Archive for MLA salaries

Is AACo’s CEO Worth Less Than MLA’s CEO?

December 4, 2009 at 11:34 am · Filed under farming, livestock, Livestock issues, meat industry, MLA, MLA salaries, rural australia, Rural business, rural issues, Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , ,

AACo. has just announced that it’s new CEO will receive $600,000 base salary with incentives that can take it to $1,000,000. See Media Report Here
I think MLA’s CEO, David Palmer receives around $750,000 (+ expenses, of course).
How do you compare the worth and/or effectiveness of these employees? Is one worth more than the other?
Who is AACo’s CEO answerable to and how and
who is MLA’s CEO answerable to and how?
As a group listed with the ASX, AACo. must follow strict rules and guidelines on reporting to its shareholders who have invested in the company.
MLA is also a sorporate entity that must follow the rules of ASIC. (That is why only around 2.6% of Aust levy-paying producers voted in the recent MLA AGM but it is still funded by the Fed Govt See Figures here). MLA is a tax-payer funded organisation with those taxes coming from a per head fee on livestock sold (taxes) and Federal Govt funding (from taxpayers). So, the rules followed by MLA are different from those followed by AACo.
AACo. has published the salary of its new CEO. How easy is it to access the salary of MLA’s CEO?
AACO. shareholders will see the salary of their CEO paid from company revenue and his incentives paid from measurable commercial company performance. How is the performance of the MLA’s CEO measured? Is there a component that is also based upon the performance of the MLA. Is it related back to the commercial benefit to its livestock growers?
If so, how is this performance measured?
Presumably MLA is using a different set of figures its media releases that show it has only produced $0.91c per beast over 30 years of spending. See Rural Australia Analysis Here


What do you think?
Please leave your comment below.

Comments (6)

The Irony Of MLA Wage Increases Based Upon NLIS!

November 24, 2008 at 3:30 pm · Filed under election, farming, livestock, Livestock issues, MLA salaries, NLIS, rural australia, rural issues, tagging

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

Comments (19)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.