Our
purpose here today is to pass this bill and create the legislation
necessary to facilitate the holding of Cayman’s first
people-initiated referendum. Mr. Speaker, before I talk about the
legislation itself, I hope the House will allow me just to reflect a
little on the history and the process that has brought us to this
point.

Mr.
Speaker, I know you do not need to be reminded that in your party’s
2013 Manifesto you and your colleagues campaigned on providing the
country with a cruise and enhanced cargo port facility. And again in
2017 your party Manifesto had again on its platform finding a
solution for cargo and cruise.

The
Progressives in our 2013 Manifesto campaigned on providing cruise
berthing and during the last term, we began the work to provide the
country with a much-needed cruise berthing and enhanced cargo port.
In 2017 our Manifesto promised that we would continue the projects we
started the previous term, including the cruise berthing and cargo
port project. So Mr. Speaker, for at least the past two election
cycles the majority of us who make up the Unity Government supported
a cruise berthing and cargo improvement port project.

I
pause here to point out that in 2013, three members now sitting
opposite were part of the Progressives slate of candidates. They
were the Member for Savannah; the Member for Newlands; and the Member
for George Town Central. Indeed their smiling faces appear on the
cover of the Progressive’s 2013 Manifesto, which I would like to
now lay on the table of this Honourable House. For completeness Mr.
Speaker I also lay on the table a copy of the Progressives 2017
Manifesto.

Mr.
Speaker everyone in this House, and indeed the wider public, are well
aware that a cruise berthing facility has been talked about for more
than 20 years. Certainly, every Government elected since 2000 has had
promises of a cruise port in their election manifesto or as part of
their delivery plans.

When
the last Government that I led took office in 2013 we set out on a
complex process that we knew was necessary to get the port project to
the finish line. Two years later, in September 2015, I advised the
country that whilst the Cabinet would be m making a formal decision
in the coming weeks, I was able to state then that the Government had
done the work necessary and carefully considered the information
before us and was convinced on the merits of building a cruise
berthing and enhanced cargo port.

On
the 28th
 October, 2015, four years ago to the very day Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Premier and I announced to the country at a press conference
that the Cabinet had considered the various professional reports on
the project and had agreed to move the cruise berthing and enhanced
cargo port project forward. This included progressing the work to
devise a workable financing model. Throughout we have followed a
rigorous process that included independent legal and accounting
experts, engaged the major cruise lines, and satisfied the United
Kingdom Government as well as local Government officials. This is not
some ‘Johnny-come-lately’ project Mr. Speaker that we have pulled
out of our back pocket. This is the result of years of hard work by
the best professionals available and that rigorous process has been
carried through to the selection of the preferred bidder Verdant Isle
and the extraordinary professionals that they have working with them.

That
is, in brief, the history of the project, Mr. Speaker. But despite
all that we have done there are a number of people who do not agree
with the project and have been able to obtain the required number of
signatures to trigger a people-initiated referendum to decide the
future of the cruise and cargo port.

And
that brings us to the process that we are here today to debate.

A
people-initiated referendum is provided for under Section 70 of the
Cayman Islands Constitution Order, 2009. That provision is not there
by accident, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will recall that I and my
Progressive colleagues campaigned hard for its inclusion and I
believe it is an important democratic safeguard within our governance
arrangements. Creating a power that allows voters to call a
referendum in this way means that no government is able to exercise
unfettered authority without any check between our four-yearly
elections. This is particularly important should voters become
concerned that a Government is acting recklessly or carrying out
major initiatives that are controversial and were not part of its
election platform.

That
said, the referendum power cannot be a vehicle for special interests
to seek to over-ride the results of free and fair elections.
Therefore, the power to trigger and to pass a binding
people-initiated referendum is rightly subject to high thresholds.
If government’s ability to carry on its business is subject to
check by “the will of the people” then we must be sure that it is
truly the will of the people that is being demonstrated.

The
threshold that petitions for a people-initiated referendum have to
reach in Cayman is 25% of registered electors - and that is a high
bar indeed. As it should be. Which is why the verification process
was necessary to confirm beyond doubt that, in this case, the
required threshold had been reached. Once again in this House, I
would like to thank the Supervisor of Elections and his staff for the
efficient and effective way in which they went about verifying that
the necessary signatures had indeed been collected from registered
electors. I had no doubt that it could be done despite the
accusations and fear-mongering of the opponents to the port project –
but they were proven wrong Mr. Speaker. The process was done in a
timely manner and the Government moved swiftly to set the referendum
question and date as we promised the country that we would.

I
recognize that the collection of over 5,000 signatures on any
petition is the product of a lot of hard work and perseverance by a
great many people. As a politician, I admire and welcome
good-spirited political activism. In the long run, our democracy is
stronger if more people engage in the political process. Despite
reports to the contrary, I have no argument with the principle of
utilising the referendum process to challenge the government’s
plans.

However,
I think we can all agree that this referendum process has not been
without its challenges for all sides involved. And so I believe this
House should return to the issue of how the people-initiated
referendum provision in the Constitution should operate once this
experience is behind us - but those are practical issues; not points
of principle.

For
those who falsely claim that I and the Government deliberately
omitted passing a Referendum Law, I can tell this House and everyone
outside of it that I join the voices of those who say they wish that
one was in place. For if it was, Mr. Speaker, a Referendum Law would
not have allowed any group to take a year or more to gather the
signatures required for a referendum. Nor would it likely have
allowed a referendum to be called against an important national
project that was part of an election campaign and has been ongoing
for over five years, and where millions of dollars from the public
purse had already been spent – particularly where nothing
fundamental has changed during the course of the project. My point is
that if we did have a Referendum Law in place, Mr. Speaker, it is
unlikely that we would be having this debate here today.

Interestingly,
Mr. Speaker, there is no requirement in the Constitution or elsewhere
for any campaign behind a petition for a referendum to be based on
truth. Nor is there any requirement to keep vested interests,
including commercial interests, from being involved in such a
campaign. Nor is there anything to prevent the government’s
opponents from using a petition as a vehicle for their wider
opposition to the government’s agenda.

Certainly,
during their campaign, the leadership of the CPR group has utilised
all manner of scare tactics and misinformation to persuade people to
sign the petition for a referendum. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in my view
the leadership was disingenuous when they told the public that their
goal was not to stop the port, rather they merely wanted more
information on the project. Their real aim as everyone in the House
knows full well, was to get enough people to sign their petition by
fair means or foul with the hope to derail the project. And they were
ably assisted by an online blog and a radio talk show.

Mr.
Speaker, now that they have obtained those signatures we can see
their true stripes emerge as they now actively campaign to stop the
port project; even as we are finally in a position to provide the
information they claim they need. They understood Mr. Speaker that a
people-initiated referendum is a numbers game and, in this case, the
campaign has done what it thought it needed to do to achieve the
numbers required for one to be called. And I and the Government
accept that.

In
response, and acting in good faith, the government has therefore
moved as quickly as possible to bring forward the Bill before the
House today. But the Government acting in good faith should be no
surprise Mr. Speaker – we have at all times ensured that we have
not only acted legally but in good faith. The Country will recall Mr.
Speaker that when we announced the preferred bidder back in July that
I gave an undertaking on behalf of Government that we would not move
to finalise a contract with Verdant Isle in order to allow sufficient
time for the Referendum process to come to a conclusion. And even as
we head to the requested referendum the leadership of the CPR group
have moved from one complaint to another to seek to either delay the
referendum or have the government change the rules in the
Constitution and in the election law that govern the process for a
binding people-initiated referendum so as to improve their position
for success and to derail the port project.

This
morning the Compass published a letter from an individual who signed
as Francis Ebanks. I will read the letter because I find it very
instructive.

Permit
me a few lines in your paper to share my views on the debate about
the referendum on the port.

I’ve
heard campaigners opposed to the project, those who clamoured to let
the public decide the fate of the project, now complaining that
government has respected the wishes of the people and set the
referendum date.

First,
they complained that it was taking too long to verify the signatures.
They wanted this process rushed through.

They
then complained that government might drag their feet on setting a
date. Referendum Day has been set for the earliest government has
found feasible, especially with having to return to the Legislative
Assembly to formalise the process. Now, these campaigners, along with
opportunistic Opposition MLAs, are saying it is set for the worst
possible date.

They
previously complained about dredging and government took that into
consideration and revised the plans to ensure there would be as
little dredging as possible. Yet, their complaining continues.

I
am puzzled why many of these people are opposed to a project that
will bring considerable economic benefits to Cayman. They call
themselves campaigners, but I think they’re more aptly called
complainers because every step along the way, they have found
something to complain about.

Perhaps
it is the public who should be complaining about the undue concern
these campaigners caused by claiming China Harbour had the deal at a
cost of $300 million-$400 million. The country was in near uproar.
When the truth was announced, Verdant Isle turned out to be building
the dock and cargo port for $200 million.

Wild
campaign claims and propaganda will not fool me anymore. My source
for information will now be the government.

I
can’t wait for the referendum to be over so we can move forward and
have a modern port that will keep food on the table of countless
working-class Caymanian families. However, I will not be surprised if
on 20 Dec. they find something new to complain, oops, I mean
campaign, about.

The
CPR will not succeed Mr. Speaker not even with their most recent
tactic of obtaining a legal opinion on a variety of issues to do with
the referendum. I will repeat here what I have told the media - the
government has also taken legal advice on the conduct of this matter
from our customary noted constitutional counsel in London and we are
more than satisfied that the process being followed is fair and
proper and constitutional in every respect.  

I
will say again that what is becoming increasingly clear, 
however, is that the CPR leadership and their financial backers are
not really interested in holding a referendum,  presumably
because they think they will lose, but are simply intent on derailing
the cruise port and cargo port project by any means possible,
including frustrating it by delay. 

The
Government will not allow that to occur. If the CPR leadership
and their financial backers (and perhaps the real leaders of the CPR
campaign) really believe they have a legitimate challenge to the
process being followed by the Government, they should
immediately apply to the court for leave for judicial review and have
the matter adjudicated by the court rather than debated in the media.

To
further demonstrate the real purpose of the port opponents Mr.
Speaker I note that even before the petition had been received by
Cabinet, there was public speculation by the opponents to the port
that the government would do all in its power to avoid a public vote.
They said we would ignore the petition and declare that the project
did not rise to the level of being an issue of national importance as
required by Section 70 of the Constitution. Yet again this was
proven untrue. Indeed the government has always maintained that the
project to deliver new cruise berthing facilities and enhanced cargo
facilities is essential for Cayman’s future. The project is and
has always been, an issue of national importance and that is
confirmed in Section 4(1) of the Bill before the House today.

Section
4(2) of the Bill goes on to set out the question that will be put to
the people in the referendum. Again, prior to the publication of the
question, there were all sorts of conspiracy theories being
circulated that the government would introduce a biased question. At
no point, Mr. Speaker was there ever any discussion within government
to create a biased question. Quite the opposite. As I said when the
question was published, we have bent over backwards to ensure that
the question is as fairly worded as it can be. We have drawn as far
as we could on the intent of the petition and the campaign behind it
and we have developed the wording in accordance with very clear
principles. As a result, the wording of the question as far as
possible accords with the position of the Council of Europe’s
Commission for Democracy Through Law in its Code of Good Practice on
Referendums, last revised in October 2018. The Code has been accepted
by 47 European democracies and thus provided an appropriate yardstick
by which Cabinet could consider the question.

Mr.
Speaker, from the inception this project has been envisioned,
planned, designed, financed, and put forward in the Request for
Proposals as an integrated cruise berthing and enhanced cargo port
facility. That cannot be factually disputed. A vote for or against
one part of the project is a vote for or against the other. But
again, rather than accepting what is fact, the CPR leadership is
misleading the public into believing that the projects are separate.
And so they are objecting to the inclusion of the planned enhancement
of the cargo port facility within the question. Members of the CPR
group and some members of the opposition argue that the petition was
about cruise berthing, not the cargo enhancements and that therefore
the referendum question should only relate to cruise berthing.

Let
me then deal now with that objection. There are reasons of principle
why the objection cannot stand and reasons of practicality. The
principle is this: Just as the government has striven to ensure the
question is fair to opponents of the port development, it must also
be fair to the project’s supporters. This has always been a single
project in which the two elements would be taken forward together. I
am aware that some Caymanians are convinced of the need for enhanced
cargo facilities and see the cruise berths as necessary to fund those
enhancements. Their support for cruise berthing is therefore
dependent upon and cannot be separated from the cargo elements.

From
its inception, as I have said often, this has been an integrated
project and the procurement was begun and has proceeded on the basis
that the successful bidder would deliver both the cruise berthing the
tourism industry needs and the cargo port enhancements that the whole
country needs. The two things cannot now be disentangled. They are
indivisible.

This
leads us to the practical problems. While I disagree, as I will
detail later, our opponents believe that the government is not
putting enough information before the people to allow them to decide
this issue. What information could we put forward solely on cruise
berthing? There is none. Just as an obvious example, there is no
disaggregated financing model to show how the costs would be met and
there is no design we can show people of just a cruise facility. In
any case, that does not make sense as no-one (I don’t think) is
advocating that the cruise berthing should go ahead without any cargo
enhancement.

Some
people believe the cargo facilities should be moved but similarly,
that is not an available option either. Nor, if the question just
dealt with cruise berthing, could we answer people’s very obvious
questions about how the necessary cargo enhancements will proceed
without the cruise berthing going ahead.

This
is a single, integrated project and always has been. It is
disingenuous in the extreme to suggest otherwise at this stage. So,
Mr. Speaker, it is entirely appropriate that the referendum question
includes both the cruise and cargo elements. The voters, in
deciding the fate of the project must know what is at stake when
their vote is cast.

The
referendum question set out in Section 4(2) of the bill conforms to
the set of common sense and natural justice principles that Cabinet
agreed to test it against. The question is clear and simple; it gets
to the point of the issue at hand; it is unambiguous and definitive
including in terms of the consequences of the vote, and it is
neutral. Those who criticize should bear in mind that neutrality
means being fair to both
sides.

The
other issue dealt with in Section 4 of the Bill is the restatement of
the requirement, set out in the Constitution, that the votes of more
than 50% of registered electors are needed for the referendum result
to be binding on the government. Perhaps I should not be surprised
but the government has come under fire even for this. So, at the
risk of repeating myself, the requirement to achieve over 50% of
electors for the result to be binding mirrors Section 70(3) of the
Constitution. It has not simply been dreamt up by the Government.

Those
who accept the Constitutional realities sometimes go on to argue that
we should amend the Constitution to drop that provision and make the
referendum a straight majority vote. Leave aside first, the intent
behind the Constitutional provision. Leave aside second, the need for
due process to amend the Constitution. Leave aside that it is not in
our power to amend the Constitution. Instead, just imagine changing
the rules right as the referendum is being legislated for. Suppose,
the government brought forward a change to increase the threshold to
60% or 70% of the electorate. Our opponents would rightly cry foul.
Everyone knew the rules when this process began. There is no
legitimacy in changing those rules now.

What
is even more bizarre is the charge that I am somehow using this
provision to thwart the requirements for a secret ballot and thereby
intimidating civil servants and others. The logic – if indeed you
can call it that – goes as follows. I have supposedly told voters
that if they support the cruise berthing and cargo project they
should simply stay at home. This means - again following their logic
- that only “no” voters will turn out at the polls. The
government will, therefore, know who voted and that they voted no.
And by extension, if civil servants turn out to vote no they will be
identified as such and subject to victimization.

This
is an argument that is based on a false premise; its tortured
reasoning is nonsensical; and it reaches a totally invalid
conclusion. I would have thought better even of the self-appointed
brains trust that concocted this nonsense live on a radio talk show.
And to hear this paranoia repeated on the radio by some of my
colleagues who sit opposite is even more remarkable.

First,
I have not told supporters to stay away from the polls. What I have
done is explain to the country the consequences of staying at home if
that is what they chose to do. The onus to stop the country moving
forward with building the cruise berthing and enhanced cargo
facilities we need rests with those who have brought the referendum
and who need to meet the 50%+1 target to make the referendum binding.
This is Cayman’s first people-initiated referendum and all
involved have a duty to explain to the public how it works. No doubt
if I had not talked about it, I would have been accused of trying to
hide this from voters. Again, so we are clear, I welcome support at
the polls from those who want to come out and show their backing for
this much-needed development.

Even
if I had advised people to stay at home, why do these particular
conspiracy theorists imagine that everyone would simply obey my
command? It might on occasion be tempting to wish that I could
simply utter a few words and everybody would fall in line but that is
just not a reality. Whatever I say, many, many Caymanians will want
to lend their active support to this project. They are as tired as I
am of the disinformation being peddled by the opponents of the port
and they look forward to the opportunity to register their wish to
secure the future of our cruise tourism industry and get access to
more and cheaper cargo. Therefore, whatever I say, there will be a
sizeable yes vote on 19th.
December. The secrecy of ballots will be maintained.

Finally,
even if the premise were not false and the reasoning was not as
flawed as it is, neither I nor anyone else in the government has any
interest in victimizing any civil servant (or indeed anyone else) who
votes no at the referendum. There is absolutely no evidence to the
contrary. We heard time and again during the referendum campaign
that any civil servants who signed the petition risked victimization
but we have heard no complaints from anyone who has been so
victimized. Nor will we. Civil servants are perfectly free to vote
their conscience at the referendum without any fear of any action by
any government that I lead.

Next,
Mr. Speaker, I want to address an issue that is not found on the face
of the Bill itself – that is the date chosen for the referendum.
The House will be aware that earlier this month the government
proposed 19th December as the referendum date.

This
has been the subject of considerable conjecture since it was
announced. That is despite the fact that I have said for some time
that if the referendum petition reached the required threshold, the
Government would then move to call the referendum as quickly as
possible.  This was in response to suggestions from the CPR that
the Government would seek to avoid or delay the vote.  Whatever
date is chosen, some people may be away.  That is why there are
arrangements in place that allow every registered elector to cast
their vote by other means if they cannot do so in person. 
Anyone who wants to vote can do so whatever date is chosen. 
There is no reason to delay.

The
argument being made against this date is a somewhat strange one.
Throughout the year or more it took to gather signatures for the
referendum, we constantly heard that there was deep-seated opposition
to this project and that voters were demanding to have their say. At
every turn, campaigners expressed their confidence that if only they
were given the opportunity then voters would come out in their droves
to vote against the port and that they would do so in numbers
sufficient to reach the 50%+1 threshold for the result to be binding.

Now
the argument apparently goes that so weak is the level of opposition
to the port that people will be put off voting simply because the
vote is happening six days before Christmas. Which is it? If the
“no” campaign is confident in its case, why do they believe that
the date will make the difference? For, in reality, there is no
impediment to voting whatever date is chosen. Anyone who is not able
to vote in person can apply for a postal ballot as is always the case
in Cayman.

If
any vote is likely to be suppressed by the choice of the date it is
the “yes” vote. I understand that (whatever I say) some voters
who support the project may not bother to vote, especially if they
are off-Island for example. They may feel that they can do so safely
because of the 50%+1 threshold. I accept, therefore, that the final
result is likely to understate the real level of support for the port
development project.

While
I am on the subject, the same applies to arguments about the sale of
alcohol at licensed premises on the day of the vote. We have heard
arguments that again this will suppress the “no” vote. Do our
opponents have so little confidence in their supporters that they
think that faced with a choice on the day they will decide to sit in
a bar rather than turn out and vote down a government project that we
are told they passionately believe will do harm to Cayman’s long
term interests?

The
reality is that many people and offices will already have booked
Christmas parties and luncheons for that day and we do not want to
disrupt those arrangements nor indeed stop tourists spending their
money here in the busy pre-Christmas period. That is why the bars
and restaurants will remain open. It is not some ploy to distract
weak-willed “no” voters as is suggested. Our opponents really
should have more confidence in Caymanians. If they truly believe the
arguments put forward against the port, they will vote “no”.
Either our opponents lack that confidence in their supporters or they
lack confidence in their own case. I am tempted to think it is the
latter and that all these arguments about the date are simply a
smokescreen to excuse their eventual failure to get the numbers they
need.

There
is one other consequence of the choice of the date that has also been
controversial. Section 5 of the Bill before this House in and of
itself is uncontroversial. It simply states that those entitled to
vote in the referendum will be those registered to vote on the date
of the referendum. In this case that means those registered to vote
on 19th December will be entitled to vote and in practice that in
turn means that it will be those electors on the official register as
at 1st
October 2019.

The
suggestion is, I believe, that the legislation should be changed to
allow the 1 January register to be brought in two weeks early and to
allow some 220 persons to vote who are on that revised register.
Again, I find this extraordinary. Why should the rules be changed?
The argument is that the government is trying to exclude these new
voters because we fear they will vote “no”. If that were true,
it must conversely mean that those opposed to the port are seeking to
get the rules changed because it would advantage them. Once again,
imagine if the government were to do that. Suppose we had been on a
“sign up to vote” campaign to get supporters of the port to
register and were now looking to bring forward the use of that
revised register.

The
fact is that on the date of any given election or referendum, we have
to use the electoral register as at that date. If we do anything
else that would constitute a form of gerrymandering. As is always
the case, if you draw a line as at a date, some people find
themselves excluded by that line. That is just the way it is.

The
government has nothing to fear nor indeed anything to gain from
having 200 or so more or fewer voters eligible to vote. We do not
believe our opponents have sufficient support to reach the 50%+1
threshold with or without those new voters. We are not excluding
them for some Machiavellian purpose. Rather they are not eligible
under the rules that we consistently apply in the Cayman Islands.
Seeking to change the law for the advantage of one side or another,
be that real or perceived, would be the real anti-democratic thing to
do.

Mr.
Speaker, just as I come to believe that I have heard all the
complaints from the opponents to the port there is yet another
controversy that they are creating. The Bill, Mr. Speaker, calls for
the ballot papers from all the electoral districts to be taken to a
central location and “mixed together for the purpose of counting.”
In other words Mr. Speaker the count of votes will be considered a
national vote and not an electoral district vote.

The
opponents, including some in the official opposition, cry foul
because they say they will not know how their own constituencies
voted. Mr. Speaker this is not some opinion poll being carried out
for the convenience of the Member for Bodden Town West or George Town
Central to provide data for later use or to help them in the next
election campaign. This exercise is a referendum on a matter of
national importance and it should be treated as such. The referendum
is where a national decision will be made and what is important is
the view of the country as whole – not individual electoral
districts. In 2009 when we voted in our very first referendum as to
whether to support the 2009 Constitution Order, that count was done
in the same way – the ballots were mixed and a single count was
done to determine the outcome. That was done efficiently even though
the Elections Office was also carrying on the count for the general
elections that were held the same day as the referendum. That was a
national count for a matter of national importance.

This
referendum, too, Mr. Speaker is one of national importance and will
have a national count.

In
short, Mr. Speaker, the government has put before the House a Bill
that deals in a straight-forward way with the need to get on and meet
the demands placed upon us by 25% of registered electors that we hold
a referendum. The question to be used conforms to all good practice
and is fair to both sides. It recognises that there is only one
project that can reasonably be subject to a popular vote - and that
is to move forward with building the country’s cruise and cargo
port improvements together as has always been envisaged. We have
chosen a date to expedite the speedy resolution of this referendum
issue that has been ongoing for well over a year. And we have
determined that the count should be a national count in line with the
nature of the referendum itself. The rest of the arrangements under
the Bill are consistent with the normal democratic arrangements of
the Cayman Islands.

At
this point, I would notify you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of the
House that there will be some tidying up amendments that we need to
consider at Committee stage. These will be introduced in due course.
However, we have heard opponents of the port arguing for more
substantive amendments to the Bill. We may hear those arguments
repeated from the Opposition benches today Mr. Speaker. Those
arguments amount to an attempt to rewrite the question in what they
believe is their own interest or to alter the normal arrangements for
voting in Cayman, presumably for the same reason. We have those
standing arrangements about how we conduct public votes for a reason
and that is precisely to stop the kind of manipulation of who is or
who is not eligible to vote that our opponents are proposing. This
is Cayman’s first people-initiated referendum and it must be held
in a fair and democratic manner. This Bill will achieve that
objective.

However,
it is not just for the sake of our democracy that this is important.
The process and conduct of the referendum are significant concerns
but it is the underlying issue to be decided that the nation should
now focus upon.

On
19th
December, Caymanians are being asked to decide on the future
direction that this country will take. Opponents of the port project
seek to portray this as a simple choice. At heart, their argument is
that the development of a new cruise berthing facility and enhanced
cargo provision will cause irreparable environmental damage. There
are subsequent issues but this is the matter of principle at stake
for the port’s opponents. I have said in this House before that
this is a principled position, which I can understand and which I
respect.

It
is not though a position that any responsible government can take.
Like most Caymanians, we in this government believe that in
considering the port project, as in considering other forms of
development, there is a balance to be struck between economic and
environmental issues. There is no right answer to how to strike that
balance, no formula to follow that yields an unambiguous solution.
In the end, it is a matter of weighing the evidence and making a
judgment.

In
initiating this project, that is what the previous Administration I
led did. We assembled a business case and carried out an
environmental impact assessment in order to inform us but in the end
it was our political judgment that the economic benefits were so
significant that they outweighed the potential environmental impact
of the project. What the referendum is doing is asking Caymanians now
to repeat that process and to exercise their own judgment. Just like
the government has done, voters need to weigh the evidence and make
their decision.

Again,
our opponents have tried to muddy the waters here. We hear repeated
claims that either government is hiding things or that it is seeking
to mislead people. The claim is that there is not enough information
for people to make an informed decision.

In
reality, there is more than enough information available. What I do
accept is that some of it is relatively inaccessible and that it is
spread across too many different documents. For that reason, the
government will be producing an information booklet that will bring
together into one place all the key information about this project.
We will be making the booklets as widely available as we can in the
run-up to the referendum.

To
be clear, the booklet will be a presentation of the government’s
case. I do not claim it will seek to present our opponents’ case
for them and nor should it. This is a referendum about the delivery
of one of this government’s key policy objectives. Explaining
government policy is one of the responsibilities of government and
promoting and defending a project we believe is necessary for the
future wellbeing and prosperity of the Cayman Islands is something
for which we make no apology.

However,
setting out our case does not mean that we will in any way be
untruthful. We are happy to set out the facts and to explain why we
believe the project should move forward based on those facts.

The
case for moving forward with building the cruise berthing and
enhanced cargo facility is overwhelming. Consider first the economic
case. Looking ahead, there is no status quo. Either Cayman’s
cruise tourism industry continues to grow with the benefit of the new
berthing facilities or we face the very real risk of its gradual but
inexorable decline. Either we protect and grow the jobs and
businesses of Caymanians who depend on cruise visitors or we face
those jobs being lost and those businesses failing.

The
approach we have adopted in moving forward the port project not only
guarantees that the new berthing facilities get built. It guarantees
that they get used, not just by the two major companies who are
partners in the project but by other cruise lines as well. Put
simply, without a throughput of passengers the Verdant Isle partners,
including the two cruise lines, do not get their investment back. It
is in their interests to bring their passengers to Cayman and to
maximize the use of the berths throughout the week and in low season
as well as high.

Without
the new facilities, Cayman will increasingly be at the mercy of
market forces that are likely to result in declining cruise visitor
numbers. This will not happen overnight but the impact will be real
and in the medium term will have a significant effect on Caymanian
jobs and in Cayman’s wider economy.

In
the last couple of years, Cayman has delivered strong positive
performance in terms of cruise visitor arrivals. Our opponents
suggested this demonstrated that our assumptions in the outline
business case were flawed and our views on the likely decline of the
industry were merely scaremongering. When it was recently reported
in the press that cruise visitor numbers for the first 6 months of
this year were down just over 5%, I did not hear anyone rushing to
defend our opponents’ previous position. Worryingly, the numbers
continue to decline. The first 6 months were buoyed by January 2019
being the best month on record. But if we look at the most recent 6
months for which data is available (March through August 2019), our
cruise visitor numbers are down 12.3% compared to the same period
last year.

This
is in large part due to a correction in the market as other
destinations that were hit by hurricanes have been able to welcome
back cruise visitors. We must be thankful for that in many ways but
the impact on Cayman is real. The future of the cruise industry is
about bigger ships and more passengers. Those ships are already
passing Cayman by. The impracticality of tendering passengers in
those numbers particularly when they would have to queue for hours in
the Cayman Sun to return to their ships means Cayman would no longer
be attractive for many cruise itineraries.

As
well as that long term benefit, the short term job creation
associated with the construction of the new port will be significant.
I said some months ago when I introduced the SPS in this House, that
all the indications are of a slow-down in the global economy in the
next year or so. The port construction jobs will help shield Cayman’s
economy and Caymanian jobs from some of the potential impact of that
slowdown. The jobs are real and are available to Caymanians as anyone
who plans to visit the jobs fair scheduled for tomorrow by the
Verdant Isle partners will be able to confirm.

The
last economic benefit I want to highlight concerns the enhanced cargo
facilities. We have to accept that our current port is too small, too
cramped and too inefficient. It can barely meet the needs of the
country now and if Cayman continues to prosper and grow, as this
government certainly intends it should, we need better cargo handling
facilities.

This
project delivers Cayman’s much-needed cargo port enhancement and
creates the capacity we need to see us through the next 15 years or
so of sustained growth. There will be an increase of almost 30% in
the useable cargo space. The
current lack of space causes delays on the vessel operations and the
availability of the containers for the retailers and other importers
in Cayman. The addition of a 3rd
small berth for smaller ships and barges hauling the likes of
aggregate and cement will be a significant improvement, which will
allow operations of another vessel that cannot be done at this time.
Moving that berth out of the way of container operations allows for
the simultaneous operations of container vessel and bulk cargo.The
improvements will mean that the port can use new specialist cargo
cranes rather than the inefficient converted construction cranes it
uses now. Taken together, these improvements will improve the
efficiency of cargo handling at the port and will help to reduce
shipping costs for importers.

The
cargo improvements, if done on their own, would cost tens of millions
of dollars. If the Port Authority had to finance the costs
themselves, the only way it could do it would be to increase docking
and handling charges, which in turn would increase the costs of
imported goods. There is no viable ‘do nothing strategy’ for the
cargo port. The throughput demand that we put upon it has outgrown
the ability of the port to meet our needs. That position will only
worsen as the port ages further and our demand for imported goods
continues to increase. Enhancements to the cargo port are badly
needed. Our choice is to move forward with the overall redevelopment
project funded by Verdant Isle or to try to fund and build
stand-alone cargo handling improvements. If we move forward with the
planned project, we can achieve efficiencies to help to reduce import
costs but if we try to finance a stand-alone cargo project then
inevitably the costs will be added to the prices of imported goods.
The cost of living in Cayman will go up.

If
Central Government is asked to fund a stand-alone cargo dock then it
would be by taking money from some other capital project. Which one
should we take it from Mr. Speaker – Our school plant improvements?
The John Gray High School? The just started mental health facility?
Our road works programme? Which project should we sacrifice or
slowdown to be able to make a start at paying for a larger cargo port
facility? No, Mr. Speaker, that is not really a solution my
Government or the public would accept. Neither would we entertain any
new borrowing for this. The arrangement for additional cargo space
coupled with cruise berthing that is funded by Verdant Isle partners
and repaid from cruise ship passenger fees is an excellent
arrangement, Mr. Speaker.

I
have summarized the economic benefits of this project and in due
course I will turn my attention to the costs.

But
before I do that I wll address the environmental impact of the
projects. I will start with this: Despite the oft-repeated claims of
opponents of the port development, there is no impact on Seven Mile
Beach.

All
of the scientific evidence compiled for the environmental impact
assessment demonstrates that fact quite clearly. Put simply, sand on
Seven Mile Beach comes from the northwest and that flow is
undisturbed and will be undisturbed by the redeveloped port
infrastructure. After exhaustive scientific modeling of the tides,
wind, wave climate and associated sediment transportation processes
that operate along that whole coastal stretch, the conclusion in the
Environmental Statement produced by Baird & Associates in 2015 is
clear and inescapable:

Quote
-
“There is no apparent sediment transport linkage between George
Town Harbour and Seven Mile Beach; therefore, the
proposed project is not expected to have any impact on Seven Mile
Beach.
Fluctuations in the beach width will continue but the proposed
project will not cause any changes in the erosion or deposition
patterns along Seven Mile Beach.” End
quote

Opponents
of the project are usually keen to talk about the conclusions of the
Environmental Impact Assessment but for some reason, this one,
perhaps one of the most important in the whole study, is the one they
chose to ignore. Actually, it is not just a matter of ignoring this
evidence, they seek to deny the science through a mix of anecdote and
assertion. I say to the country, do
not be misled.
The EIA is available, go and look at the evidence for yourself. You
will see the rigour of the model, which allows testing of every
combination of weather and sea conditions that has hit Cayman for
decades. You will see the clarity of the report’s conclusions as I
have just quoted them. Please ask those who assert that Seven Mile
Beach will somehow get denuded of sand because of the port
development to show you the detailed science behind that claim. My
only advice to you is not to hold your breath while you wait for them
to produce any relevant scientific data to support their wild
assertions.

But
Mr. Speaker, whilst the opponents of the project do not seem willing
to accept the science that indicates that Seven Mile Beach will be
safe, I am pleased to advise this Honourable House that,
significantly, the Environmental Assessment Board has accepted the
findings and endorsed the scientific methodology followed by Baird &
Associates. The Environmental Assessment Board noted in its report
on Baird’s Environmental Statement that it found the data
collection and results outlined by Baird to be robust given the
timeline for completion of the EIA. In referencing Seven Mile Beach
specifically, the Environmental Assessment Board report states that:

Quote
“we
note the conclusions in the Environmental Statement that no large
scale changes to the prevailing sediment transport patterns will
arise as a result of the project. The EAB is satisfied that the
results of the sediment transport modeling confirm/verify previously
understood mechanisms for sediment transport regimes between George
Town Harbour and Seven Mile Beach.” End
quote

This
information has been said many times Mr. Speaker but has been
deliberately ignored. I hope that after today we will no longer have
people and organisations who should know better continuing the
narrative that Seven Mile Beach is at risk by this project.

Leaving
aside the more fanciful claims; however, the Government does accept
that there will be important environmental impacts to the close-by
marine environment. Most significant is any potential degradation
that may be caused by dredging to the coral in the area of the
redeveloped port.

The
Environmental Impact Assessment, which was completed in 2015,
estimated the extent of the potential impact but it also considered
how that impact might be mitigated. Before I talk about mitigation;
however, I want to emphasise the work that has gone on since then to
reduce the likely environmental impact. In response to concerns in
our community, raised after the publication of the EIA, I gave a
commitment that as we progressed this much-needed project, the
government would take the opportunity to find ways to reduce the
potential damage. The procurement approach that we have taken means
that the contractor is responsible for designing the new facilities
so we challenged the bidders to come back to us with designs that
fulfilled the government’s pledge to the country.

I
am delighted that they have been able to do so. The designs were made
public a couple of weeks ago so people can see for themselves but the
headline changes from the original proposals are that the cruise
berths themselves have been completely redesigned and the cargo
enhancements have been scaled back. Recognising the concerns over
dredging in particular, the redesign moves the piers to deeper water.
As a consequence, the footprint of the new port design requires 30%
less dredging than the original design and eliminates completely the
need for any dredging in Hog Sty Bay. In fact Mr. Speaker, despite
stated concerns about the impact of the project on Eden Rock, I am
advised that the reefs in that location are approximately two
football fields away from the marine work by the dock and are
extremely unlikely to be impacted at all by the dredging.

Even
with the significant improvements in the design, there will be areas
where coral will be impacted by the new facilities. Here is the role
for mitigation. It is not possible to move the dredging so that it
avoids the coral completely but it is possible to move coral so that
it can thrive in areas well away from the working of the new port.

Perhaps
surprisingly, this too has become an area of controversy in the
project. Coral has been impacted in Cayman before, many times, not
least by damage caused by cruise ship anchors. Mr. Speaker, let me
remind the House of Cayman’s recent experience. There have been two
large-scale coral re-attachment cases in the recent past in West Bay
and Eden Rock. Shipping incidents dislodged and fractured large
sections of the limestone reef and damaged thousands of corals at
both sites. Polaris, Applied Sciences Inc., the proposed Verdant Isle
Coral Relocation Partner, restored both of these sites in 2016 and
2017. Coral fragments that are broken and disturbed by vessel
anchors and ship hulls should arguably have a lower survival rate
than those removed more carefully as will be case with the port
project yet monitoring studies have reported 89% survival of tagged
specimens in the West Bay site two years following the restoration
compared to 93% of unaffected coral colonies. Rather than joining
with us to ensure that environmental mitigation works effectively,
our opponents seem now just to want to decry those mitigation efforts
and tell us that they will not be successful. In my view, exactly
the same coral species, in the same vicinity, relocated by the same
teams provides the best evidence of likelihood of success for this
project.

This
is not to underestimate the challenges involved in carrying out a
coral relocation project at the scale envisaged in George Town
Harbour. It is clear that the proposed coral relocation will never
completely mitigate the ecological impacts of the port improvements.
However, the experiences both locally and elsewhere can help us as we
meet those challenges, drawing on the experience of what has worked,
and what has failed, here in Cayman and around the world. There is
every reason, as I have said, to be confident that the same experts
who have been so successful in relocating coral in Cayman previously
will be able to develop and implement an equally successful coral
relocation plan for this project. We should be confident that they
can achieve high survival rates and that they will help us to achieve
the plan’s aim of no net loss of biodiversity, which is in keeping
with the overall goal stated in the Cayman Islands National
Biodiversity Action Plan, 2009. Indeed the project will include a
coral nursery as part of its coral recovery plan so as to grow and
transplant coral onto local reefs that are being degraded.

The
last issue of substance for the decision on whether the country
should move forward with building new cruise berthing and enhanced
cargo facilities is the question of financing and affordability.

The
upfront costs of building the new cruise berths and the enhanced
cargo facilities amount to CI$200M. All of that will be paid for by
Verdant Isle, the successful bidder. There will be no government
cash contribution, no government borrowing or bonds and no government
guarantees. The entire cost and all the risk sits with Verdant Isle.

They
make their money back from the per passenger tax that is levied on
all cruise ships calling at Grand Cayman. Here comes the first piece
of misleading information about the finances put out by our
opponents. They calculate that the total income that Verdant Isle
will receive over their 25-year tenure will be $450M. I will not
quibble with that calculation so let’s just accept it. They then
express their indignation that a private sector entity will be
receiving $450M in income when the build cost is only $200M. The
$250M extra sounds like a massive profit flowing into the hands of
the business partners in the consortium.

The
first issue with it is that our opponents are conveniently forgetting
that the contract also requires Verdant Isle to maintain the new
facilities or the next 25 years. It is estimated that the
maintenance costs are likely to total around CI$75M in that period.
That reduces the surplus to $175M. That still sounds like an awful
lot of profit to make though, doesn’t it? Well, no actually.
$175M over 25 years equates to $7M per year. Against an up-front
capital investment of $200M, that equates to an annual return of just
3.5% - again this assumes that the $450M is correct. If the partners
in Verdant Isle were just looking to make money on an investment they
would do better just lending their money out on the markets – they
would get a better return.

Do
not forget as well that the CI$200M projected cost includes the vital
cargo port enhancements.

The
other issue raised by our opponents is that, they claim, the Cayman
people will be paying for the new facilities. The basis for that
claim is as follows. The amount of the passenger tax that Verdant
Isle will receive is mostly a replacement for the tender fees that
the cruise companies will no longer be paying. However, in order to
make the overall financial model work, the government is reducing the
amount per passenger it receives by a small amount. That is
absolutely true. The amount that was discussed previously by the
Ministry was US$2.32 per passenger. However, this amount was based on
the original design option that would cost some CI$229M. The option
that we have chosen Mr. Speaker is one that will cost just under
CI$200M – thus we do expect that the final per passenger cost, once
the final contract numbers are agreed, should be less than US$2.32
per passenger.

On
the basis of those facts our opponents have come to the conclusion
that Cayman is, therefore, losing out financially. That is totally
and factually incorrect.

What
we are giving up is income that we would not have unless the project
goes ahead. To understand this, remember the point I made at the
very beginning. If we build the new cruise berths the number of
passengers goes up. If we do not build the new berths the number of
visitors to these Islands will decline. Put very simply, the
Government’s total income is greater if the project goes ahead. It
will be greater than we get now and much greater than if we do not
build the new berths. The reason is that we are getting a slightly
lower amount per passenger but the increased number of passengers
means our total income goes up. Ask any Caymanian whether they would
rather sell 20 mangoes for $6 each or have 25 mangoes that they can
sell for $5 each. For the benefit of Members opposite, 20 mangos at
$6 each yield an income of $120, while 25 mangoes at $5each yield
$125. Would any Caymanian think that in the latter case they were
better off because their total income was higher or that they were
losing out by giving up one dollar per mango? If our opponents think
that 20 mangoes for $6 each is the better option I invite them to
come and buy their produce from my farm.

I
have heard it said that the financing sounds too good to be true.
Someone else builds Cayman the new cruise berths and enhanced cargo
facilities it needs. They are willing to fund the project entirely
themselves with no contribution or guarantee from the government. The
total income to government from passenger tax goes up. Throughout the
build and operation of the new facilities, the port stays the
property of the Cayman people and it will continue to be operated by
the Port Authority. There has to be a catch, right?

Wrong.
There is no catch. This has been achieved because my government has
been willing to go to the market positively and confidently,
negotiating from strength in order to secure the kind of solution
that has never been seen in the cruise industry before. Bidders were
willing to take part in the procurement on those terms because of the
strength of the Cayman offer to cruise visitors. Cruise passengers
enjoy coming to Cayman and they want to continue to do so. The only
barrier is the logistical one caused by the lack of berthing
facilities. The model is attractive to the two cruise companies that
anchor the consortium not because they will make money from the port
itself but because keeping Cayman on their schedules helps them to
sell cruises. That is where they make their money out of this.

Mr.
Speaker, I confess that in some ways this referendum can be seen to
be an unnecessary distraction. However, as I said earlier, I respect
the work that has gone into gathering the necessary signatures and a
referendum we will have.

In
some ways though, this is a fitting debate for our country to be
having. As a people, we need to decide the direction that our
Islands will take in the decades to come. In doing so, let us
reflect on what our people have achieved over the sixty years since
we first gained a measure of self-government with the granting of our
first written Constitution.

No
doubt there were people then saying that Cayman should remain ‘the
Islands that time forgot’. But there were others, Mr. Speaker, who
were not content to leave things the way they were. People who
wanted to improve the quality of life for Caymanians. They were
willing to put in place the legal frameworks that brought the first
banking and finance businesses to Cayman. They were willing to
balance some loss of environmental amenity to build our airport and
then, yes, our existing cargo port; to welcome hotel developers; and
to invest in the necessary infrastructure to allow these Islands to
grow.

Alongside
those pioneers, some now recognized as our National Heroes, the
Caymanian spirit of enterprise and entrepreneurship meant our people
founded and grew the businesses that could take advantage of the new
economic opportunities that presented themselves. Mr. Speaker, I
believe that spirit is still alive and thriving in these Islands. Our
people are not waiting for the government to come up with answers to
questions about where tourists will go and what will they do. The
government will play our part, but Caymanians will exploit the
opportunities and create the businesses that answer those questions
for themselves.

This
is what occurred after the wharf on the ironshore was converted into
a modern cargo dock facility in 1977. A cargo dock that has served us
well and has been expanded over the years, but that is again in need
of expansion.

But
Mr. Speaker, as you well know the George Town Port Project that was
opened in 1977 was controversial in its time. There were those who,
like some opponents today, lacked vision and did not appreciate the
need to modernise and improve our infrastructure.

Some
of that history Mr. Speaker was captured in a supplement published by
the Nor’wester Magazine on July 16th,
1977, to celebrate the completion of the George Town Port Project. I
ask the indulgence of the House Mr. Speaker to lay a copy of this
supplement on the table of the House and to recite a few words from
it that mention the comments made by Mr. Berkley Bush, who was the
ExCo member responsible for building the port, when he spoke at the
opening:

Quoting
from the article
- “In his speech Mr. Bush outlined the history leading up to the
construction of the port facility. Although he had been a central
figure with his drive, determination, and enthusiasm in getting the
port project started, he summed up the part he played by saying
‘There was a job to be done and someone had to do it and I just
happened to be that man.’

The
ceremony also gave Mr. Bush an obviously welcome opportunity to
answer his critics who had carped about the facility and its
positioning for many years. With obvious relish he pointed out to
those who had said it was utter stupidity to build in George Town
because of nor’westers, that the dock had survived two seasons of
nor’westers while under construction.

To
those who had pointed out that the Island had done alright with just
the ironshore during the boom period, and why therefore was a dock
facility needed, he wondered where the country would end up if such
prophets of doom were in the driver’s seat.

To
those who had said that he had lost his seat in the Legislative
Assembly because of his involvement with the dock and insistence that
it be in George Town, he replied in ringing tones that he would
rather have the dock facility, and have it in George Town, than
occupy every seat in the Legislative Assembly, representing people
who did not want the port.” - End
quote

Mr.
Speaker, I want to mention another recorded statement from that
supplement – that of Captain Charles Kirkconnell who spoke after
Mr. Berkley:

Quoting
from the article
- “Captain Charles also pointed out that a gateway to larger and
more up-to-date cargo ships had been opened and would link the
Islands with international terminals. This was bound to result in
savings to the consumer… The manner in which cargo was handled on
the old wharf had caused damage and losses to the imported goods,
which naturally forced prices to rise.” - End
quote

Mr.
Speaker, I thank God and we all should that we had representatives
like Berkley Bush and Charles Kirkconnell who had vision and
understood the need and benefit of vital infrastructure projects –
in this case a modern port facility that has benefitted the country
and our people hugely over the past 42 years. I do believe Mr.
Speaker that 40 years hence those who occupy these hallowed halls
will recognise that the building of this cruise berthing and enhanced
cargo port was similarly significant for the future development and
success of our Islands and our people. And Mr. Speaker, they may
undoubtedly state how glad they are that the prophets of doom had
failed to stop the project by way of this referendum.

The
question on the ballot paper in this referendum is about cruise
berthing and enhanced cargo facilities. The question for the country
is whether we still have the confidence in ourselves and in our
future to grasp the opportunities before us - the opportunities to
start new businesses; the opportunities to improve still further our
world-class Caymankind cruise tourism offer; and, yes, the
opportunity to show we can deliver a world-leading coral relocation
programme.

I
believe in a strong and prosperous future for Cayman. I believe in
opening the door to economic opportunity - not slamming the door on
the jobs of the hundreds of Caymanians whose livelihoods depend on
cruise visitors. Finally, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the majority
of Caymanians believe as I do. The referendum gives them the chance
to show their confidence in themselves and in a prosperous future.

The
choice facing the people of the Cayman Islands on 19th
December is a clear one. On the one hand, we can choose to move
forward with building our new cruise berthing and enhanced cargo port
facilities. If we do so, we guarantee that cruise ships will continue
to bring their visitors to Grand Cayman and in so doing we safeguard
existing jobs and create more employment and business opportunities
for Caymanians. The enhanced cargo facilities will mean that the
port can handle bigger ships and more cargo more efficiently and this
helps drive down the costs of all the goods we import. This
redevelopment of our tired and inefficient cargo port can only be
funded because it is being linked with our new cruise berths. Cayman
can choose to move forward with building our new cruise berthing and
enhanced cargo port facilities. We can and we should choose
prosperity.

On
the other hand, we could turn our backs on the redevelopment of our
port. As cruise ships grow in size, they will increasingly pass by
Cayman on their way to other destinations that have the facilities
needed to cope with their passengers. Visitor numbers in Cayman will
fall. Caymanians will lose their jobs and their businesses will fail.
We could try to make do with cargo facilities that are already too
small to meet our current needs, let alone meet the needs of a
growing population. We could choose decline.

The
deal the Government has negotiated with Verdant Isle partners ensures
that no government funding is required to build the dock but the
facilities remain in our ownership. Increased visitor numbers mean
total revenue to government increases so we can afford to continue
funding other things like schools and road improvements. There is no
financial risk to Cayman, its government or its people.

The
government has responded to people’s environmental concerns and the
redesign of the port development has significantly reduced the
environmental impact of the project. There is no dredging in Hog Sty
Bay and no risk to Seven Mile Beach. There will be damage to existing
marine environments but millions of dollars will be invested to
relocate coral and we aim to achieve no net loss of biodiversity.
The Government has done all it can to safeguard Cayman’s economic
future while minimizing any environmental impact from Cayman’s port
redevelopment. Prosperity or decline? This government chooses
prosperity for this and future generations of Caymanians. We must
get on and move forward with building the cruise berthing and
enhanced cargo facilities that help to secure that future prosperity.

I
ask all members of this Honourable House to vote aye to this
referendum bill, and that those Caymanians who go out to the polls
on referendum day to vote a resounding Yes
to the question, “Should
the Cayman Islands continue to move forward with building the cruise
berthing and enhanced cargo port facility?” 

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

END

*Revision 3