Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-31

Words can't describe how disappointed I am with this. They haven't achieved the performance targets they set last year (which is fine as they are long term targets) and their response to this is to lower the bar so that they can achieve it more easily (without delivering any milestones towards production - which is what really creates shareholder value - not temporary swings in share price), plus they still keep the previous performance rights so they are essentially doubling up on performance bonuses in spite of their non-performance.

I wasn't happy with the performance rights issued last year and voted against them along with almost 20% of shareholders. I don't like performance options based on share price because there are so many things that impact the share price many of which are outside the directors control. I much prefer performance rights to be issued based on actually achieving company milestones (which create shareholder value) within specific timeframes. Preferably slightly aggressive but realistic timeframes that justify a bonus.

If you don't like it, which I don't, you should definitely vote against it. How else will management get the message that they can't just take, take, take, regardless of what is actually delivered. What will happen next year? Will they issue another 9 million performance rights based on incremental, potentially temporary, changes to the share price (remember the share price only has to stay above the target for 20 days). The dilution here is significant and unjustified.

JP and the rest of the board don't need to worry about dilutive decisions when they continue to gift themselves large allocations of shares without needing to achieve milestones towards production - all this in addition to almost doubling their salaries.

This approach basically allows them to sell the assets at a cheaper price and walk away with away with more of your money - will you be happy with this when it happens?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for incentivising good/strong/solid performance, but this just seems totally out of hand to me and not actually linked to performance (it's more linked to the strength of the Lithium market).