Time for tourism to take its medicine on rules
An investigation by Stuff journalists into the question of future tourism visits to Whakaari/White Island, following the eruption on December 9 which killed 21 people, found a hole in our safety legislation big enough to drive a tour bus through with room to spare.
It seems astonishing that while we await the outcome of several inquiries into who was ultimately responsible for the tragedy no one appears to have the authority to prevent it happening again.
WorkSafe, the country’s primary workplace safety regulator and one of a number of agencies involved in investigating the tragedy has no control over access to the island regardless of the dangers. A spokesperson said access was controlled by the owners of the island and tourism operators.
‘‘The decision to recommence land tours of the island will be up to those operating as Persons Conducting a Business or Undertakings (PCBUs) and who wish to run these operations.’’
Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta, who is also responsible for offshore islands, and the lead minister for the Ministerial Taskforce on the investigation also has no planning jurisdiction over the island.
While she declined to speculate on the obvious possibility of amending existing laws or introducing new legislation to authorise a WorkSafe to control access, a comment by an employment law expert Charles McGuiness may have thrown some light on that hesitation.
He said closing access to the island would raise the question of why people are allowed to go anywhere that could be unsafe. That could be glaciers, mountains, rivers, beaches. He said he could not imagine Parliament legislating for one case, when there could be any number of equally dangerous cases. He said people would be horrified if it was suggested that no-one could do anything risky anymore which would lead to ‘the collapse of New Zealand tourism’.
That would have to be the mother of all red herrings. No one in their right mind would suggest such legislation and nobody is making that suggestion but there is an obvious and urgent need for new legislation to control and regulate some of the more foolishly dangerous activities tourists engage in, with or without tourism guides.
Climbing mountains when the avalanches risk is high, driving in New Zealand with no experience of left land road rules after many hours on a plane and visitors with no New Zealand experience tramping or hunting alone are just three of the activities which have resulted in predictable tragedies. Walking into the crater of an increasingly active volcano is way ahead of the pack in terms of foolishness and was closer to Russian roulette than adventure tourism in that a tragedy was bound to happen.
If Parliament can, albeit belatedly, restrict and control access to New Zealand to prevent in the arrival of coronavirus Parliament can, and should, enact legislation to prevent people, tourists in particular, from having access to areas of high risk to themselves and those who rescue them or recover their dead bodies.
That risk might be seasonal, as with avalanches, or predictable as with increasing active volcanoes or assessed by experience and ability. We know that risk cannot be eliminated completely and risk is an essential element of adventure tourism but risks can be managed far better than we do presently.
We know also that when tragedies such as the Whakaari/White Island eruptions occur local and regional economies, which have become tourism dependent, take a serious hit and may take a long time to recover. Much of that could be avoided with improved risk management.
We also know that many in the tourism industry have proven on too many tragic occasions that they cannot be trusted to effectively manage the risks they expose their clients to. The country will have to do that for them by way of legislation and regulation and the viability of the tourism industry should only have a minor influence on that process. In fact such legislation would probably enhance the reputation of New Zealand as an attractive and safe visitor destination.
Most importantly we need legislation to avoid tragedies rather than the traditional approach of retrospective punitive measures. That legislation will not be easy to write and opposition from vested interests and pork barrel politics, particularly in an election year, will make it even harder but that is not an excuse to allow the present situation to go unchecked. That is what we have a Parliament for . . . isn’t it?