REPLY TO MR

							                       REPLY TO MR. KEL BENTLEY’S LETTER.

Mr Bentley has circulated a letter containing a long list of untruthful allegations about
HIRRAG Inc and its members.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Bentley claims that his fellow committee members are “frankly
good successful neighbours of yours who feel an obligation to act in the best interests of the
community.”

This committee’s stunning silence on two major issues of concern to all owners – the
installation of dangerous and illegal speed humps, and the CMS contracts – leaves us in
doubt at these claims.

Mr Bentley also fails to inform owners that he is a long standing director of Hope Island
Resort Services Pty Ltd, [HIRS] a Mirvac controlled company. Last year HIRS transferred
more than $1 million of our money back to CMS for so called “consulting services”. It is not
clear what, if any, tangible services were actually rendered in return for this substantial sum.
The relevant pages of HIRS annual report can be viewed on the HIRRAG Inc website.

As these false allegations by Mr Bentley may mislead some owners, it is necessary to reply.

   1. The allegation that HIRRAG Inc approached owners for funds to sue your current
      committee is totally false. There has never been such a proposal at any time. The
      funds donated have been used to get the illegal speed humps corrected and to get
      independent advice on the proposed new 15 year contracts which the current
      committee are seeking to impose on us. Mr Bentley and his committee have been
      totally silent on both of these issues and have failed in their duty to protect owners’
      interests in these and other matters.
   2. That “in 1992/93 Mr Gregory advised on the drafting of the original “In Perpetuity
      agreements that bind us today”. This is totally false. The original agreements with
      their “in perpetuity” clauses were drafted by McCullough Robertson and put in place
      in 2002.
   3. Scott Gregory was engaged by the Rosebank Committee in 2006 as a result of a
      formal resolution at a duly constituted committee meeting. His advice was for the
      benefit of every resident. However this advice was suppressed from the official body
      corporate records by voting in writing signed by some members of the current
      committee. Is this acting in the best interests of residents and in good faith?
   4. It is only because of the flaws found in the current contracts as a result of Mr
      Gregory’s advice that Mirvac/CMS have agreed to negotiate on these contracts. The
      small reduction in charges only reflects the unjustified overcharging by CMS which
      has been going of for years. Without this evidence why would Mirvac/CMS have
      given even this small concession?
   5. The complaint against the committee delaying the EGM by calling for so called
      “legal advice” deliberately misses the point. All the solicitors were asked to do was
      to count the signatures and to validate the requisition. This is a simple task which our
      secretary should have performed in a matter of an hour. The solicitors took 29 days
      to do this and then got it wrong! However this delay allowed the chairman to rule the
      motion calling for tenders out of order. Why does he not want tenders to be called?
      Would this show up the inflated charges of CMS?
   6. Mr Bentley’s claims that HIRRAG Inc have promoted the Sanctuary Cove model of
      body corporate management, is false. He is challenged to show anywhere that such a
      proposition has been made.
   7. Mr Bentley’s figures for Sanctuary Cove’s PBC charges are not what Sanctuary Cove
       PBC have provided to HIRRAG Inc in their official publication. This shows a saving
       of 18.8% in the first year after terminating with CMS and a total body corporate
       charge of just $3216 per annum. The actual document is posted on the HIRRAG Inc
       website to read for yourself.
   8. Dead man’s proxy vote. It is a fact that a proxy vote to the Chairman was recorded in
       the minutes of the Rosebank General Meetings until 2006 when this fraud was
       discovered. The proprietor of the lot had died in 2003. Documents are available to
       demonstrate these facts. CMS could not show any proxy vote in respect of this lot
       which they had held at any time. In their submission to the referee CMS found an
       additional vote, not seen by 4 scrutineers at the EGM, which allowed the referee to
       accept passage of the motion. How and when was this vote “discovered”? If this
       vote was not present at the time of counting why should it be allowed later?
       However as a result of this manipulation of the voting process the motion to make the
       position of secretary and treasurer non-voting and outside the committee, was passed
       by just one vote!
   9. Election of our PBC representative. The IRDA section 140 requires that the
       appointment of a person to represent the body corporate on the PBC shall be made at
       the AGM. This allows each proprietor the democratic right to vote on this
       appointment. This legal requirement had not been fulfilled and the committee had
       been in the habit of making this appointment. A motion to comply with the law was
       put before the 2006 AGM and defeated by proxies held by persons associated with
       CMS. The application to the referee was to insure that this appointment was made in
       accordance with the law and not in accordance with the illegal alternative proposed
       by the then chairman and committee.
   10. The allegation that the process used was the very process Mr Millist voted for, is
       again incorrect. Mr Bentley is challenged to provide any evidence to support this.
   11. Mr Bentley claims that Mr Millist applied for a share in HIRS. Again this is false.
       Again Mr Bentley is challenged to provide evidence of this. An application for a “C”
       class share was made by Laurel Millist, a property owner and thus entitled to such.
       Mr Bentley and his associates have falsely informed ASIC that Mr Millist made this
       application. This shows scant regard for the truth.
   12. Mr Bentley states that “in July this year Mr Millist was invited to attend a committee
       to discuss any matter he want to address, he declined”. Again this is false. The
       invitation was made to Laurel Millist not Mr Millist. As the committee had indicated
       that they would not address the issues of concern regarding the new contracts, there
       was no point in attending a meeting.

In brief, it appears that Mr Bentley’s re-election campaign is based upon vilifying his fellow
residents with malicious falsehoods.

Is this the type of person we can trust to manage our body corporate affairs?

Do you value truth and integrity in our body corporate management?

Please consider the implications of these matters carefully before you vote.

Warren Millist.
For and on behalf of HIRRAG Inc.