Does anyone have any particular thoughts about this issue that's been in the news lately?
The general media line seems to be that it's ridiculous to be reducing funding for a rescue helicopter service (must be essential, right?) in exchange for more arts funding. As far as I can tell, that's basically because everyone thinks that it's directly funding rescue helicopter flights. I'm not sure that's the fairest way to look at it, though.
*** Firstly, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board is defined by law so that it *has* to split its money between 10 different causes. That's a roughly even split between arts and museums and safety bodies. Surely if the ARHT is considered so essential, it should be set up to be funded by something that's not being weighed against all this other stuff, to ensure it doesn't lose its funding. Equally it's not fair for stuff like arts to have to be weighed against something that's considered so "essential" and can never possibly be funded less. Otherwise the Board might as well give its entire ~$15 million to the ARHT, nothing to anyone else, and get it over with.
*** Secondly, how does the ARHT compare with all the other Rescue Helicopter Trusts throughout New Zealand? It might be that it does lots of extra useful stuff which other trusts don't (and that might be worth it), but I'm also fairly sure that many other trusts get by without a massive injection from a regional funding board that exists solely to give it ratepayer money, alongside a bunch of other causes.
I think (might be wrong) that most Rescue Helicopter Trusts will invoice direct flight costs to whoever commissions them, whether that's Police, Maritime NZ, ACC, the local Regional Health Board, or whoever else. The rest of the funding (from fundraising, sponsors, and stuff which you see them making a big deal about) is about maintaining capital costs and keeping the overheads running between specific incidents. That's obviously important, because the service couldn't exist without it, but it's also not usually the only source of income for these trusts.
The Taranaki Rescue Helicopter Trust recently had really big financial problems and nearly had to liquidate, but it's scraped itself back onto its feet. One of the changes I think they've made is to not run flights unless they're actually commissioned (I'm not sure which other types of flights they ran previously), which means they get paid for it.
Is there a reason why the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust can't effectively run itself in a comparable way with a comparable funding model? What would be lost if that happened?
I'm not much into Auckland news, but it's getting some political schtick as the Chairman of Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board, Vern Walsh, admitted to Sean Plunket on Radiolive, that his board uses no criteria for allocating funds, no register of what freebies they receive or who from.
Helicopter Trust chairman Murray Bolton said "we are asking the Controller and Auditor-General to get to the bottom of how this funding board has been operating for the last five years", and promptly sued.
Next day the legal action was halted when Len Brown said ARAF would be reviewed to become a more consistent & fair funding vehicle.
In short, the board looks underhand & smells fishy.
The Rescue Helicopter Board, however, is a comparatively successful fund raiser and is financially flush, which puts them streaks ahead of other ARAF recipients.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11224134
problem with dedicated rescue helicopters, reliant heavily on donations for funding... they go through a good $500 of fuel an hour plus all the other operating costs. shouldnt be like that in a city the size of auckland.. the money they must save the economy from all the lives they save...
I'm not very tied into Auckland issues either, but I'm finding it interesting just because of the funding context in which the rescue helicopter works compared with everyone else.
You'd think the $500/hour of fuel would easily be part of the direct operating costs to expect on an invoice for whoever commissioned a rescue, or a hospital transfer, or whatever else.
Yes I noticed the Herald's recent editorial (linked by @pro-active). It's interesting the line they've taken, and what they're pointing out about how the ARHT managed to get into this funding area to begin ith. I get sceptical about some of the Herald's editorialising generally on other topics though, so in this case I'm not really sure if they're really on to something or if it's more about political ideaology. In a much earlier editorial, they were arguing that the Trust should be charging people it transfers.... but in effect it should already be doing that through invoicing whicever other bit of the government commissions it.
I'm still waiting to see someone compare the ARHT with all the other similar trusts in NZ which operate rescue helicopters, many of which don't get direct funding from local authorities to do what they do, even though they get sponsorships and donations to cover capital costs. It mght be that the ARHT provides much more stuff in a way which justifies the centralised funding model, but it'd be interesting to be able to see what makes it different, and why it can't carry on the same way as all the other Trusts seem to be able to.
This graph is very powerful. The starting point is the funding as set by Parliament, and the later years are what has happened under some local politicians.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/03/auckland_westpac_rescue_helicopter_funding.html
This Reply box won't let me post the pic, but you need to follow that link !.
The $450,000 grant represents only 5 per cent of the trust's operating costs.
However, they are relatively good fund raisers. They're not saying much about RHB operating 2 separate trusts, the second being a capital accumulation acct for replacing their 25-30 yo helicopters, and that RHB runs fiscal surpluses, whereas other grant recipients do not.
There's a bit of Helicopter Board PR in all this too.
"Who needs rescuing ?" -
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11224134
Sorry to post again so soon, but I don't think it's about Helicopter Board being brought to it's knees. Sorry, I'm not the one to be able to give you a balance sheet comparison with other Chopper rescue organisations.
I think the News was the HB was peeved at the continuing funding cuts & pointed the finger at the dubious functioning of the Grants Board.
They could only poke their head around the door like somebody caught with their pants down.
Len Brown stepped in, didn't like what he saw & the Grants Board is in for some changes.
I think the Helicopter Board played a good hand of PR Poker.
It was the political side of things that drew me into your original post. Can't really help on how the Helicopter operation conducts their day-to-day business.
No worries and I'm not expecting anyone here to compare them, just surprised nobody in the media's actually checked it out. Early on I checked out the financial reports for some of the various trusts from http://www.charities.govt.nz/ out of interest, but I only understand that stuff in a limited way. But imho media really should be comparing it with other similar Trusts and at least asking the ARHT why it's different. Anyway, not my direct business as I'm not an Auckland ratepayer.
A small excerpt from the following,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11224134
“In 2012/13, its income (excluding council funding) of $13.5 million far exceeded what the other agencies raised through sponsorships, donations and the box office. Its helicopter replacement fund was well on track and there was plenty more in the bank.”
I believe the whole issue is over whether or not there is any necessity for public funds to be contributed to an organisation that is quite clearly doing rather well thank you very much.
