What you guys seem to forget is that the airport owner is just trying to conform with rules and regs forced on them from external sources as well. If they didn't have to have all this security rigamarole do you think they would? They are subject to OTS inspections, audits, non-compliance, show cause etc etc just as much as you bag CASA for. Meeting security obligations forced on them is a huge impost. The regulator doesn't care who pays for it, as long as it is met.
The taxpayer 'provided' it, not the council, not the government.
It's probably been 25 years since the goverment divested itself of the messy busy of running airports and handed them over to local councils to run, often without much in the way of guidance or help in the ongoing running of them. Since that time, almost all of the facilities that were handed over have probably passed their working life and have had to be replaced, upgraded or experienced heavy maintenance. Where do you think that money has come from? A simple thing like a runway reseal can run to 6 figures easily. That's a lot of $10 landing fees. The fact is that most small airports are heavily subsidised by their local community in one form or another, who apart from the tenuous "air ambulance" needs, are not going to see much, if any, return for their dollar. The majority will almost certainly never use any facilities their money goes towards providing.