Concerned stakeholders want further discussion on port policy

'Rather get it right than resort to damage control later' Alan Peat THERE IS some doubt cast over the port users getting a second bite at the National Commercial Ports Policy before it is cast in legislation although all want this to be the case. After the draft was released for comment before an October 31 deadline, the private sector stakeholders raised a considerable number of questions about the policy. Of particular concern were the rather vague definitions of the privatisation procedure termed "concessioning" by government; the indistinct nature of the final control body, and how it will relate to government and the private sector; and the non-existent time-span for the entire reconstruction procedure. After the draft, and its submissions on it, the shipping industry is looking for a second crack at the proposed policy after the Department of Transport (DoT) has done its revision of the draft, according to Dave Rennie, c.e. of Unicorn Lines, and chairman of the Association of Shipping Lines (ASL). "The industry bodies made submissions to the DoT before the deadline, then the Parliamentary Transport Committee gathered oral and written submissions in early November," he told FTW. Amendments "The DoT then does what amendments are necessary. Then we understand they will come back with the revised draft, and we should get a second crack at it early in the new year." Laurie Smith, non-liner director of John T Rennie and spokesman for the National Port Users Forum (NPUF) - a united, common-policy creating body for all the other representative industry associations - agreed with Rennie's comments. 'It went to the Parliamentary Committee too soon' "As an industry we'd very much like further discussion of the various divergences," he told FTW. "I hope they give us another chance to talk. The DoT would be ill-advised to ignore the views of all the stakeholders, and ride roughshod over them." Indeed, the NPUF has already gone back to the DoT - after it and the individual member bodies had made their representations - and indicated that that industry would like to hear the departmental perspectives if it didn't agree with any of the comments that had been made. But there is some doubt that the draft policy will be returned for further comment. "According to a DoT official," said Nolene Lossau, executive director of the SA Shippers Council, "the next step, under constitutional procedure, is to present a White Paper to parliament. "Under this, there would be no further discussion. He told us that the submissions would be taken into account in the White Paper." The problem is that the government departments behind the ports policy - Transport, Public Enterprises and Trade & Industry - have not followed procedure, according to Peggy Drodskie, head of Sacob's transport committee. "It went to the Parliamentary Committee too soon," she said. This would mean that the second draft (the Green Paper) had been circumvented, and it will now go directly to the final White Paper. "But we are firmly under the impression that a second draft will be available," said Drodskie. And she mirrors the comments of all the others, in that government should be expected to continue in negotiations with stakeholders before the policy is finalised. "It's better to spend a little more time and get it right," said Drodskie, "rather than going into a damage control exercise after it's put into place."