pif related news, page-18

Seamisty, no, that requirement is meant to ensure independence for external compliance committee members.

Directors responsibilities etc are set out in the Corporations Act. In a publicly listed company situation you would expect to find major shareholders with Board representation. Equally you would expect to find non-executive directors appointed for their particular expertise.

But, WC is not listed and PIF is essentially a separate entity. By virtue of the PIF Constitution unitholders have assigned the task of managing the fund to WC. So what are we seeking? Input to WC decision making regarding the PIF and/or more transparency? The Investor Advisory Committee is one avenue, but already we can see that that it may not be an effective mechanism. I suppose it is worth asking for a Board position, though this will probably be declined for the reasons Gardie gave earlier.

Essentially this is a performance issue - a lack of transparency, and that is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.