DECLAN Clausen notes that the Newcastle Airport board is "not a trivial matter, it is a very serious ASIC regulated board" ("Flying high: pay takes off", Newcastle Herald 19/10).
Are we to assume it is any more "serious" than the many private and public boards across the country?
The value of Newcastle Airport has also increased from $102m in 2019 to $430m today. Given the airport is jointly owned by both Port Stephens and Newcastle councils, I believe it would be appropriate that payments to directors are governed by the NSW Classification and Remuneration Framework for NSW government Boards and Committees (2021).
For an airport with a value of $430m my understanding is the recommended pay for directors under that framework is between $20,000 to $40,000 per year, meaning that the current directors serving on both airport boards are being paid around double the recommended guidelines in total.
In my opinion the "seriousness" of the board may also be lost on our CEO Jeremy Bath (a man entrusted with the city's finances and already earning $513,000 per year) if he is apparently unaware of exactly what he is being paid as a Newcastle Airport director.
Angus Parsons, Hamilton
Why the secrecy on salaries?
WHY all the secrecy surrounding the airport director's salaries ("Flying high: pay takes off, Herald 19/10)? Councillors were taken by surprise when the airport restructuring was first announced back in 2019. The creation of two boards with double the representation from Newcastle and Port Stephens council came as a surprise to elected councillors.
Only approximate salaries were thrown around in the discussion at the time. Now our CEO can't remember how much he is paid on top of his $513,000 salary for his role as a director on both boards. Port Stephens council has had no problem publishing these figures in their annual reports. Why haven't they ever appeared in City of Newcastle's business papers? Secrecy simply makes it appear that our former directors have something to hide.
Christine Everingham, Newcastle East
The art of renovating city's gallery
I WOULD like to congratulate the Newcastle Herald on its willingness to acknowledge and correct the factual errors that appeared in the opinion piece by a former lord mayor (Letters 12/10).
I'm sure many of your readers, like me, appreciate the recent pressure placed on our great regional newspapers with staff reductions leaving less opportunity for fact checking, and also with the ever present need to protect advertising revenue.
The unequivocal claim that "Before my election [the council] had lost the [NAG redevelopment] federal government grant" was incorrect. In fact, this occurred ten months into that Lord Mayor's term, following NSW Premier O'Farrell being persuaded not to contribute a matching grant with council and federal governments as part of a tripartite funding agreement. This occurred within a period short of two years leading up to the ICAC's Operation Spicer, which, much to the dismay of the Newcastle Arts community and the Newcastle Art Gallery supporters, saw the redevelopment stalled further with a resultant increase in cost.
It is wonderful though to finally see a triumphant extension rising from the ashes of that period, enabling the Newcastle Art Gallery to resume its rightful place as Newcastle's premier cultural icon.
It should also be acknowledged that this same arts community is contributing $13 million toward the construction. This is more than the combined state and federal governments Newcastle Art Gallery grants ($10 million) made in their most recent round of pre-election regional grants.
Robert Henderson, The Hill
Nothing to celebrate on Voice
I AGREE with you Michael Hinchey ("Voice defeat nothing to celebrate", Letters 17/10), that Greg Hunt seems to think that the anniversary of the defeat of the Voice referendum, is a reason to celebrate. The main cause of its failure was due to the lack of bipartisanship support.
When it was first proposed by Albanese, it had strong support from the people of Australia. It was when Dutton and Littleproud began their horrible campaign against it, of lies and misinformation, that brought about its downfall. Remember, "if you don't know, then vote no". They were the ones that divided the nation, not Albanese.
A good thing that is happening now, is that the Labor states are proposing a treaty to the Aboriginal people. It's a good step in the right direction to reconciliation and truth telling.
This is our country, and our country needs to own the heritage of Dispossession etc of the First Nations. It is a painful journey, but it is not a lie.
Stephen Clive Eyre, Cardiff
Voice was lost but no excuse for inaction
BOB Watson ("Some with much to say now quiet", Letters, 18/10): surely the biggest irony is that the prime minister, having spent several hundred million dollars on the referendum and telling us over and over and over that we must listen to the Indigenous community, now refuses to listen to the best qualified person to speak on behalf of the most disadvantaged members of that community. The courageous Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is calling for an enquiry into why government funding allocated to help those people is not reaching them. Surely not an unreasonable request?
Dave McTaggart, Edgeworth
PM's future safe as houses
THE prime minister keeps telling us he grew up living in public housing. We could be forgiven for believing he still does, as he resides in Kirribilli House and The Lodge both subsidised by the taxpayer. It seems obvious to me he has put the money saved while living on the public purse to good use after he bought a modest home for $4.3 million. Who could blame him for improving his lifestyle, even though a lot of people are sinking further into the abyss of poverty?
John Cooper, Charlestown
What matters more than price?
I WAS interested Newcastle council is not bound to accept the lowest tender. I am wondering why. And can anyone explain why a tender which is equal in all other aspects but cheaper wouldn't be accepted?
Maria Pye, New Lambton
Don't let them get you down
TONY Mansfield ("It may be four long years ahead", Letters 18/10) makes some pretty valid points regarding the behaviour of a lot of councillors towards the new lord mayor. They seem hellbent on making his life as difficult as possible. He's only been in the job five minutes and must be wondering what he's done to deserve such treatment. Don't let them get you down, Ross. In my opinion you'll do a great job and be a breath of fresh air, so hold your head high and ignore the childish behaviour.
