01-03-2020, 02:08 PM
Most people support free free market and particularly when they enter the market offering to sell or buy various goods. The market works best when there’s competition, unfortunately in Australia competition is often extremely limited by government rules and policies. Only too well in aviation do we understand how legalities that are made so complex, convoluted and unworkable that we finish up with rule by bureaucratic fiat, undermining the concept of rule by law, and the free market suffers.
Privatisation as a word conveys the notion that what was government owned is made over to to the exclusive domain of private ownership. Problem being with these types of definitions and arguments nothing is that simple. For example there is, in law, no such thing as private land, it all belongs to the Crown. We may hold it ‘freely’ but Her Maj may do as She wishes with it, via Her Government of course. In the US they got rid of this notion 250 years ago.
As far as the privatisation of airports is concerned the huge mistake is to privatise the whole airport, landside and airside. There being almost zero possibility of the setting up of a competitive rival airports then the solution to lack of competition and ineffective bureaucratic administration, the landside should be sold as freehold. In much the same way as our road network operates, runways and all of the airside would remain common property. Businesses would have certainty of tenure and a recognised long term asset to borrow against.
There’s no doubt that the selling of long, whole of airport leases has been a very poor policy, but not because of the word privatisation, the word that might also mean more freedom from dominant governments bent on maintaining power and position without regard to efficiency or the true needs of the country as a whole.
As for so called soft corruption the more we encourage governments to control our lives the more avenues for corrupt influence, no better illustrated by Australia’s very strict land use zoning laws which is governed solely by the opinions of those in power. Contrast residential prices in the successful and growing community of no zoning Houston Texas as a good example where the free market is allowed to operate.
Privatisation as a word conveys the notion that what was government owned is made over to to the exclusive domain of private ownership. Problem being with these types of definitions and arguments nothing is that simple. For example there is, in law, no such thing as private land, it all belongs to the Crown. We may hold it ‘freely’ but Her Maj may do as She wishes with it, via Her Government of course. In the US they got rid of this notion 250 years ago.
As far as the privatisation of airports is concerned the huge mistake is to privatise the whole airport, landside and airside. There being almost zero possibility of the setting up of a competitive rival airports then the solution to lack of competition and ineffective bureaucratic administration, the landside should be sold as freehold. In much the same way as our road network operates, runways and all of the airside would remain common property. Businesses would have certainty of tenure and a recognised long term asset to borrow against.
There’s no doubt that the selling of long, whole of airport leases has been a very poor policy, but not because of the word privatisation, the word that might also mean more freedom from dominant governments bent on maintaining power and position without regard to efficiency or the true needs of the country as a whole.
As for so called soft corruption the more we encourage governments to control our lives the more avenues for corrupt influence, no better illustrated by Australia’s very strict land use zoning laws which is governed solely by the opinions of those in power. Contrast residential prices in the successful and growing community of no zoning Houston Texas as a good example where the free market is allowed to operate.