1 Opportunities and Methods for Stimulating the Tourist Industry in Northern Australia: Comments from Wildlife Management International Pty. Limited, which owns and operates “Crocodylus Park”, in Darwin, one of relatively few large private tourist attractions in northern Australia (12th August 2017) 1. Introduction and Background Wildlife Management International Pty. Limited (WMI) is a Darwin-based company (since 1978) that specialises in “wildlife”. They have a significant footprint nationally and internationally for implementing evidence-based programs and policies, based on science, that meet world standards, in wildlife conservation, research, management, sustainable use and production (see Annex 1). WMI have achieved this from a private- sector platform, located within northern Australia. WMI have over 4 decades of experience with scientific research generally, and 23 years of experience applying science to tourism visitation within northern Australia. Within Australia the management of wildlife and the pursuit of tourism are both State and Territory Government responsibilities, with Commonwealth oversight when it comes to some issues. Most research on wildlife and tourism are conducted through Government Departments or public institutions. Hence WMI’s experience and skills, bring it into competition with public institutions. Whereas government departments of business are based on the concept of transferring business opportunities to the private sector, when it comes to research with wildlife or tourism, there is no culture of engaging local businesses to assess data. With wildlife the private sector tends to be viewed as “the enemy”, and with tourism, there is a history of Government embellishing tourism statistics to meet political goals – no real incentive for transparency or probing analytical questions. Over and above WMI consulting services, another arm of WMI’s activities in northern Australia is “Crocodylus Park”, a multi-million dollar tourist attraction in Darwin (since 1994). Attractions (natural and man-made) are the “pointy end” of the tourism industry. They bring visitors here, and provide the capacity for visitors to spend time here. For example, Crocodylus Park holds the average tourist for 3-4 hours. For this it receives around $50 per visitor in entrance fees and shop sales. But the 3-4 hours at Crocodylus Park means visitors need to stay an extra day, and through this, they inject maybe 10 times that amount into the economy (hotels, restaurants, transport, other attractions, etc.). A large percentage of people visiting northern Australia do so because of attractions (natural and man-made), not because we have a bus, hotel room, restaurant or other elements of the tourism service sector. Yet the important role of attractions is rarely mentioned in tourism strategies and most of them belong to Government. For example, 2 Crocodylus Park’s commercial competition, for a tourist “zoo experience”, is the NT Government’s “Territory Wildlife Park” (TWP). Over and above entrance fees, the NT Government subsidises the TWP some $150/visitor, depending how it is calculated: some $200+ million in subsidies so far (in 2017 dollars). The private sector competition (Crocodylus Park) gets zero support. It is definitely not a level playing field. We think the TWP receives about the same number of visitors as Crocodylus Park, and we do not think they stay there as long. But Government is far more cautious about releasing its visitation statistics than are Crocodylus Park – they see their data as commercially confidential! Perhaps transparency is a political risk. Tourism in northern Australia waxes and wanes dramatically over time, for a variety of reasons. Over the last 10 years in Darwin, interstate visitation has declined by around 50%. But there is no “drought relief” available for private attractions in northern Australia. They need to close down or refinance. Given the Government attractions are completely shielded from such realities, their ability to compete ramps up. For example, in the current times of tourism stress, the TWP just announced (see Annex 2) a new crocodile-based attraction, aimed directly at competing further with Crocodylus Park. Indeed, the person in charge (Simon Ferguson) is an ex-CP employee, whose knowledge- base on crocodiles was built largely at CP. It is definitely not a level playing field. WMI’s interest in the tourism industry goes beyond Crocodylus Park, and its ability to weather tourism droughts. We thus welcome this inquiry and hope the insights we provide here are helpful. In our opinion: 1. The tourist industry is fundamental to the economic well-being and future of all people living in northern Australia, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. 2. Tourism overcomes the ability of getting produce grown in northern Australia to distant markets. Tourism brings the market (tourists) to northern Australia - or at least has the potential to do so if the transport mechanisms are in place. 3. Tourism attractions are needed in northern Australia, but they are obviously not lucrative businesses to operate. There has been one significant tourist attraction built in Darwin in the last 23 years! The “Catch 22” is that you need attractions to bring tourists to town -- but you need the tourists in town, before the private sector can invest. 4. The public and private sectors have developed tourism together, amidst a commercial environment steeped in risk and uncertainty. Despite the experience gained, better and bolder paradigms and visions are needed if the status quo is to be changed. 5. Foremost amongst WMI concerns is the need apply innovation and science to understanding the dynamic nature of tourism visitation to northern Australia, and as a consequence, to be better able to help businesses through improved prediction (forecasting). As it stands, very few businesses in the NT benefit from data on visitor trends provided by Tourism Northern Territory (TNT) not take any notice of it. 3 2. Political Landscape RECOMMENDATION 1. That the inquiry recognises that for northern Australia to reach its full potential with tourism, the political landscape and priorities will be critical. The situation in the Northern Territory, with its seat of Government in the north, is arguably different to Queensland, Western Australia and the Commonwealth. A fundamental requirement will be to establish a mechanism for the ongoing promotion of tourism across northern Australia, suggesting a role for a “North Australian Tourist Council”. Tourism in Queensland and Western Australia is driven from Brisbane and Perth respectively, whereas in the Northern Territory, the seat of Government is in northern Australia (Darwin), and the status of tourism locally is at all times before most politicians. Against this, the government tourism infrastructure in QLD and WA may well be larger, better resourced, and more refined than in the NT. Regardless, mechanisms for promoting tourism in northern Australia generally, and for sharing tourists across State and Territory borders in the region, may be important for achieving better outcomes from tourism for northern Australia. Some form of North Australian Tourism Council, or “think-tank”, may be needed to pursue these matters, and indeed, to keep northern Australia on the tourist agenda at all levels. 3. Fundamental Issues 3.1. Rationalising data collection, analysis and interpretation. RECOMMENDATION 2. A fundamental requirement for stimulating tourism in Northern Australia is greatly improved capacity to monitor, analyse and assess the local tourism industry objectively. In the “Top End” of the Northern Territory the tourist industry is in crisis now, and it needs stimulation. But for a variety of reasons, the data needed to assess trends objectively are neither collected by Government nor available through other sources. a. A fundamental assumption for this inquiry is that the “tourist Industry” in Northern Australia needs stimulation … that the tourist industry is considered to be underperforming. b. The most fundamental dynamic of the tourist industry in northern Australia is the number of tourists that visit annually. The economic impact of tourists from different origins varies, but in many ways this is nit-picking. In WMI’s experience, when visitation is high at Crocodylus Park, in Darwin, the tourist industry as a whole is vibrant and the flow-on effects are that business spending and confidence generally are high. When tourism visitation declines greatly, such as in 2003 and 2014, the opposite occurs. 4 Figure 1. Visitation at Crocodylus Park, presented as a 12-month period advanced monthly (1994-2017). Red line = peak visitation (2007- 2008). Brown and green lines indicate a reduction of 25% and 50% of peak visitation respectively. c. Visitation data from Crocodylus Park (Figure 1) for 23 years confirm that visitation rates for tourists (not confounded by business visitors to the Top End) have increased and decreased greatly over time. Figure 2. Annual visitation (12 month moving average one month at a time) by origin (local, interstate, international) for 11 years (2007 to 2017). Arrow indicates when the investment in a new river cruise attraction started at Crocodylus Park, which had an immediate effect on local visitation (blue). d. In the 6-year period from 2008 (World Economic Crisis) to 2014, accommodation and transport sectors into and out of Darwin were allocated to business development: the INPEX gas development. Tourist visitation at Crocodylus Park and within