NZx August 12th:adventuring on
Naumai
It is with some interest, and considerable scepticism, that I read about yet another ongoing and increasingly heated debate about adventure tourism regulations in NZ.
Having spent a number of years working for TIANZ with the adventure sector in the mid 1990’s I, apparently foolishly, thought the “standards” issues were resolved. One of my last involvements with the process was to ensure that, in close consultation with the operators, a quality tourism standard process for each sector was developed. This was the forerunner for the Qualmark endorsement process.
Signed off by the industry, ACC and somewhat reluctantly DOL, the process was up and running.
So what happened? Did TIA/Qualmark drop the ball?
One of the key no-brainers in the process was to ensure yearly reviews of the standards by all stakeholders. It appears as though this has failed to happen.
Now we seem to be moving to a situation where a new process will add layers of cost and bureaucracy into the sector and at the same time prop up a whole new industry of auditors and support groups such as Outdoors NZ.
Nearly 15 years on the same arguments are being raised by all parties. It does appear that TIA is trying sideline the involvement of the very operators and spirit that helped develop the adventure sector in New Zealand.
I fully support standards for the adventure tourism sector, but not the way this process is being run or endorsed by those whose views may be somewhat jaundiced.
Ka kite ano
Malcolm
Thank you for your comments Malcolm, nice to know we’re not alone…
Rather than writting a whole new comment, I copied my submission to DOL. Unfortunatly, I was 12h too late and it won’t be taken into account. Never mind, I still think we should try to speak up if it’s not too late.
These are my thoughts on what’s been happening in the past few months:
I understand the government had to show some action after the disasters that strike adventure tourism last year. I believe the actions proposed are over-killed and will only burden further small businesses who are the back bone of our tourism economy. Furthermore, the propositions will probably be ineffective as they miss the point.
•The vast majority of adventure tourism businesses already operate under strict Codes of Practice, often developed over many years to suit their own particular operation.
•There are already voluntary assessments in place, specially for DOC concession holders, such as Qualmark.
•Most operators are only restricted in their strive for higher safety standards by a lack of funds. Putting more financial pressure on them will have a counter effect.
•My feeling is that TIA is a poor representative of the wide adventure tourism industry. Their meetings promote principals like “dobbing in your opposition” as well as views like “small operators who can’t afford to go out to meetings don’t need a voice to represent them as they should be out of business anyway”. Some of those meetings were appalling, managing to turn operators on each-other. A far cry to our New Zealand solidarity spirit. I dare to suggest too much influence from Europe.
•This leads me to one of our main concerns: how do we avoid losing our identity? The Kiwi attitude is what makes people want to come here. We treat our customers as grown adults, not children who need babying, we are friendly, happy people, and welcome overseas travellers like if they were family. This is all under attack.
•At last, the real issue: If we are trying to control a handful of rogue elements, “cowboys” as we call them, all these TIA road shows won’t do any good. All we need to do is use a tool we already have: ACC.
•The simple solution is to add ONE box to tick on the ACC form: “Name and address of the business your accident took place”.
•We have our data, and steps can be taken.
•Some may say this is not preventive action but it is. Operators will be made to know that all accidents will be recorded at government level. They will not be able to dodge it and there is no need for devious competitive dobbing in.
•Register with DOL is also a good idea.
•These 2 steps would be sufficient, very affordable and most effective in monitoring the safety standards of the whole tourism adventure sector. No need to go and spend lots of money subsidising useless organisations throwing stones in the water.
In short, instead of spending money making the elephant bigger, refine and use the tools we already have.
Thank you for letting us have our say.
Open Letter to all involved in the Adventure Tourism Industry
Media Release
In regards to my concerns, and many others after reading David Mulholland’s reply to John Sutton’s request for a meeting with him in his office in Wellington. My personal belief is this matter is a done deal. If Mulholland believes a one hour meeting would suffice, then clearly he is not interested in the genuine concerns of what the small business adventure operators in New Zealand have to say. I have said in previous emails that adventure tourism would revert to the early 1990’s, this will now be a reality. 20 years + of horse trekking and as many in the fishing & guiding industry, also to ignore 16 years + by the ATV industry, is not only ludicrous, it beggars belief to suppose that cooperate or government policies can always best interests of The Adventure Tourism Industry. The cost, time and effort put in by numerous individuals and their associated groups within their respective groups are now being ignored and their financial investment squandered. To allow TIA who have completely ignored it’s long term small business members and others to use government financial backing to try to reinvent the wheel, and letting ONZ, who have already proven their lack credibility in the public arena, take control of safety aspects is negligent.
For David Mulholland to say that 73 submissions is a satisfactory response is an insult (from eTourism article). Personally I know and have heard from dozens of small businesses who had no idea of this review or select meetings around the country run by TIA & ONZ inviting (selected) TIA members. Then filling rooms with the likes of Skyline management employees and others on the payroll for larger corporate based companies and clearly missing, are the smaller business men and woman that are working extremely hard trying to cover all aspects involved running their businesses to survive through these turbulent times.
Simply put, 73 submissions is a joke! I believe most replies would have come via government agencies or paid employees who have time to play the game. To make this bureaucratic statement is to add salt to the wound inflicted on smaller business.
You showed no flexibility to allow a submission from a small business member because their email arrived at 10am the following day of the deadline. Honestly was that too hard to add to the list?
I had members ringing me with their concerns before the deadline, so I rang you, David Mulholland personally to put forward these concerns on Friday the 5th with no answer. I left my name and contact number and have never received a reply. Therefore the same as John Sutton, we could not answer our business associates in time, thus leading to quite a few submissions of their concerns not being forwarded in time or at all.
Again, to say 73 submissions are satisfactory is an insult and proves how flawed this whole process was.
To think all these business owners or their representatives would be able to air their concerns to you in a 1-2 hour meeting defies belief. You clearly do not know how complex this industry is and to invite TIA and ONZ to a meeting with us again reeks of an already done deal.
With the forwarding of all this correspondence to our members and interested parties, we will have brought this to the attention of greater than 400 small to midsized businesses owners, which exemplified my concerns of your paltry 73 submissions of which I was fortunate to have been one. It will be our intention to bring this matter to significantly larger numbers who have never been made aware of this government’s proposal, and who unknowingly may only be become aware after an unfortunate incident.
To assist us to reach small to midsized operators in the adventure industry in New Zealand we strongly request an allocation from your budget which was certainly provisioned for as part of the consultation process. It is surely a requirement of your proposal to ensure and inform all operators in the New Zealand adventure tourism industry.
CC: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Yours faithfully,
Denis Columb
The Adventure Specialists
Off Road Adventures