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.
Proposed Chair of TNG Limited