A debate is bubbling in the industry: does the travel trade need an organisation dedicated solely to agents? In this opinion piece, Travel Weekly’s deputy editor Sofia Geraghty explores the question.
The question was posed last week by Belle Goldie, who, after consulting with several advisors, identified a gap for an agent-only body to complement existing structures.
Goldie, owner of The Cruise & Travel Store, has long been a passionate advocate for agents – campaigning outside parliament during Covid, and rallying advisors to stand outside the office of NSW Tourism Minister Stuart Ayres as part of National Travel Day of Action.
‘We’ve lost our voices’ – Belle Goldie to launch advisory council to give agents ‘seat at the table’
The case against: risk of fragmentation
ATIA board members Cinzia Burnes and Christian Hunter were quick to raise a key concern: multiple industry bodies could create a “fragmented voice”, weakening the ability to influence policy. A united voice, Burnes argued, is far more powerful.
Initiatives such as small industry events can help individual agents’ voices be carried into spaces they wouldn’t have had personal access to, giving advisors a much better chance of shaping policy.
This goes to the heart of an old question: is change best achieved by working within a system, or from outside it?
History says: disruption has a place
Look at the industry’s history. Both Skroo Turner (Flight Centre) and Adam Schwab (Luxury Escapes) joked at ATIA’s Beyond Borders last year that they were loathed by the trade when they first emerged. The irony, of course, was that both had been invited to headline a trade conference.
The lesson? Disruption has always had a role in shaping travel. It might start away from the existing structure, but eventually it will act in conversation with it.
Why grassroots matters
There are many reasons some agents may not feel aligned with established bodies. Some are naturally anti-establishment. Others are new to the trade and not ready to invest in accreditation. And many simply feel safer sharing openly with peers than they do at formal industry events. Others might just disagree on certain policy points, etc.
That’s why Facebook groups and peer-to-peer communities thrive. They capture voices that might otherwise be lost. Joining a grassroots group can be far less intimidating than signing up to a national association.
And while, in an ideal world, every agent would be under one umbrella, we cannot ignore those who feel unseen by current structures. Meeting them where they are ensures their experiences and frustrations are heard – an essential first step to inclusion.
Who knows, maybe once they have gained confidence sharing their voices in a peer-led space, they might feel more comfortable sharing their voices in larger forums.
Unity and plurality can coexist
Recent aviation strikes show the power of collective action when everyone bands together. But periodic check-ins – like Goldie’s question – are equally valuable. They prompt agents to reflect on the benefits of existing bodies, while also giving dissenters space to voice their concerns.
A united industry voice is ultimately strongest. But a grassroots movement can act as a safety net, ensuring no one falls through the cracks. In the end, both approaches – established bodies and grassroots networks – can complement each other in building an industry where every agent feels represented.
What are your thoughts? Send them to sofia@travelweekly.com.au.
