EWA: A considered view on the SGM motions

It’s great to see members engaging with the upcoming Special General Meeting, that’s exactly how our sport should work: informed, respectful discussion about EA’s future.

But before voting YES across the board, it’s worth pausing to consider what each motion would actually do and the potential risks if all were passed together.

1 - NT Branch Status (YES – with caution)

Everyone agrees Equestrian Northern Territory deserves recognition and the Board’s Motion 1 achieves that legally and immediately.

The member version (Motion 4) trying to make ENT a full branch and EA a branch of itself isn’t legally possible it would create a constitutional defect that could trigger regulatory intervention and undo the progress ENT has worked so hard for.

2&3 - Constitutional changes and quorum

While these aim to make change easier, they would also make it easier for small groups to alter the constitution without national consensus.

EA’s structure exists so that all disciplines and states have a voice, removing checks and balances could mean major governance changes are decided by a few hundred members rather than thousands.

Once changed, it’s very hard to reverse.

4 “One branch, one sport” (sounds good, but impossible)

Unfortunately, EA legally cannot be a member of itself. If passed, this motion would be invalid under the Corporations Act and create confusion that might require court or regulator intervention.

It would not unite the sport, it would stall it. It would also mean losing all EA funding from the Australian Sports Commission including High Performance.

5- Join any branch (member choice)

On the surface, this sounds fair, but in practice it could destabilise state funding, staffing, and facilities that rely on member numbers tied to state boundaries.

It would also make it harder to plan, deliver coaching programs, and secure government grants that depend on participation data within each jurisdiction.

The bottom line

Voting yes to everything might sound like progress, but real progress needs stability, legality, and collaboration.

1. YES to recognising NT — the right way (Motion 1)
2. No to Motions 2, 3, and 5 — they change how EA is governed.
3. NO to Motion 4 — it’s legally flawed and could undo the very goal of recognising NT.

Change is important, but lasting reform depends on sound governance, not rushed votes.