INTERNATIONAL TRADE ENHANCEMENT THROUGH LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Mosman, 17 Oct 2008         			Pim W.Ravestijn.
                                                P.O. Box 412,
TO:     The Hon. Mr. Simon Crean		Spit Junction, NSW 2088
        Federal Minister For Trade
        Parliament House 
        Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Mr. Crean,

Thank you for your reply to my 27 Nov 2007 suggestion on export enhancing
matters, although mine and all other maritime related submissions were 
not included in the 2020 Summit, according to Mr.Griffith, the Chairman 
of the Australian Association for Maritime Affairs in Canberra.

The following is no criticism of this, but merely advice of how we should 
now diversify in today's highly sensitive environment and minimize risk 
factors of foreign carriers and commodity buyers as I said before, and 
provide you with my research into what is hampering our exports at the 
moment:

1	UN/EDIFACT - 2 Address formats in the same standard
2	Legislation
3	Tradegate as Electronic Notary not VANS

1. UN/ EDIFACT - 2 ADDRESS FORMATS IN THE SAME STANDARD !!

It appears that the IT industry has been too clever by far by ensuring 
that the UNI/EDIFACT Standard, which is required for all export 
documentation, has 2 address formats in the same Standard, which has 
increased RED TAPE AND SLOWED DOWN EXPORTS because the address 
information has to be checked and cross-checked for each transaction, 
which details appeared on a Dutch web site, hence my information if 
your Department may want to investigate this electronic documentation problem.  

Some 20 years ago I came across a newly introduced EDI Practices Manual 
for the International Association of Ports and Harbours (IPAH) of which 
it's Facilitation Advisor Mr. John Raven wrote:

"Current EDI Practices are temporary relief, which plaster 20th century 
practices over 19th century procedures and enforce the employment of very 
expensive Value Added Network Services (VANS)"

Having been until '84 operational in South Africa, where these practices 
ceased to be adhered to, I was surprised to read that in '88 the Australian
Ass of Ports & Maritime Authority (AAPMA) confirmed it, but what is more 
surprising is that until today such outdated practices are still holding 
Australia back.  

2. LEGISLATION

Australia is the only country where an intermediary cannot receive a 
commission unless it is specifically appointed as a booking agent, which 
in shipping with hundreds of clients per shipload is unworkable.   

This has resulted in the fact that intermediaries will not continue to 
help exporters who, after the routine has been established, go direct to 
the carriers in order to avoid paying the extra margin, which the 
intermediary have to add to the carrier's rate in order to get paid for
its service. 

The result is that potential exporters who depend on such expertise to 
establish new markets, cannot get intermediaries to help them.

Consequently intermediaries no longer focus on exports, but mainly on 
imports as foreign associates are allowed commissions from carriers and,
combined with documentation/ and handling fees, can go 50/50 with the 
Australian intermediary, who act for importers. 

Result: Vast imports and no new exports.

For this, we would suggest modifying this prohibitive legislation and 
provide intermediaries with the incentives to assist potential exporters
 with the expertise, they need to export safely and competitively. 

3. THE ROLE OF TRADEGATE AS AN ELECTRONIC NOTARY, NOT VANS.

Currently the role of Tradegate is as a Store and Forward Value Added 
Network Services (VANS), which adds considerable cost and delay to export
documentation because of the problems with the UN/EDIFACT standard as 
described above. 

If Tradegate were to become an Electronic Notary, it would speed up the process 
considerably and reduces the cost for exports significantly.  
   
Australian shipping legislations, like this and making address/ or booking 
commissions illegal, have played us in the hands of foreign multinationals
and, though designed to prevent wayward commissions.

This effectively has made forwarding/and brokerage expertise unavailable 
for potential exporters, who now depend on rate structures, solely set 
by foreign carriers, who only "paddle their own canoes".

After the 2020 Summit we have now an ultimately greater need to diversify 
and change our own structure, since with the USA and Europe primarily 
considering their own survivals, foreign services, on which we solely 
rely for our own survival, could become highly unpredictable when economics 
dictate.

My in-depth study is based on having successfully set-up and run five Lines 
in South Africa (also a large foreign operator was set up on my feasibility
in Australia) and provides for locally controlled services between Australia 
and up to 40 Pacific Rim and Middle Eastern countries. 

Today only available through foreign operators, of which 4 regions, including 
India, we currently have no direct services with at all. 

Not only can such a Line provide immeasurable support and strategic 
information for our industries, it's  size and operational cost could be 
surprisingly small in the way I successfully operated my services during 
S. Africa's apartheid's period, which time was infinitely more complex 
than Australia's situation, today.

(Dutch management companies are operating dozens of smaller Lines, enhancing 
its international trades)
  
Trusting to be of assistance, I look forward to your Department's reply.


Sincerely yours,


Pim W.Ravestijn  
(direct: 0407 021 669)

Oceanic Interlink  & Partners  

C.c.   Australian Association For Maritime Affairs
         

Att	A	Letter from AAPMA dated 14 Jan 1988
	B	Electronic Notary at TEDIS Legal Conference 1989