The way I see it, the Christchurch Airport delegation presentation to our Council this week has created more questions than answers.

Christchurch International Airport Ltd (CIAL) announced in July it had bought 750 hectares of land in Tarras and intended to build an airport there.

Since that time, locals have naturally grouped themselves into either the ‘for it’, the ‘against it’, or the ‘on the fence’ categories. I am not saying whether I am for or against the airport. As a journalist, I will report on facts when I have more information at hand.

This is about my thoughts as I start to talk to people, and some of the wider questions that are coming to my mind.

Those against the airport seem mostly to be against it because of issues like climate change and noise. These are very important issues for our community that will arise during any future consenting process. These are issues which we at The Central App will investigate as journalists and report back to you.

(Continue reading below)

Advertisement

However, there are also issues that impact us now, and in my opinion, these sit at a much deeper level.

I see issues around democracy and how our elected representatives in government, both locally and nationally, work.

CIAL is 75 percent owned by the Christchurch City Council through its holding company Christchurch City Holdings Ltd.

The land in Tarras was purchased by Huntingdon Trustees (2019) Ltd. Huntingdon Trustees has only one shareholder and director, Mark Dineen, a lawyer who lives in Christchurch and specialises in the law pertaining to property based businesses. The land Huntingdon Trustees now owns is the same land which CIAL says they have invested $45 million to purchase.

So, how can a start-up company with no infrastructure, fronting for the Christchurch Airport and therefore the Christchurch City Council and Christchurch rate-payers, make a purchase with $45 million of public money when apparently there’s no plan?

Can a public entity create a public company running ‘independently’ to it, that releases it from its obligations to the public?

It would appear a project has been started in secret, using public money. Shouldn't the use of public money be transparent?

At their presentation to the Central Otago District Council last week, Christchurch Airport delegates said they were “at base camp” with regard to the project’s planning. 

So, has $45 million of public money been spent without a firm business plan? This is something I very much doubt - it would be completely irresponsible on so many levels.

In a democracy where our Councillors and politicians are public servants, secrecy of this nature is not acceptable.

Forget that this is an airport for a moment, and think about the ramifications of local and national government working like this.

There is a letter on the Treasury website, dated 13 February 2018, from the Office of Rt Hon Winston Peters, then Deputy Prime Minister, to Ms Catherine Drayton, Chair, Christchurch International Airport. I’ll give you an excerpt:

“Ministers expect positive business performance to result in dividend payments, and that an appropriate balance is maintained between dividends and reinvestment. Our preference is for dividends over new investment.”

Shareholding Ministers expect that you will seek Shareholder approval for any significant capital investment decision that:

(i)              constitutes a major transaction; or

(ii)             requires contribution of capital from the Crown; or

(iii)           requires a change to the company’s dividend policy to fund the capital investment.

Shareholding Ministers also expect that you will consult with Ministers on any other significant capital investment that due to its size, strategic significance, non-recurring nature, it is considered outside of the normal business planning cycle.”

In my view, spending $45 million of taxpayers money constitutes a major transaction.

As a ‘significant capital investment’, it would seem CIAL must have consulted with central government. To do this, they must have presented a clear business plan.

An airport built after going through due process, in a transparent manner, is not a problem. If it is deemed that this piece of national infrastructure is good for the country, we all agree it’s the best thing for Central Otago, and Tarras is found to be the right place, I may or may not like it, but I would support it.

What I won’t support is any degradation of the democratic process, where we have no real say over the future of our piece of paradise here in Central Otago.

What legacy are we leaving for our children and grandchildren?