Mark Sullivan worth half a mil per year?

According to today’s Australian the cost of desal to the Queensland government is $731.00 per megalitre, and this is described as the “most expensive water you can produce”. Yet if I use ACTEW’s own figures the cost to the Canberra consumer is between $3500.00-$4000.00 per megalitre! Yet the ACTEW CEO has the gall to tell us that the so-called independent ICRC has determined that this is a fair and equitable price to levy on consumers. Has the so-called independent ICRC taken into account the generous salary paid to the CEO and other ACTEW execs when determining what is a fair price? We are being screwed and the beneficiaries are the ACT Treasury and the ACT government and those on large remuneration packages.

I just read #13 and that explains it further. My ex does indeed work in Water/Sewerage. Thanks jimbocool.

As surprised as I was last time I found out in here that ACTEW only employed 35 staff, being an ex-wife of an ACTEW man. I asked him about this and he said, “remember when I signed that agreement that kept me with the government side as opposed to ACTEW/AGL the commercial setup when they merged?” I remembered then.

Just hard to believe so few did (as my ex thought too), although I recall a fair few at the time took small redundancies too.

Clown Killer said :

This seems about right to me…

Yeah right.

Sydney Water (Kerry Schott) Total renumeration package (2009) – $476,280

S.A. Water – 1373 staff, revenue of $900,000,000. CEO salary (2009) – $409,000

This seems about right to me. A CEO of a moderately successful company with around 20 full time staff should be able to take home around $500k without anything weighing on their conscience. I’d say that ACTEW are doing a bit better than moderately successful so the $600k figure seems reasonable.

It seems that Mr Sullivan is happy with a situation where we are paying for a new dam to store water we will not be able to much use thanks to new water cuts in the Basin and increased required e-flows (new Cotter emptying flows of 12 Gigs on a 75 Gig storage – meaning it’s not much good for a long drought even after we’ve paid over $350 million and more for it). If he were working for the people of the ACT he would be asking why is Melbourne (not even in the Basin) being allowed to pull 90 Gigs out(more than twice all of Canberra’s usage). As for Adelaide, well if they care so much about the Murray mouth maybe they should leave the river alone and get their water from dams or desal.

If Mark S wants people to think he’s worth paying anything for, perhaps he ought to be more diligent in defending our interests.

I too am stunned Mr Sullivan commands such a stratospheric salary scale for running a middling city utility dept – where basically you have to pipe water to people from dams and maintain power lines. But I am more concerned that he can get basic rainfall facts wrong by saying on “Agreed droughts happen and this is the worst in recorded history..”. Queanbeyan rain data from 1871 shows with crystal clarity that the last decade was no dryer than periods in the first half of the 20C and late 19C. There are no long term inflow data – lets not kid ourselves there and ACTEW should not try to hide that their long term inflow numbers are modeled. Also, there are no long term rain series from our ACT mountain catchments.

Mr Sullivan believes what the doomster greenhouse modeling is saying. That will cost us vastly more than his salary and will prolong these “hair shirt” water restrictions, that will help nobody or the environment and simply cost ACT consumers vastly more than their water should be costing. As weather and climate events unfold, basic facts must be examined carefully to understand how the “expensive water lobby” maneuvers to maintain their anti-water-consumer policies. Right now we have a classic case of the “water buy back” scheme being foisted on rural people – at a time the MDB is running from top to bottom – running to the sea – swamps flooded with “environmental flows”. A visitor from space might marvel at how we tolerate our tiny human water use being attacked by the Green and usually left wing “expensive water lobby”.

Time we stopped paying these clowns. A friend showed me a notice from ACTEW she received in 1993 saying that ACTEW was planning a comprehensive water strategy to ensure water for the ACT.

What a sick joke! here we are in 2010, 17 years later, hundreds of millions wasted, interest bills being racked up forever, petty water restrictions forever when ACTEW’s own Future Water Options paper said we could have had the Tennent Dam with 150 gigs (twice the size of the new Cotter), enough water for 50 years and at an average increase in annual water bills of $150 per year.

It takes real genius to stuff up a water supply in a territory with clean alpine streams and an annual average rainfall of 494 Gigs per year for a population which uses at most a net 25 or 30 Gigs.

Does he really thing that the people of Canberra are that dumb?
Yep. And we are. We keep paying up.

If Mr Sullivan knows so little that he does not know that we already have a scarcity price for water called the water abstraction charge (way higher than what farmers pay – so it’s rigged anyway) then he should be getting a FAIL, not a gold-bar worth 600,000 bucks. Does he really thing that the people of Canberra are that dumb?

The boss of a monopoly utility for a small city gets $600,00 plus? The leaders of many nations, including our own, earn less.

Good on Sullivan for his negotiating skills. Shame on those who agreed to pay him that amount.

No wonder ACTEW tried to keep it quiet.

tamd said :

It is outrageous.

He appears to have done nothing to defend the interests of the ratepayers and water users who pay him. On the contrary, he has today (Oct 9) even suggested Canberra should not get the credits it negotiated 2 years ago when the ACT Government gave away most of the ACT’s water rights, notwithstanding that the boundaries of the ACT were drawn to secure our water catchments.

How come the farmers got water rights whereas we had ours stripped from us so that we have to buy back the water we are giving away downstream?

We lost the 455 KL pre-paid allowance which our rates used to pay for.

Don’t pay him a penny unless he defends our water rights and cuts prices and ends water restrictions (ie does his true job of supplying ADEQUATE water AT LEAST COST.) Tell him to find another job if he can’t deliver.

As for ACTEW, it is just a filthy and disgusting fraud on the public. It is not a competitive private business. It should be abolished. It’s just a rapacious monopoly which charges us 10 times over and over again. Any fool can make money out of a monopoly screwing consumers into the dirt on behalf of government.

Now we are getting somewhere, any half arsed CEO knows that if your business is to survive and prosper you need to ensure supply of your product and you need to re-invest a large proportion of your profits in your infrastructure.

These clowns did neither and when a new dam became essential (long after everything died) they simply passed on the full cost to a captive consumer. Al the while running up ridiculous advertising bills (who are they trying to convince ?) and handing out our money to sporting clubs at lavish garden parties and functions.

Outrageous about sums it up

It is outrageous.

He appears to have done nothing to defend the interests of the ratepayers and water users who pay him. On the contrary, he has today (Oct 9) even suggested Canberra should not get the credits it negotiated 2 years ago when the ACT Government gave away most of the ACT’s water rights, notwithstanding that the boundaries of the ACT were drawn to secure our water catchments.

How come the farmers got water rights whereas we had ours stripped from us so that we have to buy back the water we are giving away downstream?

We lost the 455 KL pre-paid allowance which our rates used to pay for.

Don’t pay him a penny unless he defends our water rights and cuts prices and ends water restrictions (ie does his true job of supplying ADEQUATE water AT LEAST COST.) Tell him to find another job if he can’t deliver.

As for ACTEW, it is just a filthy and disgusting fraud on the public. It is not a competitive private business. It should be abolished. It’s just a rapacious monopoly which charges us 10 times over and over again. Any fool can make money out of a monopoly screwing consumers into the dirt on behalf of government.

davesact said :

If he has managed to negotiate a salary like that good on him but I have to admit that half a million is an awfully large amount of money to be paid when departmental heads of much larger Commonwealth organisations receive less.

Which would be relevant if ACTEW was a departmental head of a small Commonwealth organisation. Its a company, so they pay at private sector rates.

shadow boxer said :

wow, that went over peoples heads….the main job of a CEO is to strategically plan for the future and to ensure the delivery of those plans. If you accept a private industry salary you should be expected to receive the private indutry response when plans fail or even worse you fail to plan.

Pot calling the kettle methinks…

wow, that went over peoples heads….the main job of a CEO is to strategically plan for the future and to ensure the delivery of those plans. If you accept a private industry salary you should be expected to receive the private indutry response when plans fail or even worse you fail to plan.

Knows Best said :

JC……you’re kidding about the profit aren’t you. A government owned corporation who have a monopoly on an essential commodity…of course they make a bloody profit….that’s a no brainer!!………..even the drover’s dog could do that.

True, but the point being ACTEW is different from other organisations because it is a commercial organisation, so really what he is paid is up to the board of that organisation and is none of our business.

KB1971 said :

shadow boxer said :

Aren’t they guaranteeing it now with the Cotter dam enlargement,

Here’s a thought, we could have saved some money over the years and built it before it was needed instead of watching our once glorious garden city be reduced to a dust bowl. Our nature strips now resemble a weedy paddock, our beautiful sporting facilities are long gone, Burley Griffins tree lined thoroughfares died and our lovely 60-80 year old private gardens are dead.

The buck stops with you Stanhope and Mackay….

Oh gawd………..reality check on isle five.

I think you meant “aisle,” but “isle” works equally well. I giggled. 😉

Alternatively, “Get off my [dead] lawn!”

JC……you’re kidding about the profit aren’t you. A government owned corporation who have a monopoly on an essential commodity…of course they make a bloody profit….that’s a no brainer!!………..even the drover’s dog could do that.

….its a ridiculous amount, think about it, a public servant who earns over $12,000 per week for a second rate water authority with the highest water prices in Australia with less than 35 staff. It just reinforces the largeese of ACTEW, which spent $100,000’s plus on TV advertising telling us how great they are. What a joke and we are all paying for it.

chewy14 said :

johnboy said :

Do we put the nuke to run the desal and the pumps down there or up here?

Jervis Bay Territory. Commonwealth controlled land and sort of part of the ACT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervis_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant_proposal

You know it makes sense.

Well, they already bulldozed a site to build a nuclear reactor down there, so it makes sense.

troll-sniffer said :

shadow boxer said :

I guess it depends on the performance of the organisation.

Power bills have doubled.
There is not enough water and what there is is rationed and you pay through the teeth for it.
The organisation was totally incapable of estimating the cost of a new dam and the Googong pipeway is looking shaky.

I wonder how much John Mackay gets for running this shambles ?

I’ve yet to see a CEO who can control a drought, but perhaps you can?

CEOs do rely on information provided by engineers and the like, and I believe that this was the case in the Cotter Dam fiasco. I recall hearing an explanation that the preliminary figures quoted were never all-encompassing and in response to a particular request, however I wasn’t there so I don’t know all the details, same as everyone else.

But it would be interesting to see if he gets a big bonus now the drought has ended, consumption can increase and so too will Actew revenue. And doesn’t the large salary reflect the CEO taking responsibility, rather than blaming the engineers etc.

But I also don’t know the details, so who can say if it is appropriate or not.

I stand by my comments. if anyone wants to address them rather than glib one liners feel free.

Deep down you know i’m right, if you’re not sure head down to Dickson/Hawdon street ovals and have a look

p1 said :

“Actew, an ACT Government-owned company, directly employs about 35 staff and supplies water to about 145,000 customers”

Does ACTew really only have 35 staff? I must personally know about a third of them…

Probably, but there are shed loads that work for ACTEWAGL though. Different companies.

As to this debate there is one major difference between Mark Sullivan and the department secretaries and that is ACTEW is a commercial organisation there to make profit. So clearly the shareholders of this company see value in paying him that much, which IMO is solely a private issue between him and the board.

johnboy said :

Do we put the nuke to run the desal and the pumps down there or up here?

Jervis Bay Territory. Commonwealth controlled land and sort of part of the ACT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervis_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant_proposal

You know it makes sense.

johnboy said :

Do we put the nuke to run the desal and the pumps down there or up here?

Put it at the half way point and use the de-sal’ed water to cool the reactor 🙂

shadow boxer said :

He certainly does appear popular in Canberra’s social set and when handing out grants from his throne, shame he totaly failed to plan for Canberra’s ongoing water supply over the past decade, blaming the drought is rubbish, if your sole job is guaranteeing water supply in Australia and you didn’t plan on a drought you should be frog marched out of the building.

Are you still talking about John Mackay or Mark Sullivan?

And do you know the difference between ACTEW and ACTEWAGL because it doesn’t sound like it.

I think they should build a desalinasation plant down the coast with a pipeline to Canberra. Then we would have guarantee of supply.
Based on your previous comment i’m sure you would agree?

shadow boxer said :

Aren’t they guaranteeing it now with the Cotter dam enlargement,

Here’s a thought, we could have saved some money over the years and built it before it was needed instead of watching our once glorious garden city be reduced to a dust bowl. Our nature strips now resemble a weedy paddock, our beautiful sporting facilities are long gone, Burley Griffins tree lined thoroughfares died and our lovely 60-80 year old private gardens are dead.

The buck stops with you Stanhope and Mackay….

Oh gawd………..reality check on isle five.

GBT said :

I find it hard to accept that any person can do enough in a day, every day, to be paid over $2000 when the average Australian makes that a fortnight, leaving alone some of the salaries CEOs of American companies can command.

I think what it comes down to is whether that average Australian could do this guy’s job competently. Salary for most people is set by the market – what skills and effort is required compared to the pool of available resources.

I don’t think ‘fair’ comes into it. That’s just something the media likes to do to generate an emotive response.

shadow boxer said :

We’re all doomed … DOOMED … DOOOOOOOOOOOMED

Aren’t they guaranteeing it now with the Cotter dam enlargement,

Here’s a thought, we could have saved some money over the years and built it before it was needed instead of watching our once glorious garden city be reduced to a dust bowl. Our nature strips now resemble a weedy paddock, our beautiful sporting facilities are long gone, Burley Griffins tree lined thoroughfares died and our lovely 60-80 year old private gardens are dead.

The buck stops with you Stanhope and Mackay….

shadow boxer said :

KB1971 said :

troll-sniffer said :

shadow boxer said :

I guess it depends on the performance of the organisation.

Power bills have doubled.
There is not enough water and what there is is rationed and you pay through the teeth for it.
The organisation was totally incapable of estimating the cost of a new dam and the Googong pipeway is looking shaky.

I wonder how much John Mackay gets for running this shambles ?

Populist comments more suited to a Pauline Hanson response than anything meaningful. Power bills may have doubled (I think that’s an exaggeration though) but from an artificially low base. We are going to have to get used to paying more for our laziness in relying on machines to do everything for us.

I’ve yet to see a CEO who can control a drought, but perhaps you can?

CEOs do rely on information provided by engineers and the like, and I believe that this was the case in the Cotter Dam fiasco. I recall hearing an explanation that the preliminary figures quoted were never all-encompassing and in response to a particular request, however I wasn’t there so I don’t know all the details, same as everyone else.

On the money Troll Sniffer. The Cotter Dam estimate issue was such a media beat up it wasnt funny, at least they sorted it by the time construction began. Imagine the kerfuffle it would have caused after the fact?

Shadow Boxer, do you believe everything placed in front of you by the media?

BTW, I used to work with his wife, lovely lady & my wife works for him indirectly & has nothing but praise.

He certainly does appear popular in Canberra’s social set and when handing out grants from his throne, shame he totaly failed to plan for Canberra’s ongoing water supply over the past decade, blaming the drought is rubbish, if your sole job is guaranteeing water supply in Australia and you didn’t plan on a drought you should be frog marched out of the building.

So, how do you provide water without rain?

No one can “guarantee” anything that you rely on nature to deliver, in particular a water supply.

If you had not noticed, in the last 10 years it is not just the ACT that has had water problems, the whole southern end of the country from Brisbane to Perth (Adelaide has always had to live with a lack of water). Perth & Goulbourn are two from memory who were amongst the hardest hit. ACT in particular fared well in comparison.

The Cotter was offline for a number of years due to a number of issues but now these have been resolved so we are getting a new dam, job done me thinks.

Your guarantee of drought proofing a water supply is unrealistic.

I find it hard to accept that any person can do enough in a day, every day, to be paid over $2000 when the average Australian makes that a fortnight, leaving alone some of the salaries CEOs of American companies can command.

Fair enough, though, I don’t know what their daily working life entails but I imagine a lot of that work could be delegated. Also, being a “key player” doesn’t exactly specify what he does on those boards when those companies/subsidiaries each have their own directors, managers etc.

“Mark is not just running a major utility that has some major construction works going on at the moment, he’s also a key player on the boards of two other companies [ActewAGL and TransACT] for which he’s not remunerated.”

This fact makes me revise my previous statement again.

jimbocool said :

There’s a bit of confusion here. Actew – of which Mr Sullivan is the amply remunerated CEO – just does water, that’s why there’s only 35 employees. Even then, it’s water only in the purest sense – policy & dams – all the rest of the work, pipes, infrastructure & maintenance is done by ActewAGL. ActewAGL also does all the work on power and gas, including the maintenance of infrastructure and assets. The CEO of ActewAGL is a big gig and worth major bucks, CEO of Actew is equivalent to the head of a small sub agency of government like the LDA, or the Insurance Authority – salary in the $200k-$300k range (IMHO).

Fair enough. But in that case I think that half a mil sounds a little higher then I would have expected (having recently read the annual reports for a bunch of government departments, councils and private companies of various sizes. On the other hand, I don’t begrudge him the money, and if the board doesn’t think they are getting their monies worth, they should pay the next guy less.

KB1971 said :

troll-sniffer said :

shadow boxer said :

I guess it depends on the performance of the organisation.

Power bills have doubled.
There is not enough water and what there is is rationed and you pay through the teeth for it.
The organisation was totally incapable of estimating the cost of a new dam and the Googong pipeway is looking shaky.

I wonder how much John Mackay gets for running this shambles ?

Populist comments more suited to a Pauline Hanson response than anything meaningful. Power bills may have doubled (I think that’s an exaggeration though) but from an artificially low base. We are going to have to get used to paying more for our laziness in relying on machines to do everything for us.

I’ve yet to see a CEO who can control a drought, but perhaps you can?

CEOs do rely on information provided by engineers and the like, and I believe that this was the case in the Cotter Dam fiasco. I recall hearing an explanation that the preliminary figures quoted were never all-encompassing and in response to a particular request, however I wasn’t there so I don’t know all the details, same as everyone else.

On the money Troll Sniffer. The Cotter Dam estimate issue was such a media beat up it wasnt funny, at least they sorted it by the time construction began. Imagine the kerfuffle it would have caused after the fact?

Shadow Boxer, do you believe everything placed in front of you by the media?

BTW, I used to work with his wife, lovely lady & my wife works for him indirectly & has nothing but praise.

He certainly does appear popular in Canberra’s social set and when handing out grants from his throne, shame he totaly failed to plan for Canberra’s ongoing water supply over the past decade, blaming the drought is rubbish, if your sole job is guaranteeing water supply in Australia and you didn’t plan on a drought you should be frog marched out of the building.

astrojax said :

Hank said :

I personally don’t think its anyone’s business what a CEO is paid. I would of tried to negotiate more.

wouldn’a go far in this quest wi’ grammar like that, lad…

mark is a nice chap and deserves whatever he has been able to negotiate for himself. that’s the game, isn’t it? i didn’t think the ceo of actewagl includes in its job description ‘moral compass for the masses’. it is probably too much, if we look at this from a socialist perspective, but entirely justified from the conservative standpoint.

You’ll see lol.

The CT’s front-page pdf has more from John Mackay:

“The amount paid was a well-informed and deliberative decision by the full board and it was unanimously supported,” he said. “We engaged one of Australia’s leading remuneration consultants for advice, which included a survey of similar companies across Australia, and Mark is in fact paid at the 25th percentile.”

He said it might have been possible to employ a chief executive on a lower salary, but “one bad decision here could cost 10 times the salary in the first week of the job”.

“Mark is not just running a major utility that has some major construction works going on at the moment, he’s also a key player on the boards of two other companies [ActewAGL and TransACT] for which he’s not remunerated.”

I doubt Sullivan’s overpaid. But I can’t see why ActewAGL boss Michael Costello refuses to reveal his salary. Thought all public companies did this these days as a matter of routine?

Hey,
he earns more than I do.

This is disgraceful, everyone should be paid the same amount.
I’m going to ring my local radio station to complain about this overpaid corporate fat cat.

p1 said :

“Actew, an ACT Government-owned company, directly employs about 35 staff and supplies water to about 145,000 customers”

Does ACTew really only have 35 staff? I must personally know about a third of them…

I dare say ACTEW only has 35 employees directly employed by ACTEW, but ive seen many a trucks etc which have “ACTEW Contractor” on the sides. I hazard a guess they they sub most of their work out…

troll-sniffer said :

shadow boxer said :

I guess it depends on the performance of the organisation.

Power bills have doubled.
There is not enough water and what there is is rationed and you pay through the teeth for it.
The organisation was totally incapable of estimating the cost of a new dam and the Googong pipeway is looking shaky.

I wonder how much John Mackay gets for running this shambles ?

Populist comments more suited to a Pauline Hanson response than anything meaningful. Power bills may have doubled (I think that’s an exaggeration though) but from an artificially low base. We are going to have to get used to paying more for our laziness in relying on machines to do everything for us.

I’ve yet to see a CEO who can control a drought, but perhaps you can?

CEOs do rely on information provided by engineers and the like, and I believe that this was the case in the Cotter Dam fiasco. I recall hearing an explanation that the preliminary figures quoted were never all-encompassing and in response to a particular request, however I wasn’t there so I don’t know all the details, same as everyone else.

On the money Troll Sniffer. The Cotter Dam estimate issue was such a media beat up it wasnt funny, at least they sorted it by the time construction began. Imagine the kerfuffle it would have caused after the fact?

Shadow Boxer, do you believe everything placed in front of you by the media?

BTW, I used to work with his wife, lovely lady & my wife works for him indirectly & has nothing but praise.

I fail to see how this free-standing organisation is running things any better than it would have been run if held entirely within the government. And ‘having to pay’ wages like this is a spin-off this move.

If it had not been, it would be run as an arm of TAMS, with a manager in the $150,000 area.

I am fundamentally opposed to selling off or corporatising health, hygiene and core infrastructure projects.

I say this not from a populist position, but having served on a board responsible for the water supply for some 200,000 people, and on a Council that managed the water and wastewater treatment and distribution services for 116,000 people. We had very good people heading up these two organisations but they were all on a fraction of the money quoted above for ACTEW.

There’s a bit of confusion here. Actew – of which Mr Sullivan is the amply remunerated CEO – just does water, that’s why there’s only 35 employees. Even then, it’s water only in the purest sense – policy & dams – all the rest of the work, pipes, infrastructure & maintenance is done by ActewAGL. ActewAGL also does all the work on power and gas, including the maintenance of infrastructure and assets. The CEO of ActewAGL is a big gig and worth major bucks, CEO of Actew is equivalent to the head of a small sub agency of government like the LDA, or the Insurance Authority – salary in the $200k-$300k range (IMHO).

That’s a lot of money for running a municipal water and electricity board. I don’t know Mr Sullivan, I dare say that he is probably worth a package of that nature, but would we have the exact same outcome if the position was filled with someone who commands a $400,000 package?

What was the head honcho of ACTEA paid when it was a government organisation? Are the outcomes today any different? Is the water and electricity supply any more reliable?

Executive remuneration is a matter for the shareholders. As a government owned entity, that’s (indirectly) us.

BTW, what value do all those board members provide for their directors fees?
“Ladies and gentlemen of the board. I think our new strategy is as follows: Continue to provide water, electricity and gas distribution services to the A.C.T. in a monopolistic fashion”
“I say, good call”
“Yes, well done”
etc
etc

shadow boxer said :

I guess it depends on the performance of the organisation.

Power bills have doubled.
There is not enough water and what there is is rationed and you pay through the teeth for it.
The organisation was totally incapable of estimating the cost of a new dam and the Googong pipeway is looking shaky.

I wonder how much John Mackay gets for running this shambles ?

Populist comments more suited to a Pauline Hanson response than anything meaningful. Power bills may have doubled (I think that’s an exaggeration though) but from an artificially low base. We are going to have to get used to paying more for our laziness in relying on machines to do everything for us.

I’ve yet to see a CEO who can control a drought, but perhaps you can?

CEOs do rely on information provided by engineers and the like, and I believe that this was the case in the Cotter Dam fiasco. I recall hearing an explanation that the preliminary figures quoted were never all-encompassing and in response to a particular request, however I wasn’t there so I don’t know all the details, same as everyone else.

he’s getting far too much money. it’s water, one of the basic life essentials. it’s should not be monopolised & besides, the dams are full. why are premiums still going up and rates taking a hike too? so mark can line his pockets?

100% with you lumnock.

I’m no corporate high flyer but it’s increasingly popular to say that no CEO is worth their salary. It’s an extremely superficial headline to stir anyone earning less – and never takes into consideration the years of effort and sacrifice the CEO has made to get themselves into that position. All we here is: they sit behind a desk – how dare they earn big dollars!

Of course – there’s a perception that wealthy people in trades, or business owners, or even high level IT people have earned their money through “real work”, so their income is none of our business.

Sounds about right to me. He has a lot of responsibility, and takes considerable career risk in such a role. ACTEW seem to be doing a reasonable job also, which wouldn’t happen if top management didn’t have their act together.

I guess it depends on the performance of the organisation.

Power bills have doubled.
There is not enough water and what there is is rationed and you pay through the teeth for it.
The organisation was totally incapable of estimating the cost of a new dam and the Googong pipeway is looking shaky.

I wonder how much John Mackay gets for running this shambles ?

Hank said :

I personally don’t think its anyone’s business what a CEO is paid. I would of tried to negotiate more.

wouldn’a go far in this quest wi’ grammar like that, lad…

mark is a nice chap and deserves whatever he has been able to negotiate for himself. that’s the game, isn’t it? i didn’t think the ceo of actewagl includes in its job description ‘moral compass for the masses’. it is probably too much, if we look at this from a socialist perspective, but entirely justified from the conservative standpoint.

“Actew, an ACT Government-owned company, directly employs about 35 staff and supplies water to about 145,000 customers”

Does ACTew really only have 35 staff? I must personally know about a third of them…

If he’s that good a negotiator, send him to the Middle East!

If he has managed to negotiate a salary like that good on him but I have to admit that half a million is an awfully large amount of money to be paid when departmental heads of much larger Commonwealth organisations receive less.

I personally don’t think its anyone’s business what a CEO is paid. I would of tried to negotiate more.

There should be another poll option with ‘I do not know enough about his work role to make an educated opinion, which is why there is a board in the first place.’