Introduction

Over recent years there has been an increasing body of work on the intersections between disability, ageing and tourism. This research aims to provide a review of the last 30 years of the Australian accessible tourism industry. It has been completed in Australia (Darcy, 1998, 2000, 2002; Darcy & Daruwalla, 1999, 2000; Daruwalla, 1999; O'Neill & Ali Knight, 2000), Canada (Foggin, 2000), as well as in the USA (Burnett & Bender-Baker, 2001; Harris Interactive Market Research, 2003; Ray & Ryder, 2003), UK (English Tourism Council, 2000; Goodall, 2002), Israel (Israeli, 2002), Hong Kong (McKercher et al. , 2003), the Asia Pacific (Foggin et al. , 2004) and Finland (Arola, 2000). While the existing research base has done much to interrogate supply and demand issues relating to the disabled tourism market; to date there has been little attention paid to the role of government in tourism, particularly the role of government in accessible tourism.

There are a number of reasons why governments may seek active involvement in tourism planning. Veal (2002) notes that the size and multi-year time-frames of long term tourism strategies often mean that planning is beyond the individual capabilities of the private sector. Recent events such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) have highlighted the need for active involvement of governments in tourism planning. McKercher and Chon (2003) note that it was an absence of centralised coordination amongst governments that was responsible for the 'sequential, country by country unveiling of reactive responses [to SARS]'. Within a capitalist market system of economic organization the rationales for intervening in the market are clearly defined (Parsons, 1995; Veal, 2002). Government roles in tourism generally involve planning, legislation and regulation, government as entrepreneur and stimulation (Mill & Morrison, 1985).