Abstract
The October 2002 Bali bombing was a catalyst for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to radically alter its approach to the content and dissemination of Australian government travel advisories. Integral to DFAT’s post-Bali strategy was its decision to seek the collaborative support of the Australian outbound travel industry leadership to broaden dissemination of travel advisories to outbound Australian travellers. Although initial contacts between DFAT and the Australian travel industry leaders in early 2003 were contentious, subsequent negotiations resulted in the world’s first signed agreement between a foreign ministry and a national travel industry leadership in June 2003. The initial agreement, the Charter for Safe Travel involved the Australian travel industry’s commitment to disseminate DFAT travel advisories in exchange for a viable consultative role in their content. Australia’s collaborative model was adopted in the UK from 2004, in Canada from 2005 and New Zealand since 2016. Globally, consultation between national travel industry leaders and national foreign ministries is rare, despite the support of the United Nations World Tourism Organization, the World Travel and Tourism Council and the Pacific Asia Travel Association. Through participant observation research, in the context of collaboration and stakeholder theories, this article discusses the evolution of a consultative relationship between DFAT and the Australian outbound travel industry leadership and other relevant stakeholders between 2003 and 2017. The observations made in this study reveal that collaborative consultation has achieved positive changes to travel advisories which feature regionally specific, timely and comprehensible content. These qualitative enhancements have been complemented by enhanced dissemination of Australian government travel advisories. Australia’s Consular Consultative Group serves as a working model for similar collaboration, in the interests of global tourism safety.
Introduction
Tourism safety and security is increasingly regarded as a primary factor in destination decisions made by both leisure and business travellers (Control Data, 2017). Government travel advisories are widely recognized as a key element in destination decisions for international leisure and business travellers. Since 2002, the Internet has been a major facilitating factor for governments to disseminate and manage the content of travel advisories.
The Australian government’s approach to travel advisories radically changed after the bombings of the Sari Club and Paddy’s Bar in Denpasar, Bali on 12 October 2002, one of the most severe acts of terrorism targeting tourists in recent history. Of 202 people killed from 17 countries, 88 were Australians. A further 240 people were wounded, of whom half were Australians. It was the most deadly extraterritorial attack against Australian civilians in peacetime. Much has been written about the Bali bombing and its implications for tourism risk, crisis and recovery management (Beirman, 2006; Gurtner, 2007; Henderson, 2007; PATA, 2003; Prideaux et al., 2007; Ritchie, 2009). The Bali bombing’s impact on Australian attitudes to tourism safety and security reflected that of the 9/11 attack on American attitudes.
Senior officials of Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Jeff Roach and Ian Kemish (2006) asserted that the 2002 Bali bombings required a whole of government response to critical incidents impacting on Australians abroad. High priority items for DFAT included simplifying the wording and grading of government travel advisories. As a consequence of the Bali bombing, DFAT was heavily criticized by the media during the late 2002. Some media observations were inaccurate, distorted and sought scapegoats for the disaster. DFAT was accused of ‘failing’ to warn Australians visiting Bali of the impending threat of terrorist attack. The basis for this allegation was the US State Department’s decision to upgrade it travel advisories on Indonesia a month prior to the bombing. However, the upgraded US advisory, frequently cited in media reports, never specified an impending attack in Bali (Wilkie, 2004).
This article focuses on changes to Australian government travel advisories from 2003 to 2017 and Australian government approaches to the safety and security of Australian tourists abroad since the Bali bombing. Central to those changes has been ongoing consultative engagement between key Australian outbound travel industry companies and associations with DFAT. In more recent years, other stakeholders have been added to the consultative process. Key outcomes of that engagement have been the following: enhanced timeliness and regional specificity of travel advisories; simplification of the language and security levels; widespread dissemination of Australian government travel advisories using multiple media and IT platforms; a development of cooperative risk and crisis management approaches between DFAT and the outbound travel industry.
Since 2014, DFAT has sought to clarify the role and responsibilities of the Australian government towards Australian citizens who encounter problems when travelling internationally. The theoretical basis on which the relationship between DFAT and the Australian outbound travel industry is built is collaborative theory and stakeholder theory.
In 2016, the number of Australians travelling internationally reached a record 9.98 million, (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017) representing over one-third of Australia’s population. This obviates effective risk management policies for outbound Australians travellers. The significant threat to tourists in some popular tourist destinations from crime, terrorism, pandemics, natural disasters and social unrest has led to mass outbound tourism becoming a security concern for both the Australian government and the travel industry. The significance of this research is that provides an in-depth analysis of the world’s first collaborative travel industry–government partnership in developing travel advisories.
A working definition of government travel advisories
There is considerable public misunderstanding of the term government travel advisory. Some news media outlets incorrectly refer to a cautionary travel advisory in reference to a destination country as a travel ban. In the event of a government travel advisory which advises citizens not to travel to a specific destination, it remains advice, not a directive or a travel ban. Governments rarely ban travel of their citizens to a foreign country. A travel ban only applies if state of war exists between the tourism generating country and the destination country.
Governments may occasionally impose restrictions or limitations on their citizens’ ability to travel to specific countries as an act of political or ideological opprobrium. From 1960 to2015, the United States formally banned its citizens (with the exception of approved family reunions visits) to travel to Cuba as part of its wider political and trade boycott of Cuba. Many Arab and Muslim countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan ban their citizens from travelling to Israel and deny entry for Israeli citizens and holders of other foreign passports in which visa and travel documentation indicate a visit to Israel. During the Apartheid era in South Africa (1948–1994), South African passport holders were denied entry into a number of African and former Soviet Bloc states. At various times, Taiwanese citizens were denied entry to the Peoples’ Republic of China. During Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War 1964–1972, Australian passport holders were expressly forbidden to travel to North Vietnam. In more recent years, visa entry restrictions imposed by governments directed at travellers from countries deemed a security risk has become increasingly prevalent (Bianchi, 2006; Harpaz, 2013; Neumayer, 2006).
Through its website www.smartraveller.gov.au and other online platforms, DFAT has asserted to the Australian travelling public and the travel industry that travel advisories represent the considered opinion of the Australian government about the safety of a specific destination for Australian travellers. Although there is a considerable body of literature on government travel advisories (Glaesser, 2003; Henderson, 2007; Ritchie, 2009), there is a notable absence of a definition. The author has adapted the following as a three-part definition of travel advisories (Beirman, 2006). A travel advisory is a security and safety assessment issued by the government of a travel generating country to its citizens, applicable to a specific destination country and regions within that country. Based on that assessment, the government determines the advisability of travel to that country and specified regions and recommends safety measures and codes of conduct which travellers should adhere to when visiting the destination. Travel advisories include information and advice on legal, cultural and religious mores, medical concerns and regulations which apply to the destination. They suggest appropriate conduct for travellers to optimize personal safety and adhere to local laws while visiting the destination/country. The travel generating country provides its citizens with consular contacts and specifies the level of assistance which the legation can provide its nationals in the destination country. A government travel advisory is an extraterritorial security measure designed to warn travellers of actual and potential risks they may encounter when travelling to a destination outside their country of citizenship.
Theoretical framework and literature review
Collaborative theory and stakeholder theory and their applications to the DFAT–travel industry relationship
Collaborative theory and stakeholder theory are closely interrelated and relevant to the evolution of the relationship between DFAT, Australia’s outbound travel industry, and other core stakeholders which share concerns about the safety and security of outbound Australian travellers. This common interest is a centripetal force towards collaboration intended to serve the interests of safe international travel for Australian citizens. Yet, there is little academic literature which specifically addresses those theoretical constructs in relation to the development of government travel advisories.
Pennington-Gray et al. undertake an analysis which synthesizes collaborative theory and stakeholder theory in dealing with tourism-related crises. They point out that three key elements necessary to create an effective collaborative communication network are the following: the inclusion of multiple stakeholder groups; ensuring that communication is collaborative at all phases; creating partnerships that lead to more resilient communities (Pennington-Gray et al., 2015).
Although their analysis applies to dealing with crises in Bali, there is a great deal of commonality in developing and disseminating travel advisories. Multiple stakeholders contribute to the wide dissemination of travel advisories. The interests of multiple stakeholders have contributed to shaping travel advisories which are readily comprehensible to most travellers and the partnerships between the participants in DFAT’s Consular Consultative Group have enhanced Australia’s ability to manage crisis events affecting Australian travellers abroad.
The evolution of what is now the Consular Consultative Group follows closely with the concept of collaborative tourism marketing outlined by D’Angella and Go (2009). In essence, collaboration has evolved between a wide range of stakeholder associations and organizations with their own quite specific and diverse agendas constituencies and fields of interest. The Consular Consultative Group and the uniting issue of travel advisories acts as a common point of convergence for these stakeholders. Arnaboldi and Spiller (2011) refer to a cultural district in relation to stakeholder collaboration for a tourism destination. In this case, the common cultural district can be reconceptualized to refer to a diverse group of stakeholders sharing a common approach to tourism safety and security.
The tourism industry is a highly fragmented. Much of that fragmentation is sectoral (Drucker, 2007). Most tourism professionals tend to view tourism through their sectoral prism, depending on whether they work for airlines, travel agents or wholesale tour operators (Dwyer et al., 2009; Jamal and Getz 1995; Stokes, 2008; Selin, 1994). The development of a collaborative partnership between DFAT and Australia’s outbound travel industry leadership was predicated on DFAT seeking engagement with a representative leadership body of outbound travel industry associations reflecting key sectoral interests.
In discussing the core elements of stakeholder theory, Jensen refers to a group of stakeholders who are allied in the pursuit of a single-valued objective function (Jensen, 2002). One of the characteristics of the Consular Consultative Group is that the number and scope of stakeholders has expanded substantially between 2003 and 2017, but the core objective of facilitating safe travel for Australian citizens has remained.
Prior to the 2003 Charter for Safe Travel agreement, engagement between DFAT and the travel industry was minimal. While DFAT generally welcomed engagement with national tourist offices, until the 2002 Bali bombing, the prevailing attitude of most DFAT officials was that travel professionals were primarily profit driven and sought positive depictions and perceptions of travel security for countries they marketed with minimal concern for the safety of travellers.
Conversely, many travel professionals, especially specialist destination wholesalers believed that DFAT was a paranoid institution committed to painting the bleakest possible picture of destinations which they (the destination specialists) considered or knew to be safe. These perceptions coloured relationships between DFAT and the outbound travel industry until the October 2002 Bali bombing which essentially forced collaboration on DFAT and Australia’s outbound travel industry leadership.
In the field of tourism crisis management, collaboration is required between companies and organizations across the various industry sectors and between the industry and government (Ritchie, 2009). The Bali bombing was a collaborative driver for the outbound tourism industry and DFAT to collaborate in the interests of tourism safety. Bali’s popularity with outbound Australian travellers was predicated on its perception as a safe and welcoming destination for Australians. The terrorist bombings of 12 October 2002 undermined those perceptions (Gurtner, 2007). DFAT’s immediate concerns were the registration and identification of deceased and wounded Australians, establishing contact with affected families and where necessary, emergency repatriation. Tour operators, travel insurers and travel agents shared similar concerns.
In their discussion of trends analysis (Dwyer et al., 2009) focuses on drivers of collaboration which result from political, economic, environmental, social and technological trends analysis. The years between 2001 and 2003 involved a series of events, including 9/11, the Bali bombing and Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) which forced safety, security and crisis management as top travel industry priorities. Consequently, the political impetus for measures to enhance tourism security coincided with the tourism industry’s need to be seen as proactive.
Jamal and Stronza (2009) assert that collaboration is integral to planning domains involving multiple stakeholders. A problem domain refers to a situation in which the problems are complex and require an inter- or multi-organizational response involving a broad collection of stakeholders. The development of a shared set of policy directions within a problem domain requires collaboration among multiple stakeholders who may hold diverse views and have varying degrees of influence over decision-making. It is noteworthy that in recent years, the stakeholders which have been drawn into the Consular Consultative Group have extended far beyond DFAT and the tourism industry. More recent members, such as the Travel Doctors, the consumer advocate publication Choice and Google to mention just three, have focused far more on travel consumers. Yet, the centripetal collaborative force is the need for a common approach to travel safety.
The relationship between DFAT and the various outbound travel industry stakeholder participants in the Smartraveller Consultative Group (SCG) closely matches this theoretical construct. In practice, DFAT emerged as the lead organization and set the agenda of most meetings, albeit with input from travel industry members. Travel industry participants tend to provide input based on their respective association constituencies of clients be they airlines, travel agents, business travellers, destination marketers, wholesale tour operators, travel writers or travel doctors.
The policy focus is the provision of optimal risk management, safety and security outcomes for Australian outbound travellers. This represents the collaborative core of the DFAT–travel industry relationship. Faulkner, in his discussion of tourism disaster management (Faulkner, 2001) emphasized coordinated team approaches between public and private sector organizations and planning agencies, along with consultation with stakeholders and the community affected by a disaster. Since 2003, DFAT and the travel industry have frequently cooperated to assist Australians affected by extraterritorial crises.
The relationship between DFAT and the Australian outbound travel industry leadership evolved from one of mutual suspicion and mistrust in 2003 to a collaborative working relationship from 2004 to 2017.
Between 2002 and 2011, DFAT received frequent intelligence advice of imminent terrorist attacks targeting tourists in Bali. Terrorist attacks targeting the Australian Embassy in Jakarta in 2004, restaurant bombings in Bali 2005 and the suicide bomb attack on the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta in 2009 gave credence to DFAT’s concerns. DFAT’s cautious approach to Indonesian travel advisories indicated a preference to endure criticism for its advisories on Indonesia over the greater odium of facing media accusation over failing to warn Australians of potential security threats. The open dialogue between DFAT and the travel industry did not achieve agreement on government travel advisories to Indonesia but it enhanced the travel industry’s sensitivity to DFAT’s position.
Background to DFAT’s Charter for Safe Travel 2003
Prior to widespread Internet usage from 2002, there was minimal public awareness of government travel advisories. In Australia, pre-Internet travel advisories were published in a government gazette accompanied by a media release with no guarantee of media coverage. Only those stakeholders with a vested interest, including travel insurance companies, travel agents, tour operators which serviced passengers travelling to countries deemed risky, paid close attention to government travel advisories. Some travel insurance companies treated a ‘do not travel’ advisory for a destination, as justification for a refusal of insurance cover for travellers visiting that country (Sullivan, 2010). Among travel consumers, corporations, government departments and educational institutions have used travel advisories as a means of assessing staff eligibility to travel to potentially risky destinations (Hilger, 2017). These concerns arise out of a wider ‘duty of care’ context.
Widespread Internet usage from 2002 provided all foreign ministries (including DFAT) with a cost-effective means for timely mass dissemination of government travel advisories. It also facilitated efficient updating of advisories. However, DFAT officials, including Ian Kemish (head of DFAT’s Consular Branch in 2002) believed that a presence on the Internet alone, would not guarantee widespread public awareness of travel advisories (Kemish and Roach, 2006).
In early 2003, senior DFAT officials approached Australia’s outbound travel industry leadership to assist in educating travellers and disseminating travel advisories to outbound travellers. In late 2002 Mike Hatton, then CEO of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents (AFTA) was approached by DFAT to mobilize support from travel agents, airlines and tour wholesalers to assist DFAT’s dissemination of travel advisories to international travellers. DFAT established a website www.smartraveller.gov.au as its principle travel advisory platform and promoted travel advisories under the Smartraveller brand.
In January 2003, the Association of National Tourism Office Representatives (ANTOR) organized a meeting in Sydney which was hosted by DFAT's Consular and Crisis Management Division. Over 80 travel industry leaders attended that contentious meeting. DFAT sought travel industry support for the dissemination of Australian government travel advisories. However, DFAT was met with a firm response that the travel industry would only agree if they had a meaningful consultative role in formulating travel advisories.
Between February 2003 and June 2003, AFTA gained support from key outbound travel industry leaders representing Council of Australian Tour Operators (CATO), Australian Business Travel Association (ABTA), Qantas, Eastern Mediterranean Tourism Association (EMTA) QBE Insurance (Australia’s largest underwriter of travel insurance policies) and ANTOR. These associations, which represented a cross section of the outbound travel industry, met with DFAT officials to negotiate an agreement which would meet DFAT’s need for travel industry support in disseminating government travel advisories and the outbound travel industry’s expectation to exercise ‘a meaningful degree of consultation’ in the travel advisories.
On 11 June 2003, Federal Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and AFTA CEO Mike Hatton (on behalf of the travel industry) signed the ‘Charter for Safe Travel’ in Sydney (see Figure 1A in Appendix 1). The charter contained three key principles (Beirman, 2006; DFAT, 2003). The industry would inform its clients on relevant government travel advisories for international destinations and encourage travellers to refer to DFAT’s Smartraveller website and would consult with DFAT and offer traveller feedback to ensure that travel advisories met the needs of travellers. The travel industry would emphasize the importance of international travellers purchasing appropriate travel insurance coverage, ensuring passports have sufficient validity to undertake planned travel and that visas are duly organized when required. There is an ongoing mutual commitment on the part of the travel industry leadership and DFAT to promote safe travel of Australians overseas.
The charter committed DFAT and the travel industry to maintain ongoing contact. It committed charter signatories, including thousands of travel businesses who were members of the relevant associations to familiarize themselves with travel advisories and integrate them with their travel consultation services to outbound clients. The organizations involved in the negotiations of the Charter for Safe Travel formed the nucleus of the Smartraveller Advisory Group which has continued to meet at least twice a year with DFAT since 2003. The SAG (which was renamed the SCG in 2010 and the Consular Consultative Group in 2014) began during the term of the Liberal National Party Coalition government. It continued after the Australian Labour Party was elected to office in 2007 and after the election of a coalition government in September 2013. The collaborative relationship between DFAT and the Australian travel industry has maintained bipartisan support from successive Australian governments since 2003.
Broadening membership of DFAT’s Travel Advisory Consultative Group 2003–2017
The Smartraveller Advisory Group was the world’s first body of nationally based outbound travel industry associations invited to provide ongoing consultation on travel advisories to a foreign ministry. It formed the basis of a similar agreements in the United Kingdom established in November 2004 when the British travel industry leadership was invited to consult with the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office through an advisory board called the Travel Advice Review Group (Henderson, 2007; Tourism Concern, 2004). A similar body was established in Canada in 2005 and in New Zealand in late 2016. To date, these advisory groups only operate in four countries. However, transnational tourism organizations including Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA; Koumelis, 2007), the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and the World Travel and Tourism Council support the concept of enhanced engagement between the travel industry and national foreign ministries. This was most recently endorsed and recommended by the representatives of 19 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) governments at the APEC Counter Terrorism and Tourism workshop held in Bali in May 2017 (APEC, 2017).
Since 2003, a number of key developments have strengthened the ties between the original Smartraveller Advisory Group and DFAT. The core travel industry associations and DFAT agreed to broaden the stakeholder base to fully represent Australia’s outbound travel industry. Organizations invited to join since 2003 included The Insurance Council of Australia, PATA, The International Air Transport Association, Cruise Lines International (the peak body of the cruising industry in Australia) Travel Doctors, Lonely Planet, The Australian Society of Travel Writers, Google, Virgin Australia and the Council of Australasian Tourism and Hospitality Educators and the Lowy Institute. The Global Business Travel Association replaced the ABTA, representing the same constituency and membership. In 2014, DFAT broadened government involvement in the Consular Consultative Group by including Customs, The Passport Office, Austrade and Australian Quarantine Inspection Service.
Table 1 illustrates the growth of industry membership of the SCG in the 10 years between 2003 and 2017. In essence, DFAT has sought members which encompass all key stakeholders representing the interests of outbound travellers in Australia.
SCG travel industry and government members 2003. Consular Consultative Group travel industry, consumer associations and government members 2017.
SCG: Smartraveller Consultative Group; AFTA: Australian Federation of Travel Agents; CATO: Council of Australian Tour Operators; ANTOR: Association of National Tourist Office Representatives; EMTA: Eastern Mediterranean Tourism Association; ABTA: Australian Business Travel Association; DFAT: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; PATA: Pacific Asia Travel Association; IATA: International Air Transport Association; CAUTHE: Council of Australasian Tourism and Hospitality Educators.
Source: (DFAT, 2017)
Note: It is worth noting that the changes between 2003 and 2017 have involved a significant broadening of stakeholders with a vested interest in the safety of Australians travelling internationally accompanied by a growth in the number and scope of government departments represented on the Consular Consultative Group.
In September 2013, the SCG expanded membership to incorporate telecommunications companies, key mining industry bodies and the consumer magazine Choice. At SAG/SCG meetings, DFAT is usually represented by the Assistant Secretary, Consular Policy Branch the senior official responsible for framing travel advisories. He or she is supported by various other DFAT officials including those responsible for the DFAT’s Smartraveller Program. Some meetings have also involved the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade or the Minister’s appointed Parliamentary Secretary.
In addition to their involvement with the advisory group, DFAT representatives have addressed travel professionals at travel industry functions. They have exhibited at major consumer travel expos in capital cities and regional centres throughout Australia. DFAT has invested a significant part of its budget in widespread media campaigns utilizing traditional print and electronic media and more recently, social media and apps accessible via smart phones. They have focused on communicating three core messages to the travel industry and the outbound travelling public. Travellers are urged to register their international travel plans and contact details with DFAT. Travellers are urged to purchase appropriate travel insurance coverage when travelling internationally. Travellers are urged to keep themselves updated on the travel advisories which apply to the destinations they plan to visit (www.smartraveller.gov.au 2016).
DFAT has insisted that determination of security threats to Australian travellers abroad was its responsibility in conjunction with its intelligence sources. Although travel industry leaders asserted that they too could contribute their destination knowledge to DFAT’s security advice, DFAT has maintained that security-related intelligence is their exclusive domain.
However, travel industry representatives convinced DFAT to cease applying a blanket countrywide travel advisory in response to a localized incident or threat. This practice was frequently criticized by transnational tourism associations, including PATA (2010), the UNWTO (2011), the World Travel and Tourism Council and the British-based tourism lobby group Tourism Concern (2003).
Since 2005, DFAT has posted regionalized threat assessments applying to a number of countries. A cursory glance at the www.smartraveller.gov.au website reveals that advisories for Thailand, Turkey. Egypt and Israel show considerable regional variations. Due to the close security cooperation between the foreign ministries of the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand under the ‘Five eyes agreement’ (O’Neil, 2017), the practice of regionalizing travel advisories has become increasingly prevalent in travel advisories issued by the foreign ministries of these countries.
The travel industry leadership has exercised positive influence with DFAT on simplification of travel advisory rankings and wording. In November 2011, Kevin Rudd, when Foreign Minister launched a revamped Smartraveller website in which travel advisory levels were reduced from five security/warning levels to four. In fact, between 2003 and 2011, DFAT has clarified and simplified previously convoluted and confusing language associated with Australian government travel advisories.
DFAT officials consulted extensively with travel industry leaders on appropriate terminology. DFAT consulted extensively with the SCG on the style and content of its website www.smartraveller.gov.au including key messages and the layout of information applying to specific countries. This was backed up by extensive market research which DFAT periodically commissioned to obtain public response to the website especially from sensitive market segments including, single female travellers, young travellers in the 18–35 age group and Australians from non-English speaking ethnic groups.
Since 2005, the Consular Consultative Group (and its predecessors) has been co-opted to assist DFAT in managing specific crisis events. In December 2006, during the Fiji coup led by Commodore Frank Bainimarama, a special meeting of the then SCG was called by DFAT to ask wholesalers, travel agents and airlines to relax cancellation penalties and itinerary change restrictions for Australian holidaying in Fiji. This was the first of many occasions in which DFAT approached travel industry principals to either relax cancellation or change conditions or facilitate the evacuation of Australian travellers in times of actual or potential crisis. In more recent years, the 2011 political uprising in Egypt, The Japan earthquake/tsunami of 2011, Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu in 2015 and Cyclone Winston, Fiji 2016 represent some of the crisis events in which DFAT and travel industry principals have cooperated to assist Australian travellers affected by these events. In 2017, DFAT introduced a web-based Crisis Hub to assist stakeholders to track crisis events (DFAT, 2017b).
Since 2007, DFAT has enhanced its crisis management operations. The Consular Emergency Centre operates a 24/7/365 service to provide consular advice and assistance for Australians abroad. DFAT’s crisis centre, located in DFAT’s Canberra complex involves consultation with a range of government departments to deal with any international incident affecting safety or security of Australians abroad (Stein, 2012). The centre has 180 trained staff within DFAT who can be mobilized to operate on hotlines and has trained a similar number of non-DFAT personnel. In the event a major emergency, DFAT can rapidly mobilize several hundred personnel to staff hotlines during a crisis situation affecting a large number of Australians. In 2011, DFAT’s crisis centre was actively engaged with three incidents (mentioned above) which occurred within the space of 2 months between January and March of that year. In December 2012, the crisis centre mobilized to respond to Cyclone Evan in Fiji and Samoa and an upsurge in conflict between Israel and Hamas on the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip. In 2016, DFAT established a temporary mobile office in Rio de Janeiro to deal with travellers visiting the Olympic Games. In fact, since 2012, DFAT had established temporary ‘pop up offices’ in places where large numbers of Australian have gathered around the world. These include Anzac Day commemorations in Turkey and major international sporting events which attract large numbers of Australian participants and spectators.
In September 2011, Paula Ganly, DFAT’s Assistant Secretary, Consular Policy Branch briefed a UNWTO conference on the integration of tourism and emergency management held in Mt Macedon Victoria on DFAT’s role in working with the tourism industry in Egypt to assist the evacuation of Australians caught up during the February 2011 Egyptian uprising. She coordinated DFAT’s operations in Cairo during that event. DFAT’s engagement with global tourism crisis management specialists was enhanced in 2012 when Suzanne Stein, training manager of DFAT’s crisis management unit addressed the follow-up UNWTO conference held in Sydney in 2012 with a detailed description of the role of DFAT’s crisis management unit. The extent of Australian government engagement in tourism-related crisis management issues was demonstrated by the involvement of the Attorney General’s Department, Federal Police, Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Department of Infrastructure and Transport and Department of Health and Aging in the 2012 UNWTO conference. In March 2016, DFAT worked closely with the Council of Australian Tour Operators and the author to develop a risk and crisis management template for all CATO members, most of whom are outbound tour operators (Beirman, 2006, 2016; McNeil, 2016), which was presented at a one-day symposium held on March 2016 in Sydney, attended by over 80 CATO members.
Although DFAT works closely with the travel industry, DFAT’s consular assistance for Australian travellers internationally has generally been sought by travellers who made their own independent travel arrangements. Many are permanent or temporary residents in the affected countries. The travel industry assisted DFAT to identify travellers who had booked either with Australian-based travel agents or tour operators. During the February 2011 Egyptian uprising, the majority of Australian citizens in Egypt were Australians participating in tour programs. They were assisted by their tour operators, travel agents and in some occasions, their insurance providers. The relationship between Qantas and DFAT due to their association with the Consular Consultative Group (CCG) influenced Qantas to agree to repatriate Australians in financial difficulty, who were flown out of Cairo on two DFAT chartered evacuation flights to Frankfurt. Qantas extended their repatriation journey to Australia free of charge (Ganly P, personal communications, 12 September 2011b).
Due in part to their widespread dissemination by DFAT and members of the CCG, travel advisories are increasingly recognized as an influential factor in destination decisions made by Australian outbound travellers. Research conducted by Core Data (2016) on 1000 Australian travellers revealed that security concerns (especially terrorism), applying to destinations were a deterrent to visiting certain destinations. The research indicated that 80% of Australian outbound travellers identified security concerns. Travel advisories also influence the level and extent of cover provided by travel insurers. They also influence travel industry principals (including cruise operators, tour wholesalers and airlines) and retailers on the marketability of destinations.
The Australian Consular Consultative Group exemplifies a shared commitment between a government foreign ministry and the travel industry to maximize the safety and security of international travellers. As a working agreement of 14 years standing, it has become a working model for similar collaborative endeavours for tourism generating countries. Cooperation engendered through the CCG has facilitated collaboration between the industry and DFAT in the management of a number of tourism related crisis events.
Methodology
The core research method employed for this article is participant observation. The author was involved in the negotiation process which led to the Charter for Safe Travel in 2003 has been a member of the Smartraveller Advisory Group/SCG/Consular Consultative Group since its inception and has attended all but one meeting from 2003 to 2017. Consequently, he has ready access to the group’s members, meeting minutes, reports and relevant DFAT officials and travel industry members as sources of primary data.
The inherent risk of participant observation, as discussed in the extensive sociological literature (Giddens, 1993; Johnson, 1995; Kidder and Judd, 1986) is that of bias or lack of objectivity. In researching this article, the author has sought to approach the coverage of this topic with as much scholarly objectivity as possible by seeking the observations of other members of the group (Spradley, 2016) and backing those observations with access to meeting minutes and other primary data sources. However, it is readily acknowledged that the observations and findings of this article (which largely represent one individual’s observations) cannot be absolutely guaranteed to be bias free.
Conversely, participant observation benefits from an in-depth appraisal of the issue being researched. In this case, the dynamics of interrelationships between members of the Consular Consultative Group and DFAT officials and DFAT officials can only be fully appraised through direct observation, only obtained through participation. Due in part to changes of Federal government leadership and frequent career moves by DFAT officials and travel industry leaders, the relationship involves many personnel changes. In fact, during the 14 years since the CCG began its existence only two individuals, Peter Baily, Manager of the Council of Australian Tour Operators, and the author have been involved for the entire 14 years.
Between 2003 and 2017, there have been five Australian Foreign Ministers, Alexander Downer (Liberal), Stephen Smith (Labor), Kevin Rudd (Labor), Bob Carr (Labor) and since September 2013, Julie Bishop (Liberal). Ministerial changes have influenced personnel changes in parliamentary secretaries and officials. The individual responsible for administering Australia’s travel advisories holds the title Assistant Secretary, Consular Policy Branch, Consular Public Diplomacy and Parliamentary Affairs Division. This is a very senior DFAT position. This individual’s tenure in that position is often short because some have been appointed as Australian ambassadors to sensitive diplomatic posts or seconded to other senior departmental roles.
DFAT officials assigned to manage DFAT’s Smartraveller campaign tend to be relatively junior officials and the role tends to be a stepping stone for internal promotion. While personnel changes have minimal impact on the substantive relationship between the travel industry leadership and DFAT, it has delayed progress on specific issues.
Travel industry members are equally subject to personnel changes. Some, due to the addition of new associations to the SCG. Foundation organizations experienced changes in personnel. A key change involved the Australia Federation of Travel Agents when its former CEO, Mike Hatton who was the travel industry’s signatory on the Charter for Safe Travel in 2003, retired from AFTA in 2012 and was replaced by the current CEO, Jayson Westbury. Some associations have ceased to exist, including ANTOR which was dissolved in 2011 and EMTA ceased activities in 2012.
Key observations and findings
The findings below are based on the author’s 14 years of participation as a member of the travel industry leadership team which negotiated the original Charter for Safe Travel agreement in 2003 and as a member of the Smartraveller Advisory Group/Consular Consultative Group between 2003 and 2017. These observations have been enhanced through discussion with other members of the Consular Consultative Group.
Policy initiative and meeting venues
During the 14 year relationship between DFAT and the Australia outbound travel industry, DFAT has set the agenda and hosted meetings at DFAT’s Sydney Office apart from one meeting in November 2012, where the SCG members were hosted at DFAT’s Canberra headquarters and members were shown the crisis management centre. Only the 2003 negotiation meetings were hosted by the AFTA in their Sydney head office. The direct involvement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has been confined to major advertising campaign launches, ceremonial occasions or briefings. In June 2003, Alexander Downer officiated at the signing ceremony for the Charter in Sydney, the first media blitz in 2004 and an address to the National Press Club in Canberra in 2005 in which SCG members were invited.
During Kevin Rudd’s Ministry, he hosted a media launch of the December 2011 Smartraveller campaign at Sydney Airport. Bob Carr invited SCG members to attend a briefing for members of the Australian Institute of International Affairs in Sydney in April 2013. This launch included explanation of the four-point travel advisory scale approved by his predecessor, Kevin Rudd. This was the outcome of lengthy consultation between DFAT and the SCG and other stakeholders to simplify key information on travel advisories. Julie Bishop invited SCG members to launch an updated Smartraveller advertising campaign on an ocean liner in Sydney in November 2013 and invited CCG members to launch events in Canberra in 2015 and 2016 and Sydney in 2017.
Generally, the CCG meets twice annually, more frequently if DFAT deems it necessary. The agenda is normally determined and meetings chaired by the Assistant Secretary, Consular Policy Branch, Consular Public Diplomacy and Parliamentary Affairs Division. This person is DFAT’s official arbiter on travel advisories prior to the final approval of the Minister. The meetings also involve the head of the Smartraveller campaign in association with officials from DFAT’s crisis management unit. CCG travel industry members are always invited to nominate issues of concern to be included in the agenda in advance of meetings.
The tenor of meetings is generally cordial and constructive. In the early phase of the relationship, the travel industry leaders insisted on progress for three key issues. Travel advisories needed to be regional in their application to countries. Travel advisories needed to be timely and reflect changes in the security environment. Travel advisories need to be easily understood.
DFAT’s response to these points evolved from reluctance in 2003 to acceptance by 2006. In addition to meetings with the consultative group, DFAT’s wider engagement with travel industry professionals and the public at travel expos and travel industry events reinforced a broader level of concern about these issues. Consequently, from 2005, DFAT moved to address the three travel industry concerns. The agenda of meetings was increasingly set by DFAT and between most of the period 2006–2017, the tenor of meetings was dominated by DFAT proposing policy and operational changes and seeking CCG comment and consultation and feedback.
In addition to travel industry feedback, DFAT annually commissioned its own market research on both the reach of and response to its travel advisories and media advertising campaigns on TV radio and print. By the end of 2004, the overwhelming majority of Australian travel agents and tour wholesalers supported active dissemination of travel advisories. Predictably, the Insurance Council of Australia supported DFAT’s key call for travellers to purchase travel insurance and this was supported by travel agents for whom the commission from insurance policy was a significant source of agency income.
Since the election of the Coalition Liberal/National government in December 2013, DFAT has been urged by treasury to reduce expenditure on the provision of consular services to travellers. Many Australian diplomatic legations are concerned that some Australian citizens (especially those who had not taken out travel insurance) were under the false impression that Australian embassies and consulates were able to provide and fund a range of ‘rescue services’ for travellers in distress. DFAT’s 2014 Consular Services Charter (DFAT, 2014) and the subsequent Consular Strategy (DFAT, 2017) focused on clearly explaining the range and limitations of consular services, emphasizing services which could be offered by alternative providers and enhancing the delivery of travel advice. DFAT is considering recommending travellers to engage with commercial entities or insurance providers for some consular services it currently renders. These include medical issues, cancellation fees and lost or stolen baggage. The massive growth in recent years of the number of Australians travelling internationally has led to a commensurate growth in the demands on Australian legations to assist travellers with issues ranging from the replacement of lost and stolen passports, to legal advice in the event of Australians being arrested or imprisoned while travelling abroad.
Key common objectives of DFAT and the Consular Consultative Group
DFAT’s Smartraveller website projects three key messages.
Promotion of travel insurance
Both DFAT and the outbound travel industry support this policy in the interests of travellers and for mutual self-interest. By 2016, 92% of Australian international travellers were covered by travel insurance (Insurance Council of Australia and DFAT, 2016). This is a historically high rate off coverage. From DFAT’s perspective, a considerable part of the consular workload involves providing assistance to travellers who failed to insure themselves and who either died, experienced medical, legal, financial and other difficulties and who sought assistance from Australian legations. From DFAT’s perspective, high rates of insured Australian travellers increase the likelihood that travel insurance companies rather than DFAT will deal with these issues.
From the travel industry perspective, large numbers of international travellers represents a significant benefit for the travel insurance providers. However, many other sectors of the travel industry benefit financially from selling travel insurance. Travel agents and wholesale tour operators, traditionally enjoy high commission rates from sales of insurance policies (over 20%). However, this commission ‘cash cow’ for travel retailers and wholesalers has recently been undermined by some insurance companies, notably AAMI Insurance and Australia Post who have marketed travel insurance direct to consumers since 2010. This recent move is part of broader trend towards disintermediation in the global tourism industry. Despite this, the travel industry continues to encourage the purchase of travel insurance.
Complicating elements of DFAT’s advocacy of travel insurance have been raised by the CCG. Until 2015, DFAT’s promotion of travel insurance lacked any emphasis on advising travellers to purchase the appropriate form of insurance for their specific travel requirements or to read the fine print of policies.
Many travellers were unaware that their travel insurance policy may not cover them for accidents arising from extreme sports or risky activities. Most travel insurance policies deny cover to policy holders who suffer injury if the insured is intoxicated from alcohol or narcotics. Many credit cards which claim to offer travel insurance only do so for travel products purchased with the card.
In late 2016, DFAT’s document Consular State of Play (2016) discussed a range of consular services provided by Australian overseas legations and included a clear message about purchasing insurance policies appropriate for the travel being undertaken. It also indicated that insurance coverage would be denied by many providers if the loss had been incurred as a result of intoxication or drug abuse. Much of the content for this document was based on consultation with members of the CCG. In 2016, DFAT and the Insurance Council of Australia (2016) jointly commissioned extensive research on Australian overseas traveller attitudes to insurance and exposure to risky behaviour. The research spurred DFAT to be far more precise about its coverage of insurance issues in its website.
The above issues represent just a few of the problems associated with a generic promotion of travel insurance as a panacea to address travel risk. Appropriate wording with a more nuanced promotion of travel insurance has been actively addressed by DFAT but it isn’t a fully resolved issue between DFAT and the travel industry.
Registration by travellers on the Smartraveller site when travelling
There has been widespread agreement between DFAT and the CCG to promote traveller registration via the www.smartraveller.gov.au site. One point of dispute has been the amount of information that intending travellers are expected provide. There are fields for hotel addresses and multiple contact details on the registration site and itinerary details. While this information would facilitate establishing the location of a traveller at any given time during their trip, some view it as an invasion of privacy. Recognizing that Many travellers (especially backpackers) tend to roam and independently improvise their travel without forward planning. The SCG has recommended that a mobile phone contact, email or social media contact with an option to include countries visited would suffice. According to DFAT, fewer than 20% of Australian international travellers register on the DFAT website and resistance to the state knowing their whereabouts has been identified by DFAT’s own research as a key disincentive to register.
Subscribe to the DFAT Smartraveller site
The most effective form of collaboration between the members of the SCG and DFAT involves encouraging travellers to subscribe and log into the Smartraveller website. According to research commissioned by DFAT in 2013, over 75% of Australian travelling abroad viewed the site prior to departure. DFAT observed that during and immediately following advertising campaigns, subscription to the site has increased and since the Smartraveller campaign began in 2003, the Australian government has invested over AUD$30 million in a range of media ranging from the introduction of smartphone apps (applications) in 2013 and social media and YouTube campaigns. DFAT has made extensive use of TV, newspapers and radio to promote the key Smartraveller messages urging travellers to
The AFTA and its 4000 travel agent members routinely recommend their clients to check travel advisories relevant to their destinations. The Council of Australian Tour Operators and their 100+ member companies also do so for their clients. The websites of most travel agents, airlines, cruise companies, business travel associations, travel guides, tour operators and travel insurance companies include a link to the Smartraveller website and most online booking operators advise their online clientele to check advisories. In essence, Australia’s outbound travel industry actively promotes government travel advisories.
In 2017, an added dimension to the collaboration between DFAT and CCG occurred when two members of the CCG were invited to speak at the APEC Counter Terrorism and Tourism Resilience workshop held in Bali under the auspices of the ASPEC Counter Terrorism working group in May 2017. Professor Brent Ritchie (University of Queensland) and the author (representing the Council of Australasian Tourism and Hospitality Educators) were invited by DFAT to speak on behalf of the Australian government at the workshop. These presentations included a proposal for the CCG to be used as a model to be emulated by all APEC economies and to extend the concept of tourism safety to arrival advice provided to travellers arriving in APEC Countries. This was accepted by APEC.(APEC, 2017)
Remaining areas of disagreement between DFAT and the SCG
Despite the collaborative relationship between DFAT and the SCG between 2003 and 2017, there remain some points of disagreement. Australian advisories on Indonesia were an ongoing point of contention between 2005 and 2011. Until recently, Australian travel advisories to Indonesia lacked the regional nuances of advisories which applied to other popular destinations in the word including neighbouring countries such as the Philippines and Thailand. Most Australian travel agents, airlines and tour operators servicing Indonesia did not take DFAT's level of travel advisory, Reconsider your need to travel to Indonesia (which applied from 2002-2011) as credible. Hundreds of thousands of Australian travellers (875,000 in 2016) also ignored DFAT's security assessment.
An issue which has been addressed but not fully resolved to the satisfaction of the travel industry involves travel insurance advocacy. Most members of the CCG agree the DFAT insurance message is too simplistic. The CCG has encouraged DFAT to issue a more clearly nuanced message to travellers about purchasing appropriate travel insurance for the travel being undertaken.
The third issue is less a point of tension but remains a point of disagreement. Although there is general acceptance among SCG members that DFAT should have the last word on determining the security assessment of countries in its advisories, it believes that the contribution of the travel industry to the security assessment remains undervalued. The outbound travel industry operators have a presence all over the world and tour operators especially, believe their assessment of destination safety should be treated as a legitimate source of security intelligence.
DFAT’s engagement with Australian outbound travellers and the travel industry professionals
The establishment of the SCG in 2003 was accompanied by a significant enhancement of DFAT’s engagement with Australian travellers and travel industry professionals. DFAT officials believed that media campaigns and engagement with travel industry leadership alone would not bridge the perception gap between the travelling public and the travel industry professionals. Some of the more negative perceptions identified by DFAT’s own market research indicated that DFAT advisories reflected a ‘nanny state’ complex. As DFAT’s own market research has confirmed, DFAT was regarded by younger travellers as being paranoid about threats, and out of touch. DFAT’s face-to-face engagement with the travelling public at consumer travel expos has been welcomed by DFAT officials as a means to obtain direct feedback on their messaging with the Australian travellers.
Since 2003, DFAT has maintained a presence at major travel industry events. DFAT was involved in training events run by some of Australia’s largest travel industry groups, including events run by the Council of Australian Tour Operators, Destination Organizations, AFTA and leading travel agency chains such as Flight Centre, Hello World and Travel Managers. The high level of hands on engagement with travellers and ‘frontline travel professionals’ was regarded by DFAT as opportunities to communicate the importance of travel advisories to key industry stakeholders.
Broadening the stakeholder base of the Consular Consultative Group
The most important evolution of the Consular Consultative between 2003 and 2017 has been the growth of its membership to incorporate government departments and private sector associations who have an interest in the safety and security of Australians travelling internationally. In 2003, the initial group involved a small number of travel companies and associations. By 2017, a number of government departments, virtually every major outbound travel association and other stakeholders including Google, Choice which have close links with travel consumers including Google, The Lowy Institute and consumer advocates are involved. The broadening of the stakeholder base has been welcomed by both DFAT and the foundation travel industry members. There is widespread recognition that government travel advisories involve multiple stakeholders.
Conclusions
Between 2003 and 2017, the Consular Consultative Group and its forebears evolved as a successful collaborative partnership between the Australian outbound travel industry leadership, consumer groups, the Australian DFAT and other government agencies in framing and disseminating Australian government travel advisories. The core driver of that collaboration has been a shared commitment to enhance the safety and security of 10 million Australians who now travel internationally each year. The large number of high profile threats targeting tourism safety, security and health since 2000 has heightened the need for tourists, tourism businesses and governments to actively address tourism safety. The capacity of online and mobile technology to widely disseminate real-time safety information on tourist destinations has greatly enhanced the capability of both government and the travel industry to deliver advice to millions of travellers.
Over 14 years of collaboration has largely eroded distrust and suspicion which characterized the initial engagement between DFAT and the Australian outbound travel industry leadership. The key outcomes of the collaboration have been that Australian travel advisories applying to most destinations are comprehensible to most travellers and regionally specific. Advisories are updated as circumstances dictate. Their widespread dissemination by government and the travel industry on a range of online and mobile platforms and social media sites ensure their accessibility to outbound Australians travellers.
Travel advisories remain a contentious issue in many travel generating and destination countries. Some destination countries object to what they perceive as unfairly negative travel advisories. To date, the successful collaboration between the outbound travel industry and DFAT in Australia has been emulated by only three countries, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. Transnational tourism organizations including the UNWTO, PATA, the World Travel and Tourism Council and APEC understand that there are tangible benefits for industry–government collaboration on travel advisories. However, cultural resistance remains strong among many foreign ministries towards consulting with travel industry leaders on this issue. Globally, many foreign ministry officials maintain the view that the travel industry is more concerned about profits than they are about traveller safety. Fragmented travel industry leadership in many countries limits ready access to political decision makers in all branches of government, including foreign affairs. The overall success of Australia’s Consular Consultative Group over 14 years should dispel many of these concerns.
Collaboration, by definition, requires stakeholders to share a common set of objectives and a unity of purpose to make collaboration on travel advisories work. As this research has sought to demonstrate, the relationship between DFAT and the Australian travel industry leadership is a collaborative model involving multiple stakeholders which has successfully enhanced the quality of and broad dissemination of travel advisories over an extended period.
The significance of this research from a tourism perspective is that it demonstrates that a diverse group of stakeholders who share a commitment to safe travel can constructively collaborate to achieve enhancements to Australian government travel advisories and policies which enhance the safety of outbound travellers. This author maintains that this is a model which can be adapted to all travel generating countries. Tourism security is now a top priority in global tourism and all governments share a duty of care to their citizens at home and abroad.
Footnotes
Appendix 1
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
