Port licensees not ‘public enemy No.1’

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

An elated QC yesterday urged the Government to finally recognise that the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) and its 3,500 licensees were not “public enemy number one”, and that they shared the same objective: Freeport’s success.

Speaking after the Supreme Court backed his argument that the recent consultation process on Freeport’s future, and expiring tax exemptions, was “fundamentally flawed”, Fred Smith QC said the rights of all its stakeholders had been “vindicated”.

Calling for the Government to properly engage the GBPA and its licensees, rather than always end up in Supreme Court battles, the Callenders & Co partner said their co-operation could make Freeport “a smashing success”.

Yet he warned that if the Government continued to regard the city’s businesses and 75,000-strong population as “the enemy”, Freeport would continue to stagnate into “a flaccid economic zone”.

“I am delighted that the court has vindicated the rights of licensees to be properly informed in a consultation process affecting the future of Freeport,” Mr Smith told Tribune Business.

“This is a monumental victory for due process and respect for legitimate consultation. I am so glad that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have affirmed the right to be properly consulted.

“That is fundamental to the growth of democracy in the Bahamas. This is vital for the democratic process in the Bahamas, and the Freeport business community. They have a voice and are entitled to be heard.”

Mr Smith continued: “Carey Leonard and I, as well as the other 3,500 licensees and 75,000 Bahamians who live there, have a vested interest in the success of Freeport’s future.

“It is beyond me why the Government would keep the McKinsey report, which is fundamental to this debate, secret.”

Mr Smith was speaking after Justice Indra Charles yesterday ruled in favour of the Judicial Review action brought by himself and fellow Callenders & Co partner, Mr Leonard.

She found that the stakeholder consultation over proposed reforms to the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, Freeport’s founding statute, was “procedurally unfair” because the Government withheld key information from the public.

That ‘information’ was the report by international consultants, McKinsey & Co, which Messrs Smith and Leonard argued had left themselves - and other GBPA licensees - unable to provide meaningful feedback on the Government’s proposals.

Despite the Government itself admitting that the McKinsey report was a major influence on its Freeport thinking, and the ‘terms of reference’ for its Hawksbill Creek Agreement Review Committee, Justice Charles noted that it was only made publicly available “at the 11th hour” - the night before the Supreme Court was due to hear the Judicial Review.

Mr Smith, meanwhile, said the Government’s non-disclosure of the McKinsey report was even more baffling given that it was on the same side as the GBPA and its licensees, with all their interests aligned.

“We all want Freeport to be a success,” he told Tribune Business. “There should be no more secrets. Everything should be shared, so that everyone who has mutual interests, should be able to make an informed contribution to the process.

“I urge the PLP and FNM to give up this anachronistic, fortress mentality of governance in which they regard the citizens as enemies instead of partners for the future growth of Freeport and the country.

“Just like the Government, we want Freeport to succeed. It is unfortunate that every time there is an engagement with the Government, be it FNM or PLP, on issues related to Freeport, that it declines into court proceedings.”

Describing the relationship between the Government, GBPA and the latter’s licensees as “a tripartite public-private partnership”, Mr Smith added: “Believe me, if we can work together in co-operation, we can make Freeport a smashing success.

“But if the Government treats the Port Authority and its licensees as enemy number one, Freeport will flop, stumble and fail as a flaccid economic zone in the Bahamas.”

Following Justice Charles’ ruling, Mr Smith urged the Government to extend Freeport’s real property tax, income (Business Licence) and capital gains tax exemptions - which expired on Wednesday - for a further six months to enable proper consultation over the proposed Hawksbill Creek Agreement reforms.

“I am sure that Mr Christie wants Freeport to succeed,” he added. “Mr Leonard and I, and other licensees, are not the enemy. There is no enemy lurking in the dark, in the bushes, ready to pounce on the Government in Freeport.”

Mr Smith praised the work done by Dawson Malone and Adrian Gibson, the Callenders & Co legal team who represented himself and Mr Leonard at the Judicial Review hearing.

Comments

birdiestrachan says...

If What Smith says is true why is Freeport wose off than Abaco and Exuma What has stoped GBPA Port growth? They can not blame the Government the ball was in the GBPA Court what were they doing? It is my understand the agreement has come to an end and it is time to move forward. This is interesting The out spoken QC case appears before this judge again .

Posted 6 May 2016, 6:29 p.m. Suggest removal

TheMadHatter says...

Because of Govt red tape Birdie - something you are an expert in I am sure.

Posted 7 May 2016, 3:11 p.m. Suggest removal

birdiestrachan says...

It is my understanding the agreement has come to an end. Mr: Christie should do what he feels is best for the Bahamian People. and not what Fred Smith has to say. He does every thing he can do and say to make the Bahamas look really bad. "Banana Republic" Hitler"s Germany. and the St Georges and Haywards join in with him. While Freeport continues to go no place. Talking about Parked Cars. this is worse.

Posted 6 May 2016, 6:40 p.m. Suggest removal

sheeprunner12 says...

Whoever holds the financial power in Freeport will control the tax extension outcome ....... and I don't think it is the Bahamian businessmen (licensees) ....... Perry supports the white power brokers

Posted 6 May 2016, 7:59 p.m. Suggest removal

birdiestrachan says...

There certainely are enemies lurking in the bushes in the dark. and the out spoken QC knows all about it. Even as he mentions it here.

Posted 6 May 2016, 9:25 p.m. Suggest removal

Economist says...

Business likes certainty. The government is to blame.

The HCA should have been extended 6 or 7 years ago. Hutchison and MSC have been waiting for 4 years to expand the container port ($300 million). Pharma Chem would have been much father ahead on their expansion ($120 million). Borco is waiting to do somethings ($50-60 million).

Polymers lost out on doubling its size because the government has been dragging its feet on the WTO.

Yes, Grand Bahama would be much better off if government (FNM & PLP) did its job.

Posted 7 May 2016, 11:10 a.m. Suggest removal

killemwitdakno says...

You talkin f*ck forever. Do you know where most revenue for the treasury would come from economist?

What the hell is an expansion of Whampoa going to yield for us? There's barely any container port work now and it's very bad labor conditions.

Borco has other locations and have bidded on their locations, if it suit their business plan to abandon this one or not expand during oil surplus where storage is up, they would have done so at the most crucial time.

Pharma Chem broke ground the day after the FDA cleared their new aids medicine .. stop lying.

Polymers probably lost out because plastic containers is being banned in states. It's not like Mr. Dart is going to offer us a multi million dollar recycling facility to keep using like he offered another town or inject a fraction of what he's spent in lobbying to secure his market. You should know the foam war, he should switch to cane based products.

The agreement was for development of the city, not the foreign plants, where is it? TERM ENDED. you're talking about millions in their own expansions when thats the same millions we would have had to expand everything in the agreement that was supposed to be improved from "time to time" like hospital beds. They're multi billion dollar companies because of what we allowed them to do free. The next cheapest place charges 12%, their loss not ours.

Posted 7 May 2016, 2:38 p.m. Suggest removal

Economist says...

First of all there would be employment for those constructing the expansion.

Secondly, you obviously not seen the working conditions in the Dominican Republic, Jamaica or Panama (our competition).

Thirdly, you don't seem to realize that the government gets a cut of every container that is transshipped.
Fourthly, you must not have read the McKinsey Report (It is on the HCA Review Committee website) and seen its recommendations.

Fifthly, Ploymers was going to expand because of a contract with Mexico. The Mexicans were able to raise the import duty, because we are not members of WTO. Also Polymers don't make plastic bottles.

I won't bother with the rest of your rubbish as you made it clear that you have no understanding of economics.

Posted 7 May 2016, 3:21 p.m. Suggest removal

TheMadHatter says...

Government will not allow FPO to prosper as long as Port is owned by "white people from England."

Freeport, once a jewel in the Bahamas, contributing like crazy to the Treasury, is now near death.

If the Port owners were to sell (or give) the Port Authority to Haitians, the Govt would remove all taxes including VAT from Freeport, and pave the streets with gold tomorrow. It's really that simple.

**TheMadHatter**

Posted 7 May 2016, 3:07 p.m. Suggest removal

DEDDIE says...

What the average Bahamian fail to recognized is that Freeport only makes up 1/3 of Grand Bahama. The Government control the other 2/3 of the island. The government have done absolutely nothing to improve the 2/3 they control.The neglect is so blatant that within 2 feet of leaving the bonded areas that defines Freeport the roads go bad just like everything else under government control.

Posted 7 May 2016, 5:59 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment