The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE GOVERNMENT has branded Freeport’s founding treaty, and the division of regulatory and governance responsibilities between itself and the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA), as a “convoluted framework” that needs to be overhauled.

The Davis administration, setting out its rationale for reforming, replacing and repealing parts of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement subject to feedback in the upcoming six-month public consultation, and replacing them with a Grand Bahama Development Act, implied that Freeport’s management and administration is governed by an oversight web that is too complex.

“The existing arrangements involve the GBPA, central government and local government, exercising functions under different legal and administrative provisions,” its ‘Green Paper’ asserts.

“Inside the Port Area, the GBPA issues business licences and building permits and manages zoning and land use under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement. Elsewhere [on Grand Bahama] these functions rest with central government and local government.

“The Port Area framework rests on the 1955 Agreement, at least six later Acts of Parliament, supplemental agreements and Port Area orders. The Government considers this a convoluted framework.” As a result, it is seeking to reclaim Freeport’s governance and management powers from the GBPA and fold these into a new structure covering the entirety of Grand Bahama and its cays.

“In the Government’s assessment, the geographically differentiated settlement established under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement has created an economic imbalance between Freeport and the remainder of the island,” the ‘Green Paper’ added.

“Investment incentives under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement framework and the Grand Bahama (Port Area) Investment Incentives Act 2016 apply only within the Port area to qualifying licensees, and subject to conditions, and residents of the same island deal with different authorities for comparable services.

“The objective of reform is transparent and equal governance and regulation throughout Grand Bahama and surrounding cays, with development opportunities extending to all Bahamians. That objective recognises Freeport’s contribution to national development while requiring institutions appropriate to a sovereign country and the needs of the whole island,” the report continued.

“The Government considers that the long-term governance of Grand Bahama and surrounding cays should be established under a modern legislative framework applicable to the area as a whole, rather than continue to depend principally upon the institutional arrangements created by the Hawksbill Creek Agreement.

“The Government is therefore consulting on the development of the comprehensive successor framework. The precise legislative measures, treatment of existing rights, allocation of public functions and transitional arrangements will be determined following consultation and detailed legal analysis.

“Public governance must serve the whole island. Decisions affecting regulation, public services and development must have a demonstrable public purpose, an identifiable legal basis and effective accountability.”

Many Freeport residents will likely question why the Government has not legislated through Parliament to grant equal tax breaks, investment incentives and concessions that are comparable to Freeport’s throughout the rest of Grand Bahama given that the idea has been discussed for years if not decades.

The Government is proposing that the reforms be overseen by a Grand Bahama Development Council, a newly-created body that will largely function as a co-ordinating and monitoring entity. It will be far short of what the GBPA currently is, and the powers that it has, and will not be a municipal authority with revenue-raising powers.

“It would not replace the constitutional responsibilities of ministers and Parliament, the statutory functions of public authorities, or the lawful powers and obligations of other institutions,” the Government’s ‘Green Paper’ said of the Council.

“Its recommendations could identify where those arrangements require change, but would not themselves bring that change into effect. Membership or participation would confer neither an entitlement to a favourable determination nor authority to bind Government…

“A co-ordinating and monitoring mandate would not permit the Council to grant licences or planning permissions, determine concessions, direct a regulator, commit public expenditure or adjudicate private rights. Individual applications would continue through the competent authority, with the applicable procedures and opportunities for review.”

This means that the Council would instead have to try and get movement from the relevant ministries, departments and agencies in Nassau whenever elements of the Grand Bahama governance reforms are not being fully implemented.

“Once the Development Act is in force, the Council’s continuing role would be to monitor delivery of the island-wide development strategy and to report publicly on progress,” the ‘Green Paper’ added.

“The Government proposes that the Council prepare the annual State of Grand Bahama Report. Any power beyond co-ordination, monitoring and reporting would require express legal basis.”