Question for Auditor / Company Secretary, page-8

I find it funny that they wrote on the new proxy forms “Warning spill motion will result in a requirement for another general meeting and for re-election of directors and may jeopardise the recently establish support of a major international company which would Take Austpac Resources NL to the commercial development of its technology and may lead to key staff leaving the company”

They use this imo threat to try and
Stop people from voting for a spill motion, yet they are contradicting themselves. Why would they fight this hard to try and hold onto their jobs if they were to simply “leave the company”.

It makes me laugh the tactics they are using. They are also misrepresenting what the spill motion is about. The shareholder group has bought the spill motion about not to remove anyone, but simply place two of its own members on the board to overlook what has been happening in the company as its performance has been absolutely unsatisfactory.

They also claim that the spill motion will trigger another general meeting and for re election of directors which “May jeopardise the recently established support of a major international company”. They really should not be putting this in the proxy form as it is unsubstantiated information and it may have no effect to even a possible positive effect on the relations with that company. Look at what Kronos thought of our management team and the action they took.

The proxy form says “Major international company which would take Austpac Resources NL to the commercial development of its technology”. Yet they have had support from several major companies with the goal of commercially developing their technology and have failed each and every time, they should not state it this way as there is no evidence, in fact there is evidence in contrary to say that they won’t make it to commercialisation as before.