General discussion, page-919

I agree with your comments about communication and currency. Whatever currency is used - and I believe it should be $A for purposes of compliance reporting - it should be used consistently.

I am assuming - hopefully correctly so - that recent changes will be accompanied by a review of all those areas that have contributed to the low trust. In my view these include:

1. Promises made / expectations created and not met.
2. Pre or post rationalisations for non delivery
3. Confusing, inconsistent or obscure communication.
4. Unclear current strategy including the place of different fire retardant products and markets
5. Underlying business health is unclear. Past performance means it is now difficult to deduce underlying fundamentals with any certainty.

I am also of the view that the Board would do well to review their mission and values. In my view the performance of the last few years suggest problems existed that justify a top (board level) to bottom review to ensure full alignment.

I've spent a little more time researching Sue's background. I'd expect she will focus on clear KPIs that will drive the right behaviours and outcomes and hold people to account. I'd also expect though that she will know how to provide feedback that will maximise the likelihood of success. I couldn't care less at present if she doesn't pay any attention to the shareprice but puts her energy into getting performance on track. I don't want to see lots of announcements either unless they are factual, accurate and really add value.

In the meantime .....

P