• The post you are reporting:
   
  Those of us who founded the DPPT and designed the proposed future structure of the port don't regard our proposal as a privatisation but a mutualisation for the benefit of the community. A long time before the election Charlie asked both Neil and me independently to come up with ideas for a plan B in case it looked impossible to head off DHB's privatisation plans. We both came up with similar concepts. Neil's ideas focused primarily on the governance and organisation while mine focused mainly on the corporate structure and financing.
  
  All of us felt originally that, in theory at least, the trust port model worked perfectly well and was worth preserving. But the way the Ports Act is written means that even if DHB's present proposal was knocked back, there is no way to stop the present management or their successors having another go in a few years time. So we were looking for a solution that took the port 1. out of the political arena 2. away from the risk of being asset-stripped by a ruthless commercial owner and 3. and most importantly into the control of the community and other port stakeholders.
  
  Ironically we now see the asset-stripping being carried out by the very people charged with the stewardship of the port, supposedly in the public interest.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason