Anybody leasing the port to finance the expansion will want their investment back at a good rate of return, to the detriment of the port users and the local economy they support.
The same applies for a minority shareholder.
They will be able to insist under commercial law that the port company does what's commercially best for the company and that may not be in the best interests of port users, ratepayers or local enterprises. Tourist ships aren't core business in cargo-based ports and may not get the support they enjoy now.
An example of what can happen is when Air NZ stopped services to small regional airports.
Shane Jones made an issue of it but was told he could do nothing despite the Government having a majority shareholding.
Of course, splitting the ownership of the Port also splits the dividend. Currently the port contributes 19.4 per cent to HBRC income.
Stuart Nash well described the port as a bridge where the people of Hawke's Bay owned toll gates at each end.
Now the push is for a bigger bridge to take bigger carts. We could do this but we would no longer control the toll gates.
This is not the only threat to our control of the port.
There have been other arguments put forward which (because of their weakness) smack of an existing agenda within the HBRC to sell down or lease our port.
One is "what if we have another big earthquake?"
Well that's always on the cards, and is why we have insurance.
Our port and the Lyttelton port of were both up and running within days after their respective cities' earthquakes.
Lyttelton also made a record profit in the same year.
We are also told we have too many eggs in one basket and should sell some of the port to spread the risk.
The thing is our port has many diverse income streams and it is unlikely they would all fail at once.
Another weak point made by a past chair of the port and a recent adviser to the HBRC on the port is "what if they close the rail between Palmy and Napier".
How realistic is it that a New Zealand Government would allow that to happen and ever expect a vote out of Hawke's Bay?
Congestion has also been cited as a need to expand the port and therefore sell or lease it.
To overcome this problem most ports develop inland ports and a booking system to get around it. For example, the wall of logs being exported - which are not perishable - can be stockpiled offsite.
We're also now close to peak logging and that trade will slow down over the next few years.
Moneywise, the HBRC has put forward that the port gives a low return.They have arrived at this through twisted logic and voodoo economics.
Basically it goes like this. Today's capital value is xy. If invested at a commercial rate of return today it would be earning a higher percentage return than the port provides now. What this doesn't take into account is that the original cost of an asset purchased, say 20 years ago, is fixed and yet the growth earnings have increased over time.
The need for bigger wharves is being driven by the shipping companies, who play ports off against each other.
The infrastructure costs fall on local communities and can lead them to losing control of their strategic asset.
The port has been built by the people of Hawke's Bay and the NZ Government for well over 100 years. We have held it in public ownership through depressions and world wars.
When our Governments were selling our state assets including our own shipping line, we held ownership and control.
The decision on the future of the port is too important to leave to nine councillors - we all need to have a vote.
Before anything happens, people need to realise the new Government is revisiting a freight transport policy called "Sea Change" [2008].
This policy and its strategies are designed to overcome the situation we find ourselves in.
Our council is aware of this and is not only putting the cart before the horse, but also misleading the public regarding all the possible choices.
For that reason alone, it will be hard to trust the decisions made solely by nine councillors and their staff. We should wait for central government's lead, then we could have a real choice.
One last thing - where's the HBRC business case for their proposal?
* Grenville Christie worked for 20 years in the maritime industry.
