Australia Post - how much are its Executives worth ?

Following the revelation that the remuneration of the now departed Chief Executive of Australia Post, Ahmed Fahour, was $5.6M, the organisation has released a remuneration report showing that three other current executives of the organisation also earn over $1M per annum.  A fourth who has since retired earned $1.2 M per annum. These are staggering amounts for a Public Sector agency and are greater than salaries and benefits paid to Heads of Commonwealth  Departments and State Government Departments.  The CEO of Australia Post was revealed to be highest paid head of a Postal agency in the world.  

Australia Post Executives earning more than $1M per annum

Name	Base salary and fees	Short term incentives	Non- monetary benefits	Superannuation	Total $
Chris Blake	781,514	521,500	-	19,308	1,322,322
Robert Black	883,426	585,000	-	19,308	1,497,734
Christine Corbett	767,305	677,500	-	82.350	1,527,155
Ahmed Fahour	1,971,152	2,342,933	73,985	1,239829	5,627,959

 Two other Executives earned well over $900,000 per annum.

These remuneration levels stand in stark contrast to the performance of Australia Post with a rising tide of complaints received by the Commonwealth Ombudsman which also has had the role of Postal Industry Ombudsman since 2006. Delivery issues account for 30% of all complaints regarding Australia Post with failure to deliver, failure to use safe drop procedures and failure to obtain a signature on delivery being the main concerns. With rapidly declining retail surface mail business, the public are right to ask why the level of Executive remuneration is so high and why was the Federal Government been caught so flat footed. If this situation had occurred in an ASX listed company, the shareholders would have had an opportunity to vote down the remuneration report - a device which general taxpayers in contrast do not have.

Does the definition of nascent dictator fit Trump ?

Donald J Trump - President of the United States

Much has been said and projected with comparisons between Donald J Trump and the Great Dictators of the first half of the 20th Century (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco and to a degree, Chiang Kai-shek). The characteristics and circumstances are very different between the 21st Century United States and the countries where each of these leaders arose. In the case of Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain and China, a monarchical system had been displaced or was disappearing as a result of the Great War or internal civil war and new institutions were struggling to gain a foothold in the new nation. Substantial economic disruption had commensurately occurred as a result of this conflict which included the after effects following the end of World War I. The Great Depression also ensured the tearing of the social fabric in each country. There is no comparison with the United States in 2016 and 2017 which has none of these characteristics.

The Great Dictators were far more a product of their era than Trump. Each of them also galvanized and gave voice to the political structures which they led. The Nazi Party, the Italian Fascists, the Communist Party of Russia, the Nationalists of China  and the Nationalists of Spain were partly or totally designed by their leaders. The Republican Party in the United States is not a product of Trump and both they and he, are almost functioning independent of each other (for now).

So although Trump tries to control the media, makes promises to build walls, rattles sabres on defence, tries to alter trade negotiations, etc he does so with the other arms of Government (the Legislature and the Judiciary) fully functional. There is no Enabling Act or equivalent which cedes him power from the Legislature which was a feature of the early 20th Century in Europe.

Annual General Meetings - Corporate Australia's itch

Under the Australian Corporations Act, public companies are required to have Annual General Meetings annually and no later than 5 months after the end of the financial year. It's not surprising that in October 2016, the Australian Institute of Company Directors [AICD] issued a checklist of possible questions which might arise from the floor of Annual General Meetings of Australian companies.  A raft of negative media stories about the franchising sector, (many of which are part of publicly listed companies) Board and executive remuneration and increasing class action litigations have left many companies working overtime to deflect public criticism.

So what did the AICD recommend as a question checklist ?

Of the 21 major questions suggested, 15 were on Chief Executive remuneration, 3 on Board remuneration and 3 on Board diversity. It's plain to see where the main focus of attention was directed. Questions included  were: Why is the CEO's remuneration so high when the company's performance over the last 3 years has not shown any significant improvement ? What has the CEO done to deserve the "bonus" you have paid him or her ? Why is the new CEO paid more than the previous CEO ?

The AICD also pays considerable attention to question involving the proportion of Short Term Incentives (STI) and Long Term Incentives (LTI) included in CEO contracts. Quite often a higher proportion of bonus payments have been placed in the STI category not the LTI one. In contrast, the Australian Shareholders Association continues to argue that greater incentives, such as share options should be placed in the long term incentive category to prevent CEOs making short term focused decisions (such as asset sales) giving the impression that a company is doing well when in fact, its normal operating results are poor. Perhaps the AICD would be better placed to ask companies to do some self examination to determine why these type of questions are necessary in the first place.

Corporate conduct in Australia and first strike votes

The corporate reporting season and Annual General Meetings of ASX listed companies in Australia runs until November each year but usually extends up until the Christmas eve period followed swiftly by half yearly results in February. Late 2016 saw a raft of companies falling foul of their shareholders and experiencing first strike votes. This particularly affected what are known as the remuneration reports which provide information about how much Board directors and chief executive officers are paid.

Under the Corporations Act, if 25 per cent of the votes cast at two consecutive annual general meetings oppose the remuneration report, then at the second meeting the company must give shareholders the option to require the entire board to stand for re-election. What the table below (provided by the Australian Shareholders Association) shows is the disconnect between Boards and executives with their shareholders.

  

Commonwealth Bank	First strike. Ian Narev, CEO of CommBank saw his LTI grant withdrawn and 50.91% of voted stock opposed the remuneration report.
CSL	First strike. 26% voted against the remuneration report, 27.25% against the CEO’s  Long Term Incentive grant and 33.82% against the proposed rise in the fee cap for directors from $3M to $4M.
Cabcharge	46% voted against the re-election of Donald McMichael after the Board reversed his promised retirement and failed to source new directors.
LendLease	Withdrew proposed new constitution after investor rejection of proposals.
Carsales.com	First strike. 54.8% voted against the remuneration report.
Goodman Group	First strike. 39.94 voted against the remuneration report as the pay for the CEO with $18m incentive was considered too high.
Sims Group	First strike. 31.7% voted against the remuneration report and proposed constitutional changes.
News Ltd/ 21st Century Fox	First strike. 31.1% voted against the remuneration report or 63.7% if the Board directors votes are excluded.

Opera Australia 2017 season - Review - King Roger

Michael Honeyman (centre) King Roger and Lorna Gore (far left) Roxanna

This is the first time the Australian Opera has performed a Polish opera and none is more fitting than Karol Szymanowski's King Roger. Often described as rich and strange, in three Acts the Opera traces the enlightenment of Christian King Roger by a young shepherd who represents pagan principles and a devotion to hedonism. The underlying theme which Symanowski is exploring is the transformative impact of beauty on cultural orthodoxy for the shepherd's message is both enticing and destructive.

In terms of a synopsis: In Act I the Archbishop and the Deaconess demand that King Roger punish a new self-proclaimed prophet who is preaching a new, strange faith. Others call for the Shepherd's execution for blasphemy. Queen Roxanna urges to the King to summon the Shepherd to explain himself for she is drawn to his preaching of freedom, pleasure and love. In Act II the Shepherd arrives and describes his philosophy and faith of pleasure unleashing an orgiastic dance which seduces the citizens into ecstasy. In Act III the Shepherd is now in power and King Roger is on trial and wanders amongst the ruins. As night falls, the Shepherd then reappears and reveals his true identity as the god of pure pleasure and demands that all should follow him blindly.  Roger resists and as dawn breaks he feels hopeful to build a new life and escape the Shepherd.  

Karol Szymanowski (1882-1937) is widely accepted as Poland's greatest composer since Chopin and it is often thought that King Roger is actually a representation of himself, a suggestion which he never contradicted. The Opera is a synthesis of different musical forms drawn from varied cultural contexts including the Mediterranean and North Africa which Szymanowski experienced as he travelled across these regions.

The set design is imaginative and multifunctional with an enormous bust of Roger's head on stage which revolves revealing a split-level internal set design of Roger's palace apartments inside. Superb stage lighting also creates the impression that the eyes of the great head follow the cast as they move.

The capable key performers for this production were:

• Michael Honeyman as King Roger
• Lorna Gore as Roxanna
• Saimir Pirgu as The Shepherd
• James Egglestone as Edrisi
• Dominica Mathews as the Deaconess
• Gennadi Dubinsky as ther Archbishop

King Roger's theme and message still resonates in the current era as much as it did in the early 20th Century.

Film Review - Rosalie Blum

Rosalie Blum -Noemie Lvovsky

Rosalie Blum directed by Julien Rappenau is for the viewer who simply would like to see a quality, plot driven story without undue negativity, gratuitious violence or mindless action hero CGI effects. Best categorised as a romantic-mystery-comedy, the film has its moments of both hilarity and pathos yet remains firmly grounded in reality. At 96 minutes duration, its expertly crafted with the plotline progressively revealed.

The  story is evenly shared between its two main characters,Vincent (Kyan Khonjandi) and Rosalie (Noemie Lvovsky) with a small ensemble cast in support. Vincent lives a nondescript life running a small hair dressing salon in provincial France. His demanding and somewhat dotty old mother lives in the apartment above his own placing an endless array of demands on her son. It is while doing a shopping errand for his mother that Vincent sets eyes on Rosalie, the owner of a small store and he is instantly drawn to her in a form of deja vu moment. He cannot identify how this familiarity exists so he sets about carrying out clandestine surveillance of her to find a clue however, its not long before Rosalie becomes aware of this activity.  With the assistance of her niece, Aude (Alice Isaaz), her friends, Cecile (Sara Graudeau), Laura (Camille Rutherford)  and Aude's bizarre performance artist roommate,  (Philippe Rebbot) Vincent becomes the unwitting subject of some counter-watching. Is Vincent a madman, serial killer or a harmless quack is the question which Aude and friends seek to discover through a series of very funny circumstances. Vincent also finds the answer he is seeking and along the way unexpectedly finds a direction for his own life.

This is a very good art-house film and strongly recommended for its social observation and uplifting and comical moments.

Film Review - Jackie - Natalie Portman's exemplary performance

Jackie - Natalie Portman

While many film documentaries and dramatisations have canvassed the assassination of US President John F Kennedy in Dallas, Texas in 1963, few if any, have approached the subject solely from the perspective of the First Lady, Jacqueline Kennedy. This film does just that.

Directed by Pablo Larrain and written by Noah Oppenheim this biopic covers the initial few days immediately following the assassination with carefully positioned flashbacks to earlier periods in the White House to give context to Jackie's role as First Lady. Based on a long interview given to Life magazine journalist, Theodore H White at Hyanis Port, Massachusetts by Jackie Kennedy, this is no sentimental, maudlin film but one which takes the viewer directly into a front row seat, almost as a witness.

The film is not long at just 91 minutes and relies heavily on recreated historical scenes through the eyes of Jackie both in first person voiceover narrator and in direct dialogue scenes. In such a story-telling process, there is almost a complete reliance on the central character to convey the events, the emotions and the impact. This is done superbly by Natalie Portman and this film should be seen as a triumph and high point of her acting career. Her performance captures Jacqueline Kennedy's poise, elegance, voice and understated steel resolve to ensure her husband is properly honoured in death while caring for her now fatherless-children. This is no mean feat as Portman only marginally resembles the real life woman and so must rely heavily on her own acting skills to compensate and achieve audience believability.

Filmed on location (during the funeral procession scenes several blocks of Washington had to be cordoned off) for historical accuracy and with supporting key roles filled by experienced actors (Peter Skarsgaard as Robert F Kennedy, Greta Gerwig as Nancy Tuckerman, Beth Grant as Lady Bird Johnson, Billy Crudup as Theodore H White, John Carroll Lynch as President Lyndon B Johnson and John Hurt as the Priest).

This is a film which brings a close human perspective to a much documented historical event in the United States and it would be surprising if the viewer did not come away with a greater appreciation if not deeper respect for Jackie Kennedy.