Is Ahmed Fahur driving Australia Post into the ground?



Did you know the annual salary of the head of the US Postal Service was $550,000 in 2013? Not a bad pay cheque, but what has this to do with Australia and Q Society you may ask.

Well, our good friend Ahmed Fahour, Australia’s special envoy to the OIC and benefactor-in-chief of many worthy Islamic causes in Australian, including the Islamic Museum in Melbourne, just happens to be head of the Australian Postal Service. Ahmed runs an organisation with 1/10 of the staff his US counterpart and has to serve a fraction of potential customers.

But that doesn’t mean we pay Ahmed 1/10 of the salary of his US counter-part? Far from it! According to below report, our good friend Ahmed actually made $4,800,000 (four point eight million dollars) last year for managing the fully government-owned Australia Post.

You may recall Australia Post has just announced that 900 staff will be retrenched.

Praise be to Allah!

Critics of Australia Post’s decision to sack 900 staff questioning CEO Ahmed Fahour’s $4.8 million salary

By political reporter Latika Bourke

Critics of Australia Post’s decision to sack 900 administration staff are questioning the multi-million-dollar salary awarded to the company’s managing director Ahmed Fahour.

Mr Fahour – a former CEO of NAB and Citigroup – was paid $4.8 million last year as chief executive officer and managing director of Australia Post, which is 100 per cent Government-owned.

In contrast, the head of the US Postal Service was paid $550,000 in 2013, despite running a company with 19 times more staff and 11 times the revenue.

The head of France’s postal service, La Poste, was paid $1.06 million for running a service with 268,000 employees.

The highest paid public servant in Australia is the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Ian Watt, who earns more than $800,000 per year.

Public sector pay comparisons

$844,800 Ian Watt, Prime Minister and Cabinet$824,320 Martin Parkinson, Treasury

$798,720 Dennis Richardson, Defence

$798,720 Peter Varghese, Foreign Affairs and Trade

$757,760 David Tune, Finance

$716,800 Jane Halton, Health

$691,200 Gordon de Brouwer, Environment

$665,600 Simon Lewis, Veterans Affairs

$507,000 Tony Abbott, Prime Minister

Source: Remuneration Tribunal

Mr Fahour says the collapse in regular mail being sent across Australia means the company is in urgent need of major reform.

But Angela Cramp from the Licensed Post Office Proprietor organisation, which represents Australia Post licensees, doubts whether Mr Fahour has the right credentials for the job.

“Perhaps we shouldn’t have a banker running the business, perhaps we should have somebody who understands the mail business, or the retail business,” Ms Cramp said.

She says things cannot be too bad, judging by the salaries of those at the top.

“The top 10 executives [are] earning more than $20 million a year and now we have a business that’s broke, supposedly, in dire financial straits and for the last five years,” Ms Cramp told the ABC’s 7.30 program.

“These same executives have paid over $880 million in dividends to the Government. Was that a valid dividend and if it was, what sort of forward planning does that show that these well-paid executives have managed?”

The Communications Workers Union’s Joan Doyle says the Government should not renew his contract and wants his pay cut.

“If we’ve had to show wage restraint and cop lots of job cuts, we think the very least he could do is show a bit of wage restraint,” she said.

Asked about his salary, Mr Fahour refused to be drawn on the issue.

“The matter of compensation is a matter for the board,” he told ABC Radio National.

Nine-hundred Australia Post headquarters staff will lose their jobs over the next 12 months but Mr Fahour says no shopfronts will close as a result of the announcement.

Ahmed Fahour says it’s all about parcels

Mr Fahour says the company can no longer subsidise distribution of regular mail which he says is delivered at a loss.

“The rate of decline in letters is accelerating at such a pace we do need to reform those services,” Mr Fahour said.

Mr Fahour will split Australia Post’s operations into two; a retail and shopfront arm and a parcel delivery arm.

“It’s all about parcels – parcels, parcels, parcels,” he said.

“Today Australia Post is a bigger parcel and logistics company than it is a mail company.

“For the first time in 200 years the amount of revenue and the amount of business we do in parcels and logistics is bigger than what we do in mail.”

Mr Fahour says the restructure will help meet the demand for services elsewhere.

“The customer’s telling us they want parcels and they want stores to stay open and they want them to be open on Saturday,” Mr Fahour said.

Australia Post will ask the Government to change the regulations in its corporate plan due in July, possibly aimed at it releasing it from the legal requirement to deliver standard mail five days per week.

16 thoughts on “Is Ahmed Fahur driving Australia Post into the ground?”

  1. How can any Government organisation justify paying its CEO $4.8 million dollars a year? Especially after that same organisation is losing money hand over fist and has recently announced a staff reduction of 900 personnel. It doesn’t really matter if he is a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist or any other religion no one is worth that much money a year particularly in the public sector.

    Perhaps he should give some of that back so that the customer service in Post Offices can be improved because at present, especially at my local PO it is a complete shambles. Try and do business there at lunch time when most people get out of work for an hour and you could spend double that just waiting in a queue to be served. When the matter is raised with Management they say that “our staff are also required to have a lunch break”! Yes so they are but surely those in positions of power within Australia Post have heard of staff scheduling, part timers to cover the lunch time (11:00 am – 2:00 pm) and customer service?

  2. The 900 lost Jobs to be filled in the near future by practising muslims only, because Australia Post will join Australian Abattoirs etc, in becoming HALAL and will no longer employ dirty old Kufars.

  3. Or they will push out anyone who is white or Australian and hire only others like them in country of origin or religion.

    That is exactly what happened in the UK, especially to the postal systems during the 60’s -80’s. White English people where harassed or pushed out of key positions by Asians. This is not hyperbole, as many Asian immigrants admitted to such happening in their own words, thanks to an ‘Living History’ drive by Nu Labour to capture the immigrant experience of Asians in Britain.

    You can read the archives for your self, just go into any council in Britain and tell them your interested in history, particularly modern history-audio archives/Living History and you can read the transcripts and what Asians really think of the people and the country who took them in and gave them and their off spring a better chance in life then they could ever get in their home country.

  4. Mr Fahour – a former CEO of NAB.
    No wonder the nab is considering offering sharia finance to mozlems, I wonder how many shares he still holds in that bank?
    He appears to have his fingers in a few pies, islamic causes! How much of that $4.8 million is he funneling to isis??

  5. What a timely post this was, eerily in advance of today’s news about how Fahour has disgracefully and corruptly manipulated the Board not to pay him $2m of his bonus due (whether deserved or not is another question) but to donate it direct to his dawa organisation.

    At one level this could be questioned as being a tax avoidance strategy: if he had received the bonus directly then donated the $2m he could have claimed the $2m as a charitable gift but there may be a cap on those deductions meaning his pre-tax bonus not received would have been, say for example, $3m with $1m for the ATO and $2m for his dawa organisation. Depends on the relativities between his personal income tax situation and that applying to his dawa organisation.

    At a higher level there is the question of appropriateness. The article included these paragraphs:
    “The donation – … – raised eyebrows within the organisation, with a source questioning the size of the bonus and the fact it was ­donated to a charity closely linked to Mr Fahour’s family

    But another source said the donation was a private one, and that Mr Fahour was an ­incredibly generous man.”

    Prefixing the other source with ‘but’ indicates the writer saw this private nature as making the donation a private matter and hence not to be questioned. However a contrary interpretation is that this is an additional reason to question the conduct of Fahour and the Board: Fahour involving a public business in his private affairs, and thus being a corrupt use of his office. That the second source goes on to mention Fahour’s incredible generosity points to this, it is a kind of pushback against questioning inappropriate behaviour.

    The article also goes on to close by referring to Fahour winning a car in a raffle run by an organisation of which he is a director. Most raffles come with a caveat to the effect that employees or anyone associated with the organisation running a raffle are not eligible to enter the competition for a reason. One can understand a football club not applying this rule to its members as they’d be the one’s buying the tickets but should have ruled out its directors buying the ticket. This smells fishy and while again it may have been a genuine lucky draw it was quite inappropriate behaviour from Fahour in that it allows for someone to infer, even if incorrectly, the possibility of corruption. As former NAB boss Fahour would have been aware of the need to be seen to be behaving ethicvally as well as behaving ethically. Yet the writer sees nothing wrong with this background, so intent is he or she to demonstrate again how Fahour is overwhelmingly generous. The writer goes on to say of Fahour “He immediately handed it over for auction, where it raised $40,000, to be spent on a program which helps children from ethnic backgrounds with health and education.” Immediately? That somehow suggests he thought his chances of winning the car were pretty good in that he could do it immediately. Maybe not but it allows for the inference and would be against most codes of conduct by people in high office. The writer’s words even suggest the organisation to benefit was already in Fahour’s mind: an organisation helping ‘ethnic’ children. Gee, would that be kids at the local mosque?

    At an even higher level this is beyond issues of Australian tax law and what would be regarded as normal ethical conduct in business. Rather than this being a private matter Fahour is conducting a form of jihad/hijra whereby he is enmeshing a fundamental part of Australian society with Islam.

    That is the worst of this affair but I’m not surprised the never even addressed this aspect. And why should he or she as the article points out that Fahour’s dawa organisation was open by Joe Hockey, of Christian Lebanese descent who naturally did his dhimmi duty towards Fahour by opening a ‘museum’ dedicated to showcasing the culture wreaking havoc in the land of his ancestry and will be doing so in Australia before too long.

  6. One question nobody seems to have asked is whether the “Islamic Revisionist Museum” is not drawing the crowds they thought they would. Is this $2 million donation just to keep the family business afloat?

    Is it just me or do others find the fact that they set the age you need to pay for a child at 6 years old either intentional or a massive coincidence??

    1. The idea is to cart Australian school kids there in droves so they get brainwashed with Islam. What else?

  7. @Islam Is a Crock,

    Museums always need money, but the fact he gave it to a museum that is linked to his family is a bit unsavory.

    Who knew government jobs paid so well, irregardless of the country!?

    1. “the fact he gave it to a museum that is linked to his family…”

      don’t make it sound as if its not his Islamic duty to implement the Mohammedan expansion plan!

  8. Islam Is a Crock,
    A 6 year old female child has nearly reached the Islamic age to become a child-bride, so perhaps it is fair to pay an entrance fee.

  9. @Sheik

    Um. It was not my intention to imply that ” its not his Islamic duty to implement the Mohammedan expansion plan!”

    My point was, it reeks of corruption due to familial connections, like all things Islamic/Muslim situated. The money was a deliberate and planned act of spectacle.

    He could have accepted the money and quietly given it to the museum in a charitable way, but he did not and made it a matter of public record and that is the point. He turned what should have been a private matter into a very deliberate show, especially as it was with tax payer money, unless I missread the story?

    It is revolting that the Australian people are paying for their own Islamic indoctrination and that was the two finger salute the people were given.

    His family was paid off by tax payer money and the people get to pay for the privileged of their own demise.

    1. Just sarcasm on my part, Hill.

      ‘It is revolting that the Australian people are paying for their own Islamic indoctrination and that was the two finger salute the people were given.’

      That’s the idea. That’s the meaning of “their work in America (and elsewhere) is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands (and the hands of the believers) … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.”

      The diabolical plan is to use the dhimmies to enforce sharia against their own people, just like the Kapos and the Judenrats enforced Nazi laws against their fellow Jews. Its all happening here and now.

  10. @Red Rose
    I was wondering if setting the age children are charged an entry fee at 6 years old was a nod to Mohammed marrying Aisha when she was 6.

    The museum charges an entrance fee, they have a gift shop and a cafe. If it was bringing in the numbers they would have forecast in their business plan then it should be self sufficient.
    Melbourne museum charges $10 per adult with children free up to 16. The Islamic museum charges $12 per adult and $8 for kids 6 and over. I think for a small museum they are pricing themselves out of business.

Comments are closed.