Shareholders unfazed by Vector fee increase
A resolution to boost directors’ fees by 6 per cent provoked little complaint at Vector’s annual meeting in Auckland yesterday, with only one shareholder voicing concern.
The motion was left to the end of the meeting at Ellerslie Event Centre and sought approval to lift fees for chairman Michael Stiassny from $189,900 to $201,300, and for other directors from $94,950 to $100,650.
Directors have not had a fee increase since 2010, said Stiassny, and there was a need to keep their pay competitive in the face of heavier workloads.
Shareholder Coralie van Camp was the sole dissenter, drawing attention to the small gain in Vector’s share price since the electricity and gas utility was listed, from $2.38 in 2005 to $2.61 today.
‘‘You haven’t added much shareholder value have you,’’ she said. ‘‘I don’t think you deserve a raise and I’m voting against it.’’
Other shareholders were more concerned about the pay of Vector’s employees. ‘‘It might be you’re worthy of it [higher fees],’’ another shareholder said, ‘‘but does your company practise or endorse the concept of a living wage?’’
Stiassny said Vector prided itself on looking after staff. ‘‘We understand no employee of Vector is receiving less than a living wage,’’ he said.
The company was checking with its contractors to make sure they were also providing good conditions for staff, he added.
Answering a question from shareholder John Watkins, chief executive Simon Mackenzie said employees in general had received a pay increase slightly above the inflation rate, although individual pay was linked to performance.
Earlier, shareholders heard Stiassny report on the company’s record of seven consecutive years of increasing dividends. The company had a goal of sustainable dividend increases, he said, and was achieving it through productivity gains and investment in non-regulated businesses such as smart meters and solar energy.
Stiassny also attacked tax rules allowing overseas companies to take advantage of tax-minimising structures.
‘‘This lower tax burden allows them to pay prices for infrastructure well above the level that would make economic sense for Vector,’’ he said.
Until the rules were changed, Vector would be ‘‘unable to compete for infrastructure acquisitions’’.