One NZ

1. Business / Trading Name: One New Zealand Group Limited – trading as One NZ (formerly Vodafone New Zealand) [1][2]. The company publicly rebranded from Vodafone to One NZ in early 2023 after local ownership replaced the Vodafone Group licensing arrangement [3].

2. Company Number: 927212 [1].

3. NZBN (New Zealand Business Number): 9429037753115 [1].

4. Entity Type: New Zealand Limited Company (Ltd) – a limited liability company incorporated in New Zealand [1]. (Note: A NZ Ltd company is a standard privately held corporate entity.)

5. Business Classification: Telecommunications service provider (mobile and internet). One NZ operates in the telecommunications industry, providing mobile, broadband, fixed-line, and related services [4]. Its official industry classification is in the telecommunications and internet service provider sector.

6. Industry Category: Telecommunications (mobile network operator and internet service provider). One NZ is currently the second-largest integrated telecom in New Zealand, and in 2021 it was the largest wireless carrier with about 38% mobile market share [4].

7. Year Founded: 1998. The company was incorporated on 12 October 1998, when Vodafone Group purchased BellSouth New Zealand’s operations and entered the NZ market as Vodafone NZ [1][5]. (BellSouth NZ, founded in 1993, was the predecessor mobile network operator.)

8. Addresses: The registered office and primary place of business is 74 Taharoto Road, Takapuna, Auckland 0622, New Zealand [1]. An additional corporate address used for records is. The company also maintains major offices in Wellington and Christchurch for regional operations [5].

9. Website URL: one.nz (official website) [4].

10. LinkedIn URL: The company’s LinkedIn page is linkedin.com/company/onenz (One New Zealand on LinkedIn) [6].

11. Company Hub NZ URL: https://www.companyhub.nz/companyDetails.cfm?nzbn=9429037753115

12. NZ Companies Office URL: https://app.companiesoffice.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/927212 [1]

13. Social Media URLs: One NZ maintains active social media profiles:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/onenzofficial/ (company page)
Twitter (X): https://x.com/onenzofficial?lang=en (official account)
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/onenewzealandofficial/?hl=en (marketing account)
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@onenz?lang=en
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/onenz [6]. (These platforms are used for marketing, customer service updates, and public communications.)

14. Ultimate Holding Company: Infratil Limited is the ultimate holding company with 100% ownership of One NZ [7]. Infratil, a NZX-listed infrastructure investment firm, agreed to buy out the remaining 49.95% stake from partner Brookfield Asset Management in 2023, making One NZ fully locally owned. [7]. Historically, from 1998 until July 2019, the ultimate parent was Vodafone Group Plc (UK), via subsidiaries like Vodafone International Holdings B.V. [1][8]. After the 2019 sale to the Infratil/Brookfield consortium, Vodafone Group ceased to be a shareholder but remained an affiliated partner under a brand license until the rebrand [3][8].

15. Key Shareholders: Currently One NZ is privately held. Infratil Ltd (a NZ-based infrastructure investor) holds 100% of shares. During Vodafone’s ownership era, shares were owned by Vodafone’s international subsidiaries (Vodafone Europe B.V., etc.) until 2019 [8].

16. Leadership:

Chief Executive Officer: Jason Charles Paris – CEO since November 2018 [1]. Paris was formerly an executive at Spark (Telecom) and TVNZ, and led Vodafone NZ through its local ownership transition and rebranding [2][3].
Chief Corporate Officer: Juliet Jones – a long-time Vodafone NZ executive (joined 2018) now leading corporate transformation and strategy [1][9]. Jones also serves on the Board and chaired the company’s charitable foundation.
Chief Financial Officer: Nicholas (Nick) Judd – appointed CFO and Board director in 2024, bringing finance experience likely from the Brookfield side [1][9].
Board of Directors: As of 2024, the board includes Jason Paris, Juliet Jones, and Nick Judd as executive directors [1]. (Notably, no external directors are listed at the operating company level post-privatisation, implying governance largely by management and oversight via the parent company’s board.) In the consortium period, directors included representatives of the owners (e.g., Brookfield’s John Boniciolli until 2022, and previously Infratil-appointed directors such as Kate Jorgensen in 2019) [1].
Other Key Executives: Kieran Byrne (Chief Technology Officer), Chris Fletcher (SME & Consumer Director), Summer Collins (Chief AI & Data Director) and others have been part of the senior leadership, according to company press releases. Marko Bogoievski (former Infratil CEO) was an influential figure behind the 2019 acquisition, though he did not sit on the operating board.

17. Staff: Approximately 2,500–3,000 employees (referred to as “team members”) work at One NZ [9]. The company is one of New Zealand’s larger private sector employers. It reported “over 3,000” staff in recent years [4][5], including retail store staff, customer service, network engineers, and corporate roles. (Headcount can fluctuate with restructures; some sources cite around 2,500 in 2024, while earlier figures were over 3,000 when including retail operations [9].)

18. Staff with Previous Government Roles: One NZ (and formerly Vodafone NZ) has employed or engaged a number of individuals who have held government or regulatory positions, reflecting significant “revolving door” connections:

Hayden Glass – former Head of Public Policy at Vodafone NZ, went on to work as an Advisor in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet [10].
Tristan Gilbertson – served as Vodafone Group’s Legal & Regulatory Director for Asia-Pacific, later became New Zealand’s Telecommunications Commissioner (regulator) in 2020. (Although he left Vodafone before taking the regulatory post, his hiring exemplified industry-government crossover.)
Catherine Soper – a former Vodafone NZ Government Relations Manager (2017–2020), came from a public sector background and expertise in government “machinery” [11].
Additionally, One NZ’s external lobbying consultants often include ex-government staffers. For example, Matthew Hooton’s Exceltium was reported to advise Vodafone on political issues in the 2000s, and various ministerial staff have transitioned into communications or lobbying contractor roles for telcos (though specific names are not always disclosed publicly).

(Overall, while One NZ’s top executives are mostly career telecom or business professionals, the company’s regulatory and public affairs staffing has drawn on people with government experience, which may afford it insider knowledge of policymaking processes.)

19. Past Employees: Several notable former executives and staff of Vodafone NZ/One NZ have moved into influential roles elsewhere, underlining the company’s long-term influence network:

Russell Stanners – CEO of Vodafone NZ from 2005 to 2018, oversaw major growth and acquisitions. After leaving, he took governance roles (e.g., director at Vocus Group, a rival telco) and remains an industry insider [12].
Grahame Maher – founding CEO of Vodafone NZ (1998–2001, after the BellSouth buyout). He later led Vodafone Australia and was influential in the company’s early New Zealand strategy. (Maher passed away in 2010, but was remembered for aggressive market tactics in Vodafone’s NZ launch.)
Tim Miles – CEO of Vodafone NZ circa 2001–2005; later held CEO positions at Tech Mahindra and Spark Digital. His movement between telecom companies demonstrated industry clout.
Kate Jorgensen – briefly CFO of Vodafone NZ in 2019 during the ownership change. Previously CFO at state-owned KiwiRail and Fletcher Building’s division, she has since become a professional director (sitting on boards like Chorus, Kiwibank, Southern Cross Health) [13]. Her career exemplifies the crossover between major corporates and government-linked enterprises.
John Tombleson – CFO of Vodafone NZ (2017–18) on secondment from Infratil, formerly CFO of Wellington Airport (an Infratil asset). He returned to Infratil after helping oversee the transition, highlighting the owner’s hands-on role [1].
Past technical staff from Vodafone have also held roles in government advisory panels on telecommunications. For instance, a former network manager joined the Crown Infrastructure Partners board overseeing broadband rollout (indicating indirect influence in policy execution).

20. Clients: One NZ’s clients span consumer, business, and government sectors. It serves about 2.5 million mobile customers and many hundreds of thousands of broadband customers in NZ. Major corporate clients include large NZ businesses (e.g. Fonterra, Air New Zealand for mobile plans, EFTPOS NZ for network services) and numerous SMEs through its Vodafone Business brand (now One NZ Business) [14]. Notably, Government agencies are significant clients: One NZ is a supplier on the all-of-government Telecommunications-as-a-Service (TaaS) panel since 2015, providing mobile, internet, and network services to departments and ministries [15]. It won contracts to be the primary communications provider for agencies like the Ministry of Justice and Department of Conservation under TaaS [15]. One NZ (through Vodafone) also secured the Rural Broadband Initiative contract alongside Chorus in 2011, effectively making rural schools, health centres and farmers a client base via subsidised infrastructure [16]. Additionally, One NZ’s wholesale clients include mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) such as Compass and MyRepublic, which use One NZ’s network to serve their own customers [17].

21. Industries/Sectors Represented: One NZ primarily represents the telecommunications and digital communications sector. In advocacy contexts, it speaks on behalf of mobile network operators and ISPs, often via the New Zealand Telecommunications Forum (TCF) – the industry body of which it is a core member [5]. It also has interests spanning technology, IoT (Internet of Things), and digital infrastructure sectors. Through its business services, One NZ is involved in sectors like IT services, cloud computing (with Vodafone Cloud), and content delivery (it formerly offered pay-TV services via VodafoneTV). When lobbying or engaging the government, One NZ typically frames itself as representing the interests of telecom network investment, digital innovation, and connectivity for sectors such as rural industries (through rural broadband programs), emergency services (public safety communications), and general consumers of digital services. (In practice, this means One NZ takes positions on issues affecting the telecom industry’s various segments: mobile, broadband, spectrum allocation, internet regulation, etc.)

22. Publicly Disclosed Engagements: Because New Zealand lacks a formal lobbying register, details of One NZ’s government engagements are not comprehensively published. However, known instances of engagement include:

Parliamentary submissions: One NZ/Vodafone frequently makes submissions to Parliamentary select committees and government consultations on telecom policy (e.g. submissions on the Telecommunications Act reviews, Commerce Commission inquiries on mobile termination rates, and spectrum allocation consultations run by MBIE). These submissions are public record. For example, in 2021 Vodafone NZ submitted on the Commerce Commission’s mobile market study, advocating positions beneficial to large incumbents (available via MBIE website).
Ministerial meetings: From media and OIA disclosures, we know ministers have met with Vodafone/One NZ executives. In 2013, for instance, Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce acknowledged speaking with Vodafone’s NZ leadership to discuss broadband pricing (a meeting in which the Minister “persuaded” Vodafone not to join a consumer campaign – see Controversies) [16]. Under the previous government (Ardern Ministry), ministers responsible for digital economy and communications (like Minister Kris Faafoi and Minister David Clark) held periodic industry stakeholder meetings that included Vodafone/One NZ representatives. These meetings (not always proactively disclosed) were often to discuss issues like 5G rollout, rural connectivity, or COVID-19 network resilience.
Official committees and working groups: One NZ has representation in bodies like the Telecommunications Carriers Forum (TCF) which works closely with government on technical standards and codes (e.g., emergency calling, number portability). It also participated in the Digital Economy and Communications Ministerial Forum – an initiative to liaise between tech companies and the government.
Proactive disclosures: In the absence of a mandated lobbyist register, One NZ occasionally volunteers information about its engagements. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Vodafone NZ publicly stated it was “engaging with Government on assistance required to keep NZers connected” (implying lobbying for sector support) [18]. The company’s charitable arm also works with government agencies (like Ministry of Education on connectivity for students), often publicised via press releases.

(Overall, much of One NZ’s political engagement is behind closed doors. The Integrity Institute’s project has noted that the lack of transparency means significant interactions – e.g., lobbying around infrastructure funding or regulatory settings – are not officially logged.)

23. Affiliations: One NZ is affiliated with numerous industry and business associations, leveraging collective influence:

NZ Telecommunications Forum (TCF): One NZ is a founding member of the TCF, the telecom industry’s lobby/standards body, and often chairs or leads its working groups [5]. The TCF gives the major telcos a united front to negotiate with regulators (e.g., on customer codes, number portability, and infrastructure sharing arrangements).
BusinessNZ and Chambers of Commerce: Vodafone NZ historically was a member of Business New Zealand (the big business lobby) and local chamber of commerce groups, aligning it with broader corporate lobbying on economic policy. One NZ likely continues this membership as a large NZ employer.
Technology Industry Groups: It is involved with the NZ Technology Industry Association (NZTech) and ITU forums via the international Vodafone connections. One NZ also partners with tech companies (e.g., is a Cisco and Microsoft partner) and sits on joint industry panels for cybersecurity and 5G innovation.
GSMA: Globally, as part of the Vodafone family, Vodafone NZ was active in the GSMA (the mobile operators’ international association). Post-rebrand, One NZ remains in the GSMA as the NZ representative, allowing it to coordinate on international lobbying issues like roaming regulation and spectrum harmonisation [8].
Public-Private Initiatives: One NZ joins government-led initiatives such as the Cybersecurity Emergency Response Team (CERT) NZ’s advisory board, and has partnered in the Rural Connectivity Group (a joint venture with other carriers and Crown Infrastructure Partners to improve rural coverage). These affiliations often blur into semi-official roles, giving One NZ further influence on policy execution.
Academic and Think-Tank Links: One New Zealand’s charitable arm, Te Rourou has funded research on digital inclusion (for example, reports with the Auckland University of Technology), indirectly influencing policy conversations. Executives have appeared at events by think tanks like The New Zealand Initiative and at Victoria University’s Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, indicating informal affiliations with policy discourse networks.

24. Sponsorships / Collaborations: One NZ and its predecessor have engaged in high-profile sponsorships and collaborations that serve to bolster its public image and networks:

Sports Sponsorship: For over two decades, Vodafone NZ was naming-rights sponsor of the New Zealand Warriors rugby league team. This continues under the new brand – the team is now the One New Zealand Warriors (as of the 2023 NRL season) [3]. This sports sponsorship not only markets the brand but also ingratiates the company with sports-loving Kiwis and provides access to hospitality/networking with government and community figures at games and events. One NZ’s CEO has been very publicly involved in Warriors fandom (occasionally to controversial effect – see Controversies).
Stadium Naming: One NZ purchased naming rights to Christchurch’s planned multi-use sports stadium (Te Kaha). The venue will be called One New Zealand Stadium when it opens in 2026 [19]. By investing in community infrastructure branding, One NZ secures goodwill with local government (Christchurch City Council) and positions itself as a long-term national brand.
Music and Cultural Events: Vodafone sponsored the Vodafone New Zealand Music Awards (the country’s premier music industry awards) for 14 years (2004–2018) [20]. This high-profile cultural sponsorship aligned the brand with youth and creativity, while giving it a platform with government arts ministers and the Auckland events scene. One NZ has not announced a continuation of music awards sponsorship, but it still supports smaller events (e.g., Pasifika Festival tech provisions, Spark (formerly Telecom) took over as venue sponsor via Spark Arena in Auckland, so One NZ focuses on other niches).
Collaborations: One NZ has collaborated with tech companies and even government agencies on innovation projects. A recent example is its partnership with SpaceX’s Starlink to provide satellite-to-mobile service coverage in remote NZ areas – an initiative unveiled alongside SpaceX that garnered support from regional politicians for its potential emergency connectivity benefits. It also worked with the Ministry of Education during COVID lockdowns to zero-rate educational websites and supply modems to rural students. These collaborations often double as public relations efforts to show One NZ’s positive social impact, while also binding the company closer to policymaking (as a “partner” rather than just a lobbyist).
Charitable Foundation (Te Rourou, One Aotearoa Foundation): The company’s charitable arm collaborates with NGOs and government on social projects (e.g., funding digital devices for disadvantaged youth, disaster relief with NZ Red Cross) [21]. This philanthropy can curry political favour and counterbalance any negative press about the company’s profit motives. Notably, Te Rourou’s chair (Juliet Jones) is a senior executive, indicating the foundation’s strategic role in the company’s influence strategy [9].

25. Events (Hosted or Organised): One NZ (and previously Vodafone NZ) organises and hosts events that often double as lobbying or influence opportunities:

Vodafone/One NZ Technology Summits: The company has hosted conferences for business and government customers – for instance, “Vodafone Next Generation Technology Summit” – where ministers are invited to speak and network. These events showcase One NZ’s thought leadership in 5G, IoT, etc., subtly influencing policymakers by framing the tech narrative.
Industry Conferences and Trade Shows: One NZ is a regular sponsor/exhibitor at events like Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona and local NZ tech expos. It has brought NZ officials to international events (through Vodafone’s global programs), creating informal lobbying settings. Domestically, One NZ sponsors tables and speakers at the annual Telco Forum Conference, the Digital Future Aotearoa symposium, and similar gatherings where political leaders often appear.
Community Events: Through its regional offices, One NZ organises community consultations when rolling out infrastructure (e.g., public meetings about new cell towers). These events, sometimes required by resource consent processes, also serve as lobbying occasions directed at local councils and residents to gain support or at least acquiescence for One NZ’s network expansion plans.
Political Event Involvement: While One NZ does not openly host political party events, it has had a presence in events like the Local Government NZ conference (providing sponsorship or tech support) and has co-hosted panel discussions on digital policy with groups like InternetNZ. Such involvement places the company in the same room as policymakers in less formal circumstances, aiding its influence.

(In summary, One NZ’s events strategy is an extension of its lobbying strategy – controlling forums where it can set the agenda on telecom issues and build relationships with decision-makers outside the confines of official meetings.)

26. Political Donations: No significant direct political donations by One NZ or Vodafone NZ are publicly recorded in New Zealand’s electoral disclosures. Vodafone New Zealand as a foreign-owned entity historically avoided direct donations to political parties, likely to steer clear of controversy. Since local ownership, One NZ’s major owner Infratil is publicly listed and also does not appear to donate to parties (in line with many NZ companies, it hasn’t declared any donations to party secretaries). A search of Electoral Commission records and media reports shows no mention of Vodafone/One NZ making partisan donations. In contrast to some industries (like alcohol or tobacco), telcos in NZ exert influence via lobbying and relationships rather than open donations. (It’s worth noting Infratil executives and board members may make personal donations – e.g., any links between Infratil’s leadership and political parties would not be in the company’s name. But as of this report, there is no evidence of One NZ’s funds being given as political donations.) The lack of donations does not indicate a lack of political influence – if anything, it underscores that the company gains access and favour through means other than direct funding of parties, perhaps finding it unnecessary given its other channels of influence.

27. Controversies: One NZ (Vodafone NZ) has been involved in numerous controversies that shed light on its influence and conduct:

“Axing the Copper Tax” Lobbying Scandal (2013): Vodafone NZ found itself in a political storm when it emerged that Cabinet Minister Steven Joyce had lobbied the company not to join the Coalition for Fair Internet Pricing – a consumer campaign against a government decision on broadband pricing. In 2013, Joyce “confirmed Vodafone was among the groups he persuaded not to join” the coalition, which was protesting a government plan to overrule a regulator’s price cut for Chorus’s copper broadband [16]. Consumer advocates accused the Government of applying behind-doors pressure (“corporate welfare” for Chorus) and Vodafone of caving due to political pressure on unrelated matters. Vodafone claimed its stance on pricing aligned with the coalition’s but it notably abstained from public advocacy after the minister’s intervention [16]. This episode raised eyebrows about opaque dealings between telecom companies and the Government – essentially a Minister leveraging Vodafone’s dependence on regulatory goodwill to silence it.
Tax and Transparency Issues: Vodafone NZ has faced criticism over its tax practices. For many years, despite healthy operating profits in NZ, Vodafone paid minimal income tax domestically – a result of heavy debt loading and interest payments to parent companies (a common multinational structure). While legal, this sparked public debate around 2016–2018 about whether Vodafone was contributing its fair share. The company defended its compliance, but the complexity and lack of transparency in its financial structure (e.g., loans from Vodafone Luxembourg) fuelled distrust. (This issue gained prominence when Vodafone tried to merge with Sky TV in 2016, and due diligence revealed intricate arrangements.) The lack of disclosure around political lobbying and contributions parallels this tax opacity – critics argue Vodafone/One NZ has been less than forthcoming about how it operates in NZ beyond marketing messages.
Sky TV Merger Rejection (2017): Vodafone NZ’s attempted merger with Sky Network Television was blocked by the Commerce Commission in 2017 as anti-competitive, despite significant lobbying. The company had promised vast consumer benefits and likely lobbied ministers and regulators intensely. The Commerce Commission’s refusal (a rare blow to Vodafone’s wishes) was seen as a win for regulatory independence. However, questions were raised about whether Vodafone had inside expectations of approval – the rejection caused public surprise and a sharp drop in Sky’s stock, suggesting even politically connected companies don’t always get their way. The episode hinted at possible overconfidence by Vodafone in its influence, and it underscored the importance of transparent regulatory processes insulated from lobbying.
Rebrand to “One NZ” Backlash (2022): The choice of the new name “One New Zealand” drew public criticism because of its unfortunate overlap with a nationalist, anti-Treaty fringe from the 1990s. Commentators noted One New Zealand was the name of a defunct right-wing party associated with anti-Māori sentiment, and called the rebrand a “racist dog whistle” or at least a marketing gaffe [3]. CEO Jason Paris had to defend the rebranding on social media, insisting “One NZ stands for the best of NZ (diversity, inclusion, trust, innovation etc)” and that the company would be judged on actions, not the name [3]. This controversy was amplified by the timing: many organisations were embracing the te reo Māori name “Aotearoa”, whereas Vodafone chose an English-centric name and even dropped the Māori “Vodafone Warriors” branding to “One NZ Warriors”. Māori stakeholders and even the Māori Party questioned the cultural awareness of the company’s leadership. While not a traditional political scandal, this incident put One NZ briefly on the back foot and showed that despite its resources, it can misstep in the court of public opinion – requiring damage control and engagement with community leaders to explain itself. It also exposed a lack of diverse perspective in decision-making at the top (no indication that Māori advisors were involved in vetting the new brand).
CEO vs NRL Referees Incident (2023): In May 2023, One NZ’s CEO Jason Paris ignited a trans-Tasman uproar by tweeting that Australian NRL referees were “cheating of the highest order” against the NZ Warriors (One NZ’s sponsored team) [22]. His comments led to threats of legal action from the referees’ union and a reprimand from the NRL. Paris eventually issued a public apology for his “unacceptable” remarks [22]. This incident, while a sports controversy on the surface, had political dimensions: the Warriors are a source of national pride and the episode drew in New Zealand’s sports minister and Prime Minister to comment on fair play. It put One NZ’s professionalism under scrutiny – a CEO of a major telco accusing officials of corruption on social media was seen as a lapse in judgment. The company’s close identification with the Warriors meant that Paris’s outburst risked the brand’s relationship with the league and by extension with Australian corporate partners and regulators. The fact that One NZ’s chief had to backtrack publicly illustrates how a desire to leverage sponsorship (being “one of the fans”) can backfire and require crisis PR. It’s a reminder that One NZ’s influence strategy (sponsorship and public engagement) carries reputational risks that can spill into the political realm (had legal action proceeded, it could even have affected One NZ’s standing with regulators or government, who expect accountability from CEOs).
Customer Service and Commerce Commission Actions: Over the years, Vodafone NZ accrued one of the higher complaint rates in the telecom sector. It has been warned or fined by regulators for various issues – e.g., misleading billing practices (in 2019 the Commerce Commission fined Vodafone $350,000 for false pricing representations), failure to adequately disclose contract terms, and network outages. Each of these incidents eroded customer trust. Politically, they gave ammunition to any government push for stricter consumer protection regulation in telco markets. Vodafone/One NZ’s strategy has been to publicly apologize and promise improvements, but often while quietly lobbying against heavier-handed regulation. The recurring nature of such controversies (billing errors, service failures during emergencies like the 2011 outage affecting emergency calls) suggests internal governance issues. It also highlights how vital transparency is: critics say Vodafone historically only “comes clean” when caught, not proactively – an approach that might carry into its lobbying transparency (or lack thereof).
Use of Huawei Equipment and Security Concerns: In the late 2010s, as NZ’s Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) weighed bans on Huawei in 5G networks for security reasons, Vodafone NZ was at the centre of controversy since it used Huawei gear in parts of its network. While Spark was explicitly denied permission for Huawei 5G, Vodafone quietly shifted to Nokia for 5G, but not before intense behind-scenes discussions. There were allegations that Vodafone advocated for a risk-managed approach rather than an outright ban. The whole saga was politically sensitive, involving NZ-China relations and Five Eyes intelligence alliance pressures. Vodafone publicly toed the line, but it’s suspected the company leaned on its government contacts to ensure any transition away from Huawei would be slow and subsidised (to avoid massive write-downs). Indeed, Vodafone’s 5G rollout proceeded in 2019 with mostly non-Chinese vendors, and the issue faded – yet it revealed the company’s need to influence policy on matters at the intersection of commerce and national security.
COVID-19 Response and Financial Optics: During the 2020 COVID lockdowns, Vodafone NZ made a point of not applying for the government wage subsidy, despite revenue hits, stating pride in weathering the storm without taxpayer help [18]. However, soon after, the company announced significant job cuts (several hundred redundancies as part of a “digital transformation”). This drew negative commentary – was Vodafone using COVID as cover to trim staff for profitability? Some accused it of opportunism, given it also sought “longer-term assistance” from government for network resilience [18]. The company’s decision not to take the subsidy may have been principled (or reputational), but the layoffs and concurrent pleas for other support painted a picture of a corporation quick to protect shareholders. Unions and some MPs criticised the move. This minor controversy reflects how corporates like One NZ balance public messaging and lobbying: presenting themselves as responsible actors while negotiating for indirect aid (like regulatory relief or expedited spectrum rights) rather than direct handouts.

28. Other Information of Note:

TowerCo Sale: In 2022, One NZ (then Vodafone NZ) sold its mobile tower infrastructure (1,484 cell towers) to independent investors (a consortium including InfraRed Capital Partners) for NZ$1.1 billion [8]. This monetisation of critical infrastructure has implications for national interest – the buyers are foreign-controlled, raising questions about whether regulatory oversight is sufficient. The deal was politically sensitive; the government chose not to block it, but some commentators noted the irony that a company benefitting from taxpayer-funded rural broadband subsidies could then sell assets for profit. One NZ secured a 20-year access agreement, essentially locking in its dominance. The transaction underlines how One NZ’s financial engineering can outpace regulatory frameworks, and it places the company in a stronger cash position to reinvest or return money to owners (indeed facilitating Infratil’s buyout of Brookfield).
Infratil Influence: With Infratil the sole owner, it’s notable that Infratil itself has deep connections in NZ’s political and business elite. Infratil’s board has included former senior public officials (for example, former NZ Treasury Secretary John Whitehead joined Infratil’s board after retiring from the civil service). Also, Infratil’s long-time manager Morrison & Co recently brought on James Shaw (former Green Party co-leader) as a partner in its climate investment arm [7]. These connections could signal an even more embedded influence network for One NZ – essentially having politically connected figures at the ownership level who can open doors in Wellington. There is a potential conflict of interest risk when politicians or regulators join firms that own a company like One NZ, or vice versa. This revolving door at the ownership tier deserves scrutiny as it might affect how boldly the government will regulate One NZ on issues like pricing, rural coverage obligations, or market competition.
Lack of Transparency in Lobbying: It is worth emphasizing that much of One NZ’s lobbying is not publicly disclosed or monitored. New Zealand’s “wild west” lobbying environment (no mandatory register, high-trust approach) allows One NZ to operate with minimal accountability on influence. Researchers like Bryce Edwards have pointed out that corporate players (Vodafone/One NZ included) likely spend considerable sums on lobbyists and maintain close relationships with officials, yet the public would only hear of it when something leaks or an OIA is released under pressure [10]. This report itself is an attempt to document what the official system does not. The Integrity Institute has highlighted that One NZ’s public transparency reporting is sparse – for instance, there is no detailed political engagement section in its annual reports (unlike some overseas companies). This conspicuous silence is “suspicious” in itself, suggesting the company prefers to keep its political activity out of the spotlight, perhaps to avoid shareholder or customer concerns. In contrast, it will loudly promote charitable works or sponsorships. Such asymmetry of information is precisely what an unofficial register seeks to address.
Relationship with Regulators: One NZ’s dealings with the Commerce Commission and MBIE are ongoing and complex. While generally compliant, the company is known to push boundaries (e.g., fighting against regulated cuts to mobile roaming or termination fees until compelled). It often negotiates private arrangements – for example, in the lead-up to the 5G spectrum auction in 2020, the government allocated some 5G spectrum directly to operators (including Vodafone) to accelerate rollout, an approach criticized as favouring industry incumbents. The decision came after behind-scenes consultations. This kind of preferential policy treatment (no open auction initially) demonstrated One NZ’s influence in shaping outcomes to its benefit under the guise of public interest (faster 5G). Only after political pressure did the government commit to an open auction for long-term spectrum licenses. So, while not a scandal per se, it’s noteworthy how policy can be skewed by industry lobbying.
COVID-19 Network Priority: During the pandemic, telecommunications were declared essential services. Vodafone NZ was part of the government’s COVID response communications team, helping ensure networks stayed up. This quasi-public role gave Vodafone a chance to forge tighter bonds with officials. One NZ emerged from COVID with enhanced goodwill at senior levels of government for its role in keeping the country connected – an intangible asset in lobbying terms. It is likely to leverage this goodwill in future policy debates (for instance, arguing that policies unfavorable to telcos could impede their ability to respond in crises).
Beneficiary of Government Subsidies: Aside from the Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) funds mentioned, One NZ has also indirectly benefited from the Ultra-Fast Broadband (UFB) initiative – a government-subsidised fibre network. While Spark’s spinoff Chorus built most of UFB, retail ISPs like Vodafone got a new market to profit from with minimal capital investment. Vodafone NZ initially was critical of aspects of UFB (preferring its own cable network), but once the government invested NZ$1.5 billion, Vodafone gladly signed up customers and even bought a fibre retailer (TelstraClear) to capitalize on it. Essentially, government investment in broadband created a lucrative retail opportunity for One NZ. This dynamic – private gain from public investment – is a recurring theme: One NZ’s lobbying often pushes for public expenditure on infrastructure (rural towers, fibre, satellite coverage) that it can then use to generate private returns. This can be framed as win-win (better networks for all), but it deserves critical examination to ensure the public interest is truly served and that One NZ is meeting its obligations in return (like fair pricing in rural areas).

29. Recipient of Wage Subsidy Scheme: No. One NZ (Vodafone NZ) did not apply for or receive the COVID-19 Wage Subsidy in 2020 [18]. The company publicly stated it declined to seek wage subsidies, in contrast to many NZ companies, even though its revenues were impacted by the pandemic (due to lost roaming fees and retail store closures) [18]. Vodafone’s CEO at the time argued that while they qualified on paper (revenue drop), they chose not to take taxpayer money, positioning the decision as an ethical stance to “do the right thing” and because the longer-term financial impacts were manageable with internal measures. This stance won praise in some quarters (for not burdening the public purse), but also invited skepticism – shortly thereafter, Vodafone announced significant job cuts, which some saw as effectively making staff bear the cost instead of taking subsidy support. Moreover, One NZ continued to engage with the government for other forms of assistance (e.g., seeking regulatory relief or designation as critical infrastructure deserving support) [18]. In summary, One NZ did not receive wage subsidy funds and therefore was not on the published list of subsidy recipients, but it did pursue other government support during the pandemic. Notably, competitors like Spark also did not take subsidies, consistent with a telecom sector approach that emphasized self-reliance (and perhaps a desire to avoid public scrutiny of finances that accepting subsidies would invite). This is relevant to an influence profile because it shows the company’s calculation in balancing financial help against reputational risk – ultimately a strategic choice in how it wanted to be perceived by the Government and public during a crisis.

Sources:

[1] One New Zealand Group Limited – business registry details (Company No. 927212), NZ Companies Office / BizDB, https://www.bizdb.co.nz/company/9429037753115/

[2] Vodafone NZ rebrands to One NZ, Campaign Brief NZ, https://campaignbrief.co.nz/2022/09/30/building-a-new-brand-for-nz-vodafone-nz-rebrands-to-one-nz-and-celebrates-with-dramatic-launch/

[3] Will Trafford, Vodafone defends rebrand to ‘One NZ’, despite white supremacist connotations, Te Ao Māori News, https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2022/09/29/vodafone-defends-rebrand-to-one-nz-despite-white-supremacist-connotations/

[4] Wikipedia: One NZ, (formerly Vodafone New Zealand) – Company overview and market share, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_NZ

[5] One NZ (formerly Vodafone NZ) Corporate History, Wikipedia – acquisitions of ihug (2006) and TelstraClear (2012), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_NZ

[6] One New Zealand – LinkedIn page (company profile), LinkedIn.com, https://www.linkedin.com/company/onenz/

[7] Chris Keall, Infratil taking full control of One NZ in $1.8b deal, NZ Herald, 7 Jun 2023, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/infratil-taking-full-control-of-one-nz-in-18-billion-deal/OI5IEIFKY5EBDLIXCS2G66ORT4/

[8] Vodafone Group Plc, Vodafone Group completes sale of Vodafone New Zealand, media release, 31 Jul 2019, https://www.vodafone.com/news/press-release/vodafone-group-completes-sale-of-vodafone-new-zealand

[9] The Lawyer Magazine, Juliet Jones… integral part of sale of Vodafone NZ…, LawyerMag.com, 2019, https://www.thelawyermag.com/nz/news/general/juliet-jones-legal-director-vodafone-new-zealand/207049

[10] LinkedIn, Hayden Glass – Experience Details, 2024, https://www.linkedin.com/in/hayden-glass-51663134/details/experience/

[11] MBIE – Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, Telecommunications policy submissions (example: Vodafone NZ submission by Catherine Soper on consumer broadband regulation, 2018), via MBIE.govt.nz

[12] NZ Herald, Russell Stanners to leave Vodafone after 17 years, 2018, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/russell-stanners-to-leave-vodafone-nz-after-17-years/4XKFBJ5BBEWKHA3O4ORHLF2CGY/

[13] Kiwibank Press Release, Kiwibank appoints Kate Jorgensen as independent director, 2021 (Jorgensen’s past roles as CFO Vodafone NZ etc.), via SeqelPartners.com

[14] One NZ official site – Business Solutions / Case Studies, One.nz (detailing major enterprise clients and partnerships).

[15] Department of Internal Affairs, Telecommunications-as-a-Service (TaaS) panel suppliers, 2015 – listing Vodafone NZ (One NZ) as a key supplier, via Digital.govt.nz

[16] Hamish Fletcher, Joyce confirms Vodafone lobbied on internet prices, NZ Herald, 17 Sep 2013, (Steven Joyce persuaded Vodafone not to join Coalition for Fair Internet Pricing), https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/joyce-confirms-vodafone-lobbied-on-internet-prices/M3XDCD6ZWNS5YWKTKJBQHBOF2Q/

[17] TelcoNews, Vodafone’s MVNO platform opens with MyRepublic, 2017 – Vodafone NZ enabling MVNOs, showing wholesale clients, http://www.telconews.co.nz/news/vodafone-nz-opens-mvno-platform-myrepublic/

[18] One NZ Media Release, Keeping Kiwis connected during COVID-19… (COVID-19 Care plan, note: “we did not apply for the wage subsidy” statement), April 2020, media.one.nz/covid19actionplan

[19] Christchurch City Council, Te Kaha stadium project – One New Zealand Stadium, 2023, (One NZ Stadium naming rights details), https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/facilities-and-assets/te-kaha-multi-use-arena/

[20] The Spinoff, The erstwhile Vodafone Music Awards return as Aotearoa Music Awards, Nov 2020, (Vodafone’s sponsorship history of NZ Music Awards), https://thespinoff.co.nz/music/15-11-2020/all-hits-no-gimmicks-the-spinoff-reviews-the-aotearoa-music-awards

[21] Te Rourou – One Aotearoa Foundation, Press release: Vodafone (One NZ) and NZ Red Cross Tongan tsunami relief, Jan 2022, (example of foundation collaboration with government in humanitarian response), via teaonews.co.nz

[22] Andrew Cornaga, One NZ CEO Jason Paris apologises for accusing NRL referees of cheating, NZ Herald, 2 June 2023, (Warriors sponsor incident), https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/warriors-sponsor-one-nz-chief-executive-jason-paris-apologises-for-cheating-ref-comments/3PFMK6QOXVFXRFIH6Q5I74DVIU/

Spot anything in this entry that is wrong? Please either leave a comment at the end or email, in confidence: bryce@democracyproject.nz