Notice of Meeting, page-18

Jake I have the register from last AGM. I have calculated the % of support for current board, this is very worse case scenario, MR 20%, PG 6.5%, Dynamic 4.5% Qld and Friends of say 5-8% Total 36 -39% for board. Plus 2 HC holders only joking.

Remember that some in this group also have alignments in the against camp now of the board especially since everyone is losing big time. They have all watched the SP decimated and are questioning our teams abilities and performance.

So we would have 64- 61% against the board, this number will increase once the facts come out in Media, Brokers, holders etc. So this is a very good position to actually make changes. Get either of these significant holders to support or abstain if they wish for holders to sort this out and don't wish to get involved or take sides for change, then it is game over, simple as that. Holders have to unite, no time for devils advocates here, it is support or not, it's that simple.

Finally the down side is that out of 64- 61% some will not vote, but given a great media focus and the fact we are a big failure with respect to SP etc this can immediately change. The message has to be told to every holder, not just on HC.

After reading the extreme censorship by one potential nominee, the very short deadline of the second nominee it is clear to me that our team will make it as difficult as they can for potential nominees. I feel plenty of games will be played and it is happening now. I suspect the company has plenty of free time ATM so will defend at all costs. There's a lot at stake on both sides. So my position of not doing a 249D has changed. I want change, how do we do it the easy way. Think about it guys.

Given this situation I now have the minimum 5% of holders ready to go, I might add we have important professional support from expert advisers who are assisting our case. Lots of people have been effected over the last 3 years, not just HC holders.

The 5% is essential for 2 reasons, gives 30days notice to call a EGM for any resolutions (this could end up costing us our own money to call this meeting) or importantly the quick and easy option the 249D, this process the company pays and maintains a level playing field, quick easy and simple to do. Plus the Media will cover this all around Australia and every holder will know exactly what is going on. Nominees can then present a better case than what the company at present will allow them to do. It is essential that holders understand the difference and what will work and what won't to get change. It is not just putting a nomination in and expecting the best outcome.

A 249D maybe this is the way to go, hate to say it but holders have to be aware of all the games etc that will be played. Remember challenges are never pretty. I am starting to feel a 249 is unfortunately the best way to go now. Before you attack this idea please understand the whole process of what is happening and ask yourself do you want change or not. Well this is my take on it, off to bed now. Have a good day to all.