to advertise Te Aroha and other tourist resorts than was offered at Wembley, but it was not perceived by the Tourist Department. Much of the criticism of the New Zealand pavilion has fallen upon Mr. Roberts and Sir James Allen, but they were not directly responsible. The appointment of the exhibition commissioner should have been the first step in the organisation of the Dominion's display ; it was delayed so long that Mr. Roberts was little more than the custodian of a heterogeneous collection of things, selected without any definite plan and assembled without any conception of purpose. The exhibit was not wholly without merit, but even the most charitable critics admit that as a demonstration of the Dominion's attractions for tourists and as an instruction for potential immigrants, it failed utterly. Canada and Australia showed what might be done in the reproduction of natural wonders. Yet neither of those Dominions can offer anything equal to the inspiring spectacles of Rotorua and Wairakei or the unique beauty of the Waitomo Caves. These phenomena could be reproduced in miniature at Wembley, and would have been last year if there had been anyone in the Tourist Department with a gleam of inspiration. There will be another opportunity this year to repair the deficiencies of last year's experiment, and since Mr. Roberts has borne all the blame for last year's failure, the Government would probably be well advised to instruct him to concentrate on the attraction of tourists and immigrants, and to give him a free hand to reorganise the whole display.