notice of annual general meeting., page-26

Hey Cripdo, I'm replying to you, while addressing various issues raised on this thread.

Firstly, yes, there are directors and CEOs with large shareholdings in some companies who don't protect shareholders as well as they might, who are simply there for their own personal gain and to hell with the little people, of which I am one by the way. And yes, they do grab the first opportunity that comes along and move on to the next target. That's their modus operandi, and they have to live with themselves when they 'perform' like that.

As you say, Alan Shortall is not in this category. He was brought in by Craig Thorley and Joe Kaal to do a job and take it to completion. That is what he is doing. He is not the type of CEO, or man, to cut and run from a fight. I believe he has already proved this on more than one occasion. Ten years and counting as a director and CEO does not qualify as a cut and run type of guy. On the contrary, ten years and counting is a significant chunk of anyone's life, and IMO qualifies as a man on a mission.

Phillipsm, aside from your view on executive remuneration at Unilife which I don't share, but that's fine, I'd just like to correct you on one thing - there have not been 'various stuff-ups' at Unilife during Alan's tenure as CEO. There has only been one, dare I say it, St Marys. In the years since then he has more than atoned for that by building the company into what it is today, and positioning it for what will prove, IMO, to be a spectacular period of growth and wealth creation for all.

As for the remuneration package itself, it's worth pointing out that the cash component of Alan's package has not changed in six years. He takes shares and options because it aligns his interests with all shareholders. It is also worth pointing out, yet again I might add, that if the milestones are not met, the restricted shares don't vest. Simple really. No risk no reward. Or more succinctly, put up or shut up. Even more succinctly, no guts, no glory.

So, on to the detail, which I have already outlined when this last came up for discussion, but am happy to do so again for those new to the compoany.

The CEO's remuneration package is authorised by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee references what is known as the Radford Survey for LifeSciences Companies. The Radford Survey is an extrememly rigorous process which employs various percentiles, including length of tenure as a director and CEO, in assessing non-cash components to ensure that the non-cash compensation is within industry standards.

Alan could elect to take cash instead of performance shares and options. He doesn't. He elects to take stock for the simple reason that it will be worth far more in the years to come. Like all of us, he wants the BIG win. Nothing less will do. That is what drives him.

Speaking of driving, just to correct another falsehood that is put out by some, Alan Shortall has never been a car salesman of any sort, new or used. Yes he has a liking for fine cars which, as we know, he drives with the same passion that he drives Unilife.

In fact he made his money in IT, founding a company which he eventually sold to an international telecommunications company. Prior to joining Unilife he was effectively retired and putting his energies into various charity work and mentoring roles, which is how Craig Thorley first met him.

I feel it is important for this to be understood. Aside from the fact that some people seem to think being a car salesman is not a worthy occupation, wherever anyone starts out in life isn't important.

Where they end up is.

In this respect I would prefer an asirational CEO who has the long term drive, passion and commitment to take our company to the place it deserves to be. In a word, to fulfill it's destiny. That's what Alan Shortall is being paid to do, and IMO, that is what he is doing.

In three years time when his next contract comes up for renewal and Unilife has a market cap bewteen $1.5 - $2 billion dollars, will anyone begrudge him the shares that he earned by taking the company to that level?

I won't.

Remember, no performance criteria achieved, no shares. Alan's incentives are clearly and irrevocably aligned with our interests, which is building shareholder value. As I've said before, he backs himself to do the job. Seems like a fair deal to me.

And if you think I'm kidding about the growth trajectory, bookmark this post and we'll revisit it in three years time.

Good luck to all.