A.M.P. BYLAWS

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 51, 29 August 1934, Page 16

A.M.P. BYLAWS

PROPOSED CHANGES

DEFEATED BY BIG MAJORITY

* A series of resolutions designed to alter the bylaws of , the Australian Mutual Provident Society was defeated | overwhelmingly at a special meeting : which considered it in the A.M.P. buildon August 24. ', The first proposed amendment sought to introduce the principle of one member one vote, without reference to the extent of the member's financial interest in the society. The second referred to tho secret ballot, the third and fourth asked that tho voting should bo preferential with proportional representation, and the last sought to give tho directors power to subsidise the Surf Life-Saving Association of Australia to the maximum extent of £500 a year. Tho "Sydney Morning Herald" reports that tho chairman, Sir. Samuel Hordern, said that the directors thought it their duty in the best interests of the society to oppose the proposed alterations of tho bylaws. In order to elicit as widespread an expression of opinion as possible upon these amendments, a circular containing the viows of tho directors had been sent to all members entitled to vote, with a request that they should intimate their wishes on tho proxy form. ! The response had been overwhelmingly against the amendments. Tho directors had received proxies representing approximately 361,000 votes. Only one of tho amendments —the one man one vote —was in a specific, concrete form. The others dealt mainly with tho principle only of preferential and proportional voting, but with no specific or concrete recommendation as to what form this should tako. As to the question of tho secret ballot, the board had devised a method of attaining this without any alteration of the bylaws, and with regard to tho subsidising of the Life-saving Association, tho society's Act of Parliament did not permit it. Mr. J. E. Garvan, who moved the resolution, said there was no similarity between a company trading for profit and the A.M.P. Society. Thero was no reason why ono member of the A.M.P. should h.ave a bigger vote than, another. Mr. E. C. Seymour, who spoke iv support, said that the present system of voting was undemocratic and inequitable. Sir Norman Kater said lie hoped this would bo tho last timo policyholdcrs' money would bo wasted in this kind of request. Tho speeches of tho supporters of the amendments wore mostly irrelevancies. Mr. John Bavin said that ho, as a. small policyholdcr, had attended the meeting from a lively apprehension of what might happen if the resolutions were carried. In his reply, Mr. Garvan made reference to the political sympathies of the directorate being anti-Labour, and his subsequent remarks were drowned in a storm of dissent and protest. Sir Samuel Hordern then declared tho resolution lost, on a show of hands, by a very large majority. When the hands wero raised in favonr of the resolution, a policyholdcr remarked, "Nearly doublo figures." In response to a question, Sir Samuel Hordorn said that tho cost of tho circulars had bcoii £4201. With reference to placing the directors' views before policyholders, tho Privy Council had laid it down as their duty to do so, adding that there was no obligation on tho directors to tako similar action with tho \'iews of dissenters.