Im glad to see attention being piad to remuneration. Well done...

Im glad to see attention being piad to remuneration. Well done Grant and to put some context to support the proponents....

Last years Annual Report (in the public sphere) combined remunerations in a financial year when the TNG share price went form circa 8.5 cents to 6 cents or a 30% loss, saw:

Paul Burton earning over $709,093 of which 24% was classed as "performance" related... What performace was achieved and rewarded? How does that happen when not much has happened and the share price went backwards. It tells me the remuneration of staff is out of whack with shareholder expectations. It was John Elkington's ultimate responsibility to pull this into line....

Paula earn't approx $191,298 with 11% being "performance related" as Company Secretary cum Investor Relations (would have been approx $210k with a full year of both roles) It could be argued Investor Relations has been a disaster given we are at this point with the action by investors Paula is meant to "relate" to? Comparing this to other like roles on payscale.com, this is significantly over the going rate before we even talk about the performance or value added by the role... Paul Burton is ultimately responsible for rewarding Paula so well for the shareholder backlash now being experienced... Paula seems to be highly (over) valued by Paul given shareholders dissent over lack of transparency and engagement. (this role could be split and contracted for less...?)

John Elkington as Chair was paid $176,726 of which 21% was performance related in the same time.... Seems an absurd notion given overall performance and loss in shareholder value and confidence? This also seems way over the odds in salary for a non revenue generating ASX listed company. Particularly when it has been non revenue generating for so many years.

I wont go on but have a look for yourselves and Refer....Page 22 of the 2021 Annual Report.