Port users object to part of amended ports bill

‘We are entirely in support of a strong and interventionist regulator’ ALAN PEAT PORT USERS have raised objection to two clauses in the latest amendments to the National Ports Authority (NPA) bill, in particular proposals that appointments to the boards of the NPA and the port regulator be taken out of the public arena. The National Port Users Forum (NPUF) has voiced concern about clauses 15 and 32 but supports the other amendments “wholeheartedly”, according to chairman, Tony Norton, director of lawyers Garlicke & Bousfield. “With regard to clauses 3 and 4,” he said, “we are pleased that the excision of the NPA from Transnet is now in the hands of the Minister of Public Enterprises rather than left to Transnet to determine that process.” But referring to clauses 15 and 32, Norton comments: “We believe that the mechanism previously proposed would have provided for healthy public debate. Consequently, we do not support these changes.” Added to that, Norton suggested that it was now not clear how appointments to the regulator would be made in the event that the amendments to clause 32 are effected. “We would suggest that a similar six-year appointment limit apply in respect of those appointed to the regulator as applies to the board of the NPA - but on a staggered basis to allow for continuity,” he told FTW. The remaining proposed amendments broadly deal with the port regulator and clarify and strengthen the rights of that body. “For all the reasons we have previously given,” said Norton, “we are entirely in support of the creation of a strong and interventionist regulator. “We particularly believe that it is important that the regulator be entitled and obliged to conduct ongoing investigations in the ports entirely of its own accord.” Traditionally, according to Norton, port users have been unwilling to initiate complaints where a relationship with the monopoly about which it complains is vital to its ongoing business. “An interventionist regulator,” he said, “will deal with this particular problem.” The forum also noted that the duties of the port regulator in some instances coincide with that of the Competition Commission. But, said Norton, any duplication in this respect can easily be dealt with in terms of section 30(3) of the NPA bill. “It is also hoped that in drafting any agreement with the Commission the interventionist role of the port regulator will prevail in either dealing with matters or bringing complaints to the attention of the Commission.” Finally, the forum assumes that any prices that are to be filed with the regulator would be treated as confidential information unless they constitute a public tariff. “We would appreciate this being made explicit in the legislation,” said Norton.