4 questions lodged at 2025 Fisher & Paykel (FPH) hybrid AGM
August 23, 2025
Below is the text of the 4 written questions submitted at the Fisher & Paykel (FPH) hybrid AGM on August 21 2025 in Auckland and via this MUFG link. See notice of meeting. The market cap was $20b on AGM day. Also, see these 7 questions asked at the 2023 AGM. The proxies were flashed up at the end of the formal debate on the resolutions and there were no protest votes.
Q1. Xero suffered a 48% protest voted against its remuneration report at this morning's AGM, partly because it is the only major New Zealand registered company trading on the ASX which voluntarily puts its remuneration up for endorsement by shareholders. As a company capitalised at $20 billion which recently ran a major investor day in Melbourne, why haven't we done the same? Could Sydney-based board candidate Neville Mitchell, a veteran of many remuneration report vote processes, comment on whether he personally supports such a move and whether he'll attempt to persuade his colleagues to endorse putting up a remuneration report resolution at the 2026 AGM?
Answer: The chair Neville Mitchell stuck with his dinosaur approach resisting rem report voting. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q2. In 2024, we lodged the 44 pages of formal addresses with the ASX at 9.31am ahead of the 2pm AGM commencement. Why haven't we done the same today? Best practice is to disclose the proxy votes early with the formal addresses, something we didn't do last year. Will chair Neville Mitchell commit to do that next year? Also, after 7 years so far, could Neville confirm that this will be his final 3 year term on the board and he won't be seeking re-election in 2028? Does he believe his successor is currently on the board?
Answer: The chair Neville Mitchell ran a dinosaur argument about why he holds back proxy disclosure to not intimidate the floor debate. He also refused to commit to this being his last term. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q3. When Lewis Gradon was last re-elected at the 2022 AGM, he was supported by 99.99% of voted stock. If he was CEO of an Australian registered public company he wouldn't have evidence of such remarkable popularity because Australian law doesn't require CEOs to be subjected to the 3 yearly election cycle. Did Lewis enjoy the election process, would he support US-style annual director elections and how many of our 23,888 shareholders voted in favour of his re-election by proxy? Did he crack 1000 votes on the headcount measure?
Answer: The chair Neville Mitchell didn't invite the CEO to respond and gave a needlessly stern lecture about why he wouldn't reveal how many shareholders voted. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q4. There was an 18.8% protest vote against Graham McClean's re-election last year. What was that about and have any of the proxy advisers recommended a vote against any of today's resolutions, leading to any material proxy protest votes? There was also a 17% protest vote against the increase in the fee cap for directors at the 2023 AGM. Staying with remuneration, were any concerns raised about the CEO's LTI grant and could he briefly summarise his vesting history when it comes to past incentive grants approved by shareholders?
Answer: The chair Neville Mitchell said Graham McClean's issue was workload and had been addressed. He did the old "look it up yourself" on the CEO's share vesting and dealing history. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Copyright © 2025 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved
