David Hill: Beware the possum-fur nipple-warmers approach

I wasn't surprised when the Government announced it would provide millions of dollars to help New Zealand's 2007 America's Cup challenge stay afloat (I must find a better phrase than that).

Nor was I surprised when Trevor Mallard justified the money in terms of benefits to tourism. "Tourism" is a sacred word these days; people dip their heads respectfully when it's spoken.

Tourism is indeed a useful industry. It brings social as well as economic benefits. In a country as xenophobic as Winston Peters has shown New Zealand to be, continual contact with different cultures has to be a good thing.

But an automatic equation of tourism with prosperity and progress seems shaky.

Its consumers are often such an ephemeral presence - here today, gone tomorrow. Actually, quite often they're here today, gone this afternoon.

It's also an industry at the mercy of fads. This year, the golden people may come to New Zealand. Next year, they may decide to go to Iceland. This and the transient nature of its clients don't seem rocks to base a corner of the economy on.

Tourism has brought massed tackiness to much of lower Queen St, downtown Rotorua and central Queenstown. I'm small-minded enough to suggest it has also brought resentment to those New Zealanders who find themselves crowded or priced out of resorts in their own country.

We get told that tourism gives visitors an experience of New Zealand culture, and that this is great for them and for us.

Maybe. But it's often a flossy, glossy, byte-sized experience.

I can't see much cultural benefit in the possum-fur nipple-warmers or toy kiwis in rugby jerseys piled on shelves in Parnell or Russell. They smack more of cultural degradation.

Let's get fanciful and wonder what sort of national image we're projecting in our rush to bring holidaymakers here. The haka presents a nation standing tall and beating its chest. The deification of tourist dollars suggests one rolling on its back and waving its paws.

I wonder also about the image of our countryside being promoted by some parts of the tourist industry.

One word being pushed a lot, especially for the six-bungyjumps-in-three-days type of holidays, is "playground". Hmmmm. A playground is usually a place where children go to be rowdy and where adults have to clear up afterwards. This is a respectful, dignified presentation of our land?

More unpleasantly, isn't there something very, very unattractive about our rush to cash in on violence towards tourists in some other countries? "Come to safe New Zealand. The only killing we'll make is a financial one." What a tasteless thing for me to say. What a tasteless thing for some tourism promoters to have done.

The other aspect of unrestrained tourism I feel most uneasy about is the dependency mindset.

We've had good overseas experiences when we felt that our contact with local people was not just on a financial level. We've also had experiences which made us realise we were essentially cash-on-legs.

One of the problems with tourism is that it is a service industry. Words related to "service" include "servility".

As a tourist I remember moments of being treated with a deference which the hotel/restaurant/shop staff clearly didn't feel and didn't enjoy. Persuade me that it won't happen here, especially if it involves the high-spending, high-attention-expecting visitors that any future America's Cup campaign will target.

No, I'm not anti-tourism. When it's modest in scale, personal in contact and focused in purpose, it can be excellent. But when it's promoted as a pot of gold that will solve our economic and employment ills ... well, I picture something that may suddenly sink like a stone.

And that's another phrase I shouldn't be using in connection with the America's Cup.