 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE ABC STORY CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE EXAMINER'S STORY |
The ABC says "The Federal Government has been asked to intervene in a long-running dispute between Launceston Airport and Northern Midlands Council over unpaid rates.
The airport lies in Evandale, which falls within the council's district, but sits on Commonwealth-owned land.
Mayor David Downie said the airport had racked up more than $1 million of debt in unpaid rates.
"They're exploiting a loophole ... the land that the airport is on is owned by the Commonwealth Government and we don't have any enforcement powers as we do over all over ratepayers," he said.
"The only way that we can extract rates from the airport is under the lease agreement that they have with the Commonwealth." ... CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY
Local government needs to do more than whinge about its "leaner" constituents, it needs to convert them into "lifters". On the evidence, Launceston Airport looks like its a proverbial "lead-swinger" of the very worst kind. On the other hand, does the operation have a point?
More and more this is all starting to look rather political. But have the politicians, Federal, State or Local, got the gumption to front up to the issue or even have the mechanisms to hand to resolve it?
It is hard to see how 'an airport operation's supplementary businesses' might have a case for special consideration .... but they might. However, do they? It is possible that the Launceston Airport is meeting its 'civic obligations' but is it? If it is, who decides? How is it decided?
There is something of the old old story to do with the 'civic obligations' of a whole raft of 'corporate citizens' like charities, churches, schools, universities, hospitals, utilities plus quite possibly many other organisations/operations that would contest their 'civic similarities and eligabilities'.
Now it seems that privatised airports, and their supplementary enterprises, are among those claiming special consideration. Collectively, airports, etc. that claim 'charity' and/or 'utility' status, in many cases their 'status' is becoming increasingly blurred, and in some instances in clearly contestable ways.
There is some confusing blurring to be contended with when local government itself, and thus its ratepayers, is a shareholder in a privatised enterprises/utilities such airports. Here the City of Launceston, through some quirk of fate, is a Launceston Airport shareholder albeit that the airport is outside its municipal boundaries.
Anecdotally, the City of Launceston is represented on the airport's board by its General Manager Robert Dobrzynski. By extension, this poses several questions in this airport's case that should be self evident.
One question being, are the ratepayers of Launceston benefiting, via their dividends, at the expense of North Midlands' ratepayers? If North Midlands' ratepayers argue that they are carrying, and paying for, Launceston Airport's non-contribution to its civic obligation ... are they?
The Examiner tells us that the board Robert Dobrzynski serves on, according to North Midland's Mayor Cr Downie, at the latest rate evaluation was set at $450,000 but the airport chose to pay just $152,000.
There is one thing that's almost certain, that is by itself, standing on the road near the airport with placards is not likely to resolve the big questions emerging here. That is, unless the politicians stand aside and find an independent and arm's length mechanism for determining 'accountability'.
The key questions here are to do with the institutions'/operations' ability to deem their own obligations/liabilities, or otherwise, and then there is the issue of the equity in doing so. Somewhat contentiously Launceston Airport is calling its payment, quoted in in Federal parliament, "an ex gratia payment" .... a sum of money paid when there is no obligation or liability to pay it.
The Launceston Airport's obligation to pay rates, and on a value that other corporate entities must accept, is at the heart of this stoush in the Northern Midlands Council.
Alongside, this there are the issues of 'social licence' and by extension the evaluation of the 'social and cultural dividends' delivered. Are there any? What are they? Are they adequate?
Not too far from these arguments is the issue of the status and equity of rates being seen as, levied as, a 'wealth tax' and the 'capacity to pay' against 'willingness to pay'. There is the potential here for this issue to fester away unproductively if it is not adequately dealt with.
There may well be a ready made mechanism for bringing this issue to a speedier end than the political class might have either the will to intervene or the capacity to do.
The mechanism is, the Citizen's Panel or Citizen's Jury advocated by the newDEMOCRACY Foundation – LINK [1] LINK [2] LINK [3] .
While a Citizen Panel/Jury 'finding' might not be 'legally binding', simply having the finding in this case would be a significant step towards understanding accountability, equity and justness.These are the very things North Midlands Council are looking for and are struggling with!
More and more this is all starting to look rather political. But have the politicians, Federal, State or Local, got the gumption to front up to the issue or even have the mechanisms to hand to resolve it?
It is hard to see how 'an airport operation's supplementary businesses' might have a case for special consideration .... but they might. However, do they? It is possible that the Launceston Airport is meeting its 'civic obligations' but is it? If it is, who decides? How is it decided?
There is something of the old old story to do with the 'civic obligations' of a whole raft of 'corporate citizens' like charities, churches, schools, universities, hospitals, utilities plus quite possibly many other organisations/operations that would contest their 'civic similarities and eligabilities'.
Now it seems that privatised airports, and their supplementary enterprises, are among those claiming special consideration. Collectively, airports, etc. that claim 'charity' and/or 'utility' status, in many cases their 'status' is becoming increasingly blurred, and in some instances in clearly contestable ways.
There is some confusing blurring to be contended with when local government itself, and thus its ratepayers, is a shareholder in a privatised enterprises/utilities such airports. Here the City of Launceston, through some quirk of fate, is a Launceston Airport shareholder albeit that the airport is outside its municipal boundaries.
Anecdotally, the City of Launceston is represented on the airport's board by its General Manager Robert Dobrzynski. By extension, this poses several questions in this airport's case that should be self evident.
One question being, are the ratepayers of Launceston benefiting, via their dividends, at the expense of North Midlands' ratepayers? If North Midlands' ratepayers argue that they are carrying, and paying for, Launceston Airport's non-contribution to its civic obligation ... are they?
The Examiner tells us that the board Robert Dobrzynski serves on, according to North Midland's Mayor Cr Downie, at the latest rate evaluation was set at $450,000 but the airport chose to pay just $152,000.
There is one thing that's almost certain, that is by itself, standing on the road near the airport with placards is not likely to resolve the big questions emerging here. That is, unless the politicians stand aside and find an independent and arm's length mechanism for determining 'accountability'.
The key questions here are to do with the institutions'/operations' ability to deem their own obligations/liabilities, or otherwise, and then there is the issue of the equity in doing so. Somewhat contentiously Launceston Airport is calling its payment, quoted in in Federal parliament, "an ex gratia payment" .... a sum of money paid when there is no obligation or liability to pay it.
The Launceston Airport's obligation to pay rates, and on a value that other corporate entities must accept, is at the heart of this stoush in the Northern Midlands Council.
Alongside, this there are the issues of 'social licence' and by extension the evaluation of the 'social and cultural dividends' delivered. Are there any? What are they? Are they adequate?
Not too far from these arguments is the issue of the status and equity of rates being seen as, levied as, a 'wealth tax' and the 'capacity to pay' against 'willingness to pay'. There is the potential here for this issue to fester away unproductively if it is not adequately dealt with.
There may well be a ready made mechanism for bringing this issue to a speedier end than the political class might have either the will to intervene or the capacity to do.
The mechanism is, the Citizen's Panel or Citizen's Jury advocated by the newDEMOCRACY Foundation – LINK [1] LINK [2] LINK [3] .
While a Citizen Panel/Jury 'finding' might not be 'legally binding', simply having the finding in this case would be a significant step towards understanding accountability, equity and justness.These are the very things North Midlands Council are looking for and are struggling with!
Click on the image to enlarge
1 comment:
if the council sit and talk this may get sorted out the same problem happened in hobart and there council sat yes sat and sorted it out come on nmc sort it out cheers sandra younger
Post a Comment