Luxon's narrative and National’s tourism policy for Queenstown: When marketing becomes the priority.
The primary goal seems to be to make New Zealand as enticing as possible in order to outshine other countries. Essentially, the aim is to have an impressive marketing strategy that attracts overseas workers without properly conveying the high likelihood of lower pay, the exorbitant cost of living, and the limited prospects for securing adequate accommodation.
New tourism policy for Queenstown 2024.
The National Party has returned for the upcoming governing term in New Zealand, with Christopher Luxon (current Prime Minister) unveiling the new tourism policy for Queenstown. This post will conduct an analysis of the National Party's Tourism Strategy for Queenstown, exploring the implications of Luxon's leadership on Queenstown's tourism approach. How the new tourism policy will impact the lives of those residing in Queenstown? Will this tourism policy help ease the current housing crisis?
Is faith an excuse to avoid addressing stormwater issues at Skyline tourist attraction?
It was no coincidence that National Party leader Christopher Luxon chose the Queenstown Skyline Gondola as the venue to unveil National’s tourism policy plan. Besides its obvious appeal as a major attraction in Queenstown, Skyline has faced social scrutiny due to its inadequate stormwater management, which resulted in damage following heavy rainfall in Queenstown.
Community reactions have been strong, but answers about the Bob's Peaks situation and responsibility are lacking. Luxon's support for Skyline Enterprises and his "we have faith in it" statement raise questions. Is faith an excuse to avoid addressing stormwater issues at this tourist attraction?
Luxon suggests that "boosting tourism will help our economy recover." This idea itself raises questions. Why should we automatically assume that increasing tourism is one of the most important ways to fix the economy? And if it is, what kind of economy are we talking about? Why is there a lack of open discourse regarding the nation's desired approach to tourism?
Luxon aims to instill fear, highlighting economic concerns like inflation and rising interest rates, predicting a significant recession. National offers a solution, promising to address these issues, but it requires following their plan to avoid bad consequences. These familiar phrases echo in many countries, often linked to parties favoring neoliberal policies. The past, as witnessed in New Zealand during the 1980s, demonstrates the severe social consequences of such approaches.
Government's approach to tourism policy in New Zealand
Here, he proceeds to outline the specific actions that make up what he labels a "short-term boost" for tourism, encompassing six practical steps.
Once more, what we are hearing is an urgent proposal that solely concentrates on short-term strategies without taking into account any potential social consequences in the medium and long term. Luxon's statement: "We do not have the luxury of turning of growth", which is indeed an apt choice of words, seems to suggest that a thorough analysis of the situation is not on the table. However, we are left wondering: What type of growth is it that we cannot afford to have? Is it the growth of major investors, or perhaps the expansion of the luxury market? Must we assume that the term "growth" applies universally to all sectors? And what occurs when growth in one sector, such as luxury, surges while that of the middle social classes lags behind? Are there different kinds of growth? Is the growth of a company like Airbnb comparable to that of a local family in Queenstown?
Three of the six practical actions are particularly troubling, especially for regions like Central Otago. These actions will impact entire communities, such as Queenstown, but they also seem designed to exploit cheap labor and, in line with National’s political approach, make immigrants even more vulnerable.
These are some of his proposals:
Changing the eligible age on all working holidays visas from 30 to 35 years old and allowing workin holiday visa holders to apply for a second and a third one if they work in areas like tourism.
Applying strong pressure to Immigration New Zealand to fast track visa applications.
Scrap the medium wage requirements.
What are the challenges of implementing Luxon’s tourism policy in New Zealand?
For Luxon, it's clear that the focus isn't on creating favorable conditions for immigrants entering the tourism industry. Nor does it address the discriminatory impact of these measures on migrant lives. The primary goal seems to be to make New Zealand as enticing as possible in order to outshine other countries. Essentially, the aim is to have an impressive marketing strategy that attracts overseas workers without properly conveying the high likelihood of lower pay, the exorbitant cost of living, and the limited prospects for securing adequate accommodation.
When questioned about the housing crisis and the potential implications of the tourism policy for Queenstown, Luxon offers four solutions:
1. Promote more development by urging the Council to consent to 30 years' worth of land for housing.
2.Improve the functionality of the private rental market.
3.Establish a "Build to rent program."
4.Allocate more capital to housing providers.
While all of these solutions sound promising and are likely to be well-received, unfortunately, three of them fail to address the core issue of accessibility. There are enough houses; the challenge lies in making them more accessible.
The only solution that begins to address this problem is the second one, yet it focuses solely on one side of the equation. The average tenancy period in New Zealand is less than two years. When we examine National's proposal, "Tenancy changes to help ease rental" it predominantly aims to increase short-term rentals and fixed-term agreements. If the approach to resolve the private rental crisis doesn't find a suitable solution, we may end up with numerous private rentals that last less than a year, leading to a host of stability-related problems for tenants.
With great confidence, as if pursuing a gold medal, Luxon directs us to the National 30-year infrastructure plan. However, upon reviewing this plan, we discover a "long-term plan" that paradoxically emphasizes speed and seek to implement what they called a "fast track process." It can best be described as a long-term plan with a pure short-term focus.
When marketing becomes the priority.
In summary, what we gather from Luxon's political statements is that National's tourism policy primarily centers on making New Zealand "more attractive", but it seems to focus mainly on the marketing aspect of it. For instance, this involves increasing the workforce to address tourism demands by promoting the idea of offering migrants three working holiday visas for the price of one (which means they will earn less, necessitating more time to earn the same income as before). Employing good marketing for cheap labor doesn't appear to be a solution. Additionally, there's an emphasis on increasing private rentals, but without providing stability for locals who may find themselves moving from one periodic agreement to the next.
Unfortunately, none of the dominant political parties are currently presenting an open discussion on how to construct a socially sustainable, long-term tourism policy that can address the needs of the people rather than continuously attracting a rapid and unsustainable form of luxury tourism. Can a community-based tourism policy in New Zealand be implemented? How would it look like?
