Good morning, everyone, welcome to ANZ's fourth annual ESG presentation. I'm Paul O'Sullivan. I'm the chair of the ANZ board. I'm also the chair of the board's EESG committee. That's the Ethics, Environment, and Social Governance committee. In joining you today, I want to begin with a very important point, that is to reinforce that your board and the management of ANZ are closely aligned and equally focused on the importance of ESG to the company. In fact, your board appreciates and values the leadership that ANZ has established in many areas of ESG. As the world transitions to a low-carbon future, as community expectations of large companies continues to rise, we think it's essential that we have a good grasp of the ESG framework and of our evolving responsibilities. As you'll see today, ESG at ANZ consists of a number of areas. These include climate change, ANZ's own purpose and culture, our community engagement and support, dealing with customers responsibly and fairly, supply chain management, and of course, making sure we meet our regulatory requirements. We've noticed a significant change in the investment community in recent years. It's now clear that ESG risks and metrics play a critical role in the investment decision-making process for the large majority of our investors. In fact, in the many meetings I've had with shareholders since becoming chair last October, it's been notable that the majority of our time has been spent discussing ESG matters. What investors say to me is that they're keen to understand how ANZ thinks about ESG, how the interaction takes place between the board and management on these matters, how our considerations are reflected in our business processes, and importantly, how ESG is reflected in our performance framework and in our remuneration scorecards. I've really valued the frank and open conversations I've had with so many of our investors, and I look forward to continuing them with you in the future. Again, thanks for joining us today. Now I'd like to pass over to our Chief Executive, Shayne Elliott. Good morning, everybody, and thank you for joining us at our virtual presentation today. I'd like to acknowledge that I'm connecting from the lands of the Wurundjeri peoples of the Kulin Nation. I also acknowledge the traditional owners of the various lands in which our attendees are joining from today. Let me firstly say before we begin the session that while 2020 was a difficult year, 2021 is proving to be just as challenging, but in very different ways, as we continue to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. We're seeing signs of greater economic disparity, impacts on workforce participation, particularly for women, further stresses with respect to housing affordability, and differing stresses across the region as countries manage COVID differently, largely due to their financial capacity and levels of social infrastructure. While in Australia and New Zealand, the economies are generally holding up well, it's still patchy. Average economic data is generally positive. Ongoing operating pressures for small businesses and higher levels of household debt, particularly for first homebuyers, are of concern. On to today's session. Integrating ESG and purpose into our strategy has created an opportunity for ANZ to better serve customers and generate long-term shareholder value. It's appropriate we hold ourselves to account publicly with regards to progress, and so this is now the fourth year we're holding a dedicated ESG briefing. Over the past few years, we've covered a lot of ground, in particular, our governance structures, product suitability, remediation, climate change, and social impact. Last year, we had a particular focus on how we were supporting people, customers, and the broader community through COVID, and that support work continues. There's much we're proud of, but many challenges ahead. For today's session, we'll focus on the significant opportunities we see in better aligning ESG and strategy to deliver even more integrated market approach that'll drive long-term value by supporting the multiple transitions that we face: economic, technological, environmental, and social. Today, we'll discuss our alignment of purpose and ESG with strategy and outcomes, how we drive value through people and culture, where we are with environmental sustainability, both as a risk and an opportunity, and finally, how we continue to strengthen our focus on financial well-being and how that'll drive better outcomes for the community and for ANZ. Kevin Corbally, our Chief Risk Officer, will then discuss our integrated risk management approach with some specific updates on risks associated with people, climate, cybersecurity, and anti-money laundering. The banking sector has faced a challenging environment in recent times through the GFC, the financial services inquiry, around 20 other parliamentary inquiries, and of course, the Royal Commission. These moments have brought about the need for the banking sector to change. At ANZ, we've embraced this opportunity, and it's enabling us to build a better bank, providing stronger outcomes for customers and a financially more sustainable business. As a result, we've spent much of the last five years embedding our purpose, ethics, and values into our strategy and the way we make decisions. We've also further strengthened our governance processes. In 2016, we were the first large Australian bank to broaden the remit of our governance board committee and establish a dedicated environment, social, and governance committee. Today, we know this as our Ethics, Environmental, Social, and Governance Board Committee. We are still the only one of the big four banks in Australia to have this dedicated structure, and it is having a material impact on the strategic decisions we make about who we bank, how we behave, and what we care about. To keep improving, we recently undertook a benchmarking exercise looking at peer banks around the world and leading Australian corporates. While there is always more to learn, it reaffirmed our practices are robust and broadly aligned with those peers considered to have good ESG governance. It is a fast-changing space, and we remain vigilant and connected to leaders in the area so that we can understand emerging trends and opportunities. For example, the emerging interest in biodiversity. Now to how our purpose and approach to ESG is helping us deliver on our strategy and creating value for our customers and ultimately for our shareholders. A great example of this, which I'll elaborate more on later in the session, is the work we do to support customers in sustainable finance. During the first three quarters of this current financial year, we participated in AUD 91 billion of sustainable finance transactions across 55 deals in Australia, New Zealand, and in our international business. Many of these sustainability-linked transactions are firsts, such as our loans for retailers Coles and Kathmandu, a bond for Wesfarmers, and a bond for Singaporean infrastructure development company, Surbana Jurong. These deals, and of course many others, highlight the enormous opportunity and the upside in supporting environmental sustainable development. ANZ's strong proposition in this area, linking in our ESG approach and priority area of environmental sustainability, coupled with our leading regional footprint, is helping us carve out a leadership position, creating value for customers and for shareholders. Our group strategy is unchanged, and we remain focused on three important areas: helping people save for, buy, and own a sustainable, livable, and affordable home, helping people start or buy and sustainably grow their business, and helping companies move goods and capital around the region. At the heart of our goal to build a better ANZ is a focus on building the financial well-being of our customers, whether they're retail, small business, or institutional. We've developed some financial well-being principles to guide this work, such as spending less than you earn, saving for a rainy day, or investing in things that grow. Those help our customers make better financial decisions for the future. To deliver our goals, we need to have a purposeful, engaging, and attractive proposition supported by the right products and services that meet our customers' needs, along with safe, simple, and efficient systems and processes. As Australia's leading provider of banking platform services to other financial institutions, we also need to invest more in flexible digital banking platforms, extending our reach to other banks, fintechs, and non-bank service providers to drive real economies of scale for us and enabling them to serve their customers well. It's also about having collaborative partnerships that unlock value, connecting with fintechs and other partners like Worldline, and through our own ventures and incubator business, 1835i, where we invest in and partner with leading innovators like Lendi and Airwallex. It's the relationships we have with our community partner organizations to deliver financial inclusion programs, plus the work we do to support not-for-profit partners to deliver more suitable housing opportunities in the market. Lastly, there's our values-led people. We recognize the need to attract and retain the best people who can deliver on our strategy. Ultimately, it's an amalgamation of everything we do. When the elements are added together and when we get them right, our customers will notice a difference, and we'll deliver better outcomes for shareholders. Finally, it's really important to mention that to close out this loop, we've developed a range of metrics. Linking purpose and strategy together means we can now draw a line down to a suite of people, customer, and brand metrics in our group scorecard with both internal and external targets. That ensures we've got a clear set of goals and measurements to track progress. It also provides key inputs into people management systems, including remuneration. Now on to a few specific updates, firstly, I'll start with people. Earlier this year, we developed a new group-wide diversity and inclusion strategy. Now, we've had a D&I strategy for over 15 years. The new strategy was co-created with employees from all levels and geographies, including those from our employee networks. It's also been endorsed by our executive committee and the human resources committee of the board. This year, we introduced a new question in our annual My Voice staff engagement survey, asking if people feel like they belong at ANZ. The overall score was 81%, something I'm really proud of. As we know, an inclusive culture is one of the most critical drivers of employee engagement. Another area of focus, of course, is achieving gender balance across the bank. We had a target to achieve 34.4% of women in leadership by the end of financial year 2021. We are currently sitting just above this at 34.8%, which is a really terrific result and the fastest annual improvement we have seen in five years. With a view to increase this further, ANZ has signed up to HESTA's 40/40 initiative, and we are proud to be the only Australian bank amongst the first 10 signatories. Having women in executive roles, especially in line roles with P&L accountability, is critical, and this is where the majority of CEO and CFO appointments are drawn from. Not only is my leadership team 40% female, but of the four line roles that sit on my team, 50% are held by women. This has really strengthened our decision-making and the way we consider and manage risk and opportunity. I'm pleased with our progress in building a diverse leadership team at ANZ, and I believe our bank is a place that grows and fosters great talent. Another key part of our diversity and inclusion focus relates to First Nations people. Next month, we'll launch our fifth Reconciliation Action Plan. The new plan focuses on improved financial wellbeing, providing employment and career progression, building capacity of its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses, and understanding the importance of cultural heritage. It's got strong support amongst our employees, as well as the board and my executive committee. In New Zealand, we've appointed Karleen Everitt as our new head of our Maori strategy in February 2021 to help ANZ play a stronger role in building economic participation for Maori and increasing the cultural capabilities of ANZ. The second key area I wanted to discuss today is the work we're doing in environmental sustainability, helping drive sustainable outcomes for customers and the community. Our commitment is to support households, businesses, and financial practices that improve environmental sustainability. Frankly, it's one of the most exciting opportunities for us, and we're well-placed to shape and support the required economic transition. Too many people consider our policies in this area in the negative, the things that we won't do. While that does have its place, we're focused and excited by the things we can do and that we will do to finance the transition required across the region. Our sustainability strategy is supported by our climate policies and programs. For instance, our climate change policy, which we update regularly, sets out how we think about and respond to both the risks and the opportunities. It outlines policies in relation to thermal coal exposures, for example, along with our own operational emissions targets. It also focuses on the important work we do with our large institutional customers to help them transition. This work is going well, and we continue to see their plans advancing. What's also really exciting for us and what's driving our future focus are the significant transition opportunities coming from a low-carbon economy. As mentioned earlier, our sustainable finance team is leading the way in servicing customers in this area. So far this year, we've transacted what it's previously taken us five years to do, and we're also outpacing global growth with our market share growing significantly. Sustainability trends in the economy more broadly are also presenting us with commercial investment opportunities, which we're actively pursuing. The key areas for interest for us include support for electrification of the transport supply chain, facilitating new technologies, commercialization of hydrogen, financing energy-efficient buildings, and assisting customers establish and develop their own transition plans. To succeed in this area, we'll be investing in our business, in developing our people to have the right culture and mindset committed to sustainability, in building out our climate risk expertise, in having better data and technology to develop insights and track emissions, and in strengthening our industry knowledge and product expertise. We're committed to delivering on our goal to be a leading environmental sustainability bank, seeking out business opportunities that are aligned with our purpose and our strategy. We don't want to just be a bank who does sustainability well, but rather a sustainability-led bank. Lastly, I wanted to touch on the work we're doing in financial wellbeing. One of the ways we're working to improve the financial wellbeing of our customers is giving them the tools and the insights that can help positively change behavior. We know that customers with a savings goal have a savings balance twice that of a customer without one, and that they save nearly twice as fast as they did before setting the goal. Through the ANZ app, we're helping our customers save through insights, nudges, and goals. It's really exciting, as in setting goals, customers are sharing with us what's important to them. Saving for a house, a holiday, a car, a pet, or to start a small business. By ethically and responsibly using this insight, we're better placed to coach and advise our customers on how they can get there faster. Our financial wellbeing work is also about the partnerships we have with government and community organizations to support a broad range of people who may not be customers. This includes the financial education program, MoneyMinded, which reaches tens of thousands of people each year. Our partnership with the United Nations Development Programme to deliver MoneyMinded to women in rural areas in five Pacific Island countries, Fiji, Kiribati, the Solomons, Tonga, and Vanuatu. In fact, my last overseas trip before COVID-19 was to visit our team and customers in the Solomons, and so I've seen firsthand the impact that these programs can make. It's also our support for underrepresented groups, such as refugees and asylum seekers, to have access to employment through programs like Given the Chance, which we offer in partnership with the Brotherhood of St Laurence. Also with the Brotherhood and the Australian government as co-funder, we've supported more than 50,000 people to build their savings and financial well-being through our matched savings program, Saver Plus. Participants in this program have saved over AUD 26 million since 2003, and we're really proud of this work and what we do to support the broader community. This brings me to a close, and I hope that you take from today that we've a clear sense of purpose, a strong values-led and people-focused culture, and an integrated approach to ESG that is supporting the delivery of our strategy. In the area of environmental sustainability in particular, that there's a huge business opportunity for us if we can get it right. With that, I'll hand over to Kevin. Thanks, Shayne. Today, I wanted to talk to you about our approach to non-financial risk management, including how it fits within our broader risk management framework. I'd also like to touch on some specific ESG risks that we're actively managing. First, on our overall approach to risk management. At ANZ, we believe risk is everyone's business and is part of the way we work and think. We want a risk culture where our people demonstrate the right risk behaviors, have clear risk roles and responsibilities, and are enabled by the right policies and processes. Taking risk is something, as a bank, we do every day. If you bring it back to the basics for a moment, customers place money on deposit with us, and in turn, we lend that money out to other customers or borrowers. This requires us to make a risk assessment on the borrower's ability to repay so that we can protect our depositors. Risk comes in many forms today, and non-financial risks and ESG risks are increasing. The way we manage these is no different to any other risk. Within our board-approved risk management framework, we have identified the full spectrum of material and evolving risks ANZ is exposed to and then set out our risk tolerance for these risks through our risk appetite statements. Essentially, these statements outline the degree of risk we're prepared to accept to achieve our strategic objectives and plans. Under that, we have a series of policies and procedures to guide our staff, together with controls to mitigate risks, as well as systems that monitor compliance. Whether the risk is financial or non-financial or ESG specific, we apply a similar framework, but varied based on the type of risk and what our appetite and tolerance levels are for the issue. In terms of key initiatives and developments made in this area, late last year, we reviewed our risk appetite statement metrics to make sure our board risk committee had appropriate oversight of our non-financial risks. The review concluded earlier this year with the committee approving a collection of over 36 metrics and indicators, with some new and amended ones, including availability of critical technology systems, resolution of customer disputes, employee turnover, and lost time injury frequency rate. The increase in metrics and indicators is up from 12 prior to the review and demonstrates the growing importance of non-financial factors in helping inform decisions within our bank. As part of the review, we also developed and launched a new tool that streamlines how we capture and report against the risk appetite statement metrics, reducing the time it takes from weeks to days. We also developed a purpose-built dashboard to support the proactive management of our risk appetite using trend analysis technology. These changes have provided our board risk committee and management with greater visibility and control over our non-financial risk appetite. In addition to this work, for the first time, we conducted an internal risk culture survey in May this year. The survey gathered the perceptions of target risk behaviors from over 24,000 staff across ANZ. Pleasingly, the results were really strong, with over 80% of staff expressing a very positive sentiment for ANZ's risk culture. We've done a lot of work over the past three years to encourage a speak-up culture, and the responses to that survey confirmed that our people feel they can speak up and challenge each other respectfully if they see unethical behavior. Now to a few specific ESG risks. First, climate risk. We know our customers are already transitioning to a low carbon future themselves. Some have clear plans to achieve net zero businesses by 2050. We are working with our customers to better understand what they're doing. At the same time, we're seeing significant shifts in the reduction in the cost of energy alternatives aided by new technology. These two things combined, along with some uncertainty around demand for some of the natural resource commodities and questions over price, mean we are actively managing these risks now, and we are managing any identified risks in this space in accordance with our risk management framework, as I previously mentioned. In addition, regulators in almost every market we operate in are talking to us about how the transition is elevating climate risk for banks and other financial institutions. As APRA has publicly said, a prudent institution needs to consider the financial risks and opportunities of climate change and to manage any identified risks, which is what we're doing. The second area is the risks associated with our people. We worked incredibly hard last year to support our people and get them to work safely from home as quickly as possible. Looking after our staff continues to be a priority and something we are acutely alert to, as many people are still in lockdown across Australia and New Zealand. Our staff in the Philippines and India have been working from home since March last year. This undoubtedly brings up issues around mental health and physical wellbeing, and risks associated with fatigue and burnout. For many, being away from the office and not knowing when they can return is driving a sense of angst and uncertainty. We've continued to focus heavily on helping our people build and maintain resilience to help them through the pandemic. Among the ways we're looking after our people is through our Healthy Me digital app, which was launched last year and offers health and wellbeing podcasts, webinars, articles, and other activity. Our Employee Assistance Program, EAP, which is actively being utilized by those who need support services, and we've seen utilization in both Australia and New Zealand increase. In Australia, we have commenced a rollout of a customer counseling support program within EAP for customers experiencing emotional distress. Employee webcasts with local medical directors and psychologists on vaccination queries and dealing with COVID-19, and also the extra assistance we've provided to help vaccinate our staff in some key locations. For example, vaccination hubs in Bengaluru in India, and in Sydney, a workplace vaccination pilot, starting with the 12 affected local government areas and now extending across Greater Sydney. In Fiji, 99% of our staff are now vaccinated. We've played a role in educating our teams and supporting access to the vaccines. The other issue we're working on is the future of how we work at ANZ. We've developed a how we work model, which has been designed around listening to our staff and seeking feedback about how they want to work in the future. Based on feedback, a small percentage will remain remote working first. Some staff will remain workplace first, and the vast majority will be blended with a mix between home and office. Maintaining the culture of ANZ in a blended or hybrid working environment is going to be crucial, and we are mindful this is a potential future risk to be managed. That said, I'm really pleased we can enable our staff to work flexibly in a way that works for them. Lastly, there's cybersecurity and anti-money laundering. We take the security of our bank, our customers, and our customers' information very seriously. It's why we have a range of recognized industry practices, technologies, processes, and defenses in place. Cybersecurity threats continue to be significant, especially in the context of COVID-19 and the shift to digital banking and remote working. Today, we're blocking around 12 million malicious emails a month. In fact, last month, that peaked at 17 million. Pre-COVID-19, in October 2019, that number was about 4 million. It's now 3x or 4x greater. Our 24/7 security operation center's defenses and mitigation capabilities help combat these threats and continue to help keep us safe online. On anti-money laundering, we have a clear obligation as a major financial institution to ensure our systems and payments are used appropriately. We've invested significantly in enhancing data analytics capability for the bank in recent times. For instance, we created a central financial crime data hub and intelligence ecosystem that uses a number of analytical tools, including network and link analysis capability. Using these tools, we can better detect syndicated crimes and demonstrate the big-picture view of criminal activity. Also dynamic algorithms, using agile monitoring and detection solutions to detect customer behaviors and variations which have resulted in targeted and enhanced outcomes for AUSTRAC and police investigations. It's a collaborative effort, and we will continue to invest in this area to help protect our customers, staff, and the community. Lastly, before I close and open for questions, what I've spoken about today is essentially a report card for how we're managing risks. I'll finish by outlining some of the emerging risks that we're watching closely. They're ones that also align with our ESG priority areas. In environmental sustainability, biodiversity is a new and fast-evolving area of interest. While we'll have more to say on this as the area develops, we do recognize a link between climate change and biodiversity loss and are committed to including a greater future focus on biodiversity as a result. In the area of financial wellbeing, the continued rise in cyber scamming is worrying, especially when we see those who are vulnerable in the community being targeted. This is something we are alert to and are working closely with our vulnerable customer, fraud, and cybersecurity teams to keep in front of. In the area of housing, the economic disparity emerging as the COVID-19 pandemic continues is putting people under real stress. For some, the dream to buy a home is slipping further away as house prices continue to climb. We won't know for some time how this increasing social and economic divide will play out over the longer term, but it's something we're closely monitoring. With that, I'll hand over to the operator for the opening of questions from our ESG and analyst community. Thank you. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel you request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Andrew Triggs from JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Morning, everyone. Thanks for the opportunity to ask a few questions on ESG matters. First question just on page, the slide 16, which has the engagement with the top 100 largest emitting customers. Am I reading this right to suggest that around 70% have plans with respect to governance on that issue and less than 60% on targets and long-term plans? What do you think of that sort of progress on that sort of key facet of your plans? Yes, you are reading it right, Andrew. I think it's worth just giving a bit of context here. They're not necessarily our largest exposures. These are just the largest emitting customers that we deal with, right? We might have a relatively small exposure to just a large emitter. That first. Secondly, it is a global portfolio. That 100, I can't remember, about 40-ish or something like that, are actually based in Australia. I think the majority are international. It's not an Australian list, that's also important. Yes, the basic logic that you applied there is correct in terms of the current state. The good news is, what we're really interested in here is progress, and the fact that there's continuing advancement of that portfolio of emitting customers. We are pleased with the progress, and we can actually see over time that this is a generally improving area as more and more companies become interested in the area and actually put together plans, targets, and actions to actually make a difference. Thanks, Shayne. Just another point of clarification. Does the chart also imply that you haven't engaged yet with about 15% of those 100 largest emitting customers? Shayne, j ust on that one. Andrew, the data there is as at sort of our disclosures last year in 2020. There has been some change since then. Yep. What I would say is that we have spoken to all of our top 100 customers as of yesterday. When we release the results in a couple of months' time, we'll have more up-to-date information on those customers, but we've now spoken to all of them. Okay, thank you. Yep. Maybe just a follow-up question, just in terms of, I guess peer major banks appear to have firmer restrictions. You talked about your approach to the E part of ESG being equally about what you can do or what customers can do in encouraging sustainable finance, but also what customers can't do. The other three majors seem to have more, sorry, stricter, restrictions, if you call them that, on what can be done in terms of thermal coal mines and coal-fired thermal generation. Have you given any consideration to moving a little bit more in line with those peers your thermal coal exposure now seems to be quite immaterial. Well, first of all, I kind of reject that, actually. I'm not sure that's true. I think there's a difference that we actually do what we say we're going to do. I think we've actually shown a willingness to be bold in terms of making decisions. Actually, when we do our analysis, and we do obviously, and not just against the locals, I'm not sure that's the right benchmark. We look globally, we do line up our policies and statements and commitments, I think we benchmark incredibly strongly, not as the leader globally, but we're certainly in the sort of more forward-leaning pack in terms of the commitments, et cetera. I think more importantly, it's important to have goals, obviously, but it's more important to walk the talk. I think we have shown our willingness to take bold decisions in terms of what we will and won't do going forward. Having said that, Andrew, I think it's fair to say that the whole area of climate policy, in many ways, needs to be written in pencil because it's continually changing and evolving. We'll be issuing an update soon, to sort of reflect our current thinking and our current commitments around that. You'll be able to then hold us to account on those new goals. Clearly, we take into account what others are doing globally and where best practice is, and I think we hold ourselves to a pretty high bar. Andrew, the other thing I'd add to what Shayne said. The other thing I'd add is that we've been talking to our customers for a number of years on this. Our policy as it relates to thermal coal is pretty clear. We have an exit date of 2030, that aligns actually with a number of banks, with all the major banks here, and also with a number of major banks globally. Those conversations have been such that we've been talking to the customers about the financial risks of climate change, as I said. Our position is actually consistent with many of those customers. As Shayne alluded to, for those instances where customers have plans that are different from ours, we've been pretty clear that we've helped support them find alternative financing. We're not cutting and running, for want of a better way to describe it. We are having the conversations, and we're helping them find alternative arrangements. Thank you. Just to follow up on the sustainable finance side of things, on what you can do, I guess. Where do you think your market share sits on that side of things, Shayne? Oh, I'm glad you asked that question, actually. It's pretty exciting. First of all, we have to accept it's fast-growing, but in the scheme of global finance, still relatively small, but the numbers are growing really fast. If we take all the sort of the global issuance around sustainable linked finance transactions, our share is around 8% globally. Importantly, Andrew, it has been growing. We've been growing faster than the market. That's why we're quite excited about the opportunity. Look, who can say, but I would imagine the growth rate's going to be sort of geometric for quite a period of time. We feel we're in a really strong position and have a really strong sort of market proposition in terms of our brand. That's our commitment around sort of ESG and walking the talk, and actually capability. There's no coincidence, our leading position in DCM capability, for example, or syndications, is obviously really core to be able to execute on this opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Alison Ewings from Regnan. Please go ahead. Thank you. Thanks again for a very helpful session. I had two questions. The first was on remuneration, actually, where ANZ made some really significant changes to its approach right throughout the organization. My question's about kind of outside of the KMP. I wondered if you could share any detail on whether it's really driving the intended behaviors and whether there's been any unintended outcomes or consequences as a result of that change. My second was related to the SDGs. I thought it was really interesting to see you in the pack include how your financing aligns with the SDGs. I wondered whether you had undertaken the kind of alternative exercise to understand what, if any, of your financing might be undermining the achievement of those goals. Yeah. Whether looking through that lens provides any additional insights relevant to your broader decisions around risk appetite. That's a great question. I'll let Kevin make some comments on the second point. I'll start. Thanks for the question on remuneration. First to acknowledge, it is early days. We announced what our program is called Reimagining Reward, and for those of you on the line not familiar with it, I won't go through all the details, but essentially what we did is we've moved away from an individual at-risk pay philosophy, which our industry has followed for many years, where people got individual bonuses based on contribution, et cetera, to more of a group base. We have a group performance dividend. 85%-ish of our people, we basically increase their fixed pay, reduce their reliance on at-risk pay, and the only at-risk pay they get is they share in this group performance dividend. While there are various tiers of it's like a dividend. We announce a payout ratio, staff, they get X% of that target all the same. It's really to encourage group performance, collaboration, to remind people we are in this together. That's it. Then the final 15% still have some. They all participate in that group performance dividend. The only people who don't participate in that are me and my direct team. All staff participate in that. There's a small group of people who, in addition to that, have at-risk pay. The reason we do that is because we do see the value of it, because those are the people whose decisions that they make have very serious consequences, positive and potentially negative, on the community, on our customers, and on the prudential soundness of the bank. That's why we have this mixed progress. We launched it, this will be our third year. Of course, COVID last year was a difficult year in general, so I wouldn't want to claim victory. I think, though the signs are very positive, and I can give you some examples. It has taken away this tension or the sense of competition, because obviously, in the previous model, it was all about people. It was essentially a bit of a zero-sum game. There was a certain amount of pool, and you either got it or somebody else. There was a sense of competition, which wasn't healthy, and it sort of encouraged a sense of my team versus your team or my contribution versus yours. This has really started people to think more broadly about impact, and we can see that in the conversations we have with people. Early days, positive signs. Your second point on remuneration is, in our scorecard as a group, how we determine that group dividend or how we determine at-risk pay for people like me and senior people. The scorecard is balanced. It has a risk multiplier to it. That's the first thing we look at. We look at people, customer, and financial discipline. There are ESG type measures right throughout that scorecard. For example, things like diversity, but also the progress we're making with the 100 largest emitters. We do have a line from our philosophy and our approach to ESG all the way through to that scorecard, and that's only getting stronger. I put up one of the slides, I can't remember what page it was, the one that sort of had the circle wheel on it, sort of trying to describe the integrated approach. What we're doing, and I mentioned in there, I think it's on slide eight. What we've taken that is actually we're just using that as the core to actually strengthen even further the linkage between that business model and the metrics we use to remunerate people and get some balance into it. I think there's some positives. Do you want to talk about on the second question. Yeah. Alison, thank you. It's actually a really interesting question. We haven't done an SDG reverse analysis yet. I must say, I wouldn't mind going away and having a think about it and talking to the team. It's actually probably a pretty good suggestion. Thank you for that. Yeah. Actually, while I've still got you, I wonder also if there was any update on work you might be doing around physical risk of climate change? Physical risk on climate change. Look, we're obviously continuing to do a significant amount of work on all of the elements of climate change, whether it's physical transition, whatever. It's a key element of our climate change policy. Yeah, we're continuing to do a lot on it. Thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from Lou Capparelli from UniSuper. Please go ahead. Good morning all, thank you for the opportunity. Shayne, perhaps for you, then I've got another one as well. The first question I have is, great to see the initiatives you're doing in affordable housing. As a parent of kids who are going to get into housing at some point, anything you can do there is welcome. I'm just wondering, and it's not up to you to solve the sort of affordable housing issue, but whatever you can do is helpful. I'm just curious to know, to what extent are your initiatives, are you prepared to sort of incur some, let's call it hurt money? When you're out there, you need to make a buck, and I can't see how any initiatives you do won't actually have an impact on the bottom line. I'm just wondering to what extent, am I framing the issue correctly and to what extent you're prepared to incur a hit to the ultimate outcome there? Yeah, I think that's a very fair question. Well, we are. Again, it's about timing, right? It's like anything we do, it's not a lot different than the work we did in building our capability in sustainable finance. In the early days, you do take a hit. Your resources cease up. You don't cover your costs. You learn, you take a bit of risk. If you took a long-term lens, so our approach on affordable housing is working with partners, because we can't do it on our own, but working with partners and a great example here in Australia is a company called Assemble. We're working really closely with Assemble, who is really working on commercial models for affordable housing. We can use our insights and contribute to the innovation there and how do we structure something that can work. For example, working with the super industry as well as an investor in there. Are there different financial models as well as different housing models? A, we put our best people into that. When we think about how we finance, I'll just use that as an example, a development from Assemble. Yes, we have to take a slightly different risk appetite to it. Part of that is, if you will, early stage investment approach to say, hey, so we've put aside a reasonable amount of capital and funding that we have targeted to say, "Hey, we're willing to invest this into this area of affordable housing, and we understand that the returns won't be the same as we would get elsewhere, that there might be a slightly different risk appetite." That is there because we believe in the long-term prospects of that as a sustainable business model, and we want to be a partner early on in it. Yes. Now, we can discuss whether we're taking enough risk or not. I would say at the moment, I'm personally pretty heavily involved in this through our own ERBC committee, and we look at these. I spend time with the team at Assemble, for example, and others, and we've got some great examples in New Zealand as well, by the way. I would say at the moment, our appetite for that is larger than the supply of opportunity. What I mean by that, if I stand back and think about our resources, our capital, the sort of funding we can contribute to this, we have more appetite than we can fill at the moment. I don't think that's because we're being difficult. I just think it's a very, very early stage emerging market. In the last three years we've been looking at it's changed dramatically. I imagine it'll be a bit like sustainable finance. We're probably going to get some really geometric growth, but there's some real projects starting to take shape now, and we are excited about it. Yes, we're willing to take a little bit of a financial hit in the short term, because I think in the long term, A, it's the right thing to do, but I actually think there's a massive business opportunity for those early stage investors in this area. Can I just ask as a follow-up to that before my next question? Are you doing anything in, let's call it, the more sort of mainstream space in the sort of secondary housing market in terms of helping young people, that sort of finding, saving 20% for a deposit to avoid that sort of usurious lender's mortgage insurance. Are there any initiatives you're doing there? Yes. Although again, I think we're still early stage. You're right. We can talk about the supply side. In terms of helping our customers get to that savings point, that was some of the comments I made there before. We've set up an ability within our app so you can set a goal and say, "Hey, I want to save for something." We know. As I mentioned in the speech, just the act of setting a goal rapidly improves your chances of actually saving. You get there faster and bigger by doing so. We've enabled that to do. We now have, I think it's something like 450,000 goals have been set up by our customers. As you can imagine, a lot of them are about first home buyers. What we're able to do, that act in and of itself will help them get there faster. What we use is those nudges we talk about, is to remind people, is to send people, "Hey, you set a goal, you're a little bit behind. Have you thought about this? Have you thought about that?" There's a lot of exciting ideas in that area. We're at the very, very baby steps, pretty basic stuff. We've got some really great initiatives of how we can enhance people's ability to save. If I just stand back, and I know this wasn't your question, but I think it's an important point. Kevin and I both talked about the emerging disparity in housing. We can see that, and if anything, COVID's made it worse. House prices have risen, I don't know, 20% in Australia and New Zealand over the last year. Well, we know incomes didn't rise 20%. It doesn't take a genius to figure out affordability is starting to be stretched, and of course, that impacts first home buyers the most. There is this emerging issue here. As a bank and as a prudent lender, we need to make sure that We need to be responsible and not taking on too much debt. We need to not loosen our credit standards, because that's not helping anybody in the long term. On the other hand, we also have to accept, we need to encourage people to get there faster in terms of their deposits, as you mentioned. In the past, what, five odd years, we'd seen this big rise in things like parental guarantees and other things, or even, not just guarantees, but actually friends and family sort of assisting on the deposit side. I'm not sure that's sustainable. I'm not sure that's the solution in the long run. Again, financial innovation, but in a responsible way, thinking about helping people get in. The sort of rent-to-buy opportunities. Again, we're working with providers of that to make that a financially viable and a sensible, responsible thing for a first home buyer to do. I think there's a lot of opportunity, but we're at early stages. That's great. Just a final question, and it's further to the earlier question around thermal coal and exposures. Are you considering, as part of your overall approach, setting some sort of limit on fossil fuel exposures more generally? I'm curious to see. I think there's a slide in today's presentation that says you've got AUD 6 billion or AUD 7 billion invested in oil and gas, and to what extent y ou're considering your position there in terms of stranded asset risk, et cetera. Yes, of course, we consider it. We haven't made a decision on that. I think it's a very reasonable question. I can just tell you it's under active consideration. Again, I know you know this. One of our challenges here is to say, how do we think about the fact that we may well bank a fossil fuel company who's completely committed and has a very, very credible plan to net zero? Is that a better position than banking a non-fossil fuel company who may well be emitting, who has no plans or nothing credible to do anything about it? I'm using two extremes here. I know you know it's not quite as simple as just saying we won't bank fossil fuels. Yeah, approach, whether there's caps, whether there's some more sort of formal way we can share our risk appetite around that absolutely is under active consideration. I think you've seen our climate change policy evolve over time, and that's why I sort of made that comment. It is written in pencil because it will continue to change, and you're going to see a new version of that soon, and it'll continue to strengthen because that's what the community demands of us, greater clarity and further strengthening, and that's what, really importantly, our shareholders and frankly also our customers as well. It's actively discussed. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Richard Wiles from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Good morning, Shayne. Hi, Richard. I just wanted to follow on from Lou's questions on housing. There's been a lot of focus on financial wellbeing today. You've also talked about the disparity on housing affordability, and I think at the outset you said higher household debt for first home buyers is very concerning for you. Shayne, that led me to three questions. I think it goes more to policies in the country rather than efforts from a bank like yours to get people to save. The first question is, do you think housing sustainability should be part of the mandate for the RBA in the same way that it is for the RBNZ in New Zealand? Secondly, do you think government, central bank, and regulatory policies in relation to first home buyers are actually fueling the buildup of debt and undermining financial wellbeing in this country? Thirdly, do you think that there is too much focus from the RBA on keeping rates at emergency levels when it discourages people to save and actually makes their savings goals harder to achieve? Qu ite simply two basis points on a term deposit isn't going to help you get to your savings goal. Based on our offerings. You really want to throw me in harm's way here, Richard. Thanks for those. Now look, seriously, I think, first of all, on the question about housing and the RBA, I think there is a fundamental difference here, and it is that the RBNZ has a very different remit and is essentially a combination of APRA and the Reserve Bank. I think the policy setting in New Zealand, I'm not sure it's appropriate to lift and shift that and say therefore the same should be here. I think the Council of Financial Regulators, I think the regulatory system does have a perspective and a role to play in terms of housing affordability, and obviously the way they execute that is through the various arms of that regulatory structure. I do think, and look, I know in speaking to or hearing from Reserve Bank and the various regulators, it is something they consider in the broad. Whether that means that they action it through the RBA or as opposed to APRA or ASIC or something, that's something different. I think there's a difference there. In terms of whether some of these settings are contributing to the issue, that may well be the case, but I sort of stand back and say, this is not an Australian unique position here. If we look around the world, in almost every developed market or market we would consider similar in structure, whether it's Canada, U.S., Singapore, most of Europe, New Zealand, the U.K., are suffering from very similar issues. They all, while there's some similarities, have different regulatory structures and different policy settings. What we are seeing is asset price inflation, and it's not exclusive to housing, but housing is part of it. I think it's more fundamental than just Australia-led issues. Clearly, your point about do low rates contribute to the issue? Yes. I think that's a fact. I think, and to both the issues you talked, yes, it makes it harder to save for a home, and yes, it encourages increased levels of debt because you can afford it, if you will, because of the lower servicing costs. That's why I think, and again, it is a think, that's why the Council of Financial Regulators and the RBA have made comments about perhaps the need for macro-prudential intervention to offset some of those issues. It's a complex issue. I think the point from a bank's perspective, and I appreciate your question wasn't really about the bank, but more broad policy settings. The issue for a bank is how do we continue to grow and help our customers achieve their objectives of home ownership? We know home ownership is one of the single best things you can do to improve your financial well-being, but do so responsibly and make sure that we're not allowing our customers to get into harm's way in terms of the level of debt they're taking on. Hey, it's complicated, and I think we're confident we've got our risk settings right for that, and it's not a time, I don't think, to be pushing out the risk envelope in terms of particularly around first home buyers or highly indebted borrowers. Thanks, Shayne. They're not easy questions to answer, but thanks for your perspective. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from David Whittaker from New South Wales Treasury Corporation. Please go ahead. Hi, Shayne, Kevin, and Paul. Thanks very much for the presentation. Just continuing on that theme around, I guess, affordability and one of the issues is equitable access to finance. I think you mentioned at the outset, Shayne, that women were more affected by the economic conditions. Can you perhaps elaborate on ANZ's approach to supporting female customers? Also, I guess the disruption that we're seeing in the industry suggests there is perhaps more that the incumbents can do to provide more equitable and better value access to finance, and so delivering on your goals to support financial well-being. Credit card products, clearly, when we talk about first home buyers and ability to get into housing products, they've got a lot of credit card debt and they're trapped in a cycle maybe that's impacting. Perhaps I'd ask touch on some of those issues. Yeah. Well, thank you for the question. There's a lot in there. Just again, to sort of reframe what our comments were, I think it's clear from the statistics that while the unemployment rate has fallen, it has largely fallen as a result of falling participation in the workplace. If you dig into that, it has particularly impacted women. If we think about what's happened over COVID in terms of the loss of jobs or income or hours or those who have had to seek assistance through JobKeeper or JobSeeker or the various Centrelink payments, there's a bias towards women who've worked in a lot of those industries who've been most hard hit. We do see that in our customer base and that the impact is being impacted more. It puts us in a difficult position, as you would imagine. On one hand, we have to make sure that we're not discriminating and that we're fair and reasonable, and we make sure that there is, to your point, ethical and fair access to credit. On the other hand, we are a bank, and we have a responsibility to make sure that we lend prudently and abide by not just the law around responsible lending, but just doing the right thing and making sure people are not getting in and over their head. While we don't have any particular policies around women versus men in terms of borrowing, et cetera, what we've got to do is make sure that we're not inadvertently penalizing women. To be fair, I can't point to any particular policy we have on that. I think it's something that Kevin and I should go and have a look at to make sure that we're not inadvertently causing more difficulty for women who may be looking to borrow in terms of a home or a small business. I'm not aware that there's any evidence that that is the case, but it's a really good question that you ask. In terms of, what was the second part of your question? Just remind me. Just the, I guess, the disruptors. Oh, yes. There's possibly more that the major banks could be doing. We've seen certain banks adjusting their products to respond to that. Yeah. How do you think about ensuring that you've got the right products to provide your customers what tools they need, I guess, to achieve your wellbeing goal? Yeah, it's a great question. These are general comments and so you'll just have to forgive me for that. I would say, in general, when I look at a lot of the disruption around banking, as far as I can tell, very little of it has a business model of improving financial wellbeing for customers. A lot of it is actually precisely the opposite. We see, for example, in the small business lending space, non-bank financial lending at 20%, 30%, 40% per annum kind of rate. That is where there's a lot of disruption, if you will. I understand it might be easier to access some of that, but I don't think it necessarily meets the requirements around, or the definition of responsible or improving financial wellbeing. I think we have to be cautious of that. I think the big banks, and again, I can't speak for the industry, but for ourselves, actually, the benefit of our products and services, while there will be all sorts of criticisms about them, they're pretty transparent and people know what they're getting. I think what worries me is that a lot of the so-called innovation we're seeing in the marketplace from companies is largely products that are not transparent. They seem so these ideas of interest-free or somehow products that are packaged in a certain way that attract customers, but actually have business models that profit from default rates or other things. I'm not sure, and I worry personally that in a time of stress, and that's where we're in, where people are stressed and thinking about the future, that people are susceptible to some of these sort of so-called innovations. I think we've got a job to do to make sure our products are suitable. What we've been doing, and you mentioned credit cards, and hey, we all know that we have a range of credit cards, and not all of them are suitable for people. We've got to do a much better job around suitability, and we're really getting ready for the new DDO obligations, and we're set up for there. We've done really good work on, for example, talking to people who have, say, persistent debt on a card to call them and say, "This is not the right product for you. You would be better off on a lower rate personal loan or move to a low rate card." I'm actually encouraged by the work we can do about using data and behavior analysis to better make sure our customers are in the right product for them. We've actually had some really great results of that, and I don't have them off the top of my head, but we've spoken to many thousands of card holders, for example, and getting them to move. Many people who may be in the wrong just simple transaction banking product, that actually there was a low cost, low fee product available that they may not have known about, or their circumstances have changed and now we're able to see through the data, actually, you should be on this lower rate product or low fee. We've been doing, I think, really good work in that regard. Shayne, can I just add to what you said? Yeah, sure. I think in the pack we mentioned one of the things we're just about to launch, which is Your Money Report. I think, gives people a really good understanding of where they're spending the money so that they're not spending more than they actually earn. We've shared that with a sample pilot customer group. It's been really well received by them. Similarly, if you talk about innovative products, I think one of the things we launched in New Zealand last year was a Healthy Home Loan package and an interest-free insulation loan for customers, which has been well received. I think the other thing that I'd call out is we're conscious that a lot of farmers in Australia are looking to Pacific Island nations for labor, and we run a MoneyMinded program which actually provides those Pacific Islanders with education around how to actually manage their money too as well. I think there's a range of trial of, I'd call them innovative products, that we think actually genuinely add value to customers that we're trialing and we're actually running at the moment. Great. Thanks very much. Just one more question. Thanks, Kevin, for that presentation on the risk culture. It looks like some really good progress being made. What's the best way for investors to get visibility on the progress and improvements in the risk culture? Is there any disclosure points we should be looking at in your annual reporting, for instance? I guess, what are your thoughts on that? Look, part of the reason for sharing the information with you today was exactly that point. I mean, over 80% of our staff say they feel really positive about the risk culture within the organization. We thought it was appropriate to share that with you, given it was the first time we'd undertaken a bank-wide culture survey. We have been doing a series of culture reviews within different business units over the last number of years. This has been an exercise we've been on for a period of time, and we'll certainly take on board your suggestion and feedback around what we may look to add in terms of disclosures when we come out with our full year results. Great. Thanks very much. Thank you. Your next question comes from Alastair Hunter from Franklin Templeton. Please go ahead. Morning. Thank you for your time. Couple of questions, if I may. Just firstly, on greenwashing in the sustainable finance sector, interested in whom within the management structure ultimately, I suppose, has the responsibility for managing that risk. Obviously, we're seeing heightened litigation occurring in this sort of space. Secondly, probably one for Kevin, just in terms of how you're currently assessing risk weightings of your counterparties as to what are you currently incorporating in your analysis for your sort of assessment of individual risk around climate change? Okay, thanks, Alastair. How do you see it corresponding with your current consultancy? Oh, sorry. Thanks, Alastair, and nice to hear from you. On the first one, it's a good question, actually. We don't specifically have a person or a place, "Hey, you're the greenwashing person, you oversee these things." It's a good point. However, what we do do, under our Ethics and Responsible Business Committee that I chair, which is our sort of executive team, executive committee from all parts of the bank, which we meet regularly on a range of issues. That's where we set our standards, culture, and sort of philosophy around these sorts of issues. We've held ourselves to a really high standard on this. Not every single transaction, but certainly our set of principles around these things are set in that committee, and we do oversee some of the larger things. The sustainability team, which works under Institutional and part of Mark Whelan's team, again, we have a high degree of visibility there. Me personally, I know Kevin and Mark Whelan are deeply involved in transactions, et cetera. I know that over the last year, for example, a number of the big decisions made around participation in certain transactions, where we felt they didn't meet our standards and we decide to walk away, those things would get escalated, for example, even up to my level. Even if it was for a notification where the team would tell me, "Hey, we've made a call on this. We're not going to participate in this because we don't think it meets the standards." It's a good point, and maybe we should consider even strengthening it further in a more formal way. We are very worried about this trend, because ultimately, it undermines the entire sustainability opportunity for everybody. We see our role in setting and holding standards extremely high. That is in our selfish best interest, and it is in the best interest of the broader community and the business community. That's sort of an approach we take on that. Did you want to talk about the second? Yeah, look, actually, just to add to what you said on the first one. I think, Alastair, there's been a lot of talk recently, particularly around carbon offsets as they relate to greenwashing. I'm not sure if that was part of what you were referring to. I think a couple of points I'd make there. One, our operations have actually been carbon neutral since 2010. Whilst our focus has been on sort of trying to reduce our environmental footprint as much as we possibly can, sometimes there are unavoidable emissions, if I can describe them to you that way. What we do is we offset those in accordance with a certification from the Australian Government Climate Active Program. We use an independent third party, in our case, it's KPMG, to then verify that our offsets abide by the Australian Government and international best practice standards. We also only select eligible offset programs in the countries in which we operate. I think a really good example of that is that in Arnhem Land, we supported a fire abatement project that was undertaken by the local Indigenous communities. What happens there is to support the sort of the frequency and the severity of bushfires, you've got rangers who go out and they conduct what you'd call controlled burns. Those controlled burns prevent bigger uncontrolled fires from happening later on in the season. We think that that demonstrates a significant reduction, not just in carbon emissions, but also you've got cultural, you've got environmental, and you've also got economic benefits for the traditional custodians as well. In relation to your second question with regard to risk weights and how we factor in environmental sustainability, governance matters into that, we have agreed with APRA what the risk weights will be effectively for our customers. That's driven by the risk rating of those individual customers. One of the factors that feeds into our risk grade for a customer is actually management's capability, their focus, other factors such as risks that they might face from climate change, environmental, whatever the case might actually be. It ultimately feeds through into our risk grade assessment for the customer, which in turn then flows through into the risk weights that are applied. Thank you. Your next question comes from Brian Johnson from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Congratulations on an outstanding presentation. I would flag that I think the danger is here, you guys disclosing more than your peers probably leaves you open to some kind of criticism. I'd also observe that one of the most disappointing aspects of this is because we haven't got uniform regulation, he who acts the tightest perhaps even loses market share. Many questions, but the first one I just wanted to ask, just on slide 48, which I know is at the back of the pack. When we have a look at slide 48, we can see some reference to the very upsetting developments that happened in Cambodia many years ago. We also see that you've got quite a big investment in AmBank and Panin Bank. You actually bank in Myanmar. I'm just wondering, are you trying to flag a risk at the bottom of the slide? Is there something coming? I've got another one. Yeah. First of all, good to hear from you, Brian. Thanks for those comments, and I take your point about the risk we have, but we think that's a risk worth taking. Thanks for those comments. The short answer to that is no, we're not flagging anything. What we're saying here is, yes, we made a mistake, and we made a mistake with Phnom Penh Sugar, and we don't want to make that mistake again. We've used it as a learning opportunity. We're pleased to have reached a conclusion to that matter. What we're doing here is really just tightening up our policies and approach to make sure we reduce the risk of that happening again. There's nothing out there emerging we're trying to head off or anything, rather than just part of a normal learning opportunity to say, 'Let's get in front of this. Let's put ourselves in a place where these things can never happen again.' That's what that's about. The only other thing, Shayne, that I'd add is that's kind of really an upgrade to an existing policy. What it also does is it introduces a new grievance mechanism. One of the things we were really keen to do in upgrading this statement was to work closely with a range of different international human rights NGOs. That's the only other thing I'd add to it. I'm happy to just comment on Myanmar. Does your fundamental business mix create a risk in this regard, though? Because the Phnom Penh Sugar one was incredibly disappointing. Does it create a risk in this regard? Our fundamental business model and the fact that we operate outside Australia and New Zealand? Yes. Well, the countries where you operate, Shayne. Yeah. No, of course it does. We can't live in a bunker. We are a trade and regional bank, and that's served us well, but we need to tighten up, and we need to learn how to operate in these places well. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that we can and we will, and we do. I might just make a comment in terms of Myanmar. You mentioned Myanmar. I know Brian knows ANZ extraordinarily well, but for those who may be less familiar, our operation in Myanmar is incredibly small. We don't bank any government bodies. We don't bank any state-owned enterprises. We bank basically multinationals, a very small number actually, who operate there. Given the current situation, that has essentially been downsized to a sort of a bare minimum service model at the moment. Those sorts of things do present issues for us to manage, and I'm confident we manage those things well, and we use our ethical decision-making framework to consider our future operations in a place like that and who we will bank and who we won't. I understand, Brian, it's complicated dealing in places around our region, but we have an obligation to do it well, and that's why we're strengthening our processes in this regard. Just a second question. Just on slide 15, you've got an 80% positive score for the ANZ risk culture, which sounds really good until you think that that's saying you've got a 20% not a positive score w hich I find alarming. Could you just explain that to us or make us feel perhaps even a little bit better or a little bit worse about that? Slide 15. Yeah. Look, Brian, actually really good question. Really good pickup. It's just over 80%, 83%, that is actually a really positive sentiment. In the other 17% are people who have a positive sentiment, people who are neutral, and also some others. What I would also point out is that we've also had a number of people who've joined the organization over the course of the last year. Some of them might not necessarily have a strong view one way or another. Don't, for a second, interpret it as i t's only 83% positive. It's 83% really positive. There's an amount that's positive, and then there's a few others that are in the neutral territory. Good pickup. Just a final one. I want to compliment you guys on basically addressing a lot of issues here, but just one that strikes me. Your slides are riddled with stuff about housing affordability, housing inequality. I'm just wondering, a bank that basically is disproportionately reliant on mortgage brokers in a world of low interest rates that's been losing share. If the RBA or APRA was to get sensible and actually apply macroprudential brakes, do you think your share would go up or down? That's a good question. First of all, let me just stand back and say, yes, it is riddled with those things because we are concerned about those issues, and we're concerned about them from the sort of broader community perspective, but also as a bank in terms of just the right sort of prudential settings in our book. I don't draw a link, as you did, between the fact that we are slightly more reliant on brokers than others, and it is slightly more than our peer group. At the end of the day, we still assess those thoroughly, right? I don't see that, and as you know, and we've discussed this over many years, the historical analysis would say that the broker-originated home loans actually don't perform any worse from a risk perspective than those from a proprietary channel. I don't think that in and of itself is a cause for concern. Macroprudential is an interesting one, and we only really have two experiences to draw on, in my view anyway, of relevance. One is the previous group of macroprudential controls that were put in place here in Australia some years ago to stop interest-only and investment lending, et cetera. I would say, at the end of the day, they were a good thing for banks, right? They were a good thing in terms of actually, probably, in many ways, helped us come into the COVID situation in a stronger position. More recently, we've got the experiences we're seeing in New Zealand with quite tough macroprudential interventions. What we've seen in New Zealand is it hasn't really impacted our share, and I don't think it really impacted. There were some anomalies in the way the last group was impacted here in Australia because those macroprudential were anchored in your starting point, and we don't want to get into all the details. It sort of had a mathematical impact. I reckon if there were, and I don't know what they would be, but hypothetically, if something was put in place tomorrow, I don't know that it would have a material impact in terms of share, to be perfectly honest, but it would depend on the specific detail. The only other thing, Shayne, that I'd add is. Thank you very much. Sorry, Brian. The only other thing I'd add is three years ago, APRA did an exercise around all of the banks. It then wrote to each of us earlier this year to reaffirm whether our underwriting standards had actually been altered in any way since that last exercise, and we were able to confirm that there have been no material changes in our underwriting standards over that period. Thank you. Thanks, Brian. Thank you. Your next question comes from Brendan Sproules from Citigroup. Please go ahead. Good morning. I just wanted to follow up on that question about housing, and particularly macroprudential policy. I mean, macroprudential policy is a little bit of a blunt tool, and as you mentioned earlier in this presentation, high house prices is not a solely Australian issue. You're seeing it in New Zealand, but you're also seeing it in other parts of the world. My question is, as a sort of a major bank, is there a moral responsibility to lend beyond just meeting lending standards? Higher house prices growing faster than income does have some unintended consequences with obviously home ownership moving a lot later in life. You also get the issue that you had a few years ago with investors taking a greater share of market than probably what is comfortable. Should this really be coming not from the regulators because of the blunt nature of the tools that they have in front of them, but actually coming from the banks like you've done in carbon emissions, which is obviously you've gone ahead of what, say, the federal government policy is in many parts here? I think we should. It's kind of ironic, Brendan, that you beat us up for losing market share at this particular time on a recent report. We'll put that one aside. I wonder about analysts. It'd be interesting to know what analysts' moral responsibility is in this area as well in terms of spruiking market share as the only measure of success. Anyway, we can have that discussion another time. I think it's a very fair question. I think we do have a responsibility. I don't think it's acceptable to just sort of say, "Well, that's where the market is, and we have to continue to grow and participate because everybody else is doing it." I don't think that's acceptable. I do think we have a moral responsibility. I think we have a moral responsibility to engage with political decision makers, regulators to share data, our insights around affordability, around indebtedness, around policy ideas that may help ameliorate some of these impacts. You're quite right, and you and Brian pointed out that macroprudential, by definition, is blunt. While it's well-intended, it can have unintended consequences. We should be part of that debate. We should also set our risk settings appropriately as a bank. I think it's really important that at this point, we've taken an active position that we're not going to loosen our credit standards at this time. I'm not suggesting that the other majors are. I just want to be clear, I don't know. That's for them. We've made a view that this is actually not the time to be loosening risk standards. It's actually the time to be doing the reverse and actually be tightening. It is a time to be asking more questions. It is a time to be doing more analysis on borrower capacity. It is a time to be really understanding a borrower's expense profile and their income outlooks. Guess what? That takes a little bit more time to get done and may make some banks a bit uncompetitive in terms of things like turnaround times, but it's still the right thing to do. I think over the long term, it's actually in shareholders' interest to do so. I mean, Brendan, the interesting thing is that as a bank, as a prudent institution, we have an obligation to manage our risks. That's actually what we're doing when we look at our approach to climate change. It's about managing what we think is material risk for the organization. Similarly, as it relates to housing, we also feel we have an obligation to manage our risks, too, as well, to protect all our various stakeholders. It's a similar approach, actually, that we are taking to both. Just a follow-up question, if I can, on that. I do take your point, Shayne, about potential analysts' responsibility here, as I have been writing about your market share. Just we have seen CBA move the serviceability rate a little bit higher. Do you think that's something we're going to see across the market, or do you think it's just the way the market operates, it's more likely that we'll have to wait for some sort of regulatory intervention if that was to come? It's a really good question. I don't want to speculate. I don't know. I imagine that all banks are sitting there thinking about their risk settings at a time like this with the level of house prices and the general uncertainty about the future economic outlook in terms of people's incomes. There's lots to be positive about for the economy. There's still some risk out there. I imagine people are thinking about things. You know as well as anybody, we have a huge range of levers in there, whether it's the serviceability numbers, whether it's the way we think about expenses, whether it's the haircuts we apply to certain income, whether it's what level of UMI, the uncommitted monthly income we're willing to accept or not. There's a whole range of things in there. I would imagine, and again, I'm putting myself out there a little bit, Brendan, but I would imagine most banks are considering how to be a little bit more conservative at this point rather than not, because of the underlyings that we are seeing. I wouldn't be surprised if there will continue to be tweaks to policy settings of the various banks to just sort of make sure people are more comfortable. Some of those are going to be visible, by the way, and a lot of them will be, I imagine, sort of invisible behind the scenes. That would certainly seem to be prudent from my perspective as the way forward. Shayne, just to add, if you don't mind, to what you said. Yeah. Our current serviceability floor, and if you compare us against others, we're kind of 5.1, 5.2, very similar. As you alluded to, it is one factor that we take into account in the decision process. What I would say is, given where interest rates are at the moment, we think that today provides a significant buffer to our customers, and to us as well for that matter, by setting it at that level. It is something that is reviewed. Just to put your mind at ease, Brendan. We look at that on a constant basis. Every month, we look at all the various factors that feed into our underwriting standards, and that is one of them. Thank you, guys. I appreciate your candid answers. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Matthew Wilson from E&P. Please go ahead. Yeah, good morning, team, and thanks for the opportunity to ask questions. Sorry to labor the point, but obviously housing is the elephant in the room. If we look to the U.K. and Ireland as an example, it took a severe housing bust there to introduce sensible DTI type constraints, such that no more than 15% of home lending can have a DTI above 4.5x. If we look at APRA's latest numbers, Australia's running at 22% above 6x and 65% above 4x. We do have a problem, and income multiple constraints are quite an elegant solution, removing the debate over expenses and what happens to interest rates ultimately. I can remember when they were 17%. Today, they're 10 basis points. APRA looks caught. Housing's become financialized, and it's become politicized. I sort of echo Brendan's points. This is an opportunity for the sector to act and take control of home lending. I don't mind you losing a bit of market share. I've still got a positive rating on the stock, Shayne. I think this is a great opportunity for the firm, for the sector. Well, thanks, Matt, and thanks for those, I think, thoughtful comments. I don't disagree with you. I think, though, you know because all of you, all of the analysts on the call know because you guys have been following the market longer than many people have been working in it. It's not as simple as that, right? There is the ongoing pressure to be in the game and the ongoing pressure around market share. Again, I'm not blaming anybody for that. It's just the reality. I think that's why it does take courage. I think the industry and ANZ can do a better job on that. I don't disagree with you. All I can tell you is that internally, the conversations we have with our board, with our various risk committees, the way we set our policy settings are exactly around those sorts of issues. We don't have to rely on a regulator to tell us what's right. We have to have our own risk appetite and sit down and say, "What do we think the right DTI sort of numbers are or how much we're willing to see in high LVR or not?" Et cetera. I agree with you. Well, I'll get myself in trouble here again, I think. My view is that there's too much within our industry of outsourcing the problem to regulators. When they set the level, our job is to go as close to that line as possible. I don't think that's right. I think that we have to do a better job of working what's right for us. I imagine your follow-up question, we need to do a better job of being more clear and disclosing how we think about those risk points. Kevin, you probably have a view to share it as well. Matt, to your point and to what Shayne's alluded to, regulators do provide guidance. Ultimately, we have to manage the risks. I alluded it in the presentation to our risk appetite statements. I mentioned the increase in the non-financial risk side of things. We also have very clear financial risk metrics that sit within those risk appetite statements. The sort of measures that you've referred to are the types of metrics that we have in our risk appetite statement, and we do manage to them. There's regular reporting of that, not just to us as a management team, but also to the board as well. Whilst it might not be imposed on us by a regulator, it is actually, in a sense, part of how we manage the business on a day-to-day basis. I might add one thing, though. It's sort of in summary, from Brian, Brendan, and Matthew. Again, the other thing we've done here, again, it's come at some cost. I'm not looking for a gold star on this, it's just to recognize, we have made it clear for some time, we have a preference for people, owner occupiers who borrow and pay down principal. Right? We think that is the right thing to do. We think it is the right thing to do for the borrower. It is the right thing to do in terms of financial wellbeing position. That comes at a significant cost to our business. Why? As you guys know, our mortgage book amortizes much faster because people are paying down principal. If you were trying to maximize just the financial outcomes, you're much better off in pushing interest-only loans. We've made a, I think, ethical, purpose-driven decision to say there's a place for interest only. I accept that. There's absolutely a place for investors, but our focus is on people who pay principal, and that's why we have a disproportionately high exposure to that. As I said, right as of the moment, that is coming at a financial cost to us in terms of the balance in our book. It's not the only thing. We've sort of self-confessed to having some operational issues, but that is a big driver of it. It also comes at a cost in terms of things like our customers disproportionately use offset balances, and so that again, comes at a cost in terms of revenue to us. Actually, you can't criticize a customer for doing what's right. Actually, we'd all sit around and advise our friends, our children, our parents, that that is the right thing to do. Pay down principal, use your offset balance as much as you can, et cetera. I think in the long term, it's the right strategy, but it does come at a cost at certain times. No, thanks for that. Look, I appreciate it's a complex issue, and housing is the elephant in the room in this country. We don't want to be like the U.K. and be reading Philip Lowe's book in the same vein as we read Mervyn King's book. Fair enough. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Elliott for closing remarks. Hey, look, I just want to thank everybody for a really engaging conversation. I hope you found the presentation useful. We've tried to cover issues that we thought would be of interest to various stakeholders. Given the quality of the questions there, I think we succeeded in getting some really good ideas on the table, and I do appreciate all the questions. I think they were extremely thoughtful, and they've given us something to think about. There were a few ideas in there that I know we'll go away and consider in terms of not just disclosure and what we talk about with you, but actually how we run the bank. That's really where these things are valuable. Finally, I just want to say it's actually good to talk to all of you. It's a shame we can't do so in person. I, for one, have always appreciated the time we have with the analyst and investor community. I always learn something from them, and I look forward to be able to have more informal conversations with the broader community over the coming year. Thanks very much for your participation today.