Context
We have spent four years informing a reluctant council on how it can legally control Queenstown Airport Corporation through the company’s statement of intent (SOI). This year councillors appeared determined to assert their authority when they passed a unanimous resolution requiring that council must have the final sign-off on the airport’s master and strategic plans.
Council formally made this demand three times, in its annual statement of expectations to the airport, in response to the airport’s draft SOI, and separately in a letter from Mayor Boult to the board of QAC.
But the airport corporation pushed back. In its SOI, the legal document that sets out its plans, the QAC Board wrote that it would only “seek” Council’s endorsement on the airport master plan. And it gave no promise to even ask Council’s endorsement on its 10-year strategic plan.
You would think the outcome would be easy. The council could simply resolve not to agree with the corporation’s SOI. It could then direct the company to make the changes it wants. For example, replace the word seek with the word obtain. Legally, QAC would be obliged to make the changes directed by Council.
But council again caved in to QAC.
How could this happen? We suggest that councillor impotence stems from the continuing flawed process and advice perpetuated by the council executive and Mayor.
Timing is an issue, with councillors asked to endorse the SOI before the final document is even due. Receiving the SOI along with hundreds of pages of other agenda notes just four days before the full council meeting, councillors have insufficient time for a considered response. It would be reasonable for councillors to receive the SOI in June and to wait for the council’s July meeting before choosing their response. Instead, the difficulty to consider changes at short notice is the reason given by most of those councillors who chose to simply accept the SOI they were given.
Also, the agenda notes prepared for councillors continue to fudge the purpose of the Council’s endorsement of the SOI by implying QAC legally needs the document ratified. CEO Mike Theelen has falsely advised councillors that their endorsement “breathed life into the statement of intent.” Such nonsense advice undermines the resolve and ability of those who seek change.
QLDC full council meeting
June 30, 2022
Kia ora, I am John Hilhorst representing FlightPlan2050
After four years, two different councils and substantial public petitioning, we still haven’t had councillors go through the process of determining what it wants from QAC. This should be the first step, as identified in paragraph 9 of the Wynn Williams legal advice.
Instead, Council has simply adopted QAC’s objectives into its ten-year plan. That allows QAC to do precisely what it wants. It’s still the cart leading the horse.
In the one place where this council has tried to assert authority, QAC has pushed back.
In this SOI, QAC says it will “seek” the council’s endorsement for its strategic and master plans.
The word ‘seek’ lacks the imperative and intent clearly expressed in the council’s letter of expectations and in Mayor Boult’s letter of 10 May.
These advised QAC that Council required the final say on those plans before it could be adopted by the QAC Board.
This SOI does not deliver on these clearly and consistently stated expectations. For that reason alone, you should not agree to this SOI.
On another matter, the SOI states: “our strategic planning considers how best to provide aviation infrastructure and amenity for the district…”
Rubbish. QAC does not plan to do this. That would mean considering the potential benefit possible from the proposed Tarras airport.
Instead, under Council’s explicit direction in its statement of expectations, QAC will use all the legal and other capacities it can muster to directly fight against the proposed Tarras airport to protect its own primacy, regardless of any benefits the Tarras proposal might offer to the region.
This does not consider what’s the best aviation infrastructure for the district. Instead, it only seeks what’s best for QAC and actively represses alternatives.
You have unleashed the fight response without any Council research, community consultation or councillor workshops that might give you a grasp of the massive opportunity and benefits to the wellbeing of our district this Tarras proposal offers.
We find this willingness of community leaders to act so blindly on such a major strategy hard to fathom and suspect it will be the primary legacy on which this mayoralty will be judged.
Thank you.
Ngā mihi e noho rā