Ann: Notice of General Meeting 30 May 2012 , page-17

Executive remuneration continues to be a sensitive topic and rightly so given the recent performance of companies and the loss of value to shareholders under the stewardship of Executives whose own wealth has increased exponentially.
Many studies and Government reviews have [supposedly] contributed to send a signal to Execs to discontinue the fleecing, but in almost EVERY company that I have a direct or indirect involvement, the options and benefits continue to grow beyond what I consider a reasonable level.

[Per Mercer Consulting - acknowledged in the CEO-Forum.com website}:
"It is important to note that variable pay - or pay for performance - will only be effective if there is both the risk of lower (or no) pay and the potential for higher pay. The rewards must be consistent with both the difficulty of achieving objectives and the value of those objectives to the company and shareholders.

In other words, for pay for performance to exist, executive compensation must deliver competitive pay for competitive levels of performance;
deliver exceptional (i.e. above market ) pay for
high levels of performance; and
withhold pay for low levels of performance."

With a strike price of 15cents per share and an expiry date of March 31, 2016 - this benefit rewards performance of share growth of less than 1.5cents per share per annum.

My question to Terry and co. would simply be:

Do you consider that share growth of 1.5cents per annum represents:
a/. competitive levels of performance?
b/. exceptional (above market) levels of performance? or
c/. low levels of performance?
Do you not consider that you and your board should be paid according to these levels of performance?

And whilst I do acknowledge that there is more than just share price growth to consider when evaluating Executive performance, from a selfish perspective and when asked to vote at a shareholder meeting, it's the only one I am going to take into consideration.