Vote a defining moment

If we take the wrong fork in the road, there could be dire consequences.

I would like to make a few points, and hope shareholders will give them careful consideration.

Firstly, be aware that a vote to remove two independent directors will effectively be a vote to also remove the chair, deputy chair, CEO and with all probability, several key staff members.

Other staff, especially females, may be reluctant to continue in a workplace which has been deemed unsafe due to claims of sexual harassment.

If we as shareholders support this move, we are essentially supporting an unsafe workplace and endorsing this behaviour.

We need to carefully consider the current situation at MIL.

The company has a key business plan, strategy and advocacy plan moving forward.

It has developed key relationships with Canberra to help protect our region and its future from water buybacks.

My time on the council has given me sound understanding of how important these relationships are.

Governments at any level are reluctant to deal with companies in turmoil.

Ask yourself, will politicians and department personnel be prepared to engage with a group that initiated a questionable takeover of the board?

And if not, where will that leave our company, farmers and the community?

Where will that leave the number of government funded projects already in the works that are designed to bring benefits not only to MIL and its shareholders, but to our communities, irrigated agriculture and the environment.

What will happen to the stability we have seen on the board over the past two to three years?

While the requisitioning directors talk about Board dysfunction, this was not evident before last year’s election.

The two new shareholder directors have been on the board since the end of November 2023.

They immediately decided that the non-member directors don’t have the required skillset, despite very limited experience with these directors around the board table.

Then, with the support of a former chair who was forced to stand down over behavioural issues, have brought instability to the table.

So, if there are to be any accusations of board dysfunction and instability, surely the responsibility for this rests with the requisitioning directors.

Finally, ask yourself, what are the requisitioning directors trying to fix?

The company isn’t broken by any metric. Water is being delivered on time and in full 98 per cent of the time, and the company has a proven financial strategy that is working.

What may be at risk from this is the very future of Murray Irrigation. If the behaviour continues and MIL cannot support itself, the government may decide that the shareholders are unable to run the company and take back control.

The likely result would be loss of WaterWell, no government funds to offset the cost of irrigation and a strong likelihood of increased fees and charges.

There are numerous reasons why shareholders should resoundingly vote ‘no’ at the general meeting.

I urge all shareholders to think very carefully about the ramifications before casting their vote. Our future and the future of the region depends on it.

Yours etc.

Dennis Gleeson

Wakool