What If Victoria Implemented Different Tourism Strategies?

The Actual History

Victoria, Australia's second-most populous state, has evolved into one of the country's premier tourism destinations through several decades of strategic development. From the 1980s onward, successive Victorian governments recognized tourism as a critical economic driver following the state's manufacturing decline and the severe economic recession of the early 1990s, when unemployment reached nearly 13%.

The turning point came under Premier Jeff Kennett's administration (1992-1999), which aggressively repositioned Melbourne and Victoria in the tourism market. Kennett's government established Tourism Victoria in 1993, privatized significant assets, and initiated major infrastructure projects including the Melbourne Exhibition Centre (1996) and Crown Casino (1997). Most significantly, his administration developed Melbourne's events strategy, securing the Australian Grand Prix from Adelaide in 1996 and expanding the Melbourne Major Events Company.

The strategy oriented Victoria toward three key tourism pillars: major events, cultural tourism, and food and wine experiences. The Victorian Major Events Company (later Visit Victoria) secured international sporting events including the Australian Open Tennis Championship's expansion, the Commonwealth Games (2006), and numerous major exhibitions for the National Gallery of Victoria. This "events-led" tourism strategy became Victoria's signature approach, with Melbourne establishing itself as Australia's "events capital."

Parallel to this events focus, Victoria developed its cultural tourism credentials through supporting arts precincts, laneway culture, and design excellence. The Melbourne Museum (2000), Federation Square (2002), and revitalized arts precincts transformed the city's cultural landscape. Meanwhile, regional Victoria was promoted through food and wine tourism, particularly in the Yarra Valley, Mornington Peninsula, and other wine regions, supported by Tourism Victoria's "Jigsaw" campaign launched in 1993.

By the 2010s, Victoria's tourism sector contributed approximately $31.3 billion to the state economy (2019 figures), employing about 232,000 people. International visitors reached 3.1 million annually pre-pandemic, while domestic tourism accounted for 24.7 million trips. Melbourne established itself as Australia's second-most visited city for international tourists (behind Sydney) and the nation's leader in domestic tourism.

The COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted Victoria's tourism sector from 2020-2022, with Melbourne enduring the world's longest lockdown period. Recovery efforts included the Victorian government's $200 million Melbourne City Recovery Fund and the $633 million "Stay Close, Go Further" campaign encouraging intrastate tourism. By 2024, visitor numbers had largely recovered to pre-pandemic levels, with Tourism Victoria's 2021-2030 strategy focusing on sustainable tourism development, digital transformation, and greater regional dispersal of tourism benefits.

Throughout this development, Victoria primarily competed through high-value experiences rather than mass tourism or natural attractions, distinguishing itself from Queensland's beach-focused tourism or New South Wales' iconic landmarks. This strategy helped position Melbourne as one of the world's most livable cities while developing a tourism model closely tied to the state's broader economic and cultural identity.

The Point of Divergence

What if Victoria had pursued fundamentally different tourism development strategies from the 1990s onward? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the Kennett government and its successors made substantially different choices about how to position Victoria in the global and domestic tourism markets.

The divergence occurs in 1993, when the newly established Tourism Victoria faced a strategic crossroads. Rather than developing what would become the "Melbourne events capital" strategy, several alternative paths were available:

First, Victoria might have pursued a nature-based tourism strategy leveraging its diverse landscapes—from the Great Ocean Road to alpine regions, Wilsons Promontory, and the Grampians. This approach would have positioned Victoria as Australia's destination for accessible wilderness experiences and adventure tourism, requiring significant investment in national parks infrastructure, ecotourism development, and conservation efforts rather than urban venues and events.

Alternatively, Victoria could have prioritized a heritage-focused strategy capitalizing on its gold rush history, Aboriginal cultural sites, and colonial architecture. This would have directed investment toward regional heritage towns like Ballarat, Bendigo, and Beechworth while developing Melbourne's historical precincts rather than modernizing the city through new developments.

A third possibility involved Victoria developing a manufacturing tourism niche, transforming its declining industrial base into interactive tourism experiences centered on automotive tourism, craft production, and factory tours—similar to models in Germany and Japan. This would have meant retaining and repurposing manufacturing facilities rather than redeveloping industrial areas for residential or commercial use.

The most plausible divergence pathway would involve a hybrid approach prioritizing regional development over Melbourne-centric strategies. In this scenario, the Kennett government, perhaps influenced by different economic advisors or stronger regional political representation, implements a "Regions First" tourism strategy that distributes tourism infrastructure and marketing resources across Victoria rather than concentrating them in Melbourne.

This alternative strategic direction would have fundamentally altered Victoria's tourism development trajectory, with cascading effects throughout the economy, urban development patterns, and cultural identity of the state.

Immediate Aftermath

Political Realignment and Budget Priorities

The "Regions First" tourism strategy would have immediately altered Victorian political dynamics. Premier Kennett, historically criticized for Melbourne-centric policies, could have used this regional focus to broaden his political coalition and potentially avoid his narrow 1999 election defeat to Labor's Steve Bracks. The strategy would have required reallocated budget priorities:

Infrastructure Investment Shift: Rather than concentrating on Melbourne's Southbank development, Exhibition Centre, and casino complex, significant funding would have flowed to regional tourism infrastructure—upgraded visitor centers in national parks, heritage railway restorations, regional conference facilities, and improved road access to tourism sites.
Institutional Restructuring: Tourism Victoria would have established regional development offices with significant autonomy and budgets rather than centralizing operations in Melbourne. The Victorian Tourism Industry Council would have developed stronger regional chapters with independent policy influence.

When interviewed in 1997, Kennett might have declared: "Melbourne is Victoria's gateway, but our regions are its heart. We're investing where other states aren't—in creating world-class experiences throughout Victoria, not just in the capital."

Regional Economic Transformation

The immediate economic effects would have been substantial across Victoria's regions:

Employment Patterns: Towns suffering from agricultural consolidation and manufacturing decline would have seen faster tourism sector growth between 1995-2000. Bendigo, Ballarat, Bright, and coastal centers would have experienced tourism employment growth of 15-20% compared to the actual 7-10%.
Business Formation: Regional Victoria would have seen approximately 1,200-1,500 new tourism-related businesses established between 1995-2000, particularly in accommodation, food service, and tour operations. Many would have been family-owned enterprises, creating a different business ecology than Melbourne's larger corporate tourism entities.
Real Estate Markets: Property values in tourism-designated regional centers would have appreciated 25-30% faster than actually occurred, while Melbourne's inner-city gentrification might have progressed more slowly without the concentration of cultural and entertainment infrastructure.

Different Melbourne Development

Melbourne itself would have evolved along a different trajectory:

Docklands Alternative: Without the emphasis on creating a tourism and entertainment precinct, Docklands might have developed as a mixed residential-commercial area with less emphasis on visitor attractions and more on community facilities.
Cultural Venues: Rather than building the Melbourne Museum at its current Carlton Gardens location (opened 2000), smaller cultural institutions might have been developed in regional centers, creating a network of specialized museums across Victoria.
Sporting Infrastructure: While the Melbourne Cricket Ground would still have been redeveloped for the Commonwealth Games (2006), several other major sporting facilities might have been constructed in regional centers like Geelong, Ballarat, and Bendigo to host regular national competitions.

Tourism Product Development

By 2000, Victoria's tourism offerings would have differed substantially from our timeline:

Heritage Tourism: Significant investment in gold rush-era towns would have created immersive historical experiences. Sovereign Hill in Ballarat would have expanded earlier and been joined by similar developments in other gold fields regions.
Nature Tourism: The Great Ocean Road would have received infrastructure upgrades earlier, with improved viewing facilities at the Twelve Apostles, expanded walking trails, and better visitor management systems implemented by 1998 rather than the mid-2000s.
Food Tourism: Instead of concentrating on Melbourne's restaurant scene, regional food trails would have been established earlier across the state, with dedicated food tourism infrastructure in the Yarra Valley, High Country, and Gippsland developing 5-7 years ahead of our timeline.
Indigenous Tourism: With greater focus on regional experiences, Aboriginal tourism initiatives would likely have received earlier support, particularly in the Grampians/Gariwerd and along the Murray River, creating viable Indigenous tourism enterprises by the late 1990s rather than the 2010s.

Marketing Position

Tourism Victoria's marketing would have pivoted from the urban-focused campaigns of our timeline:

The iconic "Jigsaw" campaign would have featured regional destinations more prominently from its 1993 launch
International marketing efforts would have positioned Victoria as Australia's most diverse state rather than emphasizing Melbourne as a city destination
Domestic marketing would have heavily targeted Sydney and Brisbane residents with accessible regional getaways rather than urban experiences

Long-term Impact

Economic Restructuring

By the 2010s, Victoria's economy would have developed a distinctly different structure from our timeline:

Regional Economic Resilience

Diversified Regional Economies: Towns like Bright, Daylesford, and Port Fairy would have developed more robust year-round tourism economies rather than seasonal peaks, with tourism comprising 25-30% of their economic activity compared to 15-20% in our timeline.
Rural Population Stability: The population decline in rural Victoria would have slowed or reversed in tourism-focused regions. The 2016 census would likely have shown 150,000-200,000 more residents in regional Victoria compared to our timeline, with stronger retention of younger residents.
Income Distribution: Tourism development would have created a more equitable distribution of economic benefits across the state. By 2020, the per capita income gap between Melbourne and regional Victoria might have been 15-18% rather than the approximately 23% in our timeline.

Dr. Eleanor Huntington, Regional Economics Professor at Deakin University, observes: "The alternative regional tourism model would have created a more distributed economic geography in Victoria, potentially avoiding the extreme housing pressures in Melbourne while building more sustainable regional communities."

Different Industry Clusters

Boutique Manufacturing: With tourism creating markets for authentic local products, regional Victoria would have retained and developed more boutique manufacturing, particularly in food production, furniture, textiles, and crafts. These sectors might employ 30,000-40,000 more people than in our timeline.
Education Services: Regional universities and TAFE colleges would have developed specialized tourism and hospitality training centers earlier and at larger scale. La Trobe University and Federation University would have established themselves as leaders in nature and heritage tourism education respectively.
Digital Nomadism: With earlier investment in regional tourism infrastructure, Victoria might have positioned itself as a digital nomad destination by the early 2010s, attracting location-independent workers 5-7 years before this became a widespread trend.

Urban Development Patterns

The physical development of Victoria would have followed fundamentally different patterns:

Melbourne's Alternative Evolution

Decentralized Cultural Facilities: Rather than concentrating cultural institutions in Melbourne's CBD and Southbank, significant galleries, theaters, and museums would be scattered throughout metropolitan Melbourne and regional cities.
Transportation Network: Without the tourism-driven emphasis on central Melbourne, transportation investment might have prioritized regional rail services and intercity connections rather than inner Melbourne tram extensions and Southern Cross Station's redevelopment.
Housing Development: Melbourne's apartment boom would have been moderated, with development more evenly distributed across middle suburbs and regional centers. Housing affordability pressures might have been less severe in inner Melbourne but more pronounced in desirable tourism towns.

Regional Built Environment

Heritage Preservation: More stringent heritage protections would have been implemented across regional Victorian towns, preserving historical streetscapes and buildings that have been lost in our timeline.
Visitor Infrastructure: By 2020, regional Victoria would have developed more sophisticated tourism infrastructure, including world-class visitor centers, interpretive facilities, and accommodations integrated with natural and cultural attractions.
Second Home Development: Popular tourism regions would have experienced earlier and more extensive development of second homes and vacation rentals, potentially creating challenges for housing affordability in desirable locations like the Surf Coast and Mornington Peninsula.

Global Reputation and Positioning

By 2025, Victoria's global image would differ significantly:

Regional Recognition: Instead of Melbourne dominating international perceptions of Victoria, specific regions would have developed strong independent brands. The Great Ocean Road might rival the Great Barrier Reef in international recognition, while Victoria's gold fields could have UNESCO World Heritage status.
Visitor Demographics: Victoria would attract a higher proportion of special interest tourists seeking authentic experiences rather than urban explorers. International visitors would stay longer (average 7-9 nights versus 5-7 in our timeline) and disperse more widely across the state.
Sustainability Credentials: With earlier investment in nature tourism, Victoria might have established itself as Australia's leader in sustainable tourism by the 2010s, attracting environmentally conscious travelers and developing advanced visitor management systems for natural areas.

Cultural and Social Impact

The sociocultural fabric of Victoria would have evolved differently:

Regional Cultural Vibrancy: Regional centers would host more significant cultural events and institutions, developing distinctive cultural identities rather than existing in Melbourne's shadow. Festivals like the Bendigo Writers Festival or Port Fairy Folk Festival would have grown to international significance earlier.
Indigenous Recognition: With greater emphasis on place-based tourism, Indigenous cultural tourism would likely have developed more substantially, potentially accelerating reconciliation efforts and economic opportunities for Aboriginal communities in tourism regions.
Melbourne's Identity: Melbourne might have developed as a more conventional Australian city rather than the distinctive cultural capital it became. The laneway culture, rooftop bars, and hidden venues that define Melbourne today might have emerged more modestly or differently without the concentrated urban tourism focus.

COVID-19 Pandemic Response

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck in 2020, Victoria's response and recovery might have differed significantly:

Economic Resilience: With less dependence on international students, major events, and urban tourism, Victoria's economy might have weathered the pandemic with lower overall impact, as regional and nature tourism recovered faster than urban tourism globally.
Recovery Strategy: Rather than the Melbourne-focused recovery programs implemented in our timeline, Victoria would have leveraged its distributed tourism assets to promote COVID-safe travel experiences in nature and less densely populated areas.
Infrastructure Investment: Post-COVID recovery funding would have further strengthened regional tourism infrastructure rather than concentrating on revitalizing Melbourne's CBD, potentially accelerating the trend toward remote work and regional living.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Jennifer Worthington, Professor of Tourism Economics at the University of Melbourne, offers this perspective: "Victoria's actual tourism development model created a highly successful but somewhat fragile tourism economy heavily dependent on events, urban experiences, and international education. The alternative 'Regions First' model would have created greater resilience against shocks like the COVID-19 pandemic but might have sacrificed some of the high-value urban tourism that drove Victoria's exceptional tourism growth from 2000-2019. The state would likely have seen more modest overall tourism revenue but better distribution of benefits and potentially greater sustainability."

Michael Chen, Former Tourism Australia Executive Director for the Asia Pacific region, suggests: "A regionally-focused Victoria would have positioned itself very differently in Asian markets, particularly China. Rather than competing directly with Sydney for urban experiences, Victoria could have offered a complementary product emphasizing authentic Australian landscapes and experiences. This would have altered visitor patterns significantly, with potentially longer stays but possibly lower per-day spending. The marketing challenge would have been greater—selling diverse regional experiences is more complex than promoting a single city destination—but the resulting visitor dispersal would have created a more sustainable tourism model."

Dr. Leanne Wilson, Heritage Conservation Specialist and Regional Development Consultant, provides this analysis: "The alternative tourism strategy would have fundamentally altered the trajectory of many regional Victorian communities. Towns that have struggled with identity and economic purpose in our timeline—like Castlemaine, Maryborough, and parts of Gippsland—might instead have developed distinctive tourism offerings based on their industrial heritage, natural assets, or cultural stories. The heritage preservation outcomes would have been substantially better, as tourism provides economic justification for conservation that often overrides development pressures. However, successful tourism regions would have faced earlier gentrification pressures, potentially displacing long-term residents as property values increased."