Significant potential exists at St Andrews to deliver a full range of tourism products and services to international and domestic tourists, as well as for convention, incentive and event travel. The proximity to the ocean, National Parks and other areas of open space provides a sound basis for nature-based tourism and sports tourism as well as the more traditional forms of tourism.

According to Ross Dowling- Renound authority on tourism and lecturer at Edith Cowan University,- in a situation where a country buys land in another country, builds hotels on it and staffs them with it's own nationals then flys tourist there on its own airlines on package tours paid for at home in it's own currency then the majority of money spent flows back to original country, with little or no benifit to the host country. We can allready see this happening in Australia where Japanese companies build massive self contained hotels in Cairns and the gold coast as well as own and staff most of the attractions with the majority of revenue generated flowing directly back to Japan.
This has been called the 'New Colonialism' as a reference to Britians use of outposts like Inda and China etc. to prop up its own economy by using their resources with little benefit gained by the host country.
Yes the potential for Tourism exists in this developement and it represents an exiting oportunity for Western Australia but the money generated needs to stay here and benifit Western Australians not make us a 'colonial outpost' of the massive Japanese Conglomerate Tokyu.

Ross Dowling’s work in the area of Eco - tourism has been most useful in promoting and understanding “soft impact” interactions between tourism and the environment. This is especially so given the fragile aspects of Australia’s “tourist” landscape.
The economic analysis of foreign investment in hotels and consequent revenue and profit distributions is mostly wrong and if attributed to Ross only serves to diminish his good work in promoting necessary alternatives to “big” hotel tourism.

Specifically:
The land acquisition and cost of construction usually stays in Australia.
Large hotels especially like those in Cairns require heavy domestic patronage to succeed because of seasonality factors.
Profit margins (ie. cash available for repatriation/ net profit) for 5 star properties across the tourist industry vary from 0- 10% ( a mean of 5 cents in the dollar spent by the patrons).
Accordingly most of the money spent on staying in the property simply stays in Australia.
These large hotels have positive employment to guest ratios ( somewhere around 2 or 3 employees per guest ... it is a 24 hour a day operation after all)
The consequent spend by these tourist as they tour around usually has a positive economic “flow on” effect on the local economy.
Historically investment in large tourist hotels ( Cairns etc) especially by the Japanese has been disastrous. The capital lost in these ventures amounts to massive “free” contribution to our national tourist infrastructure........ running into billions of dollars.

The “new colonialism” economic argument against this type of enterprise doesn't stack and has unfortunate jingoistic connotations.

The reason to have some places like this is because there is nothing wrong per se with staying in a decent hotel, eating good food and having a warm shower each day

Better reasons not to build so many of these places is because:

There are too many of them ( poor use of capital directed at tourism infrastructure).
Massive projects often have undesirable effects on the very physical environment they are meant to celebrate.
Universalised “big” design and “macdonaldising” the tourist experience trivialises our own cultural, environmental and social attributes.

With respect to Mark Weller, what has happened with overseas investors, most notably Japanese, over the past 2 decades is that they have sunk large sums of their hard earned capital into our country - and left it here. They have built beautiful hotels and resorts, as well as office blocks, operated them for a while (usually at a loss), and then sold them on to the next investor. The equity and properties stay here. Their losses go overseas.

What could possibly be wrong with this?

In response to D. Mills' answer to Mark Weller's message, I have a number of challenges to D. Mill's statements.

Mills has said that international investment in purchasing land benefits the local economy. The land for Sun City (Saint Andrews) was purchased a long while ago, and any benefits from this acquisition have long been used or lost into the State Government coffers.

Mills has said that internationally-owned hotels often rely on domestic patronage during the off-season. When locals patronise a hotel which is internationally owned, they are simply sending money, which could be used locally, overseas, increasing profits for the internationals and limiting the expenditure in domestic companies and hotels.

Mills has said that the mean profit per guest is approximately 5% of the price. I suggest that most of the other 95% does not directly go into the local economy. Much of the outlay and expenditure for the operation of the hotel is in employing staff, fitting out the premises and transportation. International owners, who wish to attract their countrymen to the hotel, employ workers from the 'home' country and fit out the hotel largely with trappings familiar to home. Thus, out of the average 95% which does not go to profits, most of it does not go into the local economy either.

D. Mills has suggested that there are many more employees than guests at any given time. It is interesting to note that Mills cannot guarantee that most, if any, of these employees would be locals. Furthermore, if D. Mills could guarantee such, I suggest that 'locals' by Mill's definition would probably include internationals residing locally. Greater employment to guest ratios does not guarantee greater employment of locals.

Mills goes on to imply that any defense of local values is jingoistic - aggressive nationalism. Rather, I and I believe most Australians would agree, feel it is DEFENSIVE nationalism. True Australians are proud people, and wish to preserve their history, natural environment, and way of life. Wishing to promote local investment and international investment, NOTinternational domination, but international co-operation, and wishing to preserve the unique Australian lifestyle is not jingoism, but a normal and expected response from any person who cares more for Australia and Australians than international consortiums and monetary concerns.

Wrapping arguments in flags does not make them right. Mr B de Vries seems to have missed this point.I fully support our natural environment, and way of life as is obvious from my first post..... so for a second time......

Fact : Money spent on buying land from Australia usually stays in Australia.
Fact: The Uniform Chart of Accounts for Hotels allocates revenue to beds, food, beverage and sundry sales ( toothpaste, phone callls, etc,) Cost are allocated on a department basis. The revenue balance is defined as gross operating income from which general admin and operating expenses are deducted.After deductions for taxes and insurance, reserves for replacement a net profit is available for repatriation. Virtually all these operational expenses are paid in Australia. Historically, 5 star tourist hotels such as those in Cairns have generated profits in the 5 - 10% range.... if they are lucky.

Fact : You cannot work in Australia unless you have a work visa which usually requires a executive or line skill unavailable in Australia otherwise you must have legitimate residency status.

Fact: Nationalism is only an issue if it is used as a substitute for properly researched argument.

D.Mills arguments against building too many large hotels are superb.

"There are too many of them ( poor use of capital directed at tourism infrastructure).
Massive projects often have undesirable effects on the very physical environment they are meant to celebrate.
Universalised “big” design and “macdonaldising” the tourist experience trivialises our own cultural, environmental and social attributes."

I'd like to agree with him in those but make a few more points concerning the Nationalism/ Jingoistic arguement in this discussion board.

1. I wonder if the New Zealand Mouri were Jingoistic when they fought the British after they realised that they had been tricked into selling not the 'spirit' of their land, but the substance, in exchange for trinketts? How much has their culture and way of life benifited today?. Were other indigenous populations of the world Jingoistic?

2.How about the Balinesse? They seem to be prospering from the the massive infrustructure built on their island, think of all the McDonalds and KFC and Burger King that they can now buy with the money that they earn from cleaning hotel rooms and giving tourists massage and hairbraiding on the beach!! From what I've seen reducing them to servitude and trivilising their culture is the sum contribution of the big hotels to the local economy.

3.How about the Hotels on the beaches of Mexico?

4.Have any of you been to Cairns or Surfers and seen the effect of Hotels on that environment.

The list goes on!.

I believe 'New colonialism' exists and it's about what happens when a foreign entity (any country)has enough money to buy a substantial amount of local influence (in any country)and this includes the influence on how local resources are used (or abused)

Theres more and I find it pretty worrying.

Fact: Tokyu owns 5000ha of land in the fragile Yanchep area

Fact: A city is being built on this land

Fact: Tokyu didn't get to be a multinational cooperation by being stupid, they don't intend to give western Australia a 'free gift' of billions of dollars investment without expecting a return for their shareholders.

Fact: While Tokyu must follow government regulations, the projected 150 000 people living in 'Sun city' and all the Buisnesses they work in there are mere Tennants of this multinational conglomerate.

While the Idea project is a good way of giving community input and 'ownership' of ideas and programs, Tokyu, as landlord has a massive amount of power. Have you ever not got along with your landlord? What do you do if your landlord Owns the entire city?

I don't beleive that Tokyu is going to collect a mere 5% from the local economy, Does your landlord take only 5% of your income? And you only pay rent!

Fact:Multinational conglomerates in general do not have a good track record for protecting and contributing to local environments, (just look at Mcdonalds)

Fact: the transcript for this discussion mentions 'Traditoinal forms of tourism' ie. Conventional mass tourism ie. BIG Hotels

Have any of you visited the Yanchep area lately? I did on the weekend and my sister lives there as well- It's pristine, It's quiet, the locals don't want that to change- especial not with the introductoin of BIG Hotels.


Australia Celebrates its multiculturalism (as I do). This isn't about foreign people owning australia, once you move here you are an Australian and your contributionn should be celebrated, it's about an imbalance of power.

This is about a foreign entity- A massive multinatoinal conglomerate- having undue influence and too much power over local resources. These resources include environmental and cultural and even the information and expertise generated in the 'smart' industries planned. This influence includes the power to syphon these resources and the profits from them overseas.

If being worried about a large foreign entity having undue control over local resources is Jingoistic then allow me to subscribe.

Here's another word for you, one which I would consider a much greater slur than 'Jingoistic' in the current situation-- Complacent.

Complacency is the real issue when considering the outcome of continuing to build suburbs with 25 -30 % job self sufficiency around Perth. Our city will inevitably grow towards Yanchep and indeed along other metropolitan growth corridors. The stress on service infrastructure, environment and social dynamics will accelerate especially upon communities at the fringe.

We have only to look at the declining quality of life in the outlying suburbs of larger Australian cities. In this sense the future is predictable if we do nothing about economic self sufficiency and diversity in our urban growth policies. It is not realistic to assume that population growth will stop or that we can just build communities for the rich who do not have to work.

Tourism is one possible employment component in the Yanchep area. The ultimate mix of tourism development should certainly be subject to scrutiny for its social and environmental appropriateness as should any other prospective source of large scale employment.

What concerns me about certain aspects of the “new colonialism” argument forwarded so far is that it fails to recognise the mechanics and reality of foreign investment and how it works in this country. ( with due respect to “Weller” .. no slur was intended). In the overall scheme of things this is probably a minor and somewhat academic quibble, nevertheless worth commenting on..... so here goes.

We are inextricably awash in foreign investment and ownership across all industry sectors. Australia has been part of the global economy for a long time .... actually since Britain began its colonial conquest of this continent a few hundred years ago. The last time I looked 50% or more of foreign investment in Australia was still UK or Western based.

Japanese investment has about a 5% stake in the foreign based, general Oz economy. The trend in global capital flows and international investment presence in our markets will increasingly continue and is a fact of life. The Australian economy would immediately and disastrously collapse if we were to become economically dis-intermediated from the international community.

There are many familiar examples of foreign ownership. Our biggest owner of communications ( newspapers, TV etc,) is a multinational company. Our largest home developer (Australand formerly Hooker Corp.) is owned by Singaporian banks. Large slabs of our auto, construction, finance and resource industries are financed with or owned by foreign capital .......... and so it goes.

This is not to mention the massive investment that Australian companies have made abroad. I wonder if this means we are regarded as “economic imperialists” in other nations.

The primary issue in large scale urban development is the outcome of urbanisation upon our social and environmental values .... regardless of whether the capital source is foreign or domestic.

There is no disagreement as to whether our community needs to clear about its own values and requirements. We must to be an informed stake holder in the debate about expectations and outcomes as our cities expand in order to protect our future.

This vitally important debate is not advanced by poorly constructed notions of “ economic Imperialism” illustrated by examples which are wrong or do not apply to our situation.

The notion that inhabitants of Perths northern suburbs will become mere tenants of a multinational conglomerate (Tokyu) who will, in some utterly uncountable way, own all the houses together with all the business’s thereby committing the local population to cultural and economic servitude is plainly ridiculous.

Drawing on the pattern of foreign hotel ownership in Indonesia and Mexico to inform the discussion about tourism in Yanchep is quite puzzling. The constitution of Indonesia forbids land ownership by foreigners. By far the greatest number of hotels in that country (including Bali) are owned and controlled by Indonesians. This is also the case in Mexico where the constitution forbids foreign land ownership within 100 kilometres of the coast.

While construction of some of these resorts/ hotels may be lamentable from an environmental or social point of view they have mostly been a result of poor decisions made by “local owners” as opposed to “foreign economic imperialists”.

As a conventional ( albeit large) land developer, Tokyu’s activities are highly predictable (and highly regulated by some other best community code regulations in the world). They will plan, subdivide, develop and sell land to other players in the urban development chain such as homeowners (mostly domestic due to a virtual total ban on foreign ownership), businesses (both local and internationally owned) and developers and operators of tourist enterprises. They may choose to have some involvement in business enterprises and this will be driven by profit or value motive as is most usually the case in all businesses.

The company is collaborating with Government and the community in a strategic relationship to establish and stimulate an unprecedented level of employment self sufficiency to avoid the creation of yet another vast “edge” bedroom community in Perth. This is about community need to achieve “worlds best practice” from a social, environmental and urbanisation point of view as well as creating a significant point of difference for the company in its pursuit of profit objectives.

This laudable goal of employment self sufficiency requires community and government participation because it is probably unachievable by any single stake holder working in isolation as has been demonstrated elsewhere in Perth. The “process” of stake holder “engagement” is vital for success. National origin of the stake holder “parties” is mostly irrelevant.

"A review of the origin of major hotel owners from Jones Lang LaSalle Hotels' recent Digest Survey indicates the dominance of local investors in the Australian market, with 50% of the total rooms. Asian-based companies own 39% of the rooms (Singaporean and Japanese owners have 18% and 13% respectively), with the remainder made up by US and European interests."

Jones Lang LaSalle Hotels Digest Reveals the Owners of Australian Hotels