The last cruise ship has left our shores for this season leaving behind we are told, some $25 million spent by 80 000 passengers. This is an astonishing $312.50 for each passenger. Considering most are here for just a few hours, and spend nothing on accommodation, and not a lot on food, this figure seems highly suspect. Even if the passenger numbers are understated and the correct figure is nearer 100 000 this still equates to a dubious $250 each.
Just how well our visitor industry is doing is hard to determine. Some operators such as Splash Planet in Hastings and Horse of the year seem to have had a very good year. but others such as the Mission Concert were down significantly.
The visitor industry is vitally important to Hawke's Bay accounting for 5 - 10% of all economic activity. Our local economy is dominated by horticulture, viticulture, forestry, and pastoral farming, and much of our manufacturing is also closely aligned to these activities. Visitors provide diversification meaning not all is bad when adverse climatic events such as droughts happen.
Whilst all visitors are welcome they are not all equal in terms of their economic impact. The most valuable are the people who stay in paid accommodation, such as motels or hotels, and homestays, eat out in our many good food places and visit the various activities on offer including Art Deco, Horse of the year and the Mission.
Especially valuable are business travellers who mostly seem willing to splash out on food and accommodation. Those attending conferences are also very valuable and even a medium sized event can be worth $100 000 to our region. Conferences unfortunately seem to be bypassing Hawke's Bay these days.
Whilst we are very good at crowing about our successes we seem to be reluctant to acknowledge where we are not doing so well. The Statistics New Zealand Commercial Accommodation Monitor records the numbers staying in our motels, hotels, backpackers and camping grounds. For 2012 these reveal Napier Visitor arrivals were down -32,627 or -11.0% on just a year earlier and guest nights down -47,884 or -8.4%, continuing a trend that started in 2005. From the peak in 2005 Napier arrivals are now down 66 600 and bed nights down 90 400.
Hawke's Bay Tourism believe these official figures miss many who stay privately or in home stays, and now adjust the official numbers with the results of a Private Household Survey, a survey of unknown reliability and relevance. Certainly the official figures appear the ones with the consistency necessarily for regional comparisons, or comparisons over time. There is a risk we may be deluding ourselves if the results are simply being used to paint a better picture.
So we are getting mixed messages. If we look at passenger numbers through Hawke's Bay airport we see a reduction. Between 2008 and 2012 passenger numbers have declined from 449 126 to 444 708. We also know numbers were down for the Mission concert, and the Hawke's Bay Opera House is struggling to attract conferences that just a few years ago were quite regular.
We also need to be wary about the boom in cruise ship visitors because we have no control over their their itineraries or whether they continue calling here. After all when summer is over the ships simply leave for other destinations and for six months or more we are deserted. Additionally once Europe and North America move out of the economic doldrums the shipping companies may simply decide there are richer pickings elsewhere.
There are many hard working and very committed individuals trying to make this industry succeed yet there is evidence we are doing less well than we could be. Its timely we question whether we are handling our visitor promotion efforts in the most effective way. Ratepayers are providing $850 000 a year in funding to Hawke's Bay Tourism, and Napier and Hastings councils and individual businesses spend millions more.
Is the Hawke's Bay Regional Regional Council the appropriate organisation to be controlling Hawke's Bay Tourism? The councils previous efforts through Venture Hawke's Bay and Hawke's Bay Inc were not highly successful, though this should hardly be surprising since neither the staff or councillors appear to have serious tourism experience. It seems strange to hand over the right to market Hawke's Bay to an organisation with no other involvement in the visitor industry, when the Hastings and Napier Councils have invested a hundred million dollars or more on amenities.
Another potential conflict is the presence on the tourism board of Dave Simmons a senior Air New Zealand executive who clearly is not going to point the finger at Hawke's Bay air services as many others here and elsewhere appear to be doing.
One thing is certain. If Hawke's Bay is to capitalise on the potential of this vital sector, the true state of the visitor industry must be revealed, there needs to be better coordination between the players, and a clearly defined, and widely accepted strategy agreed on, so we are all moving in the same direction.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
A timely exit
The decision by Napier Mayor Barbara Arnott to step aside shows excellent judgement. The situation is different in Hastings where the Mayor like his predecessor Jeremy Dwyer is seeking a 5th term.
Too often political leaders seem to think they are indispensable. They arrive with fresh ideas, enthusiasm, and without baggage, and are welcomed by electors. In time their support starts to slip with failures and a history of things that have annoyed voters.
Eventually if they do not accept their time is over and stand aside, the voters will make the decision for them. We saw it with Winston Churchill, Rob Muldoon, Helen Clarke, Kerry Prendergast, and our own Rick Barker. All failed to see they were trying to win one election too many.
Whilst there is no hard and fast rule on how long a politicians should stay in power it seems anything over eight or nine years is generally too much especially if they are in a leadership position.
Existing office holders have a clear advantage over those seeking office for the first time. Name recognition is very much stronger, and its possible to campaign continuously whilst simply doing the job. However there comes a time when hanging onto the power, prestige, and even the income predominates everything else.
All this raises the question of whether there should be legal limits on how long Prime Ministers, Mayors and even run of the mill MP's and councillors should be allowed to remain in office. In the United States after Franklin D Roosevelt died early into his 4th term Congress decided to amend the constitution and limit presidents to a maximum of two terms or eight years.
For a leader such as a Mayor or Prime Minister 3 terms of 3 years seems about the maximum but of course the rule is not absolute. Generally to stay longer than desirable is to be remembered for failures and disasters.
Most political leaders want to be remembered for their successes and timing is critical to achieve that. Mrs Arnott seems to have picked the right moment to exit and her legacy includes the development of McLean Park for the Rugby World Cup, and the Museum extensions.
Too often political leaders seem to think they are indispensable. They arrive with fresh ideas, enthusiasm, and without baggage, and are welcomed by electors. In time their support starts to slip with failures and a history of things that have annoyed voters.
Eventually if they do not accept their time is over and stand aside, the voters will make the decision for them. We saw it with Winston Churchill, Rob Muldoon, Helen Clarke, Kerry Prendergast, and our own Rick Barker. All failed to see they were trying to win one election too many.
Whilst there is no hard and fast rule on how long a politicians should stay in power it seems anything over eight or nine years is generally too much especially if they are in a leadership position.
Existing office holders have a clear advantage over those seeking office for the first time. Name recognition is very much stronger, and its possible to campaign continuously whilst simply doing the job. However there comes a time when hanging onto the power, prestige, and even the income predominates everything else.
All this raises the question of whether there should be legal limits on how long Prime Ministers, Mayors and even run of the mill MP's and councillors should be allowed to remain in office. In the United States after Franklin D Roosevelt died early into his 4th term Congress decided to amend the constitution and limit presidents to a maximum of two terms or eight years.
For a leader such as a Mayor or Prime Minister 3 terms of 3 years seems about the maximum but of course the rule is not absolute. Generally to stay longer than desirable is to be remembered for failures and disasters.
Most political leaders want to be remembered for their successes and timing is critical to achieve that. Mrs Arnott seems to have picked the right moment to exit and her legacy includes the development of McLean Park for the Rugby World Cup, and the Museum extensions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
