❓ A WA parliamentary question probes changes to the 'Pathways Forward' tourism strategy, focusing on authorisation, notification, and the rationale behind altering the key performance indicator for tourism growth. The Minister denies masking failure and explains the KPI change due to exceeding targets and industry confusion.
AnsweredQoN 1606Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Given that the important Pathways Forward: Strategic Plan 2003-2008 has been altered or withdrawn since being tabled in Parliament by the Tourism Minister in 2003, can the Minister please inform the House –
(1) Who authorised these changes?
(2) What was the date of these changes?
(3) Was the Minister of the day notified of these changes?
(4) Did the Minister of the day authorise these changes?
(5) How and when was the tourism industry informed of these fundamental changes to how Western Australian tourism is marketed?
(6) If not, why not?
(7) Will the Minister table a copy of the original report and the new modified report for comparison, for the purpose of open and accountable government?
(8) Was the purpose of these changes to mask Tourism WA’s failure to achieve the objective of “growing WA tourism by 10 per cent more than the national average, as measured by visitor expenditure”?
(9) If not, what was the purpose of these changes?
(10) Does Tourism WA still have the key objective of “growing WA tourism by 10 per cent more than the national average, as measured by visitor expenditure” over the period 2003-2008?
(11) If not, why not?
(12) If the changes were authorised without the consent of the Minister of the day, does the current Minister consider that the behaviour of those responsible as a gross breach of sections 9(a)(ii) and 9(b) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994?
(13) If not, why not?
(14) If so, will the Minister take serious disciplinary action against those involved?
(1) Who authorised these changes?
(2) What was the date of these changes?
(3) Was the Minister of the day notified of these changes?
(4) Did the Minister of the day authorise these changes?
(5) How and when was the tourism industry informed of these fundamental changes to how Western Australian tourism is marketed?
(6) If not, why not?
(7) Will the Minister table a copy of the original report and the new modified report for comparison, for the purpose of open and accountable government?
(8) Was the purpose of these changes to mask Tourism WA’s failure to achieve the objective of “growing WA tourism by 10 per cent more than the national average, as measured by visitor expenditure”?
(9) If not, what was the purpose of these changes?
(10) Does Tourism WA still have the key objective of “growing WA tourism by 10 per cent more than the national average, as measured by visitor expenditure” over the period 2003-2008?
(11) If not, why not?
(12) If the changes were authorised without the consent of the Minister of the day, does the current Minister consider that the behaviour of those responsible as a gross breach of sections 9(a)(ii) and 9(b) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994?
(13) If not, why not?
(14) If so, will the Minister take serious disciplinary action against those involved?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
21 November 2006
Responded by
Minister for Tourism
Response time
26 days
(8) No. Tourism Western Australia dramatically exceeded its objective on this measure. (9) Refer to answers (1-7). (10) No - the measure of success of the relevant objective has changed to "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". (11) This measure was changed because in the first two years of the measurement Tourism Western Australia exceeded the objective measure by such a large extent and over achieved to such a significant degree through its outstanding work that it was felt more appropriate to simply have a measure which required "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". Furthermore designating a specific percentage greater than the national average caused industry and stakeholder confusion when national tourism growth was negative but Western Australia's growth was positive. (12-14) Not applicable.
(9) Refer to answers (1-7). (10) No - the measure of success of the relevant objective has changed to "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". (11) This measure was changed because in the first two years of the measurement Tourism Western Australia exceeded the objective measure by such a large extent and over achieved to such a significant degree through its outstanding work that it was felt more appropriate to simply have a measure which required "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". Furthermore designating a specific percentage greater than the national average caused industry and stakeholder confusion when national tourism growth was negative but Western Australia's growth was positive. (12-14) Not applicable.
(10) No - the measure of success of the relevant objective has changed to "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". (11) This measure was changed because in the first two years of the measurement Tourism Western Australia exceeded the objective measure by such a large extent and over achieved to such a significant degree through its outstanding work that it was felt more appropriate to simply have a measure which required "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". Furthermore designating a specific percentage greater than the national average caused industry and stakeholder confusion when national tourism growth was negative but Western Australia's growth was positive. (12-14) Not applicable.
(11) This measure was changed because in the first two years of the measurement Tourism Western Australia exceeded the objective measure by such a large extent and over achieved to such a significant degree through its outstanding work that it was felt more appropriate to simply have a measure which required "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". Furthermore designating a specific percentage greater than the national average caused industry and stakeholder confusion when national tourism growth was negative but Western Australia's growth was positive. (12-14) Not applicable.
(12-14) Not applicable.
(9) Refer to answers (1-7). (10) No - the measure of success of the relevant objective has changed to "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". (11) This measure was changed because in the first two years of the measurement Tourism Western Australia exceeded the objective measure by such a large extent and over achieved to such a significant degree through its outstanding work that it was felt more appropriate to simply have a measure which required "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". Furthermore designating a specific percentage greater than the national average caused industry and stakeholder confusion when national tourism growth was negative but Western Australia's growth was positive. (12-14) Not applicable.
(10) No - the measure of success of the relevant objective has changed to "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". (11) This measure was changed because in the first two years of the measurement Tourism Western Australia exceeded the objective measure by such a large extent and over achieved to such a significant degree through its outstanding work that it was felt more appropriate to simply have a measure which required "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". Furthermore designating a specific percentage greater than the national average caused industry and stakeholder confusion when national tourism growth was negative but Western Australia's growth was positive. (12-14) Not applicable.
(11) This measure was changed because in the first two years of the measurement Tourism Western Australia exceeded the objective measure by such a large extent and over achieved to such a significant degree through its outstanding work that it was felt more appropriate to simply have a measure which required "Growth in WA visitor spend greater than national average". Furthermore designating a specific percentage greater than the national average caused industry and stakeholder confusion when national tourism growth was negative but Western Australia's growth was positive. (12-14) Not applicable.
(12-14) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.