This is 100% unnecessary. More self-inflicted pain. Please make...

This is 100% unnecessary. More self-inflicted pain. Please make it stop.

Dave knows these votes have nothing to do with remuneration.

There is a 0% chance that the spillover motion would be carried by 50%. i.e. even after all the kerfuffle last year Dave still got 70% support at the previous AGM. There is no one else who is nominated for a board position that might be angling to replace the board and use an election vote to stoke discontent.

So why the threat?

All that's been achieved is the real possibility of the company having no board, chairman, or CEO hanging over everything for the next month.

The directors have tied themselves to the mast where they are committed to resigning if more than 25% vote against a remuneration report.

Based on last year this could be as few as 5% (75m) of total shares voting against the resolution. WTF.

So why do it?

The directors don't need to do anything extra to keep shareholders in line. They already maintain complete control holding less than 2% of the stock.

Is it ego or are there implications in operating the business if a second strike occurs? - ie fundraising, attracting talent.

Westpac is still in business after its second strike in 2019 - Westpac cops second strike on pay but shareholders decline to spill 'incompetent' board

Finally, I had to chuckle when reading that the Company Secretary has also joined the suicide pact (LOL) and that Howard is still considered independent when clearly the above if carried out would be catastrophic for shareholders who he is meant to represent.