❓ A parliamentary question seeks details on performance bonuses converted to base salaries for utilities executives, focusing on superannuation implications and potential conflicts of interest. The Minister provides a breakdown by utility.
AnsweredQoN 599Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
UTILITIES EXECUTIVES — PERFORMANCE BONUSES
I refer to the performance bonuses paid to utilities executives that have now been added to their base salaries. (1) How many executives got this deal in each utility? (2) How many executives are on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (3) What windfall superannuation benefits have been delivered to these executives on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (4) What is the total cost of the superannuation impact of this decision? (5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER
I refer to the performance bonuses paid to utilities executives that have now been added to their base salaries. (1) How many executives got this deal in each utility? (2) How many executives are on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (3) What windfall superannuation benefits have been delivered to these executives on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (4) What is the total cost of the superannuation impact of this decision? (5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(1) How many executives got this deal in each utility? (2) How many executives are on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (3) What windfall superannuation benefits have been delivered to these executives on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (4) What is the total cost of the superannuation impact of this decision? (5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(2) How many executives are on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (3) What windfall superannuation benefits have been delivered to these executives on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (4) What is the total cost of the superannuation impact of this decision? (5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(3) What windfall superannuation benefits have been delivered to these executives on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (4) What is the total cost of the superannuation impact of this decision? (5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(4) What is the total cost of the superannuation impact of this decision? (5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(1) How many executives got this deal in each utility? (2) How many executives are on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (3) What windfall superannuation benefits have been delivered to these executives on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (4) What is the total cost of the superannuation impact of this decision? (5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(2) How many executives are on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (3) What windfall superannuation benefits have been delivered to these executives on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (4) What is the total cost of the superannuation impact of this decision? (5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(3) What windfall superannuation benefits have been delivered to these executives on defined-benefit superannuation schemes? (4) What is the total cost of the superannuation impact of this decision? (5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(4) What is the total cost of the superannuation impact of this decision? (5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(5) Were any of the utilities executives involved in the decision to apply these bonuses to the overall salary package; and, if yes, did they declare a conflict of interest? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(1) Verve Energy: at this time, no Verve Energy executives have had their performance incentive arrangements changed; Western Power: eight—the managing director and seven general managers; Synergy: two; Horizon Power: not applicable. Horizon Power undertook an organisational restructure that took effect on 2 May 2011. New executive roles were created and executives were appointed to the roles through a fully competitive external recruitment process on employment conditions based on market rates for similar positions. (2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(2) Verve Energy: none; Western Power: three; Synergy: one; Horizon Power: one. (3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(3) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: this is a question for the superannuation fund—GESB, in this case; Synergy: none; Horizon Power: nil. (4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(4) Verve: not applicable; Western Power: at this stage there is no increase in superannuation contributions; Synergy: $4 732; Horizon Power: not applicable. (5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
(5) Verve Energy: not applicable; Western Power: the decision was made by the board based on legal and other expert advice provided directly to non-executive directors. The managing director participated in the decision, but at the relevant time his employment contract did not include any “at risk” component and therefore no conflict of interest existed. The managing director had no role in approving his new employment contract. To the extent that the board requested information from any other executive officer to support consideration of the issue, the conflict of interest was specifically noted; Synergy: no; Horizon Power: not applicable, as Horizon Power’s executive contracts are based on market rates for similar positions and do not include a performance payment component.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.