Contact Energy
1. Business / Trading Name: Contact Energy Limited (trading as “Contact Energy”).
2. Company number: 660760
3. NZBN: 9429038549977
4. Entity type: NZ Limited Company (publicly listed on NZX and ASX).
5. Business classification: None officially listed. (Contact’s registration predates mandatory industry classification; in practice it is an electricity generator and retailer.)
6. Industry Category: Utilities – Energy (Electricity generation, natural gas wholesaling, and energy retail).
7. Year founded: 1995 (incorporated 8 November 1995; operations commenced 1 Feb 1996 after split from ECNZ).
8. Addresses:
• Registered Office: Level 2, Harbour City Tower, 29 Brandon Street, Wellington 6011, New Zealand
• Postal Address: P.O. Box 10742, The Terrace, Wellington 6143, New Zealand.
9. Website URL:
https://www.contact.co.nz
10. LinkedIn URL: https://www.linkedin.com/company/contactenergy
11. Company Hub NZ URL: https://www.companyhub.nz/companyDetails.cfm?nzbn=9429038549977
12. NZ Companies Office URL: https://app.companiesoffice.govt.nz/co/660760
13. Social Media URLs:
• Twitter (X): https://twitter.com/ContactEnergy
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ContactEnergy/
• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/contact_energy/?hl=en
14. Ultimate Holding Company: None (publicly held). Contact Energy has no single controlling owner after Australian parent Origin Energy sold its 53% stake in 2015.
15. Key Shareholders: Highly dispersed public ownership. No individual shareholder holds a controlling stake (all under 10%).
16. Leadership:
• Board of Directors (Independent): Rob McDonald (Chair; former Air NZ CFO) , Elena Trout , Sandra Dodds Broad, David Smol, Jon Macdonald, Rukumoana Schaafhausen, David Gibson.
• Executive Management: Mike Fuge (Chief Executive Officer) ; Dorian Devers (Chief Development & Projects Officer); John Clark (Chief Generation Officer); Matt Bolton (Transition Director) ; Chris Abbott (Chief Corporate Affairs Officer) ; Jack Ariel (Major Projects Director); Jan Bibby (Chief People Officer); Tighe Wall (Chief Technology Officer).
17. Staff: Approximately 950–1,000 employees (as of 2021, Contact reported 945 staff). The workforce has likely grown above 1,000 by 2025 given new development projects. Staff are primarily in Wellington (head office) with operations staff at power stations in regions (Otago, Waikato, Taranaki, etc.).
18. Staff that have held previous government roles: There is a significant “revolving door” element:
• David Smol (Director since 2018) – Former Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) 2012–2017 (the very ministry overseeing energy markets). He also earlier led the Ministry of Economic Development. His move to Contact’s board just a year after leaving MBIE drew attention to potential conflicts.
• Elena Trout (Director) – Current Chair of the government’s Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA) (appointed by Ministers), and director of WorkSafe NZ – thus concurrently sitting on a Crown entity while on Contact’s board.
• Rukumoana Schaafhausen (Director) – Has held governance roles intersecting with government: e.g. Chair of Waikato River Authority and member of various government advisory boards. (She was also previously on the board of Genesis Energy, another state-influenced gentailer).
• David Smol (again) – Also currently a board member of Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (a Crown entity) and Chair of GNS Science (Crown research institute).
• No senior Contact executives are former MPs or Ministers, but Chris Abbott (Chief Corporate Affairs) worked in regulatory affairs and likely interacts closely with officials (no direct public-sector role known). The heavy presence of ex-regulators on the board illustrates Contact’s close ties to government circles.
19. Past Employees: A number of former Contact leaders have cycled into other notable roles:
• Dennis Barnes – CEO from 2011–2020; after leaving Contact he joined the board of Mercury NZ Ltd (a competitor) and pursued energy ventures abroad. He was known for opposing radical industry reforms during his tenure.
• Sir Ralph Norris – Former Chairman (2014–2019), once CEO of ASB Bank and Air NZ, brought political clout and connections in corporate governance.
• Phil Pryke – Deputy Chairman in 2000s, a lobbyist-type figure (also known for Telecom NZ board). Famously faced shareholder ire in 2008 over directors’ fee hikes.
• Paul Anthony – Founding CEO (1996–2000), brought in from the UK. Departed after privatization; his tenure set the corporate culture separate from its SOE origins.
(No known former Contact executives have become government ministers, but the movement of personnel has largely been from public sector to Contact or within the industry.)
20. Clients: As a provider of services to end-users (approximately 580,000 customer connections across electricity, gas, broadband, etc.) Contact does not serve “clients” on whose behalf it lobbies (unlike a consultancy); rather, it lobbies for its own corporate interests and those of its sector.
21. Industries/Sectors represented: Contact represents the energy sector, specifically:
• Electricity generation (renewable and thermal power generation),
• Electricity retail (selling power to consumers),
• Natural gas (wholesale procurement and retail of gas to consumers),
• Broadband (recent entry as bundled service, though core influence is in energy policy).
In political contexts, Contact is viewed as part of the “gentailer” oligopoly in NZ’s electricity industry. It often speaks for large energy corporates’ interests in regulatory debates.
22. Publicly Disclosed Engagements: Contact’s interactions with policymakers are occasionally visible via Official Information Act releases and Ministerial diaries:
• Ministerial diary records show direct meetings. For example, Energy Minister Megan Woods’ public diary for 21 June 2023 notes a meeting with “Contact” at Parliament.
• Contact makes submissions to government consultations and parliamentary select committees. (e.g. Contact’s submission on the Climate Change Commission’s draft carbon budgets advocated for 93% renewable electricity by 2030 instead of more aggressive targets.) These formal submissions are public, though not widely publicised by Contact itself.
• The company is known to engage in behind-the-scenes lobbying through industry bodies (see Affiliations below). There is no mandatory lobbying register, so many engagements (phone calls, informal meetings) are undisclosed.
23. Affiliations: Contact Energy is deeply embedded in influential industry associations and lobby groups:
• BusinessNZ Energy Council (BEC): Contact is a leading member of BEC, the energy policy arm of BusinessNZ (NZ’s big business lobby). Through BEC, Contact collaborates with other energy corporates to influence policy (BEC often submits on market regulations on behalf of industry).
• Electricity Retailers’ Association of NZ (ERANZ): Contact is a member of ERANZ (the industry lobby for power retailers) and has held leadership roles there. ERANZ regularly campaigns against regulatory changes that might hurt retailer profits.
• Sustainable Business Council (SBC): Contact is a member of SBC (a BusinessNZ division) and a signatory to the Climate Leaders Coalition. This affiliation is often used to burnish its image (“we’re committed to sustainability”), while also giving it a voice in shaping climate policy in a business-friendly way.
• Energy Resources Aotearoa (formerly PEPANZ): Not a member. (Contact is not an oil/gas producer; however, it sometimes aligns with ERA’s stance on gas as “transition fuel”.)
• International networks: Previously part of Origin Energy’s Australasian lobbying network (during 2004–2015). Now engages via the World Energy Council through BEC.
• Corporate Taxpayers Group: Contact is listed as a member of this lobby-like group advocating for low corporate taxes.
• BusinessNZ and Chambers of Commerce: Likely a member of local business chambers, given its corporate presence.
• Collectively, these affiliations amplify Contact’s influence – allowing it to lobby in chorus with others and often behind closed doors.
24. Sponsorships / Collaborations:
• Contact has historically sponsored prominent community events to maintain a positive public profile. It was the principal sponsor of the Lake Taupō Cycle Challenge for almost a decade (late 2000s–2015) , investing in a high-profile sports event (until withdrawing to refocus its image). During that sponsorship, the event even branded a race as the “Contact Huka” challenge in the company’s name.
• The company directs “community investments” toward initiatives aligning with its public relations goals. In 2015 it refocused sponsorship to initiatives matching its corporate purpose (energy-related comfort and efficiency).
• Contact partners with government agencies in ostensibly charitable collaborations: e.g. partnering with the Department of Conservation (DOC) and NIWA to “protect natural environments” around its hydro and geothermal sites. (Critics note such partnerships can also serve as greenwashing, aligning Contact with respected public entities.)
• It supports community programmes in regions where it operates generation plants – e.g. funding local schools, sponsoring environmental projects in Taupō and Otago – which garners goodwill (and indirectly political capital via local MPs).
• Note: These sponsorships, while philanthropic on the surface, also function as lobbying tools – building a socially responsible image to ward off regulatory scrutiny (a form of “integrity washing”).
25. Events (held or organised by this organisation):
• Annual shareholder meetings (AGMs): Contact’s AGMs have at times become political flashpoints (notably the 2008 AGM revolt over director fees – see Controversies). These events are formally corporate, but in NZ’s context they attracted political comment when public outrage was high.
• Investor briefings and energy conferences: Contact regularly hosts investor days and participates in the Downstream energy conference (the leading industry policy conference). Its CEO and executives often present at these forums, effectively shaping the industry narrative in front of officials and regulators present (e.g. emphasizing market-led solutions and warning against “interventions”).
• Lobby briefings: On occasion Contact reportedly arranges private “roundtable” discussions with policymakers under the auspices of BusinessNZ or SBC. (For example, a closed-door briefing of MPs by energy sector leaders, which are not publicly advertised).
• Community open days: It holds open days at power stations (like Wairakei geothermal) for communities and local politicians, to showcase its operations positively. These serve as informal lobbying opportunities to impress upon local/regional politicians the company’s economic contribution.
• In summary, while Contact does not publicly hold rallies or political events, it leverages corporate and industry events as de facto lobbying occasions.
26. Political Donations: Officially, none. The company’s Anti-Bribery and Corruption Policy explicitly forbids contributions to any political cause or election fund. Indeed, a review of Electoral Commission records shows no donations by Contact Energy Ltd to any party. (This contrasts with some private companies; Contact’s stance is likely a reaction to public ownership scrutiny – as a listed utility, overt donations would be controversial.)
• However, individuals associated with Contact have made donations in a private capacity. For instance, ex-chairman Phil Pryke was known for ties to the ACT Party (though specific donations are not public). And Origin Energy (former parent) was reported to have donated to Australian political parties, indirectly aligning Contact with certain free-market policy agendas.
27. Controversies: Contact Energy has faced repeated public and political blowback over its conduct, undermining its integrity claims:
• 2008 Price Hikes & Directors’ Fees Scandal: In late 2008, Contact infamously announced a near doubling of its directors’ fee pool (from NZ$770k to $1.5m) while simultaneously imposing ~10% electricity price increases on consumers. The timing – amid a recession – sparked public outrage. Shareholders at the AGM lambasted directors as “pigs in a trough”. Politicians across the spectrum condemned Contact: then PM Helen Clark publicly accused its board of greed, and opposition leader John Key also slammed the move. Under pressure, Contact partially backed down (deferring the fee hike). The scandal severely damaged Contact’s reputation; within months the company lost over 40,000 customers who switched to competitors as a direct consumer backlash. This episode is often cited as the worst reputational crisis in Contact’s history.
• Excessive Profits / “Gentailer” Oligopoly: As one of the “Big Four” electricity gentailers, Contact is frequently criticised for high electricity prices and profits at consumers’ expense. Political figures have accused Contact and peers of tacit collusion and price-gouging. For example, Winston Peters accused the large power companies of profiteering and anti-competitive behaviour in recent years. The company’s healthy profit margins (e.g. NZ$185m net profit in 2021) even during times of hardship have fueled public resentment. In 2022 the OECD singled out gentailers like Contact, saying NZ should consider breaking them up to improve competition and lower “feeble” productivity growth.
• Market Power Investigations: Contact’s role in the electricity wholesale market has come under regulatory investigation. On occasions of unusually high wholesale prices (e.g. 2019 dry-year event), Contact and others were probed by the Electricity Authority for possible withholding of generation to spike prices. While no penalties ensued, the incidents stirred controversy about abuse of market power.
• Environmental and Social Concerns: Contact’s operations have drawn environmental controversies. Its continued use of gas-fired power (and previously coal in the 2000s at its Stratford plant) clashes with NZ’s climate goals; green groups have criticized Contact for investing in new gas peaker units while claiming to be committed to sustainability. In the 2000s Contact proposed new hydro dams on the Clutha River, which met fierce local opposition over environmental impact – the plans were eventually shelved in 2012 amid community protest and economic infeasibility. Additionally, in 2010 Contact was fined for an oil spill at its Taranaki gas station – a relatively minor incident but it added to perceptions of lax environmental care.
• Customer Service and Power Shut-offs: Advocacy groups have flagged Contact for aggressive debt collection and power disconnections. In 2020, during the COVID lockdown, media reported a case of Contact threatening to cut off a struggling small business’s electricity – drawing negative attention as the customer awaited relief (Contact had to backtrack). Such incidents, though anecdotal, paint Contact as profit-driven at the expense of community welfare.
• COVID-19 Response: While many companies took wage subsidies, Contact opted to forgo the subsidy (see below) and continued paying dividends. This led to some social media critique that it prioritized shareholders over reducing consumer bills during the crisis.
28. Other information of note:
• Contact Energy is the second-largest electricity generator in NZ (by output) and the second-largest electricity retailer – controlling roughly 22% of the retail market. This substantial market share, combined with vertical integration, gives it significant structural influence in the economy.
• The company was born out of a government privatisation. It started as a State-Owned Enterprise (briefly in 1996) but was sold off by 1999. That origin (and the lucrative windfall enjoyed by its private owners since) remains a point of political contention in debates on whether essential utilities should be in private hands.
• Contact’s ownership structure post-2015 is predominantly institutional. Notably, a major portion of its shares are held through custodial nominee companies in Australia (e.g. HSBC Nominees, JP Morgan Nominees). This means ultimate beneficial owners include foreign investment funds (e.g. Orbis, BlackRock) as well as NZ pension funds (like ACC and NZ Super Fund). The dispersed ownership can dilute accountability, as no single owner asserts public-facing stewardship.
• The company’s dual listing on the ASX (achieved in 2015 after the Origin sell-down) obliges it to comply with Australian disclosure rules as well. This sometimes results in revealing information (like executive pay or material issues) that isn’t as clearly disclosed in NZ. For instance, Contact’s Australian filings highlighted certain related-party dealings that weren’t obvious in NZ announcements – a notable point for transparency analysts.
• Contact’s tax practices have been examined by the Corporate Taxpayers Group (of which it is a member). While no wrongdoing is alleged, it’s notable that Contact engages in aggressive depreciation accounting (common in energy firms) to minimise taxable profit – all legal, but a reminder of its profit-maximisation ethos at odds with its public “we’re here for NZ” messaging.
• State influence: Although fully private, Contact’s business is impacted by Government policy (e.g. regulations, climate policy, hydrological resource consents). It often hires former officials (as noted) and retains lobbyists to ensure it gets favorable terms (like renewing its water rights on the Clutha for hydro, or securing free carbon credit allocations for its gas plants historically). These less-visible interactions are important context to its influence profile.
• Community trusts shareholding: A footnote – approximately 1.1% of Contact is held by the Tauranga Energy Consumer Trust (TECT) on behalf of Bay of Plenty consumers, a legacy of a regional company Contact acquired. This is often cited by Contact as evidence of “community ownership,” though in practice it’s small.
• Contact’s branding emphasizes “Putting our energy where it matters” – a slogan often used in PR campaigns to highlight its community and climate initiatives. Critics call this integrity-washing, given the company’s core lobbying aims are to preserve its market dominance and profitability.
29. Recipient of Wage Subsidy Scheme: No. Contact Energy did not receive the COVID-19 wage subsidy in 2020–21. The company’s name does not appear on the official MSD list of subsidy recipients, and Contact confirmed it chose not to apply.
Spot anything in this entry that is wrong? Please either leave a comment at the end or email, in confidence: bryce@democracyproject.nz