Hello again,
To start, thank you to all those who attended the Roadshow in Canberra on Tuesday evening, and Melbourne last night. I sincerely appreciate the turnout and the constructive engagement. The grassroots support for Change is overwhelming. At a personal level, it is a key motivation and driving force. While I am excited to be leading this campaign for a new era at TNG, and I am also deeply mindful of the responsibility to shareholders, big and small, andwhat is in the best interests of the company.
As you will know, management provided a Response to 249D Notice yesterday. I will engage here only with the two substantive points made regarding ‘Inaccurate Statements by Grant Wilson’.
First, I reject that I have made inaccurate statements concerning management’s lack of engagement with negotiating an orderly and peaceable transition. In correspondence to management accompanying the 203D notice on 19 July, I established the baseline stance, which was to encourage management to come to the negotiating table with legal representation. I reiterated this stance on 21 July. Management declined, saying they were ‘not interested'.
In the week commencing 25 July I took this same precise stance into the public domain via these Updates and my appearance on AusBiz (see Media), along with correspondence to management with a response sought by 29 July. Once again, management declined to meet on the basis proposed.
I tried again this week, including to discuss a potential role of Mr Burton as an advisor to the Board for a 6 month period to facilitate the orderly transition. Once again, management declined to meet accompanied with legal representation, on the basis proposed.
I also kept the window to open to meet in Perth on Friday or Saturday this week, via Update 10 published 30 July and Update 12 published 1 August. I am still open this, with strict confidentiality assured, provided both sides have legal representation.
For abundant clarity, what I will not be doing is discussing these sensitive matters without legal representation. I have never said that I would do so, public or privately. That is not best practice, and it is not compatible with the fundamental reset that I am pursuing. Further, it is not in the best interests of TNG, nor of current management.
Second, regarding the use of “Proposed Chair”. This is semantic. In the Members’ Statement that underpins the 249D I am “proposed as Chair”.
Regarding my participation yesterday at the AWU’s national conference (Update 11) I confirm it was a constructive and informative session, focused principally on Australia’s critical mineral strategy. If management has an issue with the AWU inviting me to speak, I can make the relevant introductions. However, I caution that I was the AWU’s guest, and that I do not think it advisable to alienate one of Australia’s most important and influential labor unions, particularly given the scale of the Mount Peake project.
Onward,
Grant.
Proposed Chair of TNG Limited