Thanks for logging in.

You can now click/tap WATCH to start the live stream.

Thanks for logging in.

You can now click/tap LISTEN to start the live stream.

Thanks for logging in.

You can now click/tap LATEST NEWS to start the live stream.

LISTEN
Watch
on air now

Create a 3AW account today!

You can now log in once to listen live, watch live, join competitions, enjoy exclusive 3AW content and other benefits.


Joining is free and easy.

You will soon need to register to keep streaming 3AW online. Register an account or skip for now to do it later.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

‘Misleading’: Fahour paid $10m, but this is what he said in February

Tom Elliott

Neil Mitchell has accused former Australia Post chief Ahmed Fahour of misleading Australians about his resignation payout.

It’s today been revealed Mr Fahour was paid nearly $11 million after quitting earlier in the year; $6.8m in the 2017 financial year, plus $4 million in incentives and bonuses awarded from 2015 and 2016.

Those enormous figures came as a surprise to Neil Mitchell after the below exchange with Mr Fahour on February 24, when Neil asked if he knew what severance pay he would receive.

Ahmed: Yes, I do know what it (his severance pay) is.

Neil: Are you willing to say?

Ahmed: Yes, I am willing to say.

Neil: What is it?

Ahmed: Zero.

Neil: Nothing?

Ahmed: Yep. I chose to resign in a way to ensure I got zero.

Neil: Why?

Ahmed: Because, for me what’s important about this job is not the money. What’s important is to absolutely deliver on looking after the employees, the customer and Australia Post.
All I really cared about in my whole seven years there, was to save us from being wiped out.

Today, Neil Mitchell said the February comments were true, but misleading.

“What’s going on there is the word ‘severance’ is crucial,” he said.

“I guess what he’s saying really is that he’s not getting a severance deal.

“He got zero in severance but near enough to $11m in allowance and payments.

“He was answering strictly to the letter of the question, but perhaps the answer was also a little misleading.”

Tom Elliott
Advertisement