KEY POINTS:
In tourism, as much as any other industry, quality is a defining issue. Provide overseas visitors with bad experiences and not only will they not return but they will discourage others from undertaking the long trip to this country. That sentiment cascades when tourists are involved in incidents
that draw international attention. At one extreme, they may be the victims of terrorist activity. At the other, it could be a simple transport accident that raises concerns about safety. Either way, an industry that has taken years to build can quickly unravel.
It is, therefore, only prudent to cast a close eye over the weekend crash near Tokoroa involving a 20-year-old coach in which three South Korean tourists lost limbs. Already, a Korean diplomat has queried why the coach did not have seatbelts. This is not required in New Zealand, and it appears also that the coach and its driver were correctly licensed. However the tourism industry was not portrayed in a favourable light. Indeed, warnings voiced by some of its leading figures were strongly reinforced.
Late last year, Rob Fyfe, the chief executive of Air New Zealand, worried that Chinese tourists would have a poor experience, the product of "a totally unregulated environment with little quality control". Trevor Hall, of Tourism Holdings, then pitched in with his concern about the undermining of "the clean green image, the sustainability, friendly people, good quality". More specifically, he pointed to "fly-by-night" tourism operators using shoddy low-cost, end-of-life coaches. The Bus and Coach Association has now joined in, claiming it is too easy to get a passenger transport licence and to enter the industry with minimal capital investment. This, it says, has prompted a drop in quality.
The standards provided by Smile Coach, the operator involved in the Tokoroa crash, may yet, of course, prove to be totally satisfactory. Either way, the Bus and Coach Association must be careful not to become a vehicle for vested interest. Placing age restrictions on coaches imported for use in tourism may be a reasonable step, but any new regulations should not be so stringent as to make it extremely difficult for new operators to enter the industry. Certainly, the association cannot have it both ways. If it wants to promote quality and safety, it should not be opposing the fitting of seatbelts on all coaches, whatever their age.
It says this would be too expensive, yet the same cost was borne several years ago by individual motorists who had to fit seatbelts to their elderly cars. Nor should the Transport Safety Minister be buying the association's case. Given that elderly coaches do not have the safety features of their modern counterparts, and there is a greater potential for severe injuries, the case for seatbelts in all tourist coaches is overwhelming.
In large part, the present quality shortcomings are a consequence of the expansion of the tourism industry. So rapid has been the growth that scant attention has been paid to the potential for substandard operators. This country has witnessed several examples of the perils of such negligence, not least that involving English language schools. The task now must be to impose quality control - but not in an unduly restrictive manner - in an industry showing the symptoms of speed wobbles.
As the Tourism Industry Association suggests, one crash is unlikely to have a long-term impact on tourists from Korea. But that can be no excuse for complacency. The industry's sustainability cannot be taken for granted. More such crashes will create a reputation that is difficult to shake.