Ann: Appendix 4C - quarterly, page-128

Chirpy red herrings, you mean a report noting that actual action to stamp out theft will now happen?

If you are talking about the theft Annabel writes about, no.

I find it extraordinary that there appears to be inadequate auditing of public funds supplied if that is what you are implying. Surely costings have to be supplied for activities above and beyond what the company might have spent, or if they were going to anyway, that again costings, budgets, have to be supplied with ongoing deliverables identified and measured.


That doesn't reflect well on the oversight done either by the relevant SES, committees or their Ministers if that has gone on and it has not been rectified till now.

If that did not answer it then I will try few scenarios to combat

...executives of companies in the private sector that receive ex gratia government funding are able to pay themselves whatever they wish out of the implied public purse?"

Are you saying company executives, a CEO for instance on more than for example your best of breed maximum $2m annual remuneration should give up the surplus to cover any grants the company might get from the public purse, e.g. if on $7m they should chip in $5m out of their earnings, if the grant is more than $5m in total, perhaps across a few grants. Is that what you mean? Or should all senior staff be cut back on expenses they had before the grant to cover the grant cost and give the balance back to the MRFF?

Or should there be remuneration freezes for company executives and senior staff during the time any grants are in effect for? If the trial being entered into with public funds paid to the company lasts for 2 years that is the duration of any freeze. That would need to extend to performance payments etc for the duration too.

Just trying to figure out how what you are proposing would work.