Dunedin Airport lashes out at government
Dunedin Airport has accused the government of double-dipping and questionable law-making in a submission calling on it to abandon a move which raises the cost of bringing back international flights.
Under the new legislation, airports that intend to start or restart international services will be required to pay for the establishment costs for border services.
The new regulations are expected to come into force shortly, but Dunedin Airport's chief executive Daniel De Bono argued it was tantamount to double-dipping from the government, as the costs of processing international travellers would be funded from the existing border processing levies.
In the letter to Parliament's regulation review committee, Mr De Bono said: "We cannot comprehend why a government that is focused on economic growth would make new regulations that are targeted at regional airports and severely inhibit their ability to develop international connectivity."
Dunedin Airport had international flights from 1995 until Covid-19 hit the industry in 2020.
It resumes international flights this month, with a JetStar connection to the Gold Coast.
"As with all international routes at smaller airports, the economics are finely balanced," Mr De Bono's letter said.
"When negotiating and agreeing terms, Dunedin Airport and JetStar did not anticipate that the government would take steps to impose significant additional costs on the venue.
"The wider effect of cost recovery ... is to create a real constraint on regional tourism and economic growth."
Mr De Bono said he did not believe the original intention of the Act was to "unexpectedly be used to impose more levies".
This would lead to "serious unfairness and unreasonableness" for airports attempting to re-establish international travel and would have immediate effect on Dunedin Airport, he said.
Mr De Bono also provided a legal letter from law firm Russell McVeagh.
The legal letter also cast doubts on the government's approach.
"Our view is that the proposal to now recover costs under the Airports Act is legally unnecessary," it said.
"In pursuing options for recovery under the Airports Act, Cabinet and officials appear to be relying on a mistaken view of the law, leaving their decisions open to legal challenge.
"It cannot be correct that there is a presumption in favour of using the Airports Act for new international airports simply because it exists."
In response, Biosecurity Minister Andrew Hoggard told the Otago Daily Times customs screening at airports had been cost-recovered for decades.
"Cost recovery is for the actual and reasonable cost of providing biosecurity and customs services.
"In relation to Dunedin International Airport, the Ministry for Primary Industries [MPI] has worked hard to ensure the establishment costs are fair and reasonable, including reusing existing equipment where possible.
"Under the Airports Act, if an airport chooses to start or re-start international air services, the costs incurred by the MPI and New Zealand Customs to establish a traveller processing capacity (establishment costs) and the processing of travellers (operating costs) can be recovered from the airport."
Mr Hoggard said cost recovery for establishing or re-establishing international flights was "reasonable" as "the benefits from these flights are received by the airport and those who use the airport".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
National's Erica Stanford clashes with Labour MPs over redress system for survivors abused in state care
Erica Stanford, left, and Jan Tinetti Photo: RNZ National Minister Erica Stanford's scrutiny hearing descended into a political slinging match between the minister and two Labour MPs as they clashed over the redress system for survivors abused in state care. Stanford, who in charge of the government's response, faced a grilling from Opposition MPs at Parliament on Wednesday over why an independent agency hadn't been set up to deliver on a recommendation from the Royal Commission and survivors, and why ministers considered limiting redress for gang members . Labour's Jan Tinetti told the committee a "key fundamental recommendation that survivors asked for" was an independent entity so that the state - the abuser - wasn't dealing with survivors directly as part of the redress. "The Crown had been the abuser and we are hearing daily, and we heard it today, the survivors are still feeling like the Crown is abusing them because their voice has been taken away," Tinetti said. Tinetti asked Stanford why the government didn't take that into account and commit to a new system . Stanford said "many people going through the system are very happy with the service they're getting, of course there are some people who are not". When advice was sought on a new independent agency she said she was told: "It may not be any better than we have now and I wasn't prepared to go through that huge cost, huge time, and huge complexity to maybe not have a better outcome". Erica Stanford Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone But Stanford noted an independent agency wasn't off the cards completely in the future. However, she went on to say, "it's bewildering to me that you have such an obsession with these large complex independent agencies when the experience of late has been, when we have set these up - like Te Pukenga" the outcomes have been worse. Tinetti was education minister under the previous government that oversaw Te Pukenga, which the coalition government is unwinding. "I'd also like to point out the redress report that was delivered was in 2021, the previous government had a very long time to act on that - it called for an independent agency back then," Stanford said. Jan Tinetti Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver That remark prompted Labour's Willow-Jean Prime to interject and say a working group was set-up to design it under the previous government. Tinetti then called a point of order to mount a defence. "I'd just like to remind that this is estimates looking forward and Chris Hipkins did apologise during his speech on the 12th of November in the House, and offered to work with the government on this. "We don't need to go backwards... We want to know what the minister is doing, we don't need to know what the previous government didn't do, we've already acknowledged we could have moved faster. We've already made that apology," she said. Speaking to the point of order, Stanford said she had been "directly challenged" and wanted to respond. A back and forth of jabs continued between Stanford, Prime, and Tinetti. "I know you don't like to hear this," the minister commented, which Prime responded to by saying, "you're disingenuous, let's be honest", while Tinetti muttered in the background "appalling, you are disappointing minister". The National and New Zealand First members of the committee sat in silence as the war of words played out. Earlier in the hearing, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson raised questions about why advice had been sought on whether to limit redress for gang members. Ultimately, ministers chose to treat gangs the same as any other survivor, but create a new pathway for serious offenders. Stanford said she sought advice on a range of things. "Everyone has different opinions and ideas and views. We took everything into account, I sought advice on a range of different things - it doesn't necessarily mean I believed that thing or wanted that thing - but it's important as a lawmaker... when you take your job responsibly to look at every possible thing," she said. "I needed to make sure I had all of the evidence at hand." Davidson queried why she even needed to ask about limiting redress for gang members when it "sends a message that the real violence that happened is only validated for some people and not others". Stanford responded saying she went out of her way and "called gang members and invited them personally to the apology, into Parliament... that tells you everything you need to know about my beliefs". Without all the evidence though, Stanford said she would have exposed herself to being an "uninformed lawmaker".
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Govt decision-less as court approves more coastline titles to Māori applicants
Māori have been granted rights over more of the southern North Island coastline under tighter new Supreme Court criteria, while the Cabinet enters its seventh month of indecision over an amending law. The latest High Court ruling over the coast from Kāpiti to Manawatū (Paekakariki to the Rangitikei River, and including Kapiti Island and islets) is unique because it takes a pivotal late 2024 Supreme Court ruling into account. It still makes a series of grants of customary marine title (CMT) at a time when the Government wants to restrict such coastal rights. The coalition has a bill before Parliament that would make it harder for iwi and hapū to prove continuous and exclusive use of waters under tikanga since 1840. The bill is designed, the Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith reportedly claimed, to mean only about 5 percent of the coast could be subject to CMT. It contains a provision making any judgments delivered since its introduction moot and would return such cases to new hearings. But after an urgent decision delivered by the Supreme Court went some way to meeting concerns the Government had over an earlier Court of Appeal judgment, Goldsmith paused the law change. Having promised to pass it by the end of 2024, he and colleagues have been seeking advice on whether it is still needed, with that process beginning in December. A High Court judge awarded six new areas of customary title that month on the other side of the North Island, down the southern Wairarapa coastline. She invited lawyers to submit to her on how the Supreme Court ruling in November might change her findings. Now another judge, taking into account the Supreme Court's refined and extended criteria, has done the same for the Kāpiti to Manawatū coast on the other side of the island. A spokesperson for Goldsmith said no decision had been reached by the Government on whether to progress its bill. The minister told Parliament's Māori Affairs select committee during Scrutiny Week on Tuesday he could not commit to a timeframe, even to say the Government could decide the bill's fate this year. 'We are actively turning our mind to it and we do want to resolve these issues sooner rather than later. 'Broadly we are concerned about the whole framework that's developed. I'm worried that we could see the way it's currently set up we could continue having court case for many, many years and could still be testing it in 2040. We are turning our minds towards how we could come up with a more efficient process.' Goldsmith said it could either leave the law as it is, with the Supreme Court's view prevailing, or could amend the Government's bill to continue to change the existing law but 'recognising' elements of that court's views. In CMT cases, a process the Crown made Māori undertake when Parliament passed the Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) Act in 2011, iwi or hapū apply via the courts or direct to a minister to have customary rights over inner waters and coastline recognised. Rights of the public to access, swim, use boats and fish are not affected. But the commercial fishing industry has been an 'intervener' in various Marine and Coastal Areas Act cases before the courts, arguing local Māori either did not have exclusive use, or continued use of water under tikanga (custom) since 1840. Industry lawyers have argued that commercial fishing fleets have lawfully fished in these zones, making the exclusivity criteria redundant. The fishing-industry-friendly coalition Government has taken notice and its amendment law, which has already gone through the select committee process, is an attempt to make Māori claims to CMT more difficult. Now, with a tighter criteria on the table via the Supreme Court, the Cabinet must decide if its law and its restrictions are even needed. One line of thought is that the Government should now back off the law and avoid more controversy with Māori after the intensity of opposition of the Treaty Principles Bill. A map provided to the High Court by the Attorney-General's lawyers showing overlapping claims in the Kāpiti to Manawatū coastline. In this latest Kāpiti-Manawatū coastline case, Justice Christine Grice has in a 600-page judgment weighed the Supreme Court's definitive views on tikanga, exclusivity and undisturbed use of waters into account and made CMT orders in favour of five groupings. Two, Te Ātiawa and Ngāti Raukawa, win exclusive customary rights, and to share rights with other tribal groupings. One iwi, Muaūpoko, is granted shared rights with two individual hapū or whānau claimants. The applicants' rights to CMT over waters beside the coastline are, however, all restricted down from the 12-nautical mile limit sought to between a kilometre and a nautical mile only. That is despite the marine and coastal area being legally the area between the high-water springs and the 12 nautical mile limit of the territorial sea. A bid by Te Ātiawa for exclusive CMT over Kapiti Island was rejected by the judge, who found Ngāti Toa had clear rights to the island, although Te Ātiawa succeeded in winning shared rights over the 5km channel between the island and its area on the facing coastline. Justice Grice's judgment follows hearings between March and November 2024 and late submissions in February 2025. She says it considers 'historically contested events and the groups' circumstances, in particular their relationships with the takutai moana and how those relationships have been expressed through to the present time – in the context of the application of the statutory test for CMT as recently reformulated by the Supreme Court. 'The final determination recognises that five applicant groups are entitled to either shared exclusive, or exclusive CMT as various specific locations across the hearing area.' Another 10 groups claiming parts of the coastline areas have chosen not to go through the courts, but made applications to ministers and officials under what is known as the Crown engagement pathway. Attorney-General Judith Collins is represented in the court actions, with her lawyer telling Justice Grice she acts 'in the interests of all the public (including Māori) to assist the court to interpret the MACA Act, assuming an 'independent aloofness''. Witnesses and claimants told the High Court that for their ancestors there had been no line between land and sea. 'From the Kāpiti Coast they looked seaward to Kapiti Island and beyond to the top of the South Island. The moana which took their waka to those places was a continuation of the land – it was a highway,' Justice Grice writes. The MACA law was the National Government's response in 2011 to the highly controversial 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act brought in by Helen Clark's Labour Government after the appeal court at the time found Māori could claim customary ownership rights of their shoreline and inshore waters. The 2004 law extinguished any customary rights and vested the foreshore and seabed in the Crown, leading to widespread Māori protest and ultimately the formation of the Māori Party. National's compromise MACA law seven years later declared no one owned the foreshore and seabed – not Māori and not the Crown. It restored any customary rights extinguished by the 2004 law, and provided instead for Māori groups to apply for Customary Marine Title recognising that certain areas were held by them and giving them influence over uses in those zones. It covers the area between high-water springs and the 12 nautical mile limit of the territorial sea. Iwi and hapū around the country have lodged more than 200 court applications for customary marine title. About 390 groupings had separately chosen to seek CMT in direct negotiations with the Crown but a Waitangi Tribunal report this month recorded none had been concluded and just seven were near completion. Timeline
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
International Speaker Announced For ACT's 2025 Rally In Auckland
ACT is proud to announce that the international keynote speaker for the Party's 2025 Rally on 13 July will be Dr James Lindsay – a globally recognised advocate for free speech, open inquiry, and classical liberal values. 'ACT's annual rally always features a thought-provoking keynote to elevate the standard of public debate in New Zealand,' says ACT Leader David Seymour. 'Dr Lindsay fits that tradition perfectly. He is the author of the bestseller Cynical Theories and one of the world's leading lights in the fight against identity politics, conformity and oppression. His message about reclaiming liberalism in an age of extremes could not be more timely.' 'Last year, Paul Henry's address at ACT's rally was viewed more than 250,000 times by Kiwis who wished they'd attended in person. This year, I predict it will be even more important not to miss out.' Notes: Dr Lindsay is an American author, mathematician, and leading advocate for free speech and intellectual freedom. He is the founder of New Discourses, a platform dedicated to defending reason, open debate, and the principles of liberal democracy. His bestselling book Cynical Theories has become a global phenomenon, exposing how radical ideologies undermine free societies. Dr Lindsay's message resonates with everyone concerned about the rise of identity politics, censorship, and authoritarian thinking. He has spoken before the US Congress, universities, and grassroots movements around the world. At a time when free expression is under threat, Dr Lindsay delivers a clear and urgent message: we must stand up for liberty, open inquiry, and common sense.
