Governance

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/73442/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The plane crash at Essendon Airport showed the folly of allowing runways to co-exist with commercial development.
Tullamarine Airport opened in 1970 partly because of the risk to housing from aircraft at Essendon. Why, then, have authorities allowed extensive new development within Essendon Airport’s boundaries between housing and runways?
Between 1997 and 2003, the federal government provided 99-year airport leases to private consortia, raising A$8.5 billion. This process illustrates how privatisation can lead to unaccountable incremental actions and impacts that public authorities didn’t anticipate.
Since then, in effect, lessees have enjoyed the privileged position in Australian planning law of being able to decide their own futures. The exclusion of such large areas as airports from broader metropolitan planning threatens orderly planning on a grand scale.
Planning academics Robert Freestone and Douglas Baker have argued:
The prospect of market opportunities from property development and commercial initiatives was a key factor in the high prices secured for airport leases.
This process was compromised if higher prices than those justified by leases were reciprocated by commercial approvals. Any future development assessment would be predetermined towards approval. This would prevent fair consideration of objections, resulting in a lack of proper scrutiny in the public interest.
Airport business is booming
Commercial development is now integrated with traditional airport operations across Australia. But aside from possible reciprocal financial expectations, privatisation has provided extraordinary bargains to lessees through large capital and operational returns.
Linfox Group and Beck Corporation, for example, made a reported payment in 2001 of $22 million for a lease on 305 hectares of prime inner-urban land at Essendon Airport. They have turned this into a projected $1 billion enterprise over the next decade. One-quarter of the airport is leased to commercial tenants.
Business zones adjoin or wrap around runways. The plane crashed into a large retail DFO complex. An eight-storey 150-bed hotel, conference centre, a five-storey office block, private hospital, supermarket, auto centre and much else have also been built or are planned. Projected employment in the precinct is 18,000.
Air traffic has expanded significantly too. Essendon is home to executive air, charter, freight, media and regional air services, air ambulance, police and private aircraft. Essendon is Australia’s largest corporate jet base.
All this activity reinforces the public danger from the incompatibility of air and commercial land uses under privatised governance arrangements.
Operators bypass state planning rules
Under the Airports Act, Essendon Airports Pty Ltd must prepare a management plan outlining airport development for 20 years. The privatised management of airports inherited the Commonwealth’s constitutional overriding of state and territory land-use planning provisions. Master plans must only address “consistency” with state and local planning schemes.
However, airport lessees are not required to act on submissions. Essendon Airport Pty Ltd gave “due regard to all written comments”, then forwarded submissions and its master plan to the federal government. The Commonwealth approved the plan in 2014 regardless of broader urban planning considerations.
Victorian government planning policy has attempted to concentrate commercial development in mixed-use centres well served by public transport. Essendon Airport is a classic road-based, out-of-centre location. It was not identified as an activity centre in Melbourne metropolitan planning. But, for 30 years, no Victorian government has shown an appetite for curbing out-of-centre development.
The 2014 metropolitan plan, Plan Melbourne, proposed to “investigate opportunities for… increased development and employment” at Essendon. Airport management submitted a case to the revised metropolitan strategy process for recognition as an activity centre.
State and local authorities originally expressed concern at the proposal to construct the DFO at Essendon Airport. However, more recently, local and state attitudes have changed.
In 2014, the Liberal planning minister, Matthew Guy, announced a new airport employment precinct and a partnership between the developers, Metropolitan Planning Authority and state and local governments. The airport was identified as both a key transport gateway and important commercial area.
Labor Niddrie MP Ben Carroll also welcomed the expansion of commercial activities. Moonee Valley Council expressed concerns but did not oppose the major proposed land uses. Councillors expressed the view that Essendon Fields is “an important economic hub” and a “vibrant business precinct”.
The then federal infrastructure minister, Warren Truss, said in 2015 that:
Airports are now business destinations in their own right and provide a powerful economic engine for their home region and local communities.
In similar language, Essendon Airport Pty Ltd CEO Chris Cowan said that:
Essendon Airport [provides] a unique opportunity to reinforce its activity centre function by realising non-aviation development potential.
Everybody is now speaking from the same script.
State and local policy has increasingly become aligned with the Commonwealth helping to further the private interests of airport operators at increasing risk to the public.
Instead, airport governance should redefine Commonwealth responsibilities to its citizens and be integrated with broader metropolitan planning. This ultimately may mean closing down airport operations at Essendon.
Michael Buxton is professor of Environment and Planning, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-buxton-1381" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Airport privatisations have put profit before public safety and good planning: Michael Buxton

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/68677/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Throughout the Presidential campaign Donald Trump repeatedly criticised the United States Federal Reserve, accusing it of creating a “big fat ugly bubble” through its monetary decisions, among many other things. Trump’s consistent attacks have created worries for the Fed’s independence.
These worries intensified after the election, as President Trump will be in a position to make big changes at the Federal Reserve over the next few years. There are two existing vacancies on the seven-member board of governors of the Fed, and the terms of both the current Chairwoman, Janet Yellen, and Vice Chairman, Stanley Fischer, expire in 2018.
But there is more to good central bank governance than independence.
<h2>Why do we care about central bank independence?</h2>
Among orthodox economists, there is a long-standing belief that central bank independence is a sacred precept for any market economy. Independence gives the central bank some freedom from the politicians who might otherwise print money for political reasons. Orthodox economists worry that politicians are susceptible to political moves that are deleterious to stable economic environments, and that their ideologies often have little economic grounding.
Politicians, by this logic, will compromise monetary stability just so they can trumpet to their electorate that they are “driving growth”. There are some merits to this theory, as a long history of bubbles fuelled by short-sighted politicians amply demonstrates.
However, the problem for these orthodox economists, in addition to failing to either predict, explain, or prevent global financial catastrophes, is that the exact faults they attribute to politicians also manifest in unaccountable central banks, most notably the United States Federal Reserve.
<h2>Good governance requires more than independence</h2>
In order for the independence of central banks to work effectively, they need to be self-critical, intellectually honest, and adaptable institutions, as the banks of Canada and New Zealand have a track-record of demonstrating. The importance of a critical approach cannot be overstated. Central banking is an art, not a science, which is why humility is also an important attitudinal factor explaining the success of some central banksas opposed to others.
There is also a cultural aspect that has fuelled the impunity of central banks – it comes from their monopolisation of prestige in economics. Take this example: the Nobel Prize in Economics is given out by the Central Bank of Sweden. Is it really so surprising that a central bank will continually bestow this prize on the guys who argue for central banks to be made all-powerful?
<h2>Central banks must be accountable</h2>
A point that was advanced by both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is that there must be some form of accountability for so large an institution, which has such a disproportionate impact on the well-being of people all over the world. If the Federal Reserve were like any central bank whose sphere of influence was relegated largely to domestic monetary authority, then a robust and independent Central bank would not just be desirable but crucial to prevent capture by the short-termism of politicians. However, the US central bank is the printer of the world’s reserve currency and so writes the economic destiny of much of the planet.
Given the global impact of the Fed, there must be some form of mechanism by which it is made answerable for its choices. In a time of “rabid populism,” the idea that a small group of unelected people virtually dictate the price of money (which is basically what interest rates are), is not just abhorrent but downright anathema, and that is what Trump has capitalized on (pun intended).
<h2>Lessons for other central banks</h2>
There are two other central banks that have a disproportional global impact – the European Central Bank [ECB] and the People’s Bank of China [PBOC]. They too have to cater to their domestic economic needs,but find themselves exerting enormous influence over the global economy. And like the Fed, they are also not subject to a consistent oversight mechanism.
Although the PBOC does not face substantial domestic criticism, it continually draws the ire of its international trading partners for its domestic monetary policies. Meanwhile, the ECB is now the equivalent of an economic piñata that is berated by many EU members, for a variety of reasons. The ECB has a very difficult mandate in that it must try to strike a balance between the stable Euro-countries and those that are crisis-afflicted. Its democratic accountability has also been repeatedly called into question.
<h2>What next?</h2>
So what is next for the Fed? As with many Trump “promises,” there seems to be some dithering on whether Trump would actually go after the Fed. However, if pursued, Trump’s impact on the Federal Reserve could be huge. The impact on global equity and bond markets, on the value of the US Dollar, on the money supply, and on ordinary American lives, would be tremendous. 
However, the fact remains that independence alone doesn’t ensure good policymaking. And as populist fervour takes hold, a more accountable mechanism for overseeing monetary authority might be necessary.
Usman W. Chohan is doctoral candidate, Policy Reform and Economics, UNSW Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/usman-w-chohan-182272" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Governance

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Governance

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News