Sass, page-64

People have mistaken retail shareholder pain-points and the occasional communication snafu in a live interview for governance breaches. Governance breaches relate to failings of the directors and officers to adhere to their fiduciary duties, or to the relevant Acts to which they and their organisations need comply. None of these things have happened. It's important to be clear about that. The CR for example was unpopular with retail shareholders for obvious reasons, but it complied with all regulations so it should never be characterised as a failure of governance. I'm not telling you to like the man, or that you must tolerate mistakes - i'm saying that we have fallen foul of no governance breaches due to the lack of separation between the Chair and CEO roles, or for any other reason. There is no evidence that Paul has not met all of the relevant duties and responsibilities of both roles. Neither is there any strong reason to believe that the lack of separation between the roles has had any negative operational impact to date. Would a different Chair have produced a different outcome for ANY of the perceived examples of sub-optimal "governance" floated here?