4 questions lodged at 2026 Channel Infrastructure (CHI) hybrid AGM

Q1. Under Australian corporate law and the ASX listing rules, there must always be a director election at public company AGMs. NZ AGMs are already boring enough with very few resolutions up for the vote, but why didn't you at least give us a director vote today, as opposed to serving up this sparse agenda with nothing more to determine than the procedural auditor pay resolution? In 2019, ASX-listed Treasury Wine Estates voluntarily moved to annual elections for directors in line with best practice that occurs in both the US and the UK. Dual listed companies like News Corp and Rio Tinto all do this due to the laws in the US and UK and BHP has continued doing it even after its UK DLC ended in 2021. Can the chair comment on whether our company will follow this TWE lead and move to annual elections of directors at next year's AGM?

Answer: The chair James Miller gave a good demonstration of why the chair should never read out the written questions themselves. He also said that 4 of the 6 directors were up last year. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q2. Given the long tenure of Ernst & Young, when did we last tender the external audit and when are we next intending to tender the audit?

Answer: The chair James Miller got fired as questions reader by his own team after badly reading the first of my 4 written questions. Replacement was much better on this audit tender question and he gave a good answer explaining that EY have had the gig for 6 years and they have a policy which requires a tender every 10 years. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q3. If Xero and Fletcher Building can voluntarily put up a remuneration report for approval as the law requires in Australia, will Channel Infrastructure commit to doing this next year given that you have recently listed on the ASX and many of our Australian shareholders would like to see such a move? New Zealand looks like a governance backwater by rejecting a say on pay, so why don't you show more respect for your shareholders and get with the program by doing it voluntarily?

Answer: Underwhelming response from chair James Miller even though he offers a rem vote as deputy chair of Fletcher Building. Lots of waffle and he didn't even seem to really understand the Australian system, which he claimed was caused by excessive bank rem. Not true. Watch video of exchange via Twitter, plus these additional comments.

Q3. If one of our larger ASX-listed competitors such as Viva Energy or Ampol launched a takeover bid for our company, what if any barriers would they face besides offering a compelling price? Given the rising importance of sovereign capability and the backlash against globalisation, do the chair and CEO agree that a foreign takeover of our company would be unlikely to be supported by the New Zealand government?

Answer: The only substantial holders in the latest annual report are private Kiwi fund managers Milford and Forsyth Barr which together own around 12%, when previously it had multiple oil company shareholders when it was still operating as a refinery, not just an import terminal. Chair James Miller made it pretty clear he reckons the Kiwi govt would block any takeover bid by Ampol or Viva Energy given the "strategic" nature of its assets. This exchange might make news across the ditch. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Copyright © 2026 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved

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