MIL is our company facing a crisis created by itself.
A yes vote is a vote for change, reflecting the director election held last year.
A no vote would mean no change, leaving landholders with more of the same.
MIL has three core functions:
• To deliver water to its landholders – it does this well.
• To maintain its infrastructure – it also does this well.
• To maintain and manage its licenses – here is where it does not perform well.
The motion being put to the general meeting is the result of dissatisfaction with the way water is being managed by MIL.
The company presentations last August revealed deplorable management on two counts:
1. A proposal to sell 30,000ML of conveyance license water to establish financial reserves.
2. The mishandling of temporary water sales which saw a 40,000ML sale growing to over 100,000 without further announcement or price adjustment.
These two matters follow some years of dubious handling of water made available for landholders.
For many years now, MIL has not sought to maximise water availability to its customers.
Some estimates put this in the hundreds of thousands of megalitres withheld or delayed over recent years.
Despite the thousands of words that have been written and spoken over the motion and meeting, only one issue matters – how MIL handles our water.
The clear message from the last director election was that things must change.
Four out of seven directors have failed to heed that message.
Senior management is equally deaf to landholders wishes.
There are risks moving forward, but a no vote will result in a continuation of poor performance.
Yours etc.
Denis Tinkler
Jerilderie
28°C