Sounds ironic, don’t you think? MLA has apparently claimed it is giving itself (its Board and senior executives), salary increases because NLIS is so successful.
Cop that!
A salary increase justified by a severe impost on producers (and agents) that is paid for by producers and benefits processors and retailers!
The MLA already receives a triple tax from producers:
1. The increased per head ‘levy’ tax
2. LPA tax to use the industry’s standard NVD form.
3. Federal Govt. co-funding from ‘Normal’ government farm taxes to boot!
(So, despite the fact that it is an independent corporation, MLA is actually funded primarily from taxes and would have very little revenue without taxes. Not much free market economics going-on there! )
However, it does seem a tad strange, don’t you think, that it can have the gaul to increase its salary based upon the spending of producer’s taxes. i.e. “We have spent your taxes so well, we deserve an increase in salary”.
One wonder whether they will then have the gaul to increase the taxes (levies) again in order to pay for the salary increases. Now that would be a truly vicious cycle.
If we are to take other large corporations as an example, we would expect to see peer group benchmarks and performance hurdles before salary increases would even be mentioned. As it stands, it seems there are no benchmarks on NLIS and all we have are:
1. PWC audit that showed ‘black’ holes in NLIS
2. Producer and agent displeasure with the NLIS
3. No international requirement for NLIS
4. No international implementation of NLIS
If this is the case, where is the case for MLA salary increases based upon the success of NLIS? In 2008 it should no longer be possible to say something is so without proof.
What do you think?
Please leave a comment below
Rural Australia 