Ann: Appendix 4D and Half Year Financial Report, page-340

This is supposedly a PUBLIC company for Mum and Dad investors to participate!
They don’t have many other other options in investing in sharemarket types structures as individuals.

They should not be misused for seeding monies in the initial stage of a company’s life, and then their voice becoming ineffective when a wealthy investors becomes interested in the company.

ARU is going thru this phase and the board is now interested in Gina Rinehart and are less interested in the retail investors.

It doesn’t bother me if they get the ears of the board and management team but they should not get the right to dictate the board and management.
There proposal should put before all shareholders with equal voting power for each member.

The wealthy have many other options to invest in other sharemarket types entities like proprietary companies etc.

A public company should not have changed its voting structure that basically becomes a proprietary limited company for the pleasure of the wealthy and T20.

Its time to modernise the old, ‘Show off Hands” without necessarily being at an AGM, bring back the one vote per member!

Society, has made great strides in bring in fairness but this is the last bastion, where fairness is struggling against wealthy ardent combatants to retain their advantages.

My understanding is that the Shareholders Association took part in the 25% remuneration rule development, believing that they had a chance to influence voting outcomes. Unfortunately, the Institute of Directors outsmarted them, knowing that some of the T20 go thru the same processes to gain their own rewards.

Why, would u harm a voting system that ensure ur rewards is achieved and moving upwards. A company needs to perform extremely poorly before the spill votes is passed and needs the support off a large member in the T20 group.