The Ministry of Tourism of the Republic of Croatia prepared a series of new legislative proposals in 2018, some of which were adopted and came into force, while a portion of the new legislative solution for the tourism community system passed the first reading in the Croatian Parliament. It is certain that their adoption will take place in the first quarter of 2019. Personally, I, as an individual, participated in good faith in the public debate, seeking to contribute in my modest way to the creation of a better legislative framework related to the package of tourism laws. Some of my proposals were not accepted, some were considered, and some may be included in the final draft of the law. But let's proceed systematically.
ACCEPTED & NOT ACCEPTED
The draft law indicates that the mandate of members of the tourist board bodies lasts for four years, and that members can be re-elected or appointed. During the public debate, I was interested in the period for which members could be re-elected, believing that the law must limit the re-election of members of the tourism board bodies, and find a framework and modalities to regulate this issue in terms of the time limit for the duration of the mandate of members of all tourism board bodies. This would avoid the practice we have in the field, where individuals have been members of tourism board bodies continuously for 20 or more years, which loses its meaning.
Furthermore, Article 20, paragraph 3, speaks of the possibility that the duty of the president of the local and regional tourist board can also be held by a person designated by the municipal mayor or mayor or county prefect, depending on the unit of local or regional self-government for the area for which the tourist board is established, from among the members of the tourist board. Since this is a person who, instead of the mayor or mayor or prefect, would perform this duty and represent the tourist board in the country and abroad, I considered it necessary to specify the minimal requirements that such a person must meet by a special REGULATION, which would be a prerequisite for performing this duty (knowledge of foreign languages, certificate of no criminal record, professional qualification, several years of work experience in managerial positions in tourism...). In this way, mayors, municipal mayors, or prefects would be prevented from arbitrarily deciding whom to appoint to this important position.
Regarding the competition for the Director of the Tourist Board (local, regional, or representations worldwide), I suggested in the public debate that it should be inclusive, in a way that respects even those candidates who completed their four-year university education before the introduction of the Bologna process into our higher education system. Namely, the competition requires ECTS credits which candidates who graduated before Bologna could not have collected, as ECTS credits did not exist at the time of their graduation. There is no legal basis for awarding ECTS credits to graduates who completed their studies before the introduction of Bologna. To avoid ambiguity, possible resorting to legal opinions, and disputes related to this issue, my proposal was for the competition to be clear, inclusive, and comprehensive, rather than discriminatory. The same applies to competitions for the selection of directors for HTZ representations worldwide.
Furthermore, regarding the time for the election of the Director of the Tourist Board, it was also not clear in the draft law itself. The previous draft law proposed a term of office of 4 years, while with this proposal, as can be inferred, the fate of the Director will depend on the good (read political) will of the president, members of the council, and assembly of the tourist board, in the way that his/her fate will be decided by a vote on the adoption of the Work Program for each subsequent year. My proposal was exactly the opposite; once the director is elected, he/she must be protected, by being elected for a term of office of at least 4 years. It is primarily about continuity, or the time necessary for planning activities and implementing projects listed in the Work Program based on which the directors were initially elected. At the same time, the law should limit the election of the Director of the Tourist Board (local and regional) to a maximum of two four-year terms. This would avoid the current practice of endless elections, as there are examples in the field of directors who have been in those positions for 15 or more years and are practically irreplaceable. If a certain step forward is not taken in the right direction here, all efforts to set new standards and rules dealing with this issue will be in vain.
Regarding the proposal for the annual Work Program, the draft law states that the local tourist board is obliged to submit it to the regional tourist board, and the regional tourist board to the Ministry, however, without a precisely defined time frame. During the public debate, I requested complete precision regarding the term, so that lower levels would not be left to interpret this article of the law independently and according to their own discretion. The same goes for the Assembly of the Tourist Board, which is obliged to adopt the work program for the following year by the end of the current year. I believed it was necessary to clarify what it means by the end of the current year, or specify the date referred to.
Regarding supervision of work, during the public debate, I pointed out that Article 60, paragraph 2, is unclear, as in the first sentence it says that the Assembly of the Tourist Board can entrust an independent auditor with supervising the implementation of paragraph 1 of this article. This can be understood, simplistically, as it can, but also as it may not, if it does not want to. However, in the second sentence of the same paragraph, it says that the Assembly of the Tourist Board, whose total revenue exceeds HRK 3,000,000.00, is obliged to entrust an independent auditor with supervising the implementation of paragraph 1 of this article. Mandatory. So, those with revenue less than HRK 3,000,000.00 will not, if they do not wish to, have any obligation for supervision? Since this is a lack of clarity and contradiction, I believed that this paragraph should be clarified to be sustainable and fully clear.
However, the proposer took into consideration the proposal I submitted, which related to the tasks of the local tourist board, as the draft did not mention media activities / public relations. Omitting these activities would, in my opinion, mean that the local tourist board would not be allowed to plan or autonomously implement them, but only in coordination with the regional tourist board. In any case, the law should give autonomy to local tourist boards to communicate their activities independently in public, or in cooperation with the regional tourist board when necessary, and when it comes to activities and projects of broader significance for the region.
PROPOSAL REGARDING AN ADDITIONAL TOURIST TAX FOR CRUISE SHIPS
What particularly pleases me is the fact that the proposer took into consideration the proposal I submitted for public debate, which concerns the inclusion in the Law of the possibility of introducing an additional tax for guests from cruise ships. In the debate, I proposed considering the possibility for local levels to introduce additional taxes, in addition to the categories of tourist taxes defined in Article 4, for example, for guests from (ocean) cruise ships, thus generating additional revenues that would be strictly earmarked and used for product creation, infrastructure improvement, and destination competitiveness enhancement. Such a tourist tax would not necessarily be tied to overnight stays and could be charged at a flat rate, treated as environmental. Destinations like Dubrovnik, which are under immense pressure from such cruise ships, would have such possibilities. It is worth noting that during peak times, these ships unload around 10,000 guests into the historic core within just a few hours, putting enormous pressure on the already overloaded infrastructure. This additional tax would be introduced upon the proposal of the Tourist Council and with the confirmation of the representative body of local self-government units, as well as with the consensus of the private sector. According to some calculations, for example, the city of Dubrovnik could generate an additional 12 million Kuna annually from such a tax, which would have to be strictly earmarked.
Respecting the information circulated in the media that the introduction of a similar tax was considered earlier in the working groups of the Ministry, it is an undeniable fact that, despite such considerations, no similar proposal was included in the draft Law sent out for public debate. I would like to point out that the package of tourism laws has already passed the first reading in the Parliament. Therefore, as an individual, I am pleased that the proposal I articulated through the aforementioned public debate on the Law on Sojourn Tax in October of last year was later recognized. I would be immensely happy if this proposal were shaped into a legal framework. In this way, it would enable local self-government units to generate additional revenue, which would, among other things, be used to enhance destination competitiveness.
Even if a person, as an individual, does nothing else in their professional career, it remains as a lasting satisfaction that one of their proposals has been recognized. When such a proposal has realistic chances of becoming part of the national package of important tourism laws, that satisfaction becomes even greater.
