5 questions lodged at 2025 Genesis Energy (GNE) hybrid AGM

Q1. Given that Tim Miles sits on the board of ASX-listed Oohmedia and is presumably comfortable with the annual non binding votes on the remuneration report at Australian AGMs, has he suggested to his Genesis Energy colleagues that they get with the program and voluntarily offer up an annual remuneration report, similar to what the likes of Xero and Fletcher Building currently do? Could chair Barbara Chapman comment on this issue too. I am getting a bit tired of asking NZ companies to do this when it is standard in many other markets and shows respect to shareholders? Why the resistance and do I have to lodge a nomination to stand for the board at next year's AGM to get some movement on this issue?

Answer: The question was cut short by question wrangler "Matt" and chair Barbara Chapman just shut it down saying they wouldn't be doing voluntarily rem report voting next year. We never heard from candidate Tim Miles and the promised board tilt wasn't even read out. Hopeless. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q2. What does the government's announcement about the potential sale of its shares in Chorus mean for us? As an Australian-based shareholder, I'm not across the New Zealand privatisation debate so could chair Barbara Chapman please explain the history of the government's 51% stake in our company, what other investments make up the governments $NZ12 billion portfolio of listed energy stocks, and whether the Chorus sale is likely to set a sell-down precedent that will spread to our sector? Historically, anything to do with water is the hardest thing to privatise in democracies. Indeed, most of the Australian water industry is still government owned, including Snowy Hydro? Does the chair agree that our hydro plants make it unlikely that the government will cede its control over our company with a sell-down, even if the Chorus privatisation goes well? What is the status of political promises regarding government control over our company?

Answer: Dreadful censorship from the question wrangler, who stopped where the itcalics starts. The chair said it was all too complicated and promised a private briefing which was later offered over the Computershare platform by the moderator. No thanks. Could Google that component and am pissed with the questions censorship. They should send through considered written responses attributable to the chair or CEO to all the censored components of these written questions Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q3. Most New Zealand domiciled companies which are dual listed on the ASX usually have a pointless AGM resolution approving the audit fees, courtesy of New Zealand's archane corporate laws which don't require a remuneration report vote but mandate an auditor pay resolution. Why wasn't this resolution on the ballot today or at last year's AGM? Do we get a pass because we are majority owned by the New Zealand government. Also, could the audit committee chair and audit signing partner comment on the efficacy and history of this strange shareholding voting right in New Zealand? Does it have any impact on the auditing process, pricing or tender regularity?

Answer: Again, more dreadful censorship from the question wrangler which generated a confused answer that had nothing to do with the question. It was disclosed earlier in the meeting that the NZ auditor general is actually the auditor, hence no audit fees resolution is required under NZ law. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q4. Could new director David Baldwin and the chair comment on the recruitment process that led to David's appointment to the board. Was a head hunter involved, did the full board interview any other candidates and did David know any of our directors or senior executives before engaging with the recruitment process? What role did the Finance Minister play in the recruitment process given the NZ government is the majority shareholders and the Finance Minister is the shareholder Minister responsible for voting the government's controlling stake on today's 5 director election resolutions?

Answer: Again, more dreadful censorship from the question wrangler but at least we got an answer that a head hunter was involved, but no disclosure on the "who'd ya know" component because it wasn't even read out. David Baldwin is the former CEO of Contact Energy who then worked in 8 countries for Macquarie in relevant fields for Genesis, before returning to his native New Zealand. Sounds like a suitable hire although he has his critics from his Contact days. The NZ Government had no involvement with the recruitment process. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q5. How did the govt vote their controlling stake at this AGM. Was it by proxy before the meeting or in the poll today. Also please disclose how many shareholders voted for and against each item in the poll results so that the outcome is not just dominated by the government and we can see what the sentiment of retail shareholders was, along with turnout?

Answer: The chair of 7 years Barbara Chapman joked that the government had given her an open proxy and she could vote against the 5 directors up for election. In fact, the moderator quickly pointed out in a private message that the government voted in favour by proxy so the chair actually had no discretionary power to determine the voting results. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Copyright © 2025 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved

• share
  Share
  • 
    Facebook
  • 
    Twitter
  • email
    Email
  • print
    Print
  • link
    Copy Link
  • cancel
    Cancel