Otago seen as loser in proposed port sale

Former port company chairmen Sir Clifford Skeggs, left, and Ian Farquhar are passionate that control of Port Otago, and the benefits to Dunedin and wider Otago community, must remain in 100% Otago ownership. Photo by Craig Baxter.
Former port company chairmen Sir Clifford Skeggs, left, and Ian Farquhar are passionate that control of Port Otago, and the benefits to Dunedin and wider Otago community, must remain in 100% Otago ownership. Photo by Craig Baxter.
The proposed merger between Port Otago and rival Lyttelton Port of Christchurch is being roundly criticised by former port company chairmen Sir Clifford Skeggs and Ian Farquhar, with both men calling for the idea to scrapped. Business reporter Simon Hartley looks at why the pair are so adamant the deal is no good for Otago.

The scene is set for the almost two-year-old proposed merger between Port Otago and Lyttelton Port of Christchurch (LPC) to become one of the most contentious issues faced by southern local bodies and ratepayers in decades.

At stake are local jobs, millions of dollars in dividends and the ability of Port Otago - which favours the merger - to steer its own course in the ever-changing, highly competitive and complex shipping sector.

Port Chalmers is the lifeblood of primary-producing Otago and maintaining its independence is crucial to Sir Clifford Skeggs and Ian Farquhar, both of whom have 40 years of wide-ranging experience in the sector, from the late 1960s to the present.

Both aged 79, the men have served with both the Otago Harbour Board and its successor Port Otago; Sir Clifford for a total of 22 years, including chairman for 15 years between the two entities, and Mr Farquhar for 30 years, including chairman for seven years.

"There is nothing worthwhile in this [merger] proposal for Otago. Port Chalmers is more competitive and capable than Lyttelton. The theory of `greater economies of scale' is absolutely bullshit," Sir Clifford said.

Port Otago is 100%-owned by the Otago Regional Council while LPC is listed on the stock exchange, being 78.7% owned by the Christchurch City Council and 15.48% by Port Otago.

"There's no doubt in my mind that Port Otago will deliver better returns to its shareholder over the next decade, and beyond, on its own than needing to get involved with Lyttelton," Mr Farquhar said in a submission to the Otago Regional Council for its draft annual plan.

The merger proposal evolved between the usually fierce port company rivals in 2008, after Port Otago took a controlling and contentious $37 million, 15% stake in Lyttelton in March 2006, essentially gatecrashing and stopping a proposed takeover and delisting of the company so owner Christchurch City Council could bring in an international management company to oversee the ailing port.

The ports repeatedly said no formal talks were under way, but in October 2008 they jointly announced the merger proposal. Further details have since been largely shrouded in silence.

Similarly, an independent report subsequently undertaken and completed by Antipodes Capital on the proposal has been delivered to the working parties of LPC and Port Otago, but not released publicly.

The lack of comment, or availability for comment, is because as a listed company LPC must inform the sharemarket first of any changes which could affect its share price; neatly curtailing any necessity to respond to questions on details of the merger proposal.

Port Otago chairman John Gilks said, when contacted, that for confidentiality reasons he could not reveal further details but said the Antipodes report "ultimately concluded there was a clear and sound case for the merger of the [two ports'] business operations".

Proposed ports merger

Great to see this article. There's so much at stake and so little been said - nothing of any note from the ORC. All we get is "confidential", "commercial sensitivity", and that won't wash anymore. This issue is way too important for that and should be open for consultation. It doesn't take too much nous to realise the operating company would make the money and not the holding company. While in the short term there would be cost savings - clearly Mr Gilk's aim - I think he has lost sight of the wider view. Already we know that one shipping company refused to pay the charges in Singapore and went else,where and yes there are other ports in the South Island besided Otago & Lyttelton. And what of Fonterra? How will they react to this? [Abridged]

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
High Street SchoolDunedinSchools
Vet Equine OtagoMosgielVeterinarians
Giltech Precision Castings LtdDunedin
MacLeod & Associates (NZ) LtdDunedinEngineers & Planners