• But Pintard says Port needs new investors

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Opposition’s leader yesterday accused the Prime Minister of “exercising very bad judgment” by appearing to threaten that the Government will “wrest away control of the Grand Bahama Port Authority” (GBPA) from its owners.

Michael Pintard, who is also MP for Grand Bahama’s Marco City constituency, told Tribune Business that the public fight between Philip Davis KC’s administration and Freeport’s quasi-governmental authority is further eroding the city’s already-fragile economy by undermining business confidence and deterring fresh investment.

Speaking out after the latest row, this time over the Prime Minister’s assertion that the Government is “subsidising” the GBPA for responsibilities the latter is obligated to fulfill, he slammed the “heavy handedness” of the administration’s approach but agreed that “a number of fundamental changes need to take place” in how Freeport is governed.

Mr Pintard, acknowledging that the GBPA’s owners, the Hayward and St George families, and their executives have “not been higher performers” in fulfilling their obligations to develop and maintain The Bahamas’ second city, called for an injection of fresh ideas by allowing new investors - including Bahamians - to acquire shares in the regulatory authority and its Port Group Ltd affiliate.

Warning that the Davis administration, like its two FNM and PLP predecessors, was “missing the opportunity” to create meaningful change by engaging in a “fight”, he also called for a streamlined investment approvals process and consensus on stringent environmental by-laws for Freeport that would enable investors to avoid seeking approvals from Nassau as well as the GBPA.

However, while backing the need for far-reaching reform, Mr Pintard told this newspaper that the Opposition “do not support” a total government takeover of the GBPA and its regulatory/governance functions for fear this will both “send the wrong message” to investors and ensnare Freeport’s supposed ‘free trade zone’ in the same bureaucracy and red tape that businesses endure throughout the rest of The Bahamas.

“We have very serious concerns,” the Opposition leader told Tribune Business. “We have said from the very beginning that the Prime Minister has exercised very bad judgment by making threats. On the surface of it, the threats come across as if this administration intends to do whatever it sees fit in wrestling away control of the GBPA.

“These threats create an environment of uncertainty around what is going to happen in the short, medium and long-term in Grand Bahama in the event there is a very serious and prolonged fight between the municipal government in Freeport and the central government of The Bahamas. That uncertainty will affect business that is already bad in Grand Bahama, and sends a wide signal about the Government’s lack of tempered approach and heavy handedness.”

The Prime Minister launched the Government’s offensive against the GBPA in the recent 2023-2024 Budget debate, when he argued that the quasi-governmental authority and its shareholders are failing to live up to their commitments under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement to maintain, grow and invest in Freeport’s development. He also charged that Freeport’s founding treaty is also proving inadequate as a platform for attracting fresh private investment and economic growth.

He subsequently said the Government “has begun to invoice the Port Authority” for the reimbursement of expenses that Bahamian taxpayers have incurred in providing public infrastructure and services in Freeport - investments that Mr Davis argued are the GBPA’s obligations, although the latter has refuted this. And, earlier this week, Mr David said his priority is to “right the ship” at the GBOA because its owners’ interests are not aligned with those of Grand Bahama residents.

Mr Pintard, agreeing that some of these concerns are valid, said the GBPA’s shareholders and management team “have not been high performers in fulfilling the obligations they have”. Calling for fresh blood at the GBPA, he added: “The time is ripe for the shareholders who control that ownership to broaden the ownership of those assets outside of the land presently being held by DevCO and the Port Group of Companies. We have to look at some material changes.”

Arguing that fee income raised from the GBPA’s licensees and Freeport property owners should “not be in the sole exclusive purview” of the Port Authority when it comes to how these funds are spent, the FNM leader said: “There’s a number of fundamental changes that ought to take place. All these things ought to be on the table for discussion.

“Clearly, this government is having trouble resonating on Grand Bahama and part of what the Prime Minister and his team are doing is deflecting responsibility for their own failings in Grand Bahama. This fight with the GBPA provides them with the ability to deflect from the responsibilities they have in helping to regenerate Grand Bahama’s economy and the concerns residents have.

“The GBPA is playing off what the Government should be doing, and the Government is playing off what the Port should be doing and, quite frankly, we are missing an opportunity because of the fight. We have a wonderful opportunity to have a meaningful discussion and come up with concrete plans of transformation for the economy.”

Echoing many in Freeport’s private sector, Mr Pintard called for all stakeholders - the Government, GBPA, the latter’s licensees, civil society and representatives from east and west Grand Bahama - to “sit down together, identify the challenges we are facing in Freeport, and work in tandem to come up with solutions to the vexing problems that exist”.

However, he reiterated his party’s opposition to a complete government takeover in Freeport. “The Opposition is on record that we do not support assuming all the regulatory authority in the city of Freeport,” Mr Pintard told Tribune Business. “Unless they go through the proper legal channels, they cannot seize the assets, and they should be careful not to send that message out there by the tone of the conversation they’ve been engaging.”

Suggesting that political influences would impact the licensing of new Freeport businesses should the Government take over the city’s governance and regulation, he added: “The last thing we need is government determining the pace and how businesses run and the ease of doing business.”

With GBPA licensees recently complaining about the red tape encountered in having to obtain approvals from Nassau as well, Mr Pintard urged: “We should be sitting down and figuring out how to remove the second level of approval for business. Potential investors should not have to seek one layer of approval here, and then go to New Providence for the same thing. There should be a very narrow group of them that require government oversight.”

While the Government would still have to retain Immigration control in Freeport, Mr Pintard said discussions should also be concluded on environmental by-laws for Freeport that will both align with the most stringent international standards and ensure investors do not have to seek the go-ahead from the GBPA as well as the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP).