There hasn’t been much discussion about New Zealand’s theme park scene for years. uncomfortably brief. When asked to name a major theme park, the majority of Kiwis will pause, look sideways, and finally settle on Rainbows End, the Auckland mainstay that has managed to endure decades with small crowds and a rollercoaster that, although genuinely beloved, doesn’t exactly inspire international flights. That’s more of an honest assessment of the situation than a critique.
Australia, on the other hand, has been acting quite differently throughout Tasmania. For many years, visitors from New Zealand and throughout Asia have been drawn to the Gold Coast alone by a number of significant parks, including Warner Bros. World, Dreamworld, Sea World, and Wet’n’Wild. These are more than just rides.
They are destination infrastructure, the kind that keeps families spending over long weekends, fills airport seats, and anchors hotel reservations. Australia is now stepping up its efforts. Australian developers are not slowing down anytime soon, as evidenced by the proposed Infinity Planet development in Queensland, a $2.6 billion integrated entertainment city with a theme park, nearly 3,000 hotel rooms, and a city hall for 10,000 people.
What does that mean for New Zealand? Over the past few years, there has been a growing sense that something is changing. The early 2020s saw a severe blow to New Zealand’s tourism industry, and the rush to rebuild it required some real strategic thinking.
High-value tourists, such as luxury travelers, food and wine tourists, and wellness seekers, have been heavily targeted by the nation’s marketers, and it seems that this strategy is succeeding. Due in part to a preference for quality over quantity, New Zealand recently surpassed Indonesia as the most popular travel destination for Australians. That has significance.
However, theme park travel and high-quality travel are not incompatible. The industry has likely been delayed longer than it should have due to the presumption that thrill-ride infrastructure somehow clashes with New Zealand’s premium brand. The Gold Coast does not need to be replicated in New Zealand. It must develop a large-scale, repeatable, family-friendly form of entertainment that will keep tourists in the nation for longer periods of time and generate more revenue.
The population argument, which holds that there aren’t enough people in New Zealand to sustain large parks, is valid but also a little stale. Rainbows End has struggled because it hasn’t had the same tourism support systems as similar Australian parks, not because the concept is flawed. There isn’t a large pool of foreign visitors to make up for a decline in domestic attendance. If New Zealand parks are created from the ground up to function as part of a larger tourism package, that equation is altered.
Early indications of that reconsideration are present. Campaigns for domestic travel have begun to target Australians in particular, highlighting quick flights and novel experiences. Although it’s still unclear if any developer with significant funding is prepared to support a truly novel park concept in New Zealand, the discussion is taking place in a way that wasn’t the case five years ago.
It’s difficult to ignore the fact that New Zealand has continuously demonstrated the ability to outperform its competitors in sectors where it appeared to be outmatched, aerospace being the most obvious example. A nation of five million people manufactures rocket technology that is competitive worldwide. Both creativity and a willingness to take risks are present. Although it’s still unclear if the theme park industry can draw the same level of concentrated ambition, the circumstances are at least better than they’ve been in a while.
Australia will probably continue to build. The gap may not need to close completely, and it won’t do so overnight. New Zealand should stop viewing significant entertainment investments as someone else’s problem rather than trying to match Australia ride for ride.
