Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kathryn van der Merwe, and I'm the Group Executive Talent and Culture and Service Centres here at ANZ and a member of the Executive Committee. I will act as a moderator for today's annual general meeting. Before the meeting starts, the Chairman has asked me to run through some housekeeping matters, particularly in relation to voting. I will also explain what will happen if there is an unexpected technical problem. We've sent an online meeting guide and an FAQ document to all shareholders explaining how to vote and ask questions. If you need further copies, they're available at anz.com/agm. For shareholders and proxy holders present in the room today, you have been given a card with a QR code. Using either your smartphone or the device provided by Computershare, please scan the QR code with your device's camera. Once the Chairman opens the poll for voting, press the vote icon, and all resolutions will be activated with voting options. To cast your vote, simply select one of the options: for, against, or abstain. There is no need to hit a submit or enter button, as the vote is automatically recorded. If you have any trouble with voting during the meeting, we have representatives from Computershare in the room who can help. You will receive a vote confirmation notification on your screen. Please keep your card for the Scheme Meeting, which follows this AGM. For those eligible to vote who are on the online AGM platform, it's very similar. Once the Chairman opens the poll for voting, press the vote icon, and all resolutions will be activated with voting options. To cast your vote, simply select one of the options: for, against, or abstain. There is no need to hit a submit or enter button, as the vote is automatically recorded. You will receive a vote confirmation notification on your screen. Of course, you can change your mind or cancel your vote at any time before the poll is closed, and the Chairman will announce when that is about to happen. Wayne Hopkins from Computershare has been appointed returning officer, and Martin McGrath from our external auditor, KPMG, has been appointed a scrutineer. Martin will also be available in the event shareholders have a question of the auditor. The Chairman has also asked me to outline the process should there be any technical issues that impact the meeting. If there are issues on confirmation from the Chairman, we will either continue with the meeting if possible until the matter is resolved, or if that is not possible, we will temporarily suspend proceedings while we try to get back up and running. If we cannot fix the problem in a reasonably short space of time, the Chairman will formally adjourn the meeting and look to resume at 2:00 P.M. Adelaide time this afternoon, using the same login details as now. If this happens, and we hope it does not, we will announce this to the ASX as soon as possible and also provide an update on anz.com. Please note we cannot control any internet problems experienced by individual shareholders or their representatives, and we will not suspend proceedings should individuals be having problems of such a nature. If you are having problems with your internet, the online meeting guide and FAQ documents outline what to do. The Chairman will now address the meeting. Over to you, Chairman. Thank you, Kathryn. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. My name is Paul O'Sullivan, and on behalf of your board, I have the privilege of welcoming you to the 2022 Hybrid Annual General Meeting of Shareholders, and there being a quorum present, I now declare the meeting open, and I also open the poll on all resolutions except item six. Before we begin, I'd like to ask Adele Feeney, who is our General Manager for Business Banking here in South Australia and the Northern Territory, but who is also a proud Birpai woman, to acknowledge the country on which we are meeting. So over to you, Adele. Lovely. Thank you, Chairman. Hello to all here today, and also those joining us virtually. What a stunning part of Australia we're meeting upon today: Kaurna land, with its gorgeous coastline, plains, and hills. I wish to acknowledge the custodians of this land, the Kaurna people, and recognize their continuing connection to land, waterways, and community, and really thank them for taking care of these lands that I am now fortunate enough to live, work, and raise a beautiful family on. I would also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land from which many of you are joining us from today. I very much want to pay respects to elders past, present, and emerging, and to any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who are joining us either here in person today or online. On a more personal note, I would also like to acknowledge my elders, the Birpai people from the mid-north coast of New South Wales, and extend a very warm hello to anyone joining us from that beautiful part of Australia also. Thank you. Thank you. Many thanks, Adele. Thank you for that. And on behalf of the board, I'd also like to acknowledge the Kaurna people as the traditional custodians of the land from which we're presenting this morning, and to pay our respects to their elders past, present, and emerging. And I extend that respect to other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are joining us today. Now, after a couple of years of having to do virtual meetings, it actually is a really great experience to be back meeting with our shareholders in person. And it's particularly pleasing to be doing that here in Adelaide, which is a city where ANZ has a long history. We actually opened our first branch in Glenelg in 1837, which is just 10 km from where we're standing today. And it certainly was an interesting branch. It wasn't your typical branch. It was actually a large tent, which had been sewn together by our first bank manager, a guy called Edward Stephens, and he sewed the tent on his voyage over from England. It sounds like it was quite a tent. It also served as Mr. Stephens' home. And indeed, the tent was a church on Sundays. From those very humble beginnings, we now have around 650 people looking after our customers in South Australia, while we also, as an organization, contribute more broadly to the community. And on that note, as a major bank, we continue to be mindful of the key role we play in all the communities in which we operate, particularly when our customers find themselves in need. And the recent floods across large parts of Australia, including here in South Australia, saw us again doing all we can to help our customers get back on their feet. In fact, it probably won't surprise you that we've had to enact our disaster relief policy seven times this year across Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific, in the process supporting thousands of customers through difficult times. Now, let me begin the formalities of the meeting with a review of 2022. And after almost three years of living with COVID, it's fair to say that the operating environment remains highly uncertain, stemming from rapidly rising inflation, geopolitical tensions, most notably the war in Ukraine, and the impact of rapidly tightening monetary policy across the globe. While data from the Reserve Bank shows that household balance sheets are in the best shape they've been in for 15 years, the reality is that cost of living pressures are starting to have a meaningful impact, and the next six months will be testing for many Australians. Despite these significant challenges, your bank remains in good shape, and we are delivering on our commitments to customers and to you as shareholders alike. The work done by Shayne and his team over many years has left us in a good position, and the board was pleased with the performance last year. Our profit of AUD 7.12 billion was up 16% on the prior year, and we had good momentum coming into this year. As a result, we've been able to declare a fully franked final dividend of AUD 0.74, taking the total dividend to AUD 1.46 per share, which is up AUD 0.04 from the prior year and equates to more than AUD 4 billion being distributed to shareholders. From a capital perspective, even when we allow for what we plan to spend on acquiring Suncorp Bank, our common equity tier-one capital ratio, or what's known in the industry as our CET1, is 11.1%, which is well above APRA's unquestionably strong benchmark of 10.5%. We've also maintained prudent reserves to weather any external shocks. We have a collective provision balance now of AUD 3.9 billion, which is over half a billion more than what we held in March 2019 before COVID. All of this is on top of the work we've done to materially improve the quality of our business lending book, which is best highlighted by the value of investment-grade lending increasing by 50% since 2016, so wrapping that all together, the way I'd put it is that your board and management are focusing on strong performance today while still actively preparing the bank for tomorrow, and core to looking to the future has been the continued digitization of the bank, and in particular the launch of ANZ Plus, with deposits growing at a rate faster than any new digital bank in Australia. Now, Shayne will talk more about this in his address, and indeed, we've got some of the ANZ Plus team here in the foyer ready to answer any questions you may have. But what we have effectively built in ANZ Plus is a new digital banking platform that will be the backbone of ANZ's retail and commercial bank in Australia for years to come. As I'm sure you're also aware, we announced the acquisition of Suncorp Bank in July, and this closely aligns with our ambition to grow our retail and commercial business in Australia. While the sale is still subject to various government and regulatory approvals, the board is confident this will provide ANZ with a platform for growth in the fast-growing Queensland market, a market where traditionally we've been underrepresented. And importantly, the acquisition gives customers the benefit of a wider range of products while allowing the Suncorp Group to focus on its goal of being the best insurance company in Australia and New Zealand. Of course, the acquisition will be largely funded by the successful AUD 3.5 billion equity capital raising that we conducted earlier this year. You may not know this, an interesting fact, but it was actually the world's largest equity raise for a merger and acquisition transaction this year, and particularly importantly, the board and management structured this in a way to ensure that all shareholders, institutional and retail, were treated equally. We also continued this year the systematic de-risking of the bank, which was highlighted by the sale of our margin lending business to Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, and we completed the formal separation of our wealth business to Insignia and Zurich in September. Another important part of preparing for tomorrow is our proposal to introduce a new corporate structure known as a non-operating holding company, or if you take the initials in short, a NOHC. And that will be the subject of an extraordinary general meeting which follows this AGM today. This proposed structure will allow what we call our non-banking businesses, like our joint venture with Worldline on terminals, to operate on a more level playing field with other companies, while at the same time maintaining an appropriate regulatory environment for the bank as a whole. I'll talk more about the rationale for that change later, but from the outset, there's one point I really want to land and make really, really clear. ANZ's core business is banking, and that will not change. Rather, the new structure is about allowing us to be more effective in accessing the best technology and people who can make ANZ an even better and stronger bank. I'd like to now turn to give you the board's perspective on some of the resolutions that have been put to today's meeting. Ilana Atlas, who's the chair of our Human Resources Committee, will talk specifically to our remuneration approach. However, I will make some initial comments. As a board, I believe we've struck a balance between rewarding good performance whilst also holding management to account for areas where we did not achieve expectations. It's fair to say that management had a good year, delivering a strong financial outcome for shareholders, particularly in the second half of the year. In line with the financial performance that I mentioned earlier, home loan growth was back in line with the market, and we've made solid progress preparing ANZ for the future, highlighted by, as I mentioned, the progress with ANZ Plus and the agreed acquisition of Suncorp Bank. While the board was pleased with this progress, we did determine that a short-term variable remuneration outcome of 74% of the maximum opportunity was appropriate for the CEO. The other resolution I want to specifically address, and I know this is of interest to many shareholders joining us in the room and online today, relates to climate change and to our lending to the natural resources sector. As we've outlined in the past, we are already the largest institutional bank in Australia and New Zealand, and we are determined to be the leading bank in supporting these economies to make the transition to net zero emissions by 2050. And we've made meaningful progress. Among other things, we're the first Australian bank globally to align disclosures with the Financial Stability Board's TCFD, or its Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. We're the first Australian bank to join the Net Zero Banking Alliance and the first bank to issue a Sustainable Development Goal bond in Australia. And probably most importantly, we were also the first Australian bank to engage with our 100 largest carbon-emitting business customers, an approach which has now been followed by our peer major banks. We did this to support these customers through the transition to a lower carbon future, backing their plans by providing more finance for less emissions. And as a bank, we have high expectations, in particular for customers in the energy sector, and we expect our energy customers' plans to be net zero aligned, public, and specific. We've also committed to publicly disclose how our lending will back our customers' reductions in their carbon emissions intensity, in line with the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees maximum warming. Recent events, both here in Australia but also, sadly, in Europe, have shown the importance of a planned and carefully managed transition of the energy sector. And the reality is that the people who suffer most from energy shortages and high energy prices are those on low incomes or with jobs in areas most exposed to energy cost. However, it is clear that those who've lodged this resolution today on climate are seeking an immediate withdrawal of financing for companies that continue to have any exposure to fossil fuels. So let me be clear. We do not accept that it is in our shareholders' or the community's best interests that ANZ abandons support and services for leading companies genuinely committed to effective climate transition plans. In fact, such a step would remove a key support for energy companies that are seeking to reduce emissions, and it would potentially push them to source their finance from lenders who have no requirements on emissions reduction. Indeed, we're on track to set targets for nine priority sectors by the end of 2024, aimed at ensuring that at least 75% of our lending portfolio emissions are on a net zero pathway. And we commenced this work last year, setting emissions intensity targets for power generation and large-scale commercial real estate. Just last month, we disclosed new reduction pathways and targets in four key sectors. They are oil and gas, aluminum, cement, and steel. And these are the most comprehensive set of pathways for any Australian bank. Interestingly, our customers have welcomed our proactive engagement because they understand the market dynamic on carbon is changing, and they want to work with us to have a successful transition. Let me turn briefly before I close to the issue of scams and security, and it's undoubtedly the case that cybersecurity has been at the forefront in the national conversation in recent months. While Shayne will talk more about our approach, I wanted to cover the work we're doing to protect our customers from the rapid rise of scams. We know that as a bank, we have a critical role to play, which is why we have hundreds of people working on the front line to help protect our customers. Scams are having a significant impact on the community. The ACCC estimates around AUD 500 million have been lost already in 2022. It's also why we've implemented new artificial intelligence technology that has averted tens of millions in scam transactions this year alone. We've also implemented a new behavioral biometrics capability, which detected approximately 3,500 fraudulent applications last year, preventing nearly AUD 40 million of identity fraud. As a bank, we're committed to the strongest possible technology defense, and every one of our staff is aware that it is our responsibility to protect the security of the bank and its customers. And I think it's fair to say Australian banks are at the forefront of cybersecurity and are investing heavily in our defenses. But I should also say, and it's important to say, that as customers, we are all the first line of defense. As such, we have some of our best security people today here in Adelaide in the foyer, and I'd encourage you to have a chat with them after the meeting about how you can best protect yourself from scams. We also have material you can take home, and for all joining us today, there are comprehensive resources on security available on anz.com. So in summary, it's been a good year for the bank, particularly with the substantial progress made to prepare the bank for the future. In closing, I'd like to acknowledge the enormous contribution of Graeme Liebelt, who is retiring from the board at the conclusion of today's meeting. Graeme has served on the board for the past nine years, and during that time, he has chaired our Human Resources and our Risk Committees. I can say in all honesty that he can be very proud of his contribution, and speaking personally, I will miss his wise counsel and strategic insight. So on behalf of all shareholders, we wish him and his family well for the future, and we thank him for his service. I'd also like to welcome Jeff Smith to the board. Jeff is standing for election a little later this morning. He's a very experienced technology executive, and he brings the necessary skills to a modern financial services bank board. While Jeff will introduce himself shortly, as a former CIO at several large organizations, including IBM in North America, Suncorp, and Telstra, he is already making a significant contribution to ANZ. Finally, I'd like to thank our team of more than 39,000 people who work hard every day for all our stakeholders, and to acknowledge our customers and to thank them for, again, trusting us with their business, and to thank you, our shareholders, for supporting us through the year. We do not take it for granted, and your support is very much appreciated and welcomed by the board. With that, I will now ask our Chief Executive Officer, Shayne Elliott, to address the meeting. Over to you, Shayne. Thank you, Paul, and good morning, everybody. I'd also like to acknowledge the Kaurna people as the traditional custodians of the land on which we're meeting and pay my respects to their elders past, present, and emerging. I extend that respect to other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people joining us today, either here in person or online. Ladies and gentlemen, it's pleasing to be back together to meet in person, and it's terrific being here in Adelaide. As the Chairman mentioned, we have a deep history and a strong presence supporting South Australian customers, the economy, and the broader community. Now, a recent example of this is the ANZ Community Ball held here in Adelaide, which has quickly become one of the preeminent events on the social calendar. Now, the ball was an initiative driven solely by our team, and they can be really proud of the impact they've had with almost $1 million raised since 2018 for worthy local charities. Now, as we have done for more than 180 years, we're backing our customers here in South Australia. Companies like Coopers, featured in the earlier video, who we've banked from the beginning and which has gone on to become a significant Australian champion. Or Drakes Supermarkets, another long-term ANZ customer based here in South Australia, who've invested and grown to become Australia's largest independent grocery retailer. Now, growing ANZ is a lot easier when you back those with great vision, generation after generation. And I believe that strength in our long-term commitment to backing customers was a key reason why we were recently appointed the sole provider of core banking services for the South Australian government. Now, this was a very competitive tender, and we are honored that we were selected. Now, your team at ANZ will be working, or are already working hard, to make sure we improve on the banking services provided to the government for the benefit of citizens, taxpayers, and all of those driving the economy right across the state. Now, while Paul outlined the headline results, I wanted to give a bit more detail on the key drivers of the business. First, this was one of the best sets of results we've delivered, demonstrating the benefits of a simpler, better-balanced portfolio. The recent environment has been supportive. However, looking back on the year, we achieved our five clear priorities. We restored momentum in Australian home loans. We successfully launched ANZ Plus, our new Australian retail platform. We drove disciplined growth in Institutional and the Commercial divisions. We completed major regulatory programs as we've committed, and we continued the simplification and de-risking of the business. And just to remind everybody, we have four key businesses at ANZ: Institutional, New Zealand, the Australian retail business, and the Australian commercial division. And each of them made a material positive contribution this year. Institutional continues to be a key differentiator for us, and it's benefiting from our multi-year transformation, particularly as rising rates around the globe create better conditions. The transition from a business driven by lending to a leader in providing banking infrastructure and services to governments, funds, and other financial institutions has been dramatic, and it's one of the reasons we were successful in winning the South Australian government contract. Turning to New Zealand, we're the country's oldest and largest bank with a well-diversified, high-performing, very well-run business. Now, in addition to all the services you'd be familiar with here in Australia, it's also worth reminding shareholders that we are New Zealand's largest private sector fund manager, overseeing $34 billion in funds under management with good prospects for future growth. Now, those who are familiar with New Zealand may know that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand asked the banks to implement one of the largest regulatory programs ever implemented in the country, known as BS11. After five years of hard work, your team have largely completed the work, and this investment means we're well-positioned to focus on the future and further build the New Zealand franchise. Closer to home, with growth restored in Australian retail, the repositioning of our Australian retail bank onto the ANZ Plus platform continues with exceptionally strong early signs. ANZ Plus is effectively a new retail bank and one focused on winning business and driving better shareholder results by improving the financial well-being of our customers. As I said, the early signs are very promising, with strong deposit growth and extremely positive customer ratings, particularly with those customers who are new to the bank. In fact, as Paul said, deposits and customers are growing at a faster rate than any bank ever launched in Australia. And today, with more than 113,000 customers, and around a third of which are new to the bank, and we have over AUD 2.3 billion in deposits. Now, to put that in a little bit better perspective, those numbers have more than doubled since we announced our results at the end of October. Now, if you're interested in joining, we have an ANZ Plus stand right outside the room with some of our team who can help you sign up and take advantage of the great 3.75% interest rate currently available on savings balances. Now, with that deposit product taking off, we had another major milestone this month with the launch of a staff pilot for our new digital home loan. Now, to be clear, this will not be a fancy digital front end, but still paper-based back end like many offer in the market, but a fully digital end-to-end experience from application all the way through to settlement. Now, that means we'll have the capability to accept a loan application from a mobile device and have it fully assessed, approved, and settled without any manual intervention. Now, we still have some testing to do, but we'll introduce the product to all ANZ Plus customers later in 2023, initially focused on the refinancing market. So, with other parts of the business performing well, the time was right to focus attention on the next biggest opportunity: banking small and mid-sized businesses here in Australia. Now, banking small business has always been core to what we do, with a strong focus on trading businesses, so sole traders, tradespeople, cafes, restaurants, and the like, but also all the way up to mid-sized manufacturing companies, health service providers, and operators right across the food and agri sector. Now, to fast-track this business, we separated out our small business segment, creating a standalone Australian commercial division, and we're backing that team with the largest investment in new technology and capability that we've ever made. Now, last week, I also announced that Clare Morgan will join my team as the new Group Executive to lead this division. Clare is a very experienced banker joining from Commonwealth Bank, and I know she'll do a terrific job leading the team that is working hard for our customers in Australia, and I look forward to introducing Clare to shareholders in the future. Now, another highlight was the announcement or the commencement of the ANZ Worldline joint venture, which will allow us to provide business customers with world-leading point-of-sale and online payment technology. Now, why is this important? We all know today that paying for goods and services is mostly cashless, and there's a myriad of ways to pay and to get paid, mainly revolving around those payment devices that shops and traders have on their service counters or through an array of online services. Now, I've been in banking for 30 years, and it's fair to say I've never seen the pace of change and innovation we're experiencing in this area. Essentially, there's a technology arms race in the payment space, and we don't think it's feasible for a domestic-only operator to bring the world's best solutions, and our customers deserve the world's best solutions. And that's why we were the first bank to offer Apple Pay in 2016, and our customers have never looked back. Now, while on the subject of payments, I know that many shareholders are concerned about how we're managing security with the increased risk associated with cybercrime and scams. Now, it is a threat environment that is dynamic, rapidly changing, and impacting all industries. First and foremost, protecting customers and the bank remains a key focus. In fact, protecting the bank from criminals has been core since we opened our first branch. It's just that now the methods have changed from old-fashioned robberies to sophisticated cyberattacks targeting the new jewels of today: data, data about your identity, and data about your money. Now, in days gone by, we protected our customers by investing in vaults and security guards, and today we protect customers by investing in digital tools and virtual vaults. We continued to invest and improve our cyber defenses this year, with the amount spent on cyber now around double what we spent in 2016. We remain on high alert, ingesting more than 10 billion data events each day into our 24x7 security operations center as part of monitoring and detecting activity right across our network. Yes, I'll repeat that: we scan 10 billion data events every day. Now, as the chairman mentioned, most of the impact on customers is actually from the increasing prevalence of scams, and we have a team of people outside that are able to provide you with additional tips on how you can better protect yourself. Now, this year was also about preparing for the future, with a key milestone being the announced acquisition of Suncorp Bank. Now, while there is a comprehensive approval process to work through, we believe a stronger ANZ will be able to compete more effectively in Queensland, offering better outcomes for customers. The acquisition will provide a platform to invest and grow in Queensland, one of the fastest-growing economies in Australia, and one in which we believe we have many great opportunities. Suncorp Bank has a great brand, a simple business, and a terrific team, and our goal is to capitalize on those strengths and find ways in which we can add value, not just to employees and customers, but to Queensland overall. In fact, many of you may recall the acquisition of the National Bank in New Zealand in 2004. Now, that proved to be a very successful acquisition for customers and shareholders and a major reason why we're so successful in New Zealand today. Now, many of the team who managed the integration of the National Bank and ANZ in 2013 are still with us. In fact, I was on the New Zealand board at the time. So the learnings and experience from that successful integration will guide us as we seek to replicate the success of the transaction. Now, looking ahead, the world has entered a period of significant uncertainty. Central banks are battling to control inflation, while geopolitical uncertainty, most notably the war in Ukraine, continues to weigh heavily. Closer to home, there are many factors at play. While some indicators are weakening, many others support the strong underlying health of the economy. There is particular stress with regard to cost of living and the resulting rise in inflation expectation and the drags on consumer confidence, and I can't overemphasize the impact that cost of living pressures are having in the community. Now, while we know some in the community are doing it tough and we're well-positioned to support them, our data shows that they're entering this period of stress in strong shape. But our focus is on those customers most exposed to stress: those with less secure employment, those who possibly bought homes right at the peak of the cycle, those more exposed to cost of living increases, or those that have suffered other shocks like family breakdown or illness. Now, for those few that will experience stress, we've kept in place the additional hardship resources we built during COVID. So look, while the future is uncertain, both the bank and our customers are well-positioned for what may come. And one of the great lessons of COVID was the value of data and the ability to analyze those stresses at a granular level and the ability to proactively intervene. So, for example, we can now quickly identify home loans that are already in or approaching negative equity, actively monitor them, and step in and help as needed. Now, just to finish, this was a strong year with all divisions making material positive contributions. There are economic risks ahead, but we're entering 2023 in great shape with positive momentum, and we're well-prepared for whatever challenges lie ahead. We achieved what we set out to achieve in 2022. We have differentiated strategies for all our businesses and a clear roadmap to continually improve our technology infrastructure. The NOC structure that we're voting on later today is a really exciting development that will provide us with greater flexibility and, most importantly, allow us to better meet our customers' needs. I'm also confident we've got the right team and the strategy in place to build a bank you can all be proud of, a bank which builds on our heritage and culture. So, with that, let me finish by thanking our team for their hard work and wishing you and your families a very happy festive season and a prosperous 2023. Thank you. Thank you, Shayne. This year, we again invited shareholders to send in questions prior to the meeting, and the key themes arising from those questions have been addressed in the opening statements from myself and Shayne. So I will now ask Kathryn van der Merwe, who you met earlier in the meeting, to outline the process for asking questions. Thank you, Chairman. To submit a question or comment, select the messaging tab at the top of the AGM platform. Type your question into the text box. Once finished typing, please hit the send button. Questions and comments received from shareholders online will generally be read out verbatim by me, Kathryn van der Merwe, your moderator, with changes made only to fix grammatical errors. Where we receive questions or comments online that are the same or fundamentally similar, we may read out one or a representative selection for the Chairman to address. In the case of multiple questions on the same topic that have already been responded to, the Chairman may opt to advise that those questions have been adequately answered and move on. You can submit questions and comments on any item online starting from now. Questions and comments on specific items of business will be held until we get to that item. Please do not wait for that item before submitting your question. Online questions are limited to 2,000 characters. To ask a question by phone, please ring the number you have been provided. Provide your name as per your holding and your PIN when asked by the operator. Once you have been verified, you'll be put through to the conference line. To ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. The operator will ask which item number you wish to ask a question on, and you will be placed into the questions queue. You will still be able to hear the meeting. At the relevant time, you'll be introduced to ask your question. We would be grateful if you can please keep your questions as brief as possible. I can assure shareholders that both the Chairman and ANZ take obligations relating to the proper running of the AGM very seriously, and our procedures are designed to facilitate a broad range of questions and provide the maximum number of shareholders the opportunity to ask a question. As such, there are a few procedural processes I'll quickly take you through. As you know, only shareholders and their representatives can ask questions of the meeting. To give all shareholders the opportunity to participate equally, we ask those submitting questions online to try and limit their questions or comments to two per item of business and to submit each question separately. However, for those holders asking questions or making comments via phone or in person, could you also try and limit your questions or comments to two per item of business, but ask them at the same time when you address the meeting for that item? Back to you, Chairman. Thank you, Kathryn, and let me just stress for the benefit of everybody that this is a very important forum. It's where the board makes itself available and accountable to shareholders, and my duty as Chair is to make sure that we give everyone a fair go at having a chance to ask a question. And so you'll see me chair the meeting with a degree of discipline to make sure that happens. Now, in addition to ANZ's own resolutions, we have two shareholder-raised resolutions, which are items five and six. Now, item six is what is termed a contingent resolution, which means it will not be put at the meeting unless item five is passed. Now, we do understand that there are likely to be shareholders who wish to put questions to the meeting on resolution six, and so what we will do is take questions on both items five and six when we turn to the discussion on item five. And that's because both resolutions are essentially related to climate and climate change. And so I ask that any question on that topic, including comments relating to climate change impacts, ANZ's policies, actions, business activities, and disclosures, including any impact on our financial disclosures or risk profile, that these be kept to that point of the meeting, that is, resolution five. To ensure the smooth running of the meeting and to provide the opportunity for a broad range of questions to be asked, I'd note that if you ask questions on these items before we get to item five, we will hold the answers until we get to that item. Now, please rest assured that the discussion on climate and environmental matters is critically important to us, and we will make sure we allow ample time for discussion at that appropriate time. We also have two items, namely items three and four, which both relate to remuneration. And again, I'll take questions on both items together when we get to that point in the meeting. We also have the lead audit partner, Martin McGrath, who's sitting down to my right in the front row. He's from our external auditors, KPMG, and available to answer any questions shareholders may have for our auditor. Finally, we'll save any questions in respect of the non-operating holding company or what I'll call the NOC from now on for that proposal, which will hold any questions back until we get to the separate scheme meeting, which will begin right after this AGM. This being a meeting of shareholders, it's important to note that we cannot comment on specific customer matters, including our customers' business activities or, indeed, any matters subject to legal or other dispute. As such, those types of questions or comments received online will not be put to the meeting. For those here in person, we do have members of our staff outside at a booth, and they can assist with these matters, and that includes our Customer Fairness Advisor, Evelyn Halls, and our Customer Advocate Lead, Christine Daniels. As I'm sure you'll understand, ANZ will also not put any questions or comments to the meeting that are abusive, obscene, or defamatory in nature. So can I please remind shareholders to submit any questions they want to raise online via the AGM platform now? We'll store and respond to relevant questions and comments when we get to that specific item of business. And for those asking questions via the phone, you can also do that now, or indeed, you can wait and dial in at the correct item. We'll start with questions in the room, questions and comments on item one, annual reports, together with general comments and questions about the management of ANZ, except for those items I've highlighted that we're holding till five and six. For those in the room, the people you can see now standing at the microphones are ANZ staff members: Tiffany Williams, Rachel Leach, Kathryn Peacock, and Alex Taverna. These are all members of our local team here in Adelaide. If you'd like to ask a question on any item at the appropriate time, please approach one of the microphone attendants and give them your name. I'll take the first question from the room here. It's at microphone one, so please go ahead. Thank you, Chairman. We have a question from Bob Ritchie. Good morning, Chairman. As one of 100 volunteers, I've been appointed to represent the Australian Shareholders Association. You were told my name is Bob Ritchie. I will be voting 6.3 million share proxies donated by 1,300 shareholders. It's a holding, if consolidated, would be equivalent to the 13th on the list of top shareholders in the annual report, and the number of donors is greater than the number of people in this room. The association applauds the form of the recent share raising in which all shareholders were given equal treatment. As funds raised facilitate the acquisition of Suncorp Bank, would you please summarise how this acquisition will bring benefits and risks to ANZ? Thank you, Bob, for your question. Can I also, for the benefit of the meeting and on behalf of the board, note the work that's done by the Australian Shareholders Association? And thank you. It is a volunteer organization, as you say, and it performs a critical role in ensuring that all shareholders have access to good advice and good information before we come to the meetings. In terms of your question on Suncorp, the board thinks it's a very important acquisition. Really, there are three key benefits for the bank that we see. First of all, it gives us increased exposure to the fastest-growing state population-wise in Australia. That's Queensland. It has the highest net migration inwards from the other states, and there's a lot going on up there. It's hosting the 2032 Olympic Games, and there's a lot of investment going in the state associated with the transition to a greener future. We've traditionally been underrepresented there, so it provides us with a platform for growth. The second benefit is that, as you know and as Shayne and I have discussed, we've been putting literally $ millions, if not billions, into building our new digital bank. That's a new technology platform. And with technology, you have a high fixed cost, but then the more customers you can put through it, particularly because it's very efficient, then the greater return you get. So the Suncorp acquisition gives us a larger customer base that we can migrate onto that platform and improve our returns. And finally, and I think this will be very much relevant to shareholders, ANZ tends to get a lower valuation relative to the other major banks because we have a larger exposure to the institutional market with a leading institutional bank, which is basically companies and trade, as opposed to not being as exposed to retail and commercial. And this gives us a much larger exposure to retail and commercial, and so we think will create value for shareholders. What are the risks? Well, I guess the first one is making sure we get the approvals. It's got to be approved by the state government, by the ACCC, and the federal government. Your board and management have been working very hard on that. I've personally been to Brisbane several times. We're confident at this stage that all the advice and signals we're getting are that we will get the necessary approvals. The second risk is transition risk, and that was commented on by Shayne. We have got a lot of experience at ANZ, having done the acquisition of National Bank in New Zealand several years ago and successfully migrated that into the ANZ family. So that's going to be a key learning. And the third one is to make sure that the staff at Suncorp, who are, it's a really well-run bank, and we are really pleased with the people we've met, it's important to us, given that the culture is so aligned to ANZ and so similar in values, we want to make sure the staff and the customers of Suncorp feel valued and welcomed as they join ANZ. And that's a key risk we need to manage. I hope I've answered your question. Thank you. You've answered comprehensively, including the risks element that I threw in. I will hold the rest of our questions and perhaps not answer them depending on how the meeting goes. Thank you, Bob. Thank you very much. I'll go to microphone two for the next question. Thank you, Chairman. This next question is from Craig Caulfield of Queensland. Good morning, Mr. O'Sullivan, directors and all shareholders. I really enjoyed your opening statements, both of them, and I learned a few things from that, so thank you very much. I would mention that I am a founder of Bank Warriors, and we're fiercely independent. So what I say may not represent the interests or the ideas of others, and I'm also an advisor to Bank Reform Now. Now, Bank Reform Now has 15,000 members and followers. And again, I won't say I'm representing them all, but there's some further background. Firstly, let me congratulate you on the online guide that was provided so that remote shareholders can ask questions. Over the couple of years of COVID, there were difficulties across multiple AGMs with multiple banks, and I found that Westpac's yesterday, I attended Westpac's AGM and ANZ's today, was exemplary. So in this new environment, thank you very much. In contrast, CBA, for example, which was only two months ago, remote shareholders couldn't ask questions live. So there's a difference, and we'll put ANZ ahead on that one. Thank you. I feel there's a but coming somewhere here. Yes? I've got a big but. Oh, yeah. Right. The Reserve Bank's eight consecutive interest rate rises have not yet impacted ANZ customers in a big way. We know rising food prices, rising fuel prices, rising energy prices can add to the hardship of ANZ customers. Many ANZ customers are also transitioning from 2% fixed rates into 6% variable rates. This is no small wave. Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe pumped AUD 200 billion of emergency artificially low rates, which have started expiring. This 200% rate rise in such a short time is unprecedented. ANZ customers are anxious about how they will cope with financial hardship. I'm a long-standing ANZ customer. I've just hit my loan limit with ANZ, and ANZ has sent me text messages to remind me, which I've fixed up. But I'm worried too. Some customers can draw on savings, lines of credit. They could tap into credit cards, and I would say credit cards that are often thrust or packaged into borrowers. So this will provide some delay, so the impacts of what's coming out might be delayed for these reasons. Combined COVID uncertainty, a forecast recession in New Zealand, and I note ANZ is the dominant, the largest bank in New Zealand, geopolitical tensions that Mr. Elliott talked about. It's understandable that we will also see mental health consequences. Banks and regulatory remediation systems, I've found, are inconsistent and not fit for purpose. I know firsthand how sustained failures in banks' remediation systems, failures detailed in ANZ's likely secretive APRA report that wasn't released, can have terrible impacts on bank customers. Unfortunately and tragically, depression can set in as people, protections and regulators all fail us. Depression and suicide, especially in rural areas, is a tragic consequence. These traumatic impacts go beyond the industry label of financial hardship. Now, I would like to acknowledge Mr. Elliott because in his speech, he sort of proactively referenced some of these things that it does go beyond that. But I call it psychological hardship that bankers in the past have failed to consider. There's been a strong focus on financial hardship. Drawing on my own experiences of CBA's behavior, my request for financial hardship was refused. Now, this is some years ago, but I know how deep the emotional and psychological non-financial impacts cut beyond the mere financial impacts. Post-Christmas, we're expecting spending will subside. Confidence will subside in the new year as a wave of rising costs takes their toll. Directors of ANZ have known for years, this is past management or past directorships, but the botched case of Charlie Phillott in Outback Queensland. The directors need to be aware of this. My questions are: why has ANZ's systems, policies, and processes ignored the emotional and psychological hardship above and beyond the financial hardship? And why hasn't ANZ employed behavioral scientists and psychologists to address this deeply serious issue now? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Caulfield. Thank you for your energy as well in representing the or in being part of the Bank Warriors and all they do. I think the point you raise about the environment we're in is really important. I would separate our thinking around our customer situation from the prudential side of the bank. Prudentially, we have obviously a requirement under the law to test mortgages and so on at a higher rate than what we lend at. Typically, it's a 3% above the rate interest rate that is current when you're making the mortgage, or it's a minimum of 5%. So prudentially, from a risk point of view, we're just getting into the territory now with interest rates where those tests took place. But your point is a really important point, which is putting that aside, the impact on people of rising energy prices, of inflation, of rising interest rates and mortgage repayments is significant. And while on the one hand, we can rationalize it, to your point, emotionally, it's a very difficult environment, especially for anyone who doesn't have a lot of flexibility. Shayne mentioned earlier that our approach is to ourselves proactively look at our customer data and to see can we identify and proactively contact customers who we think might be heading for some stress. And we have a number of options when we do that. And there are things like loan deferrals or recapitalizing the loan, or indeed, in some cases, we may be best placed to persuade the customer there might be time to make a difficult but important change. Our policies are to equip our lenders with the necessary tools and sensitivity to take into account the customer's well-being. And Shayne and the board have defined the core purpose of the bank as being to improve the financial well-being of our customers. So that's our guiding process as to all the decisions that we can make. We do have a number of staff who work dedicated to customer hardship and to working with customers to try and address issues. And as I say, we do our best to try and take into account the key concerns that customers may have. Shayne, is there anything you'd like to add to my comments? Only that I take your point, Mr. Caulfield, around psychological harm and hardship. And I agree with you, and we do see that from time to time. And I think you're right to point out that it's likely that that will increase as things get tougher for many in the community. We do actually employ psychologists, and we do have people on call to help us and advise us in terms of the way we interact with customers who are experiencing stress. I'm not for a minute going to stress we always get that right and that there isn't more that we can do. But I agree with you that it's something that we can do a better job on. Maile, who looks after the Australian retail business in particular, I know we've just made some changes in the way we structure our support teams, our contact centers, our complaints teams, our advocacy teams. And part of that, I think, is a good idea for us to go back and have a look and see if we can do more around psychological hardship, as you describe it. Good. Thank you, Shayne, and thank you, Mr. Caulfield. Yeah, thanks very much, and there's not a one simple answer to this, but if the board could keep that in mind, the psychological issues, that would be appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. We're here to listen, so we absolutely will. Thank you. Appreciate it. Am I seeing anyone at microphone number three? Yes? Okay. Over to you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. I have Judith Dwyer from Mile End with a question. Thank you, Chairman. I want to acknowledge the progress that the bank has made towards being a net-zero business. You will know that in September 2020, the Science-Based Targets Network issued interim targets for nature, including zero deforestation and zero conversion of all natural habitats from 2020 as a first step towards nature-positive targets. Given the agricultural sector's contribution to ANZ's Scope 3 emissions and the pressure that land clearing associated with pasture expansion places on our environment, has ANZ implemented conditions within relevant loan agreements to prevent deforestation or sustainability-linked loans to promote nature positivity, or are there concrete plans to do so? Judith, thank you very much for your question. Now, as I said at the beginning of the meeting, my role is to make sure everyone gets a fair go at asking a question. So because we know there'll be a long discussion on climate and we spend a lot of time ourselves as a board discussing climate, I'm going to hold your question over till we get to item five. There are some reserved seats that we've put near the microphones, so if you want to take one of those, we'll make sure you are in a position to ask your question when we get to that item. I'm now going to go to microphone number four. Thank you, Chairman. We have a question from Michael Sanderson from Peel in the Hunter Valley. Good day, Board. Shayne, congratulations. You're the last standing CEO since the Banking Royal Commission. Still got to work on that funny twang you have. Might take me a while. Yeah. Yeah. If he's got a twang, I think the chairman's in even bigger trouble, right? I've got a bit of a tongue-in-cheek request. I have some other questions, but I'll leave that till later. It relates to relevant matters. The ABC reported, and the heading was, "Power prices surge up to 18.3% as energy market turmoil flows through the households." This was equivalent, again reported, to AUD 250 a year for the average residential electricity bill. Today, Parliament has been recalled to address that. In a vain attempt to control cost-push inflation, the Federal Government's bank, the not independent RBA, increased the cash rate 3%, which is equivalent to AUD 15,000 or AUD 300 a week on the average AUD 500,000 residential mortgage or business loan. This is 6,000% worse than the household energy crisis, but there was no recall of Parliament to address this. Perverse, really. The RBA was established by the Reserve Bank Act 1959. Therefore, any independence or autonomy is and has always been at the pleasure of the Federal Government. It has the power to reverse recent interest rate increases. Now, to give you some contrast, Japan has a cash rate of minus 0.1%. Its inflation is only 3%. Its fiscal spending is 266% of GDP. Australia's cash rate is 3.1%. Its inflation is in excess of 7%. Total fiscal spending is a mere 36% of GDP. This inept and pointless interest rate austerity transfers real assets from real workers that Labor claims to represent to the already wealthy. My request is, I was in Parliament last week for the last week of sittings and witnessed the awesome power of the Australian Bankers Association. Based on a 24-hour backflip on million-dollar fines for bankers, it would seem the Federal Government will bend the knee instantly to instructions from the ABA. For balance, just so it's not political, the LNP established a Clayton's Banking Royal Commission when instructed by the Big Four. I asked the ANZ, in conjunction with the other Big Four, to request and apply on behalf of all mortgage holders to instruct the Federal Treasurer to stop and reverse the not independent RBA's inept interest rate austerity and be more like Japan. Thank you, Michael, and you traveled a fair way today, so thank you also for making the journey. The points you made are actually very interesting, and they go again to the heart of the impact of the economic environment on all Australians, and obviously, we are concerned about that too. I wish we had the sort of leverage and power that you are describing, but nonetheless, I take note of your request, and we will certainly take account of it. Would you like me to ask another question now, or can we leave it till later? This is a real question. Okay, go ahead. Okay. One thing I noticed, when the screen was up there for online questions, in the question box, there were 24 characters. That's a pretty short question. I hope that's not the case. Just a comment. I very much doubt it, but yes, we'll check. Okay, this goes to dispute resolution. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority is the peak EDR, External Dispute Resolution Body, used by banks. AFCA, which is shortened to, is perceived by bank consumers to be biased in favor of their members, yet banks routinely claim AFCA is independent and impartial. In my experience, this is not the case. Some examples. A former AFCA case manager, we'll call him RC, worked for NAB for 29 years before working for AFCA for two years. He then took up a position with Bankwest. Just prior to leaving AFCA, RC found in favor of a Bankwest case manager. Now, I'm not suggesting RC was quite. It's not a good look. Also, Gerard Brodie of the Consumer Action Law Center, referred to as CALC, found that of all home lending complaints made to AFCA in 2020, there were no determinations in favor of the consumer. Also, in March of this year, an AFCA ruling was overturned by the New South Wales Supreme Court due to the absence of impartiality and independence. Now, I believe that there would be more judgments like this if AFCA consumers could represent their cases in the Federal Court. I personally know, as a complainant and an ex-member of AFCA, that AFCA is biased to the point of corruption. My question is, because there is no meaningful merits review of ANZ cases outside the courts, is ANZ prepared to fund merits review of ANZ AFCA cases in the Federal Court? Thank you for that, Michael. Can I start by saying that AFCA is the ultimate escalation body for customer complaints, but we do a lot of work inside ANZ in the first place. So we're not waiting for the regulator to jump or for people to have to go to the regulator. In fact, in the last 18 months, we've spent a lot of money to implement a new complaints management technology system that allows us to capture complaints right across the organization and to work hard on redesigning our core processes to pick up any gaps or any problems. As a board, we also regularly review the number of complaints that are being recorded. We look at them also in terms of how long they've taken to resolve. We have a key metric, which is to ensure complaints don't go to AFCA for resolution, but they are resolved by our own staff. That's our first endeavor in every situation. I'm not going to comment on the regulator, and I don't think it's appropriate for us as a bank to necessarily be providing judgment on the regulator. We want to be a law-abiding bank. We want to have a constructive relationship with the regulator. So, therefore, we'll work with AFCA and within its guidelines. Look, thank you for the suggestion. Just on your comment a bit. I've got some noise. I want to give another person a chance to ask a question, but very briefly. Just a follow-up on your comment you made there in relation to IDR. You said you did a lot of work prior to AFCA. The issue there is where you have a consumer who is the weaker party, and generally, the consumer has no idea of the real issues of his case or her case. Therein lies the problem. There is no - what do you call it? - balance. And the bank, and AFCA, and mediation, and farm debt mediation know that at the end of the journey, these consumers have no access to the courts. So there is a culture, I believe - no, I don't believe. I know. There's a culture of impunity that clouds the whole EDR and IDR process. I'll leave it at that. Okay, thank you, Michael, and you're entitled to your view, and I'd encourage you to feed it through to government as well. Can I just clarify? Online allows 2,400 characters, and so therefore, it does allow adequate space for anyone to raise an issue. Okay, I'm going to rotate the questions between the room, online, and the phone so everyone gets a chance to ask a question, so let's go next to an online question. I think Kath is going to read that out to us. That's right. Thank you, Chairman. We have two questions from Mr. Alexander Sinton. First, can you please outline the progress you are making to comply with New Zealand's Conduct of Financial Institutions, or COFI, legislation with specific reference to the Fair Conduct Program area of acting ethically, transparently, and in good faith? And the second question, will ANZ Plus be rolled out in New Zealand? Thank you, Kath, and thank you, Alexander, for your question. As it happens, one of our board members, Sir John Key, is also the chairman of ANZ New Zealand, so he's probably perfectly primed to answer these questions. So, Sir John, would you like to respond? Thank you, Chairman. In relation to the first question, there's a number of things that are happening. Firstly, as a bank, we have observed what took place in the Royal Commission here in Australia, and we have made sure that we can cross-reference that to our activities in New Zealand and take the best practice that was the learnings from the Royal Commission. Secondly, we've set up our own independent conduct and culture subcommittee of the board, and that not only meets very regularly but reports to the New Zealand board. Thirdly, we undertook our own what was called Section 95 review in New Zealand, and that was moderated by one of the leading accounting firms, and that looked very closely at all these issues. So I'm very confident, actually, that both the New Zealand management and the New Zealand board are addressing those issues very, very carefully. In relation to ANZ Plus, we have different systems and different capabilities in varying locations. So look, at some point, if ANZ Plus could be rolled out in New Zealand, particularly with some of the great functionality that I know is planned for Australia, then we would want to welcome that in New Zealand. And it's certainly one of the things that the IT and technology people are looking closely at. But at this stage, it needs to be successfully deployed in Australia, really, before we can migrate that over to Tasman. Thanks, Sir John. Okay, Kath, we'll move to the second question online, please. Yes, we have a question from Devinder Chhabra of Junior Enterprise Proprietary Limited. My brother-in-law was scammed where Citibank treasury notes were transferred to an ANZ bank account held by scammers. How has ANZ Bank failed in checking and allowing such kind of scammers to open accounts which have the title Citibank Clearing Account? What is being done to protect general consumers by the bank? Thanks for the question, Devinder, and actually, I think it's shocking to see these sort of stories, and I certainly feel for the impact it must have had on your brother-in-law and his family. We're very conscious of the damage these scams are doing across the community. I mentioned in my speech the ACCC's estimate of what they're doing. We're not going to comment, as I said at the beginning, on individual customer cases here. What I can say is that we do look at each case on its own merits and independently, and that's reviewed internally. We do look to provide a fair and balanced outcome, so thank you for your question. I should add that I outlined in my speech, as did Shayne, the major investment we're making in reducing scams, and we will continue to be very vigilant on that and focus on it moving forward. So thank you for the question. We'll move on to the third question online, please, Kath. Yes, a question from Mr. Graham Neil. When will you introduce the competitive savings rate of 3.75% per annum on conventional savings accounts? Not everyone wishes to bank on their phone. Thank you, Graham, for the question, and I'll ask Shayne in a moment to comment because he's very close to the competitive environment. But the board actually spends quite a bit of time discussing our capital strategy, and to give you a sense of the factors that come in when we're looking at rates, what we've got to think about is the source of funds for the bank and then what we're able to lend at, and so we're looking at deposits, which are a great source of capital. We're looking at what we can raise in the external markets. We're looking at securities like hybrids. All of these have a cost associated with them, and then we think about how we can apply those funds, what are the margins and lending rates available in the market. Many of you will know that the mortgage market, in particular in Australia, has been very aggressive and very competitive of late. The challenge for management and the board in supervising management is wanting to understand how we balance all those factors to arrive at what are our competitive rates on our deposits. Shayne? I think you've covered it there, Paul. I think we have a portfolio of deposit products. We've got Progress Saver and Access Advantage and all sorts of other. And of course, we have term deposits. It just so happens that at the moment, our special rate is at 3.75% for call deposits, so no conditions, is on ANZ Plus, and we're really pleased with that. It's really easy to join. You can join up in less than sort of three minutes. And so we, as Paul said, we monitor the competition. We've got to be competitive. We want to have great rates available for savers. And today, and I don't know where that'll be tomorrow or next week, but today, our lead price is on our ANZ Plus product. Okay, thank you, Shayne. I'm going to move to the fourth question online, please, Kath. Thank you. The question comes from Mahinda Nair of Nair Holdings Proprietary Limited. Why do you think there is need to take over Suncorp rather than natural organic growth with unforeseen risks when global financial markets do have threat? Thank you, Mahinda. And I'm guessing, if I interpret your question correctly, you're worried about whether we are fully aware of what's inside Suncorp when we acquire it. And in that sense, let me talk a little bit about the due diligence which the board provided oversight to as we looked at Suncorp. We actually did a lot of evaluation of their lending book and of the way the bank is run and of their risk appetites and their risk policies. And all of that informed the board and management in deciding whether or not to move ahead. We actually have quite a positive view of the way Suncorp has been run. And it's interesting, if you look at their financial performance, but also at their customer metrics. And a key indicator we look at in the industry is what we call main financial institution. In other words, do people feel they're treated by the bank so well that they make it their main bank and their main financial institution? And Suncorp scores very positively when we evaluate it. It's not either/or. Suncorp provides us with a unique opportunity to grow our scale and our position in a fast-growing state, but we are also focused on continuing to grow ANZ with organic growth, as you said. I'm now going to move from online, and we'll keep rotating till we run out of questions. I'm going to move from online to the phone. So let's go to the first phone question, please. Operator, please put him through. Welcome, Mr. Robertson. Please proceed. Good morning, Chairman. Look, I just want to highlight the risk that the bank is taking at present. Its risk has dramatically increased. The ANZ Banking Corporation is taking far more risk than it has historically tolerated in its lending to Woodside and the Associated Global Investment Partners' investment in Pluto too. Historically, banks mitigated risk in LNG projects by lending to projects that were structured as a consortium with many substantial counterparties. Banks also lowered risk by insisting on 20-year LNG offtake agreements that matched their financing terms. Why is ANZ lending to Woodside, a company that owns 100% of the very large Scarborough project and has short-term, less than 10-year LNG offtake contracts? What has led to this fundamental reassessment of risk by the bank, given major LNG customers such as Japan have firm commitments to lower LNG usage in their power system by 50% by 2030? Do the provisions in our bank's account take account of the far higher risks our bank is facing? Thank you for your question, Bruce, and really, this goes to the heart of the transition risk associated with the move to a lower carbon economy, as you pointed out in the case of Japan, so our exposure to a fossil fuel provider in that context is really the heart of your question, so as I said at the beginning, I want to make sure every shareholder has a chance to ask a question. So I'm going to hold your question, and you're welcome to bring it back again when we get to item five. One more customer on the phone, or one more shareholder, I should say, on the phone, I gather, so Operator, please put them through. Yes, we have a question on the phone from Morgan Pickett. Operator, please put them through. Shareholder, please proceed. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, thanks, Morgan. Welcome. Wonderful. Thank you. Good morning to the board. My question relates to legal risk. Last year, the Federal Court ordered Commonwealth Bank to give a shareholder access to confidential documents so the shareholder could check whether CommBank had complied with its own climate change policy in lending to oil and gas projects. Last month, a UN high-level expert group focused on corporate greenwashing stated non-state actors cannot claim to be net zero while continuing to build or invest in new fossil fuel supply. And ASIC's Deputy Chair, Sarah Court, warned that ASIC is currently investigating a number of listed entities, super funds, and managed funds in relation to their green credentials claims. Companies are on notice that ASIC is actively monitoring the market for potential greenwashing and will take enforcement action, including court action, for serious breaches. I should also mention that just this week, Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the Australian government is focused on confronting and cracking down on greenwashing. ANZ has publicly committed to the goals of the Paris Agreement and net zero emissions by 2050. So is the board concerned about the potential legal action when we're still investing in new fossil fuel supply, which is incompatible with those climate goals? Morgan, thank you for your question. I know people like yourself who volunteer your time on these sort of issues are very genuinely and positively motivated, and I welcome that. And ultimately, I think we're all trying to get to the same place on climate. Because it is a climate-related question, then I'm going to hold that until we get to item five, when you're welcome to resubmit the question. With that, we'll come back into the room. So back to microphone one. Thank you, Chairman. We have a question from Rita Mazalevskis. Thank you. Good morning, Board. It's nice to be here face-to-face again. I'm also here as a founding member of Bank Warriors, who work with and assist financial victims. So I have a question relating to the Board. Under your corporate governance statement with the performance evaluation, it says that this year the Board is utilizing the services of an independent external facilitator to assist with the evaluation of the Board, the committees, and the directors. This will include interviewing each of the directors and key members of senior management with results to be discussed by the Board and subsequent actions to be agreed. Then in the past, it states that for the evaluation of non-executive directors, the chairman normally has a one-on-one meeting with the non-executive director regarding their performance. This information will be fed back to the Chairman, who will discuss the feedback with each director, like a usual performance with staff. It also says that to do with the Chairman of the board, ANZ's longest-serving Non-Executive Director usually facilitates the evaluation of the performance of the Chairman. This involves seeking input from each director, and then this is also fed back to the Chairman. In regards to engaging an external facilitator, given that boards only meet a handful of times a year for board meetings, not frequently, and that the relationship is very critical, why is ANZ engaging an external facilitator to do this part of the process for performance where that facilitator doesn't know the intricate details of the person's experience and how they're performing? And is this a cost the shareholders are bearing, which hasn't been reflected in any of the directors' salaries? Thank you, Rita. It's a pleasure to put a face to the name because I think you made a number of phone questions over the last two AGMs. So great to see you in person, and thanks again for your activism. Let me start by saying this is considered to be best practice in corporate governance. It's not only ANZ, but most ASX top 100 boards will bring in an independent evaluation on a fairly regular basis, usually every two or three years. And the reason it's an external is independence, because we want to make sure that people are comfortable speaking the truth to power. And so the chairman, the chairperson, whoever they are, has a degree of authority and power. So I think it's important that there's somebody independent who's able to run the evaluation. There are a small number of highly qualified professional firms who provide this service, and it's one of them that we have engaged. I think it's actually an important service to shareholders because what you will want to make sure of is that a board like us is made up of appropriately qualified people who are diligent and doing their jobs and that we're running our governance and committees in an appropriate way. I should add, this year we had 18 board meetings, so I think this has actually been a very hardworking board, and I thank my colleagues for the time that they've put aside. So overall, it's not a hugely material cost in the context of the bank, but I actually think it's an important exercise, and I participate in it in other boards that I've been on over the years. Can I just clarify something? I realize that there's an external facilitator that comes in every three years to review the board as a whole. Are you saying that the individual reviews will be every three years, not yearly? The individual reviews are within that. So the external review we're talking about, that's being done as both individual review of directors and the board's performance and the committee performance overall. So that's part of that too. Every three years. That's part of the external review. We do evaluate ourselves and our committees every year, and that's run as an internal process. And certainly, as chair, I'm not waiting for the feedback results. I'm actually constantly talking to directors and giving feedback. I attend every committee meeting, or at least I aim to. Obviously, I attend and chair every board meeting. So as a chair, I shouldn't be waiting for somebody to come along and do an evaluation. I need to be coaching and counseling relevant people on an ongoing basis. And indeed, I like to think, the good Irish Australian that I am, we are never known for being backwards in our commentary. I like to think people know where I stand, and I welcome them in being frank and forceful with me. Okay, thank you. Okay, microphone four next, please. Thank you, Chairman. We have a question from Julian Vincent from Melbourne. Morning. I've got a question that relates to human rights, which doesn't have a specific item attached to it, so I'll ask it here. But before I do, I'd like to actually make a point of order. In your opening remarks, the statement that you gave to this room, to the people listening in, and the statement that has been uploaded to the ASX, you made the comment in relation to item five and six that those who have lodged this resolution are seeking an immediate withdrawal of financing for companies that continue to have any exposure to fossil fuels. That is not the case. The resolution, actually, if you open up the notice of meeting, you'll see that it seeks clarity from the bank on how its financing will not enable the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. I believe that you knew this. I believe that you've read the resolution. You must have been across the material. And so I'd like to give you the opportunity, before I ask my question, to correct the misleading statement that you made at the beginning of this meeting, please. Thank you for your comment. You're entitled to your view, and I certainly have no desire or intent to mislead on mine or the bank's part. I think your clarification has been made available to all shareholders, so I'll allow shareholders to form their own view and their own judgment on it. Now, if your question relates to climate change and the environment, can I suggest we hold it to question five? It relates to human rights, as I said before. Okay, well, go ahead. I look forward to you not misrepresenting the resolutions at five and six again later in the proceedings. In June this year, it was reported by the ABC that Tiwi Islands' traditional owners had launched a federal court action alleging they were not properly consulted about potential risks to their marine environment, dreaming story tracks, and animals from proposed gas infrastructure. Given ANZ's commitments to conduct due diligence to identify human rights risks and impacts associated with its activities, was the bank aware of the federal court proceedings filed in early June and the allegations by the Tiwi Islanders? And to be clear, I'm not asking for a comment on a specific deal or a client relationship. I am just looking for a yes or no as to whether ANZ was aware of these court proceedings when they were filed in June. I'm pretty sure we would have been, but I'm not going to sit here this morning and give you the authoritative answer on that. I'll take that on notice if I may. Well, thank you. Given the Full Federal Court has now confirmed the regulator could not be assured Tiwi Islanders' traditional owners were properly consulted in this instance, and a spokesperson of the Munupi clan of the Tiwi Islands has publicly stated, "Munupi people don't want any fossil fuel activities off the coast of the Tiwi Islands." Can ANZ commit to applying its human rights policies in full when considering any related loans? I can certainly say that we have very high standards around environmental, human rights, reputational issues, and we apply those to all lending. In terms of given the question relates to funding a fossil fuels project, I am going to hold that till we get to question five. That's a no then. Okay. Thank you. Have we any more questions in the room? Microphone three. Thank you, Chairman. I have Jason Hall from the Financial Sector Union. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Jason Hall, the local executive secretary for the SA/NT branch of the Financial Sector Union. I'm here today on behalf of ANZ employees and union members. In July, you announced the acquisition of Suncorp Bank for AUD 4.9 billion and committed to no net Suncorp job losses or branch closures as a result of the transaction for three years following completion of the transaction. However, you've made no such commitments to ANZ employees or customers about the future of their jobs or local ANZ branches. Job insecurity concerns are being compounded by an acceleration in process automation initiatives that threaten long-standing roles with no real transitional pathway to new roles. While you have been prepared to spend AUD billions on technology and the purchase of Suncorp, to date, you have refused to invest in our members, which are your employees. ANZ employees are stuck on an expired enterprise agreement from 2016 because you've refused to invest in a new EA with terms and conditions that reflect the hard work. This hard work has led to a profit of AUD 7.1 billion, and you've made comments yourself around the cost of living increases, and yet the lowest paid in ANZ were delivered a below-inflation real-world pay cut, which is utterly unacceptable. So the question, Mr. Chairman, is, while we acknowledge positive comments sorry, positive commitments made in a recent meeting with CEO Shayne Elliott around a new EA, will the board and CEO today publicly commit to negotiate a new ANZ EA in 2023 and extend the same Suncorp job security commitments to ANZ employees? Thank you, Jason, and thank you for the work you do to work with our employees and to make sure that they do get a fair hearing. Can I say, as Chair, and I'm echoing the views of the board, we spend a lot of time looking to understand and make sure the well-being of our staff is maximized and to make sure that we're in an attractive and good place to work. Let's be honest, you can't run a good bank and be successful unless you're looking after your people. There are a number of factors taken into account when we discussed that, but I'm going to throw to Shayne to talk specifically about the EBAs and our views in terms of how we will handle the relationship moving forward. Yeah, no, thank you. And you're right in terms of the fact that we've been operating under an EBA that goes back to, I think, 2016. What I said to your team was last week or the week before that I was very open and our team is open to the idea of entering into a bargaining round in 2023. And so we absolutely will go into that open-minded and seek to be able to complete an agreement in 2023. That's our intent. To the rest of the question, you're right. Our people are extraordinarily important, and there are changes, as you know. There are changes in terms of the way our customers want to engage with us. And sadly, people have moved and no longer use branches, for example, to the same extent, and want to be able to do their banking online or using mobiles or remotely. And so that means we have to think about the changes in our workforce. The good news is that despite the fact that we have closed branches, and that is a reality right across the sector, for the vast majority of people who are impacted, we've been able to redeploy them because they are people with skills. These are people who are great with people. They're great. They understand our systems and processes. And a great example was during COVID, we were able to use a lot of those very talented people to help and man those hardship lines that we talked about when Mr. Caulfield was asking the question before. And our intention is to continue to offer, to redeploy, to retrain as many people as we can as we see the changing shape of our workforce and that that commitment remains. If I could just clarify one piece, the question also alluded to the deal in regards to Suncorp and the preservation of the jobs and branches there. And you've mentioned a number of times of growing that bit of the market in Queensland is really important to you going forward. So specifically ask again, is there a possibility of extending that agreement out to the ANZ base that's currently there servicing Queensland and making sure that their jobs are secure? So what I said to your team the other week was specifically, no, we're not going to extend that guarantee. I mean, the issue for Suncorp is a very different one. And what we're seeking to do through the commitments we've made, and by the way, they're only part of the commitments, we've also made significant commitments to back the state of Queensland by putting more of our balance sheet to work there and lending more, particularly around all the really exciting projects that Queensland has in terms of renewable energy and to house the Olympics, etc. So there's a range of things we want to do. But what we're really trying to do there, as Paul said, is, hey, we're going to be acquiring this 1.2 million customers, and we want to give those people assurance that the day after the acquisition, life will continue to be the same for them, same branches, same people, same network, etc., for at least three years. And that means that gives us time to work out what the future looks like. And I think we'll all understand that over that three years, the world will change materially. And I don't know what that's going to look like in the future, but we'll be doing work to say, how do we bring the two businesses together so that we can be a better bank together? So we're unable to make that commitment around ANZ, but as I said, our commitment is to do the best we can to respond to the changing needs of customers and to redeploy as many of our people when they are impacted by things like branch closures. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your question. On to microphone one. Thank you, Chairman. We have a question from Susan Richardson. Welcome, Susan. Thank you, Chairman. My question is short. It's about financial risk. So I think it's pertinent at this stage. But I want to begin by observing that, and I think you confirmed this with your New Zealand figures, not Australian figures, but nearly half of Australia's economy has a high or a moderate dependence on nature. And it's very likely that your loans, both to businesses and to households, reflect that sort of national average. Last year, there was published a very highly credible paper by ecological scientists that found that 18 of the 19 Australian ecosystems that they examined in detail are at serious risk of collapse. These include iconic and essential ecosystems for human health and well-being, such as the Murray-Darling Basin and the Great Barrier Reef, but they're all over Australia, these vulnerable ecological systems. Now, of course, the floods in the Murray-Darling are going to reverse that for a while, but they have their own impact on your customers, both households and businesses. So my question, I've got three short questions. Does the ANZ conduct assessments of the extent to which each loan it makes is at risk from the effects of substantial decline or collapse of a relevant ecosystem? First of all, you have to know what they are. And then secondly, when does the bank plan to start reporting on the extent and character of the nature-based risks that its portfolio of loans and investments faces? Thanks for the question, Susan. I do have the answers to those questions, but the primary threat to the biodiversity, if I recall correctly, is from climate change, or it's a significant source of the threat. So if I may, I'd like to pick that question up as part of when we get to resolution five. If I may, Chairman, disagree. The threats are, of course, also from climate change, but they're also from feral pests. They're also from development happening in the wrong places. So land clearing is not just a climate issue. It's an ecological issue. Indeed, indeed, but climate change. I'm not asking a climate question. I'm asking an environmental collapse question, which is connected but different. It is indeed connected. And look, my job is to make sure we give adequate time to everybody. So we do have some seats reserved right here. If you want to sit here, we'll make sure that I do respond to that question at item five. And thanks for your understanding, Susan. I realize it can be frustrating, but I've also got to try and manage the meeting efficiently. We will go back online for the next question. So Kath, over to you, please. Sure. Question from Mr. Matthew Williams. During one of the presentations, reference was made to the floods in South Australia, Riverland, and other areas. What specific consideration and support is ANZ providing to those customers adversely impacted by the floods? Thank you, Matthew, for the question. And we do indeed have a focus on how we can assist customers. Indeed, we deployed teams in recent floods in areas like Gympie in Queensland. But Shayne, did you want to pick that up? Sadly, we are dealing with floods and droughts and fires regularly. And so we do have a set process where we essentially extend hardship support. So we contact customers when we see events like this as quickly as we can to understand whether they need assistance. And that assistance can range from all sorts of things to temporary availability of funds. It might mean that we would suspend customers' obligations to pay their home loan or their business loans, etc. So it depends on the circumstances. But what we do specifically, we reach out to our customers proactively who are impacted by those to see what we can do to help. And as I say, we have a range of options available. Thanks. Thank you, Shayne. I'll go to the second question online, please, Kath. Yes, we have two questions from Mr. Mahinda Nair of Nair Holdings Proprietary Limited. Firstly, during the last visits to your branches, I note the atmosphere is no more friendly, rather too formal as compared to in the historic past. Staff seem stressed. Any action being taken, please? And this. Go ahead, Kath. Yes, sorry. The second question is, what are you doing to minimize data collection and retention to protect customers' interests? Okay. Well, it's very useful feedback to get from you, Mahinda. And I'm going to let Shayne comment in a moment because we do spend a lot of time discussing and focusing on how we can make sure we're a good work environment. I will then come back and answer the second question that you've asked. Shayne? Yeah. No, that is a bit disturbing that you've felt that. I can assure you that we do talk to our staff all the time and survey how people are feeling to make sure that we're not having people with undue stress. I mean, the latest data that we got, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but our engagement level that people feel good about the bank and their job was in the mid to high 80%. And that's industry leading. So that's the best of any of the major banks. And it's something we take really seriously. And that's at a group level. And then we drill down and look at that data right down into the detail, whether it's in the institutional bank or the branch network or the contact center. So we do that. We also monitor really closely things like just turnover. If people are leaving the bank for whatever reason, that's obviously a cause of concern to understand why that might be. And as you know, there's a range of reasons why that could be. And again, those are the sort of data points we look at. But I have not seen any data recently to suggest that there's an issue there, but it's something that I'll talk to Maile afterwards, and maybe we can go and have another look and do a survey around staff in the branches in particular. Thanks, Shayne. In terms of the second question, Mahinda, I'm sure every organization in Australia after the Medibank, Optus, and indeed the other breaches, cyber breaches that have happened, is questioning the data that it holds and what it needs to hold. One of our challenges at the bank is that we're required by regulation to store some customer data. For example, we're required to keep some data for seven years after the transaction. In terms of customer identities, we're required to store those whilst the account is active and for a period thereafter. Some of this actually is to protect customers. It's to make sure that if there's a dispute, there's a way to go back and check the records. But we do have some very strong rules about how we handle data. First of all, we have clear rules about where it is stored. By and large, the principle is to only store it where it needs to be stored and where it's used effectively. Secondly, we have controls over who can access data, and we regularly monitor and check those. Thirdly, when data is no longer required, that it's properly curated and properly destroyed. I think moving forward, you're going to see corporate Australia in general revisit this issue. I know from my own dealings with government in recent months, the whole issue of a national identity, which would mean organizations don't need to store 100 points of ID, that's under active consideration. I think it would be a positive step. We've got another question now on the telephone. Over to you, Operator. That's correct. There are no more online questions for this resolution. And we have one final question on the phone, and that's from shareholder Geoff Wilson. Operator, please put him through. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Welcome, and please proceed. Look, thank you, Chair. And it's probably for Chair and Shayne. I'd be interested in your thoughts. I'm extremely concerned at the moment about the significant unintended consequence of the government's proposed legislation called franking dividends and capital rates and its impact on the financial markets, particularly the banks. APRA Chairman Wayne Byers said in early 2020, at the start of COVID, in reference to the Australian banks, that dividend payments should be offset by raising capital. But under the proposed government legislation, these dividends would not be franked if that was the case. I assume this legislation will significantly increase your cost of capital in a crisis. And how would this proposed legislation? I'll be interested in your thoughts of how it would affect ANZ and its impact on profitability. Jeff, thanks for your question. I guess for shareholders, it's a very important question because franking credits are very important, I know, to our shareholders. I'll start by saying, look, we're seeking to obviously engage and make sure we are correctly understanding the legislation and that we are able to offer our point of view. It largely relates, as I understand it, to special distributions. ANZ's in perhaps a slightly unique place. We do have franking credits, but typically we have just enough franking credits to cover off our annual dividend in terms of how it operates. We don't usually carry a large number of surplus credits. In that sense, it may not have a large impact on us in terms of our normal dividend distribution, but certainly it's an area we are focused on and concerned about. Farhan, did you—I should introduce Farhan, who's our Chief Financial Officer. Farhan, did you want to add any comment on that? Yeah. No, thank you, Chairman. I think you covered it quite well. We typically haven't done - we have only done on-market buybacks. We haven't done off-market buybacks for the reasons that the Chairman pointed out in terms of surplus franking credits. So this particular legislation has a very limited impact on us, but potentially does impact other banks' buyback activity. Thanks, Farhan. Okay. There's microphone two. I think we've got another question there. Thank you, Chairman. This next question is from Amelia Muriti from South Australia. Thank you. This question is for the CEO and the board. My name is Amelia Muriti. I'm 15 years old, and I'm here today because I've already seen the impacts of climate change on our communities. I, like many other young people, fear that these impacts will only worsen if we don't act now. Even though ANZ says it supports the Paris Agreement and the goal of net zero emissions by 2050, and I acknowledge the work they've done towards this, I understand that ANZ has been involved in at least 33 new fossil fuel deals since the beginning of 2021. This makes ANZ the biggest lender to new fossil fuels in Australia. If ANZ continues to be the number one banker to the fossil fuel industry, how do you think the next generation of Australians will view the bank? Where does ANZ think it's going to get its next generation of staff and customers from if it keeps funding fossil fuel expansion? Look, thank you, Amelia, for your question, and congratulations on your activism. I think it's terrific to see someone like you who's willing to commit and get involved and make sure you lobby organizations like us. That is a question which relates again to climate change. We have some seats reserved here, so I encourage you to stay and to grab one of the reserved seats, and we'll come back to the question at resolution five. Thank you. We've got a question at microphone one, please. Thank you, Chairman. We have a question from David Hansman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the board, for coming to Adelaide. We always appreciate this. I may have missed this, but unfortunately, I was late for the meeting. But in your address, did you mention succession plans for yourself and the Chief Executive Officer, Shayne Elliott? And in relation to that, I noticed that you have two other chairmanships, and some people might regard that as somewhat excessive because if a critical situation develops, as happened at another bank, you would be unable to perhaps carry out your duties as fully as you would like. Another point is that at this meeting, I'm disturbed that people, shareholders, instead of asking a question, have entered into a rambling speech. So what I suggest is that you limit questions in parentheses to a maximum of two minutes, which would be in everyone's interest, I believe. Thank you. Thank you for those great points. Thank you. Thank you for attending. Can I answer lastly by saying I may not like what everybody says, but I will defend to the death their right to say it. I'm a big believer in free speech, and I'm quite happy to have people make comments today. We are available to get that feedback. Let me come to the first part of your question on succession. It's a key responsibility of the Chairman and the board to make sure there is internal succession, sorry, that there is succession for the CEO, which includes internal succession and external succession potential. I do work quite hard on that. The board has looked at the development of our executive team so that if and when Shayne decides to move on, that we have a good cadre of internal candidates who will be ready to be candidates for that role. I also personally continually engage externally and make sure that I'm not a stranger to anybody who could be a potential candidate. But can I say that right now, Shayne, as CEO, is focused on transforming and building the next round of ANZ, is doing a very strong and very good job at that, and that's where board and management are focused. In terms of my own succession, we actually do a fairly active board renewal. We do that with the Board Nominations Committee. You've seen us appoint two new directors in the last 18 months, and we actually, sadly, will lose another couple of directors at the AGM next year. So I'm involved along with some of the board members in an ongoing active search. We're not doing it in a transactional way. We've actually sat back and said, "What will a financial services institution look like, and what does it need to be to be successful in five years' time?" And let's recruit the skills that match that. And so Jeff, for example, who's up for election today, Jeff has got deep skills in technology and digitization, and we think those are very important for a bank moving forward. Finally, my own role. This is the only ASX-listed company that I am chair of. I do chair the company that holds the assets for Singtel's operations in Australia, primarily their assets, which is Optus. That's not a listed company role, and the formal governance of those assets is actually done through Singtel and its board. And in terms of the other role, which is chairing the new international airport for Sydney, that's an important role. Again, it's not a listed entity. It doesn't have the same burden of external disclosure and regulation as a listed company. But I do think it adds a lot of value to ANZ because the two key shareholders for that company are the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Infrastructure. And so it gives me an opportunity to engage with key members of government and therefore to build relationships, which I think are helpful when it comes to ANZ. We had 18 board meetings this year. I attended every one. So I want to assure you and everybody else, I love my job, and I have adequate time to do it properly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We've now got a question on microphone number two. So over to you. Thank you, Chairman. This next question comes from Evan Greer of South Australia. Good morning, everyone. Chairman, the board. My question is to the CEO and the board. It is a request, but while you may wish to leave it to question five, that's fine. I'll ask it now. My name is Evan Greer, and I'm 15 years old, and I strike from school for the climate because I take my future seriously. More than that, I feel a sense of obligation too. I, as a young person, do not have the privilege to sit and watch as my world falls apart. We're seeing the effects of climate change. Some of us are hurt more than others, and we do not have time to waste. We cannot afford to be silent. So I will put my question to you, hopeful that ANZ will actively listen to me, to us, the concerned youth. School Strike for Climate has been trying to get a meeting with Shayne Elliott for over 15 months and have, as of yet, received no reply. As young people, we are deeply concerned about ANZ's lending to fossil fuel companies that are fueling climate catastrophes, companies like Santos, Woodside, and Glencore. So the question is, will you meet with us to discuss how ANZ will end its relationship with companies that are expanding the coal, oil, and gas industries in a way that honors your commitment to the Paris Agreement and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees? Will you meet with us? Thank you, Evan. That is a yes. A good round of applause. It gives me great optimism for the future when I see people like yourself putting your energy and effort in. And with the way and so confidently that you speak, I think you're going to be a rival for Shayne and my job one of these days. Unfortunately, I am going to have to hold it to question five because I can't have one rule for one and a different rule for everybody else. But please do sit here, and we look forward to hearing from you again. Thank you. At item five. Microphone number three. We have a question. Thank you, Chairman. I have Colin Pilcher of Seaford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking my question. Mine is about buy now, pay later schemes. There's been a flurry of them since or during COVID-19. And my basic question is, what sort of effect will this have on the running of the bank and which these buy now, pay later schemes are basically a credit system? And there's a lot of unintended consequences with this, assuming that people can manage their own funds, which my experience is there's a lot of people who can't, and that there's going to be a lot of social impact on this. But how will this affect the bank, and is the bank keeping a keen eye on the situation? Thank you very much for your question, Colin. And I think it's a really good question, not only from the impact on the bank, but on the community. And these buy now, pay later products, which are available usually at point of sale if you're buying a phone or a computer, are effectively credit. We are keeping a very close eye on it. Our view is that as credit, it should be regulated in the same way as other credit institutions like banks are regulated. We took note recently of the comments by Stephen Jones, who's a member of the government with responsibility for financial services. He made a comment that he expects that there will be a need and a requirement for greater regulation in this area. We've also made sure that we offer some of the features that go with buy now, pay later inside our own products. Although clearly, we have very tight credit requirements, we have to be seen as responsible lenders and to only lend to people where we're confident that we're not going to create financial distress for them. So yes, we do watch it very closely. I think you'll see some developments, personal view on regulation on this in the coming 12 months. But thank you very much for your question. We've got another question online, I think. That's correct. We have a question online from Mr. Donald Walker. When I want to contact staff in branches, it is by landline only. When they are busy, I have to ring back, and they are often still busy. If they had mobile phones, I could leave a text message so they can get back to me later. Please, can you address this issue? Thank you very much, Donald, for your question, Shayne. It's great feedback. Yeah, it's an interesting suggestion. Clearly, you shouldn't need to call somebody in the branch in the first place, but hopefully, you'd be calling somebody in our contact center, and you can do that using chat or text or phone, whatever you like. Look, I don't know the right answer to that. Again, I'm looking at Maile here in the front row. We'll take it on notice and have a look and see if that's an idea worth pursuing. Thank you. Thank you, and thank you for the question. Okay, we've got another question on the phone. So let's go to the phone, please. That's right. We now have a question on the phone from Edwina Lloyd. Operator, please put them through. Shareholder, please proceed. Thank you. My name's Edwina Lloyd. I'm a solicitor and a former corporation law lecturer. Just before I ask my question, a bit of a point of order in regards to how you are dismissing people's questions that are related to climate change. Right now, members are asking questions in relation to item one, and that is receiving the annual report. Shareholders are permitted to ask questions that are relevant to each item, and you are required to answer the questions. At the time we ask them, and prior to voting on that item, it's not appropriate to simply say, "This is climate change related," therefore it can just be pushed off to resolution five because you think it's more convenient, or I think you said before, because of time constraints. It's taking time for me now to give you the law on how you're supposed to be responding to shareholder questions on specific items. Instead of simply presenting these reports and holding votes, the chair must also allow a reasonable opportunity for shareholders to ask questions about or comment on the company's management. ASIC would be concerned if you were holding this meeting and not allowing questions to be asked and comments to be made and responses to be given. ASIC have further said members entitled to vote on resolutions put at the meeting should have the opportunity to consider responses to questions and debate before doing so. That simply means you are required to answer our questions on an item if it's related to that item at the time we ask the question. So now I'm going to move on to my question, and I would request that you comply with what ASIC have required you to do and answer the question. Edwina, can I just very quickly clarify your comments? So we are certainly well aware of our obligations under the meeting, and we are organizing the meeting this way in order to make sure it runs smoothly and that all shareholders have an opportunity to ask questions in an orderly meeting. We believe we're fulfilling our obligations in line with the requirements under ASIC, and they certainly don't stipulate which part of the meeting we take questions. So respectfully, we'll agree to disagree, and I will say if your question is going to be related to climate change or issues associated with resolutions five and six, I will be asking you to table them then, but back to you, Edwina. Thank you very much. I completely disagree, and this is from the ASIC website that says members are entitled to vote on resolutions put at the meeting, and they should have the opportunity to consider responses to questions and debate before voting. That's from ASIC themselves. That's not something I've just thrown out there. So in regard to my question for item one, I note that in the annual report, there includes the director's report, the corporate governance statement, the financial report, and the auditor's report on the financial and remuneration reports. I'd like to take you to the corporate governance statement and 10.1 of that under communication, where it says, "To be able to make informed decisions about ANZ and to communicate views to ANZ, shareholders need an understanding of ANZ's business operations, performance, and governance framework. We strive for transparency in all our business practices, and we recognize the impact of quality disclosure on the trust and confidence of shareholders, the wider market, and the community." Can you confirm, I've got three questions, can you confirm whether or not you have provided shareholders with the climate analytics report on the Woodside LNG project? And the other matter I wanted to ask you about is in regard to communication with shareholders. United Nations High-Level Expert Group on Net Zero Emissions Commitments have unequivocally stated that financial institutions making net zero commitments cannot provide finance to companies involved in fossil fuel expansions. That report from the United Nations High-Level Expert Group was released on 8 November 2022. Has this been provided to shareholders so they can understand the risks that might attach to decisions that we might be making in regard to fossil fuel projects, not just in Woodside? That's my first question, and then I've got one other about education. Please carry on. We'll take them all together. Thanks, Edwina. Thank you. All right. So the next question is at 5.9 of the same document, continuing education for directors. It says, "ANZ directors take part in a range of training and continuing education programs relating to their duties and responsibilities as directors." As far as I'm aware, none of the directors are scientists, so I wanted to ask about the specific training and education programs that board members have done in relation to shareholder risk to climate change events. Now, I understand that you've got in the annual report that you received regular education and briefing materials and education sessions, and you've written on key areas such as sanctions, competition law, cybersecurity, and banking executive accountability regime scenario. Climate change and associated risk to shareholders is not identified as a key area where education has been delivered to directors, despite it being the most significant risk to our share price. No director is a scientist, and given climate change risk in financing and investment decisions is significant, shareholders need to be assured that directors are informing themselves of all relevant matters to ensure that you, the directors, are in fact exercising your due diligence. What education have directors undertaken specifically related to our risk when considering financing or investing in fossil fuel operations like Woodside? Specifically, which scientists or what science bodies have provided directors with the advice that building new and expanding existing fossil fuel operations offsets aside is going to meet net zero by 2050? Because we know that the IPCC report, the IEA, and the United Nations High-Level Expert Group on Net Zero Emissions Commitments from state entities have stated unequivocally that financial institutions making net zero commitments cannot provide finance to companies involved in fossil fuel expansions. So how are the directors informing themselves about relevant risks to investing and financing in new and expanded fossil fuel operations? Who specifically are you getting your information from to inform yourselves to make sure that you're exercising due diligence to benefit us, the shareholders? Thank you, Edwina. And I know people like yourself are genuinely concerned about the issues you've raised and that you do dedicate your time. So I hope my comments in response are constructive. I'm not going to go into detail on the first part of your question other than to say, if you're talking about distribution of reports to Woodside shareholders, that is their accountability, not ours. In terms of the second question, I will confess I've forgotten the thrust of it because it's quite a lengthy piece. On the third one, in a general sense, the directors are very active in education, but in terms of ANZ, we have on all issues which relate to environment, to sustainability, to reputation, to the community, to how we engage with Australia overall, we have a dedicated committee which I chair and which has a regular education process, including bringing in outside speakers and outside experts. Can you remind me what your second question was, please? Yes. So it was pretty specific. Maybe the abbreviated version if you could, please, Edwina. It was pretty specific about who are you getting, what scientists, what science bodies are providing you information that it is still acceptable to build to support new and expanding fossil fuel operations and that they are somehow going to meet the Net Zero target for 2050 when the IPCC, the IEA, and the High-Level Expert Group say that financial institutions making Net Zero commitments cannot provide finance to companies involved in fossil fuel expansions. So where is the science that the directors are basing their decision on to continue to finance these operations? Where? I mean, shareholders need to know. Where are you getting it from? What's the company name? What's the body? Thank you. No, thank you for that. Look, I think, again, that relates really to the whole discussion on fossil fuels and climate change. So I'll hold that part of the question till we get to item five, and you're welcome to table it for there. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to move on to another phone question. Yes, we have a question on the phone from Paul Stevenson. Operator, please put him through. Welcome, Mr. Stevenson. Please proceed. Hi. Yeah, so my name's Paul Stevenson. I come from Central Queensland from near the town of Baralaba. It's in the heart of the Bowen Basin coal-producing region. I'm a member of Save the Dawson Group. We're a group of farmers, traditional owners, and community members from the region. We were formed to protect our community from the Baralaba South proposed coal mine, which is proposed on the banks of the Dawson River, eight kilometers upstream of the drinking water extraction points for the towns of Baralaba and Woorabinda Aboriginal community. In 2020, we undertook a community survey showing 97% opposition to the Baralaba South coal mine in the community in the region. The impact of the project would be devastating, with serious human rights consequences with respect to poisoning and depletion of critical drinking water supplies, destruction of country, and so on. In 2019, it was reported that ANZ provided a loan of AUD 250 million to AMCI, the company which is the current proponent of that project, and that loan remains current. So last year, Save the Dawson engaged very closely with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment, a very large global ESG initiative around the Baralaba South project. As a result of our formal complaint to the UNPRI, the former proponent of the Baralaba South coal mine withdrew from lodging an EIS for the project and later withdrew from the project altogether. I understand that ANZ is a signatory to the UNPRI, which commits it to the integration of ESG principles in investment decision-making processes. So firstly, I'd like to invite ANZ to meet with our communities and traditional owners to discuss this situation because this information might be new to ANZ that its provision of AUD 250 million to AMCI will go towards these coal expansion activities in the region. And we'd also ask for ANZ to commit to engaging with its clients to ensure the withdrawal of inappropriate projects like Baralaba South that don't align with its ESG commitments under the UNPRI and elsewhere. And if they don't withdraw those projects which don't align with ANZ's stated ESG principles, then funding is withdrawn. Now, this is not a specifically climate-related project. We're community members from on the ground who are directly impacted by the direct impacts of these projects, which include threats to indigenous and human rights. Paul, can I just jump in there? I mean, you're making some very important points, but I think we need to make sure we give everyone a chance to ask their questions. So can I suggest that's an item that relates to our policies on climate change and fossil fuels? And as I said at the beginning of the meeting, I think it's important that we have some order, and so we'll take those questions at that time. I would say that our group members are primarily farmers and traditional owners on the ground. We're entirely constituted of locally impacted community members. So our concerns are not really specifically around climate change. It's around the direct impacts of these coal projects which are right on our doorstep. Well, I'm very happy to take it up when we get to resolution five. And can I say to anybody else waiting on the phone, if you've got a similar or related question, I think in the interests of everybody here, because a lot of people have come a long way today in order to be able to participate, to hear from the board, to hold us to account, and to make their contribution. So can I respectfully ask that anyone who's got an environmental/climate/fossil fuel-related question that you hold off to putting that question until we get to item five so we can keep moving with the meeting. But thank you for the question, and also I can appreciate the importance of the topic you've raised. Certainly, for anyone on the land, the relationship with the land is very close and indeed very essential in terms of being able to get a good living and in order to live in a community that will be whole. So I'm not in any way wanting to diminish the importance of it. Let's go to the next question on the phone. Yes, we have a question on the phone from Mr. Jeff Wilson. Operator, please put him through. Welcome, Mr. Wilson. Please proceed with your question. Thank you. And thanks, Chair. Look, unfortunately, my question earlier reads, "Franking credits are misunderstood." There's actually two proposed legislations out there from the government at the moment on franking credits. The off-market buyback one is the one you answered, which wasn't the question I asked. The other legislation talks about franked dividends and capital raising, and it broadly means that if any capital is raised to pay a dividend either before that dividend or after, then that dividend is deemed to be unfranked. And my question was about Wayne Byers saying that during COVID or times of crisis, encouraging banks to raise capital and keep paying dividends. I'm trying to understand how you'll—if we come into another difficult period, the GFC, etc., then if you can't raise capital that's associated with paying a fully franked dividend, you'll either have to pass—you won't be able to pay a dividend, or you'll be raising capital at a very low price, so your cost of capital will increase significantly. My question was, how does the proposed legislation affect ANZ and impact your cost of capital and your profitability? Okay. Thank you, Jeff. Shayne, yeah, sorry. Jeff, I understand the question. I guess the difficulty here, we're talking about a series of hypothetical situations here. What I can say is that, and having been through the GFC and through more recent and through the COVID crisis, that the reality is we're very fortunate to be well-regulated and governed here in Australia, and the regulators and government, and I have either persuasion, have always shown themselves to be pragmatic and being willing to deal into the situation as it evolves, and there is no better example of that, and then what happened during COVID, where all of the regulators, remember, we have multiple regulators, got together and very, very quickly were able to amend the rules and understandings to allow us to offer deferrals to customers with no penalty to either the customer or to ourselves. So I'm very confident that in situations of crisis that you are describing, that we would be able to work these situations through. So I don't think we can talk to you the hypothetical situation you gave, but I'm confident that the system itself works. Thanks, Shayne. And I'd like to believe, sorry, Byrne, go ahead. I think this particular legislation is largely focused not on the dividends that are paid in the ordinary course of business, but on abnormal dividends. It's a very nuanced legislation, but I think Shayne's answer sort of covered that as well. I think our track record as well is that we've been very diligent in managing capital and also in finding the proper and efficient way to get returns to shareholders. Correct. Okay. Thank you. We've got another question on the phone. We do. Operator, can you please put through the call for Mr. Luigi Bucello? Welcome, Mr. Bucello. Please proceed with your question. My question is to the Chairman. I had a discussion with you at the last AGM where I was unable to access capital investment because I don't do internet. With this AGM, I tried to get hard copies of your proposal to start a new company, and I had made three attempts, and three times I got exactly the same document. Not one document that I got told me what you proposed to reimburse us with the assets you transferred to the holding company or anything about it. So I was unable to vote for the scheme because I knew nothing about it. Okay. Well, Luigi, I think we'd be keen to learn from that, and I'm sorry that you've had that experience because our desire is to get as many shareholders to vote as possible. We mailed out over 250,000 proxy forms and notices of meeting, and so I'm. Yes, you mailed. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt you, Paul. You did mail the voting proxy forms, but no way did they tell me what was involved, what you're going to propose to transfer over, and did we get compensation as shareholders for losing that asset? Okay. Well, we'll pick up. I'm happy to answer more questions on the scheme when we get to the scheme meeting because shareholders will basically be getting a swap of shares and therefore not losing out. But in terms of, I would like to understand why if you requested the scheme booklet that it didn't come to you because our desire is to get it to as many people as possible. Actually, we're keen to have as many votes as possible. There is a number of pages in the notice of meeting which do outline some elements of the scheme and which would provide some information. But Luigi, can I get you perhaps afterwards to be available to our investor relations team so we can understand why your requests weren't fulfilled? Three times I asked for it, and three times I got exactly the same paper. Now, I've got another question. This is for Shayne Elliott. I won't delve into the main question, but I was going to have a shot at your bet, Shayne, but I'll go in brief. I'm very disappointed at the lack of all the slackness in the level of service at the moment that I'm getting from the local ANZ banks. You've closed all the country branches that are around me, and you've moved us on to Pakenham. I recently went into Pakenham and found a notice that says on Tuesday you cannot have counter service. My credit card payment is due every now and then on a Tuesday. If I want to do it over the counter, I've got to travel to Berwick. That's my nearest branch, right, if I want to do counter service. Now, also at the same time, on the 22nd of September, I called the ANZ Pakenham to request a term deposit rate. The Bank of Melbourne offered 2.49%, CBA offered 2.2%, ANZ offered 0.65% when the going rate at the time was 2.85%. When I asked the customer service officer to contact head office to see if they can negotiate a rate, I was told, "No." I got the email back, "That's all they're going to offer you." That, in my opinion, is slack service. In my days in the ANZ Bank, we consulted with head office and tried to get a deal for the ANZ and for the customer. Where is the loyalty now? You keep saying you're closing branches because people don't want service. They want to do it on the phone. Some of the old people like me want to see face-to-face interaction. Thank you. And I'm sorry that that's been your experience, and it's difficult, and I'm not making an excuse for it, but we have a lot of things to balance. The reality is that less than 8% of our customers use branches regularly, and that continues to fall. And at some point, maintaining the branches becomes just not viable to keep them open when we have no customers, and particularly not customers coming and doing things of any particular value. And so it becomes really hard. Of course, people rely on the branch. I understand that. But we can't wait until there's no more customers in the branch. So at some point, we make the difficult decision to close them. But of course, there'll always be those that are impacted, and I'm sorry that that is the case. But we do think about it very, I think, pretty thoroughly, and we have a process of going through in terms of making that decision. Because to your point, I mean, we have no interest in making it harder for our customers. Why would we want to do that? We want to keep as many customers as we can. In terms of the rate, look, it is a competitive market, and there'll be days when we're not going to have the sharpest price, and I think I mentioned that earlier today in terms of interest rates. But at the moment, we have the very best rate available, and if you are able to sign up, and I accept that you don't want to do that online, and I accept that that's not for everybody, but for those who can, we're offering 3.75%. So we do our best. I take the feedback on about your particular location in terms of Pakenham, and I'll talk to the team there to make sure that we reassess the hours and the days that that branch is open. Thank you. Yes, yes. Second part of my question to you, Shayne, was lack of service. I recently wrote to you twice in my experience at Cranbourne Branch, and I've never got a reply back from you, but I did from someone else on the first time. And in case you don't recognize who I am, I'm the guy that David Gonski, when he was Chairman, asked you to come and visit me at my farm. You proceeded to go to the Australian Open and completely forgot about me whatsoever. Well, with respect, I do recall that and I do remember. I know who you are. If the letter didn't come to me, I apologize. I do reply to all the letters that come and all the emails. I think I agreed to come, and that happened, then we had the COVID happen and if I'm in that night, I'm happy to revisit that, and if I'm in the neighborhood, I'd certainly come and see you. Don't worry. I'm no longer farming, mate. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for your question. I apologize for the experience you've had, and as Shayne said, we will revisit Pakenham and understand what we can do to lift service there. Okay. We've got another question on the phone, I believe. Yes. One final question from Mr. Vishad Sharma. Operator, please put them through. Welcome, Mr. Sharma. Please proceed. Hi. Good morning. As some of you may be aware, HSBC has ruled out project finance to new or expanded coal and oil and gas fields. So Vishad, can I jump in there? My apologies. Is this going to be a question relating to fossil fuels and lending? It's a question relating to your competitor and their policies on that subject, but I think it's relevant at this stage to be asked. With respect, because we do want to make sure we get questions, but to run the meeting efficiently, I'm going to ask you if you can bring that question up when we get to item five. Sorry. I asked you, Paul. I was the last question on the line, so if it's not taking too much time, I'd still like to ask it. I apologize, but it can't be one rule for one and a different rule for all. It's got to be run the same way. So look, thank you for the question. I'm aware of the issue you raised, which is HSBC's statements overnight. So what I'm going to suggest is that you put that to us at item five, and I'll certainly be very happy to answer it. I think that's the end of our questions, if I'm correct. So with that, then, if there are no further questions, we'll now move to the formal resolutions. Apologies. There is a question here in the room. So microphone two. Thank you, Chairman. Our next question is from Craig Caulfield from Queensland. Thank you for that indulgence, Chairman. You spoke initially when you opened up of three and a half thousand fraudulent loan applications discovered with new technology, perhaps artificial intelligence or something like that. This indicates that there's been thousands of fraudulent loans in prior years that have been approved, given that this is new technology you're finding. Our family's ANZ home loan confirms these types of failures. And for balance, I would just say that I've had 40 loans with ANZ. 38 have been excellent. I've been treated wonderfully across the board over 45 years by ANZ, but it hasn't all gone to plan, and Mr. Elliott's assisting me with that. My bank is ANZ. But it feeds into Michael Sanderson's comments on failures in the internal dispute resolution and serial systemic failures at AFCA. When we met David Locke, he revealed that two-thirds of AFCA employees were bankers or lawyers. In my farm repossession case with the CBA, the lead bank ombudsman that determined against me was formerly a CBA banker. The CBA case manager was formerly an ombudsman. And both the banker and the ombudsman worked together for three years previously, ruling against me. So you can see the conflicts of interest, real or perceived. We've seen ASIC's actions against star directors drill down directly to boards about not being properly informed of issues rising up to board level, etc. I'm sure you're all aware of that. I'm hopeful directors will be available this afternoon, and you've said in the annual report that you would be, but I'm aware you've got two meetings, and I wouldn't like to hear that, "Oh, well, we've got flights booked, and I'm sorry we can't meet with you now." So I hope those arrangements because I would like to meet the directors that are members of the Ethics and Governance Committee. So if I can meet them this afternoon, that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Craig, for your question, and thank you for your business. I'm sorry to hear of your experiences with those two loans. I know Shayne is looking at that and is working with you on it. I'll certainly be joining you all outside for tea and coffee when we finally get to the end of both meetings. I'm happy to talk there and to have a conversation. What I think, if there are specific customer issues, we're not in a position today to address those. You've done the right thing by raising them with the organization, but I'll certainly be available to talk to anybody outside. Oh, it's not to raise specific customer issues. It's to talk about more general ways to improve ethics, governance, culture. Happy to hear it. So you did say that you would be there, but you didn't say the other directors would. I'm sure every director who can will join you outside. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Have we got another question? So microphone four. Thank you, Chairman. We have another question from Michael Sanderson from the Hunter Valley. Hello again. This relates to branches, and Luigi touched on it. Banking is a unique service with unique powers and responsibilities. I put it to ANZ. It's not possible to digitize personal interaction, reflect it in a file, or do it remotely. ANZ now has the smallest regional bank network in Australia, with just 179 of its original 615 branches outside the metropolitan cities still open, a cut of 71%. Branch closures are further complicated by the Suncorp deal, as reported in the Financial Review on the 13th. Does ANZ claim that the branches it has closed are unprofitable? If so, would it submit this claim to an independent audit? How do ANZ branch closures comply with the mandatory contractual warranty of the Code of Banking Practice that states, "We are committed to providing banking services which are inclusive of all people, including: A, older people, B, people with disability, C, Indigenous Australians, including remote locations, and D, people with limited English." How will the Suncorp deal impact on these branch closures? Thank you, Michael. So the essence of your question is the Suncorp question. Is that right? No, no. That was an add-on. Just an add-on. Okay. So maybe you could clarify for me what is it you'd like us to answer? The reason for closing is profitability. If it is profitability, would you be prepared to subject to an independent audit? Okay. Thank you. And the Banking Code of Practice is mandatory. The ANZ has adopted that. So there is a contractual warranty. And closing the branches, it would seem breaches the access of older people, people with disability, Indigenous Australians, including remote locations, and people with limited English. Thank you. Okay. I understand the point. So I think the challenge we've always got here is the change in customer behavior. I'm trying to get the balance between viability, as you raised it, and making sure there's accessibility. We do operate today over 400 branches nationally, and I take your point. That's a significant reduction on where we were. But as Shayne mentioned earlier, when we look at who comes to a branch, only 8% of ANZ customers regularly use a branch. So it is a real challenge for us trying to get the right balance between the two. In terms of governance, it's the board's job to be accountable for making sure that we're making the right decisions and we're making them appropriately. So I think that's where you need to hold the accountability for any audit or any review rather than us going externally. In terms of moving forward, we do a lot of work when we close a branch to make sure we are addressing access issues. In particular, there's a bias towards older Australians who prefer to use branch banking. And so we do reach out to people over 65, and we look to provide them with alternative ways in which they can bank with us and can transact. So for example, we changed our systems technology so that you could link a Visa Debit card to a passbook and therefore be able to still transact. We did a very interesting survey recently. So I am not in any way diminishing the concerns and issues you raised, but people are embracing digital banking. We looked at over 50,000 customers, over 65, who had actually used a branch twice in the previous six months and who we had then worked with as part of our transitions to move to digital. Over 90% of those customers had started to use digital banking, and a third of them had fully moved to digital banking. So that's the balance we're trying to navigate. We do absolutely understand our responsibility to the community and to the Code of Practice, and we're doing our best, Michael, to try and get the right balance on that. I have another question, but I'd just like to make a comment to your comment. I personally am an ex-farmer, and I dealt with two banks. None of them was yours. One was Bank of Queensland, one was a NAB. I had a personal interaction with the NAB side, and everything was sweet. Okay? He understood me. He met me. I dealt with him for a while. So on the other side, BOQ, it was remote, and that experience was catastrophic. So personal interaction is important, especially in a rural concept. But I'll move on to the next one. That was a comment. Now, you have this chap here, Mr. Key. How are you, Mr. Key? I didn't recognize you, bro. You must be well fed in this banking thing. Mr. Key will be able to probably give you some expert advice on this one. There's a chap by the name of Jim Anderton that, while his predecessor, Helen Clark, was Prime Minister of New Zealand, set up a Kiwib ank. Just a bit of background here. Between 1991 and 1996, the Keating Labor Government sold out working, indeed, all Australians by privatizing the Commonwealth Bank. My question is, would the ANZ support the reestablishment of a publicly owned bank to offer all Australians bread-and-butter banking, irrespective of location and circumstances? Would the ANZ support the reintroduction of Glass-Steagall regulation that separates bread-and-butter banking from risky speculative banking? I think Mr. Key could probably give us a bit of background on the circumstances related to the now public bank Kiwib ank that they've done through the post office, the sum. Thank you, Michael. Look, it's a hypothetical question, and I think we'd have to look at it on its merits if it arose. I'm aware of KiwiBank and of the work it does in New Zealand. We have a different set of circumstances in Australia, much bigger challenges, to your point, with population density. But look, we'll look at things on their merits when they arise. But thank you for your question. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Have we got one more? Microphone number one. It's Rita, I think. Thank you, Chairman. We have another question from Rita. Thank you. Can I just thank you for your freedom of information or freedom of speech, sorry, comment earlier? Not that I intend on waffling or a large, long question, but I did fly here all the way from Perth, so if I wasn't granted more than two minutes as a shareholder, I'd be very angry. So thanks for that. In regards to ANZ's customer advocate, ANZ quietly removed its internal appeals avenue for aggrieved customers by closing down the customer advocate arm, which provided borrowers an additional appeals process within the bank if they were not happy with the bank's decision through the bank's own internal dispute resolution process. ANZ now has implemented a customer fairness advisor. Could you tell us why the customer advocate role was removed, and how does the customer fairness advisor role differ from the customer advocate, and is there anything that an aggrieved customer now is not going to receive, given the customer advocate role has gone? Thank you, Rita, for the question. And indeed, customer fairness advocate is here. So Evelyn is outside and manning one of the stands. So happy to follow up with Shayne. I know you're keen to answer this. I'll answer that, Rita. Thanks for the question. It's a fair question. Actually, ANZ was an innovator and had the idea of this customer advocate office many, many years before others and way before my time. And it was something we maintained for many years, and I think it added real value. Yeah? The issue was there was being a change in the legislation that requires us to essentially get to a closure point with customer complaints much faster. So there's a deadline. And so the problem was by having that extra step available, it meant we wouldn't be able to meet the timetable commitments we had. So the only option was we had to remove it. Now, what we have done is we still have a customer advocate, but it's not a sequential process. So at the moment, you went through complaints. If you weren't happy, you could go to the advocate, so we still have a person there that looks out for customer interests as part of the process, but it's changed. Yeah? So that's the reason. It was really just to meet the timetable requirements, which are perfectly reasonable, and to do the right thing. Customer fairness advisor we've actually had for a number of years, and what that role is not to get involved in individual customer issues or complaints, but more thematically. So Evelyn works directly for me. She works very closely with our teams to make sure that our products and services are designed to be fair, that are operated in a fair way, etc. Now, there are times when we get a serious complaint or a customer has an issue where I might ask Evelyn to go and have a look at that and say, "Can we learn from this?" So it's an advisory role, but a very, very impactful and very, very important part of my team to make sure that we continually improve the way we treat with customers. Can I just clarify? So with the condensed timeframe, which now is 31 days? Yeah. Or 30 days? Yeah. Are you saying that through your IDR process, if that was to take the whole 30 days, if a customer is aggrieved, they can contact the fairness officer? Or is it only your internal process? No. It's an internal process. We've got this new timetable, and as I said, by the time it went through complaints, go back to the customer. The customer says, "I'm not happy." Go to the advocate. By design, you were never going to meet the timetable, and so we would be outside the requirements of the legislation, so we said we just have to redesign the process. We have to take that step out in order to comply, but the principle of making sure that customers are comfortable customers complain about all sorts of things and perfectly reasonable. To make sure that we are treating them fairly, reasonably, empathetically, listening, and getting to an agreed outcome in a short period of time is still there, and we still have the office of the advocate really putting the customer's point of view on the table. So I don't think there's been any diminution in the service or the process. But technically, you're right, Rita, in the sense that there's that one less step in there so that we can comply with legislation. Yeah. And that's a critical step because through the process. That's the legislation. The customer is actually cut out while the bank does its own review. That's the legislation. You have to. And then you have to. For the complainant. Yeah. Okay. But as you know, people have multiple avenues of coming to the bank, not just through the formal complaints. People write to me, as you have availed yourself of previously. And we'll continue to do our best to make sure that that whole process around complaints is as fair and reasonable as possible. Okay. I'm not going to talk about my own issue, but I would like to ask, can I arrange a meeting with you, Mr. Riley? Let's talk about it off. We have this conversation every year. Yeah. I know. We can have it after the meeting, so I'm just bringing it up again, and I am a customer. Request is noted, Rita. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We have another question. Microphone number three. Thank you, Chairman. We have Robert Cooper of Glen Osmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and the board for coming to Adelaide. We're only a small state, but we're an important and innovative state. So thank you for coming to South Australia for your board meeting. I'm a trustee of a superannuation fund, and most superannuation funds have a large exposure to financial institutions. So, Mr. Chairman, when APRA instructed banks not to pay dividends to shareholders during the global financial crisis to protect the banks from their capital exposure for positions to protect customers from financial issues, that had an impact on shareholders. It was that there were no franking dividends coming in from banks to shareholders. So self-managed super funds who support and rely on dividends to pay our way and to keep ourselves off the pension, we were in a difficult position. My question is, did you have any choice in not paying or paying dividends during the APRA instruction? And in the future, if APRA decides to do this again, can you say, "No, we will pay dividends to our shareholders"? Look, can I start by saying we're acutely aware of the dependence that so many of our shareholders have on a regular dividend. And that's why if you look at the actions of your board, we've worked very hard again this year to make sure that we're achieving our dividend payout ratio between 60%-65% cash profit. And indeed, we've increased the dividend this year. And the way we think about how we operate is to try and make sure we deliver those dividends as efficiently, as tax-efficiently as possible to you as shareholders. So I can understand how distressing and disruptive it was in the middle of COVID that there was a hiccup in the dividend process. I'd note that we delayed the first half dividend, but we did pay one ultimately in September 2020. In terms of, again, it's a hypothetical. We have to work with the regulator. I think you'd agree it's not in the interests of your bank that we get into a situation where we're at war with a regulator. So we do look to try and influence their thinking. We give them feedback on how they're operating, but we just have to wait and see what rules or what the environment is as it comes about. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So we're back at microphone number one. Thank you, Chairman. We have a question from Barry Pearson. Thank you, Chairman. Excuse me. I just want to talk about core banking. Now, probably about September, October, ANZ's Share Investing moved over to CMC investing. Now, that was a part of a core business years ago, so I'm assuming Share Investing, we're not making a profit, so you shut it down. Second question I've got is digital banking. It's got its good points and its bad points, but let's take a look at for Riverland now, what's happening up north from Adelaide just now. Places like Walker's Flat or Bowhi ll have been flooded out. They've got no mobile, no internet banking, and they can't go to a branch because they're closed. So what do they do? Thank you. Thank you for the question. On the first question, which relates to the share investing business, if I take a step back, what ANZ has been focused on over the last six-to-seven years is on looking to simplify our operations because we began with operations across Asia and a whole range of involvements domestically in different businesses. The net effect of that is that we have quite a high cost base. Also, it wasn't always the case that we could focus enough on our core business, which is retail, commercial, and institutional banking. We have been through a process of simplification and of often finding better owners, we believe, for those assets. CMC was one of those. It's one of many things. I talked about disposing of the wealth advisory business earlier on and also the margin business to Bendigo and Adelaide. So it's been part of a process, a deliberate process to streamline the bank so that we can focus on the core banking services we offer day-to-day in retail, commercial, and institutional. In terms of your second question, and I'll ask Shayne to comment a bit as well, very sensitive to the hardship that's created in areas of natural disaster, whether it's floods or whether it's fires or whatever else. And your point on the lack of availability of infrastructure is absolutely right and well taken. We do look to deploy other ways in which people can access us and get support in those areas. And Shayne, did you want to talk in particular about that? I need to say you're absolutely right. In these tragic situations, it's really difficult for people who are impacted. I would just note that having a branch isn't necessarily the solution. I refer to the Lismore flooding. Our branch was flooded. We're impacted just like other people in the community, so we weren't able to open the branch anyway. So that's not always going to be the solution. I don't know what the solution is. You're right. In those situations, it's almost impossible for people to access funds. So I don't have an answer to you, but I'll put it to you that the mere fact that if there had been a branch, it probably would have been impacted anyway. I'll just close off. I was CEO of Optus until 2012. One of the big changes in Australia in the last decade and a half is that after disasters like this, as well as getting in the emergency services, they actually asked the telecoms operators to come in quickly because the mobile network is essential in helping locate people who are missing and being able to identify them. I would hope that in response to areas like this, there's been some response from those agencies and that you're starting to see access to the internet come back. Getting back to my first question, ANZ share investing moved over to CMC investing. I was asking, were you losing money in that area? Okay. If you were, how much were you losing? If you weren't, but only making a small profit, it's called customer service. I had money tied up with the ANZ Bank, and I still do. But as far as I'm concerned, ANZ Investing a few years ago, they were a very good, reliable crew, and you got rid of them. I can answer that. That's a fair question. I would remind people, and when you said it's a core business, actually, that was a business that was acquired and bought. It was the old E*TRADE business that ANZ acquired in the early 2000s. So it hasn't always been core. The sad reality of that business is we didn't run it very well. Now, it may have been great customer service, but we had all sorts of technology issues and operational risk issues, and we did not run it well. And so we were unable. It's not a core business to us. We're bankers. We're not stockbrokers. And so we struggled. We tried many things. We put in different leadership teams. We invested in new technology. We initially partnered with CMC to try to give it some stability and maintain the service, and we were unable to do so. So it wasn't just about profitability, although the business was not profitable. It was really about we need to do businesses on behalf of shareholders that we can run well, that do not expose us to unreasonable risk. And so we made the difficult decision that this was not one of those businesses. And so we didn't shut it down. We sold the business, and it transferred to CMC, who continue to run that business today, but not under our brand or connected to ANZ. But you haven't told me how much money you were losing on that area? I don't know that it's appropriate for us to talk about. Is it appropriate? I'm a shareholder. I'm asking a question on the part of that area. I think. Could you lose money on? Actually, I think it's in the interest. I understand they were a very good crew. Now, some were upset. They lost their jobs, and some moved over, to my knowledge. But you haven't answered my question. Were we losing, say, AUD 100,000 a year, AUD 200,000 a year? Were we losing AUD 5 million a year in that area? I think. Simple question. You must have a figure. You must have a figure somewhere. I think if we start heading down the path of answering questions on specific items of business, we start cutting across our disclosure policies. And there's a commercial issue here. We may not always want our competitors or others to know how our businesses operate day-to-day or what sort of profitability they have at a micro level. So I think we respect the question, but that's not something we would look to disclose at this time. All right. Thank you. Just one final quick comment. I think my questions were very short here. So do I get a prize compared to other people? Your questions certainly were to the point. So thank you for that, and thank you for your interest in the bank. We've got another question online. So, Kath, would you like to read that to us, please? Yes. Thank you, Chairman. And this is the last question for Resolution One. It's coming online from Mr. T. Yeo. The bank did an on-market buyback of a few billion dollars about one and a half to two years ago when ANZ shares were trading at AUD 27 plus. The bank also did a rights issue recently, raising three plus billion six months ago at AUD 18.95. This is more than AUD 8 below the buyback cost per share. While it has been a great outcome for those shareholders who were in the position to participate in both transactions, it was not so for the majority of smaller shareholders who do not have large enough holdings to sell and also do not have the extra funds to subscribe to the rights issue. The question is, at the time of the on-market buyback, could the bank have foreseen the possibility of the Suncorp or any potential acquisitions? Thank you. Thank you. And I think this is going to be a very clear answer, which is, I think you know the Hollywood saying that it took me 25 years to become an overnight sensation. We've actually been looking at Suncorp since 2008, and we've been looking hard to see if we could find a way to be an attractive candidate to acquire it. It did develop very quickly. And so, I mean, certainly, we would not have anticipated specifically at a point in time that we would be able to acquire the bank. In fact, I was traveling when it arose, and I cut my trip short in order to get back to be here for the formal board meetings that were required in order to progress it. So no, we couldn't have predicted it. I should just add, though, that I take your point that not every shareholder would have been able to take advantage of it. But ANZ's board made a very deliberate decision for which I know a number of shareholder groups have given us praise. And that is, we created what is known as a pro rata rights issue. And that's one in which we make sure that retail investors have the same opportunity to participate as institutional investors. And there has been a lot of criticism in Australia in the past that these sort of bookbuilds have not been done in that manner. So I thank you for the question. We could not have anticipated it. But when we did do the raising, we looked to do it in a highly equitable way. I think that's the end of questions both online and in the room. And if so, then thank you very much for the energy and enthusiasm that it's been shown. We've been talking for the best part of a couple of hours. So we'll now move to the formal resolutions. We now move to items 2A to 2C, which relate to the election and re-election of directors. Three of your directors, Jeff Smith, Jane Halton, and myself, are seeking election and re-election, respectively. Our experience and profiles are included in the notice of meeting, and the board, excluding the interested director in each case, recommends that shareholders vote in favor of each director standing today. The resolutions in relation to each person will be introduced separately, and there will be an opportunity for shareholders to ask questions about each candidate. First is the election of Jeff Smith. Jeff joined the board on the 1st of August this year, and he's retiring in accordance with the company's constitution, and being eligible, Jeff offers himself for election. Jeff will now say a few words in respect of his election. Thank you, Paul, and good morning or afternoon, shareholders. I appear before you today seeking your support for my formal election to the ANZ Group board after being appointed as a director in August of this year. I come to the ANZ board after finishing my executive role this month as Chief Operating Officer at World Fuel Services, a global energy management company based in Florida. Prior to this role, I held CIO roles at large global and Australian companies, including IBM, Telstra, and Singtel. In addition, while at Singtel, I took on leading all the shared services as the Chief Executive Officer of Singtel Business Services. ANZ is my only public company directorship, and I can commit the time and energy needed to fulfill my duties on the board. I believe I bring not only extensive experience in IT deploying global digital assets, but also managing complex cyber and back-office operations. Also, I've had over 10 years deploying secure services to the cloud, an experience I first gained at Sonrai becoming one of Amazon's first financial services customers globally. In addition, I am familiar with ANZ, having been an advisor on the company's International Technology Advisory Panel from 2016 to 2019. I am a proud dual citizen of both Australia and the United States, and I believe my technology and operations global experience as a senior-level executive should be a benefit to the shareholders if I am elected to the board. Thank you, Jeff. And now I'll create an opportunity for any questions in regards to Jeff's candidacy. Are there any questions? There don't seem to be any. Sorry, we do have a question in microphone one. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I note what Mr. Smith said about the benefits he brings. But as a resident of USA with directorship of Sonrai Security and advisory responsibilities to a couple of companies there, I would like to hear his comments on how he's able to manage the impact of those responsibilities with his responsibilities here in Australia. Thank you. It's a good question. And let me add to that initially by saying it was precisely because of those involvements in the technology and venture capital areas in the United States that we actually thought he was a very attractive candidate in addition to his extensive experience already both in banking and in telecoms and in technology with IBM. So actually, we see those as an asset. But Jeff, did you want to comment at all in terms of your time and availability? Yes. I think the one I'm on, a board of a privately held company, which is Sonrai. It's a cloud-based cyber operations security firm. And actually, I gain an awful lot of intelligence through that. But the commitments on that are very minor, being a privately held company. Advisory roles I have are limited as well, but they get me connections to some of the best companies in the world, not just from a technology point of view, but from a leadership and culture point of view. So I still have just finishing my executive role. I do have time to commit here. I still have a son that lives in Brisbane. So we're not only dual citizens. We're kind of my wife and I pretty much dual where we're going to be living and spending our time. So I feel I have the time necessary to support the appointment. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. Okay. If there are no further questions, I'm not seeing any questions in the room. If there are no further questions, I'll now show details of the proxies received before the meeting. So, secondly, we now come to the re-election of Jane Halton, AO PSM. Jane joined the board in October 2016, and she was elected by shareholders at the 2016 AGM and re-elected at the 2019 AGM. Jane is retiring in accordance with the company's constitution and, being eligible, offers herself for re-election. Jane will now say a few words in respect of her re-election. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon, shareholders. My name is Jane Halton, and today I am seeking re-election for a third term as a director of the ANZ Group. I was first appointed to the board in October of 2016 and was elected by shareholders at the AGM in December of that year. Before retiring from the Australian Public Service in 2016, I held several departmental secretary roles, with my final position being Secretary of the Department of Finance. While all of my roles as senior public servant had a heavy financial component, as Secretary of the Finance Department, I was responsible for delivering the Australian budget as well as overseeing many billions of dollars of property and other national assets. I believe that my background at the highest levels of national finances has provided a very clear benefit to shareholders as I've undertaken my board duties. I'm an independent, non-executive director at ANZ, and in the past year, I attended all meetings of the board and ensured I was well prepared in advance of those meetings. As part of my role with the board, I chair the Digital Business and Technology Committee. I'm also a member of the Human Resources Committee, the Ethics, Environment, Social, and Governance Committee, the Nomination and Board Operations Committee. ANZ Group is my only directorship with an ASX-listed company. I believe I have been able to devote the appropriate amount of time to my board duties. My interests beyond the bank tend to deal with some of the biggest issues facing our community and economy, which I think has been quite useful to my board role. These outside interests include my work with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, known as CEPI, and the Australian Council on the Ageing, COTA. As well in September, I completed an independent review of Australia's COVID-19 vaccine and treatment procurements for the Australian government. I look forward to continuing my role as a representative of shareholders on the board, and I thank you for your support as I seek re-election. Thank you, Jane. Are there any questions in relation to Jane's candidacy? Please, microphone one. Thank you, Chairman. The question involves skin in the game. As Ms. Halton presently holds insufficient, or at least at report date, held insufficient shares to meet the standards proposed by ASA or by the bank itself. We'd like to hear whether she has intentions of changing that situation? Yeah. Thank you for that question. And this relates to a requirement we have that directors hold 100% of their member fee in shares. And indeed, as chair, I'm required to have a higher allocation in terms of my requirement. And we do report on that in the annual report. It's to demonstrate alignment and conviction about the strategies we have at ANZ. Jane met those requirements, but what's happened is as the share price has reduced, it's triggered a situation in which she's now below those requirements. So it's a factor of what's happened with the share price. At about AUD 24.86, she'd actually meet the requirements today. She and I have spoken, and Jane is absolutely committed to resolving that very quickly and to getting back in line despite the fact that the share price is lower. So hopefully that resolves. Thank you. Any other questions? If there are no more questions, or we've got a question in the microphone too. Thank you, Chair. We have one question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Halton. Are you going to resolve the issue of the shares by increasing the price or buying more shares? I think it's only, look, I've got to be careful how I answer it, actually. The duties of directors are to act in the long-term best interests of the company, and the share price is relevant, and we are certainly very conscious of its importance to shareholders and indeed of the dividend, but we balance all that in terms of making sure we're looking after the long-term interests, so Jane's commitment was to increase her shareholding. Thank you. Thank you. Question, microphone number one, Rita. Can I just ask what time frame that would happen in? Because as a shareholder, if you're a low-level shareholder, so you just have the bare minimal, when the share price goes down, the bank actually dissolves your shareholding automatically, and you have no say if you don't watch it and you don't stay on top of it. So as a director, if the shareholding has gone down, what time frame is that going to be rectified? I'm not familiar with what you've been saying, Rita, about the. I am. Okay. Well, I'll take your word for it. But can I just say actually, Rita ma'am, do you want to just clarify a little bit more what you meant by that? Yeah. So I have shares, but I only have the you have to have 500 shares. AUD 500 is the minimum to come to an AGM as a shareholder and ask questions. So through our Bank Warriors advocacy, that's what we've done. And with some other banks, I have higher shareholdings. So when the share price goes down and goes under that 500 because the share price has fallen, your shareholding is dissolved because you don't hold enough in the bank. By the time you realize, you get a letter from the bank, and your shareholding has been canceled, and it can't be rectified. So you have to go through the process again so that we are at a disadvantage. So just I think there's a couple of things to clarify, Rita. First of all, we don't cancel holdings. And also, to attend an AGM, you actually only need one share to come along to the meeting. I think what you might be thinking about there is what's known as an unmarketable parcel. And that's to do with the quantity of shares you need to have to be able to trade effectively on the market. No, we had to buy 500 minimum to be able to attend an AGM, not one share, one lower. That's not. That used to be the old days, many years ago. Okay. Well, you can attend today with just one. What was the time frame that this would be rectified? As soon as possible. Directors have a challenge in that there are periods in which we're not allowed to trade because we're considered to have inside information on the performance of the company, and then there are periods which are defined when we are okay to get out and trade, so Jane's given the commitment. She's a really outstanding citizen, AO PSM. I'm quite first of all, I think we're very fortunate to have her on the board, and second of all, I'm quite confident she'll address this. I am not saying that. I just want to make sure that what applies to one applies to the other. It doesn't matter what level. Of course, we don't necessarily want people to know the exact moment in time when Jane's going to trade. We wouldn't want them to take advantage of that. I think we're going to be confident she'll handle it very appropriately. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. If there are no further questions, we'll now show details of the proxies received before the meeting. We now come to my own re-election. And for this item, Graeme Liebelt, who's our longest-serving director, will take over as chair of the meeting. Thank you, Graeme. Thanks, Paul. Good afternoon, everyone. So Paul joined the board in November 2019 and was elected by shareholders at the 2019 AGM. And then he was appointed chairman in October 2020. Paul's retiring in accordance with the company's constitution and being eligible offers himself for re-election. And Paul will now say a few words in respect of his re-election. Thanks, Paul. Thank you, Chairman. It's been a privilege serving on the board, and I'm honored to have the opportunity today to again put myself forward for election. I thought I'd spend just a couple of minutes explaining my background and qualifications for the role. Firstly, I've been on the board for three years, and I've served as chairman since 2020. During that time, we've continued our focus on strengthening the bank today while also preparing it for the future. The announced acquisition of Suncorp and the associated capital raise were particular highlights this year, along with returning our home loan business back to growth. Before joining the ANZ board, I had a long track record in the telecommunications industry where I've worked in a number of roles. Probably most relevant is the fact that I was the CEO of Optus for seven and a half years between 2004 and 2012. I'm a non-executive chair of the holding company for Singtel's Australian operations, well, for the majority of them, which is a non-governance advisory role primarily for Optus, as I explained earlier. These days, I'm actually a professional non-executive director, although ASX remains my only ASX-listed commitment. Previously, I served on the boards of both Coca-Cola Amatil and Healthscope, which were both successfully sold to other interests. In the case of Coca-Cola Amatil, it was bought by the European operations of Coke. Healthscope was sold to a group of companies, including the leading Canadian company, Brookfield. You might have heard an Irish lilt coming through in my accent today. I am proudly born and bred in Ireland, but arrived in Australia 35 years ago, and I'm very much an Australian today. I remain active in the public sector where I chair the federal government company that's building the Western Sydney International Airport, and I'm also a director of the non-profit St Vincent's Health Australia. All up my track record here at ANZ, my experience in managing a large company, my time as a director not only in the private sector but as a government sector director means that I believe I can continue to contribute positively in my role as chair of the bank board, particularly at a time like this when the bank is facing major change and rising customer expectations. So with that, I respectfully put myself forward for re-election, and it would be a privilege to serve again as chairman of the ANZ board. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Are there any questions? Mr. Ridley. Acting Chairman, we note very favorably the comments that occurred much earlier about governance and the action being taken at board level for directors to become informed regarding their general responsibilities beyond attendance of board and committee meetings. I have one specific question which becomes a little less important given that earlier statement from Mr. O’Sullivan. But as chairman of the board, I'd like to know from him how he has encouraged fellow directors to individually learn in greater depth about aspects of the company's business operations. Yeah. Thank you. It's a very important question. First of all, when a director comes on board, there's an extensive orientation program which involves meeting with all the heads of the business units in the bank and getting an immersion in how they operate and in their key performance objectives. Second of all, as a board, we remain very active in continuing to learn. Every day, there's a distribution of any media references that are relevant in the financial services sector so that directors can stay abreast of developments not only in ANZ but in any organization. Internally, we have a number of committees which are focused on specific topics. A good example is the Digital Banking and Technology Committee, and that invites in relevant speakers with their topics of interest and also will provide extra reading or availability. Thirdly, whenever we can, directors actually go out and spend time visiting with customers because if you want to learn how your organization's working, spend time with a customer. Most recently, we spent a day in Toowoomba where we met what were primarily commercial customers, and also, we spent time in retail branches on other occasions. Finally, we do want to take account of financial trends globally, and that does mean that it is important to spend time with banks in other geographies, so in the last 12 months, directors have spent time looking to learn the lessons from regulators in the U.K., from the developments of digital banking from banks like ING in the Netherlands, and interestingly, from Poland where we've seen one of the fastest adoptions of digital banking very successfully in the Polish market. So those are just some examples of how we look to make sure we stay abreast of developments. Thank you, Paul. Are there any further questions? Well, if there are no more questions, I'll now show the details of the proxies received before the meeting. And now I'll hand back to Paul as Chair of the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Graeme, very much. And thank you, everybody, for your interest and questions. We now move to matters concerning remuneration. And item three concerns the adoption of the remuneration report. And item four concerns the grant of restricted rights and performance rights to Shayne Elliott, which forms part of his at-risk pay. The words of both proposed motions will now be displayed on the screen. Full details of how we structure remuneration are contained in the remuneration report, which is included in the annual report and for which we are seeking shareholder approval. We're also seeking shareholders' approval to grant Shayne Elliott restricted rights and performance rights as detailed in the notice of the meeting. The number of restricted rights and performance rights that Shayne will be able to exercise, and therefore the number of shares he will ultimately be entitled to acquire, will depend on the extent to which the relevant performance conditions are met. The performance conditions for both restricted rights and performance rights are assessed at the end of the four-year performance period with no retesting. That, again, is as set out in the notice of the meeting. To give you an overview, I now invite Ilana Atlas, the Chair of the Human Resources Committee, to say a few words. Over to you, Ilana. Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon, shareholders. There are two resolutions before you in relation to remuneration. And in these remarks, I'll just briefly address each one. The first, item three on your notice paper, is to adopt the remuneration report for the year ended 30 September 2022. As the chairman's already mentioned, we're very proud of what we achieved in 2022 despite another year of challenging market conditions. We believe the board struck the right balance this year in rewarding our executives for their good performance while also holding them accountable for areas that did not achieve expectations. Before I highlight the CEO's outcomes, I'll briefly touch on the changes we've made to our remuneration structure, which are outlined in more detail in the remuneration report. This is particularly important given 2022 remuneration outcomes are not directly comparable with the previous financial year. For context, we've been prompted to make these changes as a result of being required to implement APRA's new remuneration criteria standard known as CPS 511. As shareholders would expect, our approach has been to meet the letter and spirit of the standard, which has resulted in four significant changes. First, we've redesigned our long-term variable remuneration to now include a 50% weighting to restricted rights with risk-based measures as hurdles to vesting of the restricted rights, ensuring material weight to non-financial measures as required under CPS 511. Secondly, we've reduced the maximum remuneration opportunity that executives can earn to offset the greater certainty of vesting provided by the introduction of restricted rights, which resulted in a reduction of AUD 1.375 million or 14% for our CEO. Thirdly, we've changed the way we defer the payment of remuneration. Short-term remuneration is now deferred over two and three years, and long-term vesting is deferred over four to six years. Lastly, we introduced the right to claw back remuneration in certain circumstances. Turning to our CEO's remuneration, as we've already said, Shayne performed extremely well in a challenging environment, delivering a strong financial performance in 2022 while also progressing key initiatives aligned to our long-term strategy. Shayne again role-modeled ANZ's values and is a respected leader among employees, stakeholders, and the wider business community. The board assessed the CEO's performance as significantly moving the dial to support our future performance and growth. This resulted in a short-term variable remuneration outcome of 74% of Shayne's maximum opportunity or 93% of his target. This compares to 80% of target in 2021. Despite this stronger performance in 2022, Shayne's short-term variable remuneration was down AUD 140,000, reflecting the reduced remuneration opportunity under the new structure. There was no increase to Shayne's fixed remuneration in 2022. We noted in the remuneration report that the performance rights awarded in December 2018 to the CEO were tested at the end of last year. 51.6% of the performance rights vested, and the remaining 48.4% lapsed. The second remuneration-related resolution before you, number four on your notice paper, relates to the proposed grant of long-term variable remuneration in the form of restricted rights and performance rights to our CEO. We are seeking your approval today to allocate long-term restricted rights and performance rights with a combined value of AUD 3.375 million. Whether Shayne receives any value for these rights at the end of the four, five, and six-year deferral periods will depend on whether the performance conditions in each tranche are met. As set out in detail in the notice of meeting, the restricted rights with a value of AUD 1.6875 million have been subject to a pre-grant assessment by the board, which determined that the award should be made at full value and will be subject again to a pre-vest assessment of non-financial measures at the end of the performance period to determine whether they should vest in full. The performance rights with a value of AUD 1.6875 million will be subject to forward-looking performance hurdles. 75% will be measured on ANZ's total shareholder return relative to a financial services comparator group, and 25% will be measured against the absolute total shareholder return target. The board recommends shareholders vote in favor of items three and four. Thank you all, and I'll hand you back to the chairman. Thank you, Ilana. Are there any questions regarding items three and four? Are there any questions in the room? If I could answer, Chairman. The particulars of the restricted rights, how does that differ from the normal performance rights? Thank you. This was one of the ways in which we sought to align with the regulator's requirement that we introduce some non-financial metrics into our remuneration and that they had a material impact. So the way we will assess those is to have a pre-award and pre-vest set of criteria. We're conscious that there is a sensitivity among shareholders that we not depart too far from measures which have a direct impact on the performance of the business. And so the way we've chosen to do those pre-grants or pre-award assessments is to actually look at our risk performance. So the things we will look at is, has there been a material risk event? Has there been a requirement for the regulator to get engaged and perhaps to add additional supervision? And we're running a series of metrics internally which look at the risk culture and the effectiveness of risk presence inside the business. So those will be the material issues we look at. I should say we won't double-dip. If we've already adjusted remuneration in a prior period for some of those issues, we won't look to have a second go at it on this process. But we think this is the best way in which we can balance the requirements of CPS 511 from the regulator and demonstrating to shareholders that we are very much aligned with getting performance in the business. Thank you. Have we got a question online, Kath? Chairman, we have a question from Mr. Rajivan Suthananthan. Why isn't there a greater correlation between director's fees and the share price? Thank you. Thank you. And I think there's a really important principle here, which is we provide governance and supervision of the company. And as I said earlier, we are legally required to act in the best interests, long-term best interests of the company. And so therefore, what you want as director is not to be overly responsive to short-term issues where you might get a sugar hit in the share price, but you may not be acting in the best interests of the company. So that's why director fees are typically fixed. However, as we mentioned earlier, we do have a requirement that directors hold 100% of their fees as shares. And in my case, I'm required to have 100% of the chair fee as shares. And that's so that there is skin in the game and there is some alignment with shareholders. But hopefully, that principle, which exists across most public companies, is one which makes sense and which you can see is all about protecting your interests as shareholders. I think we've got a question in the room. Microphone number four. Thank you, Chairman. We have a question from Julian Vincent. Thanks. The bank's got a number of targets that are set in relation to financed emissions and portfolio emissions. And on power generation in particular, the emissions intensity is supposed to decline year on year to meet a 2030 target. However, in the last couple of years, and in particular this last year, it's gone up 47%. My question is, is anyone's remuneration, is anyone's incentives tied to these outcomes meeting these targets? And has remuneration been affected in the last year for the failure to meet these targets? Thanks for the question. And the way we adjudicate short-term variable remuneration is actually outlined in our group scorecard, which you'll see in the annual report. And on top of that, the board has discretion, which has exercised in the past. There's actually a specific answer to your question on emissions intensity, which I'd like to take up when we come to question items five and six. But basically, it relates to movements in the price of energy products. And as such, it doesn't relate to a breach of our approach and policy, but actually is something we believe will be rectified in the medium term. But I'll happily give you more details. No one's REM has been affected by this? I'm sorry? I didn't catch that. So no one's REM has been affected by this? If you look at our remuneration this year, you'll see that every executive has received different levels of remuneration. That takes into account their performance across all the metrics that we've outlined in the annual report. Actually, everyone on the executive team shows, to some extent or another, an impact from performance on all the metrics that we look at on their bonuses. Okay. Thank you. We've got a question to number microphone number two. Yeah. Thank you, Chairman. These questions from Craig Caulfield. Welcome back, Craig. Yeah. Thank you very much. First, I would like to congratulate the team. And I think it was Ms. Atlas mainly for putting together the REM report. There's a lot of work that's gone into it. I've read every page of it. You'll see all my notes in here. And so it did make it easier to understand. I won't say it was easy, and these REM reports need further simplification if it can be done, but I can see a lot of work has gone into it. A couple of comments, and you correct me if I'm wrong here. But my understanding is the retail bank division was previously run jointly by Ms. Carnegie and Mr. Hand. Not quite. If it's okay to jump in? Sure. Yeah. No, not quite. ANZ Plus, which was the development of the new technology platform for digital banking, that was run by Maile. And Australian Retail and Commercial was a combined unit under Mark Hand. Okay. And am I right to say then Ms. Carnegie has the capability? Has assumed stewardship over that retail area. Yeah. We've done a restructure, Craig. So what we've done is we've combined the ANZ Plus technology platform with the retail bank because ultimately, it will become a core part of the retail bank. And then we've split out the commercial part into a separate division. We announced last week the appointment of a new head of the commercial division. But in the interim, Shayne has been running that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that explanation. I understand that. When I'm looking at it, even through the mistakes that are made there, I correlated that when Ms. Carnegie was not involved in that retail division, ANZ was underperforming vis-à-vis to their peers, the four major banks, in obtaining new loans or the length of time to process a loan application. And it seems that you've sped the times up and rectified some things. Is that a result of Ms. Carnegie's leadership there, or is there other factors? Certainly, Maile's been a key contributor to that. I think in fairness, we'd have to say it's the wider team as well. It's a team business. There's been a huge amount of work that has been underway to restore our home loan momentum. Indeed, we made a commitment to you as shareholders that we would look to get back to growth and indeed to be growing in line with the majors by the end of last financial year. We hit that milestone in September. The huge effort has gone on at the working level, at the management level, at the executive. I would say it is a classic case that it takes a village to raise a child. It takes a lot of people to do it. Full marks to Maile. She is the ultimate accountable executive for the performance of the division. And so she deserves the credit and the praise for how we've managed to recover it. As indeed, I'd pay tribute to Shayne for his leadership in addressing this issue. Okay. Thank you for that. And the question section is the APRA Capital Reserve AUD 500 million enforceable undertaking. I'm still disappointed ANZ is the only major bank that wouldn't release that. That doesn't show great culture, accountability, transparency. But nonetheless, you know what's included in that report, and you're using it as a measurement tool. We just don't have sight of that. I would like to see greater metrics. Customer feedback, customer complaints, IDR, customer advocate. And there's different. How many cases go to AFCA? What is the average length of time? What's the average compensation? How many cases go to court? There's other metrics that can be included. But I would love to see all the banks have an annual report, a standard single page within this that said, "Here are the metrics, and this is where we stand." And go beyond Net Promoter Score is, to me, misleading. Thank you, Craig. That's helpful. Thank you. Okay. We'll take your feedback. A number of the metrics you're talking about actually AFCA does present. But we'll take your feedback and think about it. And can I assure you that the APRA capital overlay gets a huge amount of focus from the board and management? We discuss it at the risk committee. We discuss it at the board. And Shayne has an extensive program underway to look to get to the stage where we can have it released. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Just to comment on you mentioned AFCA. They have a data cube. So there's a lot of information that you can compare banks. What there's not in the AFCA data cube is the large, serious home lending cases Mr. Sanderson raised before. We can't see what's happening there. It's a misleading omission. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for the feedback. Cheers. Okay. There are no more questions on this item. Okay. There appear to be no further questions. So I'll now show details of the proxies received before the meeting regarding item three, which is the adoption of the remuneration report. I'll now also show details of the proxies received before the meeting regarding item four, which is the grant of restricted rights and performance rights to Shayne Elliott. Now, I'd like to address a point of order which we had for Mr. Vincent of Market Forces earlier on. My comments were about the position of those who lodged resolution five and six, which is an organization called Market Forces. As we've heard from sorry, as we have Mr. Vincent from Market Forces here with us today. I'm going to give him an opportunity to state what is Market Forces' position on the ongoing provision of finance to companies that continue to have any exposure to fossil fuels. But before doing so, let me just be clear about what resolution six says because I want to make sure it is clearly understood by everyone who's attending the meeting. Resolution six says, "Shareholders recognize the substantial transitional and physical risks of climate change and their potential financial impacts on our company. We also note our company's support for the Paris Climate Change Agreement and the goal of net zero emissions by 2050. Shareholders therefore request the company disclosure in subsequent annual reporting information demonstrating how the company's financing will not be used for the purposes of new or expanded fossil fuel projects." With that, let me invite Mr. Vincent to make a comment about Market Forces' position on whether Market Forces seeks the immediate withdrawal of financing for companies that continue to have any exposure to fossil fuels. And should he wish to do so, also to ask a question. Welcome. And please come to the microphone, Mr. Vincent. Thanks very much. And I'd also like to greet my fellow shareholders here who obviously I'm very keen to address on this matter. So look, this resolution was actually filed by Market Forces on behalf of hundreds of shareholders concerned for the security, not just of their investment in our company, but far more importantly, the security of the world we inhabit and the risks of humanity failing to keep climate change under control. So it's difficult to actually overstate how conservative and how straightforward this resolution is. All it seeks to do is have the bank clarify how it will not act through its financing to exacerbate what ANZ has already identified as a material business risk in the form of climate change through its fossil fuels, lending to fossil fuels and the risk of expansionary fossil fuels. It does not ask the bank to pull all finance out of activities that produce greenhouse pollution immediately, as has been represented in the past here in this room and through disclosures by the bank. It just asks the bank to demonstrate how it is not making the crisis of climate change any worse by financing additional and expansionary fossil fuel projects. The IEA, International Energy Agency, has made clear there's no room to expand fossil fuels if we're to meet the goal of net zero emissions globally by 2050. And while ANZ has committed itself to this net zero by 2050 goal, our financing routinely violates this commitment. Among the big four in Australia, ANZ has the worst approach to managing climate risk, and it's evidenced both in terms of financing and policy. Since the signing of the Paris Agreement, this bank has loaned at least AUD 2.4 billion to new fossil fuel projects that over their lifetimes will produce emissions equivalent to nine times Australia's national footprint, and it goes on today. ANZ took part in a AUD 1 billion loan to a refinancing to Santos this August, which refinanced and extended a 2022 deal related to the new Barossa gas field that is so emissions intensive it has been described as a CO2 emissions factory with an LNG byproduct, and I've commented already in this meeting about the additional human rights-related concerns about that same project. Now, our policies, far from managing climate risk, actually incentivize a rush towards new fossil fuel infrastructure. We're giving our biggest polluting clients three more years before there's any expectation they might produce transition plans. And that's a three-year period in which some of our biggest polluting clients are planning to lock in new coal, oil, and gas infrastructure that would add billions more tons of carbon pollution to the atmosphere. Far from restricting finance to companies planning to lock in new fossil fuel infrastructure, we're now putting more capital on the table that these companies can access. In our recent announcement of a AUD 100 billion so-called sustainability fund, we point out that this means more finance to some of our largest emitting customers with no expectation these customers will drop their proposed expansionary fossil fuel projects. Now, I could stand here and talk about the physical impacts of climate change and how, as a bank exposed across the whole economy, ANZ should be preventing the expansion of the fossil fuel industry out of self-interest as much as a desire to do the right thing for the climate. I could be pointing out how the bank is falling behind its peers in Australia and internationally. But really, this appeal is to shareholders who may be here listening, ready to vote on these proposals. Our company and our board are failing to even take the most basic steps to prevent climate risks spiraling out of control. ANZ is preparing to make more money available to companies that have just taken part in a massive fossil fuel expansion, driving up both the price of energy and greenhouse gas emissions, and can do so and can do more of the same in the coming few years, so to my fellow shareholders, I commend these resolutions to you, and to address your question, Mr. O’Sullivan, I think I've made it clear the difference between withholding finance that would enable the expansion of an industry and withholding finance to companies that are simply exposed to an industry. It would actually be inconsistent of my organization, Market Forces, that has engaged with and worked on companies to encourage them to manage down the existing fossil fuel assets that they have on a Paris-aligned timeframe to actually responsibly manage those assets and the risks associated with them to simply encourage investors to walk away from absolutely every company that has any kind of exposure to fossil fuels. And I would like to know, given the explanatory notes in the notice of meeting, which I'm assuming you've got in front of you or you should have on the podium somewhere, what part of the wording of the proposals or the supporting statements supports your claim that this resolution was about cutting off all finance to any companies with any fossil fuel exposure? Because this has been distributed to all shareholders. And I would venture that in your engagements with institutional investors, you've made that same misleading representation. So I'd like you to identify the language in the resolution or the supporting statements that validates your claim, please. So thank you, Mr. Vincent. And first of all, thank you for clarifying your view of the intent of that resolution. I don't accept the characterization, obviously. But as I said earlier, I very much defend your right to disagree with us and to express your views. And I think perhaps I'll just leave it at that. Do you accept that you have a duty to shareholders to provide full and fair disclosure when making recommendations on how to vote on resolutions? I absolutely do, and I believe we're running this AGM with exactly the intent of making sure shareholders are fully informed, and that includes making sure you have an opportunity to address the meeting and to express your voice. I hope the shareholders in this room at least have not been able to have the wool pulled over their eyes. And we've got people online as well. So thank you. Thank you for your question. Can I also just say in opening that I suspect we're all trying to get to the same place. We recognize there is a transition underway in the economy, but we also are very sensitive to the impact of abrupt overnight changes in energy supply. And so what we're looking to do is be associated with a just, an orderly, and well-managed transition to a net zero position in line with the Paris Agreement. Okay. I'm going to go to other questions, if I may. So I know we had a number of people wanted to ask questions in the room. Microphone three, please. Thank you, Chairman. I have Judith Dwyer again. Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to have another go at my question. And before I do, I just want to make a comment about what we've just heard. I'm not a lawyer. I don't necessarily know who's right and wrong on the implications of the words. But I'm disappointed that there isn't a constructive response if we really are aimed at the same goals for the company to explain to the shareholders how it's going to honor those Paris Agreements in relation to the funding of fossil fuel projects and quickly because we all depend on it. Can I respond to that? Yes. Can I respond to that now? Yes. Okay. I think it's a really important question, and I might even, at some stage, pick up the question on emissions intensity, but we do believe we need a transition plan to the future. For any energy company that wants financing from us today, what we insist they have is a clear plan for how they are managing their carbon emission intensity down in line with getting to the Paris Agreement goal. It's sufficiently important to us that it goes through several levels of escalation and authority within the bank. If they do not have that plan, which has to be public, it has to have specific targets, and it has to have good governance inside their organization, we're not satisfied with that, and we won't lend. That's how we intend to get there. What that's driving, we believe, and I have to say in fairness, most of the resources companies we talk to are already ahead of us on this because they realize the importance this has to their customers and the community. But what ultimately we're looking to drive is that we're financing companies on a plan to lower the emissions intensity over time. And if you look at our ESG report we put out a couple of weeks ago, we've now listed for six sectors, including power generation and oil and gas, the actual trajectory down over time of emissions intensity and our target. And there was a mention, quite correct, that it has gone up briefly. I'm happy to talk more about that, but that relates to some short-term movements in finance associated with the increase in prices of energy products rather than us looking to deviate from the plan and the target. But we believe, ultimately, as a responsible bank, the largest institutional bank in Australia, if we're driving people to have plans that fit in with the Paris Agreement, then our engagement and our lending will have a beneficial effect. History will judge you on that. Indeed, and we are happy to be accountable for it, which is why we're publishing these figures. I'll ask my question. Please. Mine is actually about deforestation, which is an issue that sits right at the heart of the great Venn diagram that is climate response and nature protection. And Australia is the only developed country that is still deforesting. So we're really at the back of the class here, and particularly in Queensland. So I think the bank has an opportunity to do something proportionate and manageable to help change our trajectory as a country in relation to deforestation. So I'm talking about the downstream Scope 3 emissions that the bank is enabling and could influence. I think it's a real opportunity to get on the right side of history in relation to particularly to primary production. I have a background in primary production, so I care particularly about the way that pastures are managed and the way that pastures are being de-treed, particularly in Queensland, which is where I'm from. So I'm asking that the bank establishes, if they have not already done so, conditions on loans that they make for particularly beef and related agricultural projects that require no deforesting as a condition of the loan or that otherwise include nature-positive requirements. I'm asking if you've done that, and if not, if you have concrete plans to do so. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Certainly, we're very sensitive, as I've said, to the whole issue of emissions. By the end of 2024, we will have disclosed for roughly three-quarters of our lending portfolio the carbon emissions intensity associated with all of those. We're now turning our minds more forcefully to biodiversity, which relates to the topics that you're raising. I mentioned earlier on the TCFD, which is related to carbon and climate-related disclosures. There's now a body which is looking at biodiversity-related disclosures and reporting. Our intent is to. We are already active in that body. Our intent is to see can we align our reporting and our targets in line with the methodology that they bring out. We have committed to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions ourselves. We've actually raised our target. We are now committed to reduce them by 85%. Scope three is challenging, if I'm honest. There's a whole lot of debates around the methodology. There's also, we need to, to some extent, get some help from regulators in making it clear how that works. But we are turning our minds to it, and it is an area where you'll see increased focus and output from ANZ. I understand that. Oh. Yep. Please, bring the microphone up. Yeah. I understand that the bank has been very active in managing its own emissions and some of its Scope 2 emissions, but it's just the nature of your business that it's the Scope 3 emissions where you are making the biggest contribution to global warming and where some of your shareholders are asking you to stop. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you for the point. We have another question, microphone number two. Thank you, Chairman. This one is from Amelia Muriti. Thank you. I would just like to return to my question from before, which was questioning that if ANZ continues to be the number one banker to the fossil fuel industry, how do you think the next generation of Australians will view the bank? Where does ANZ think it's going to get its next generation of staff and customers from if it keeps funding fossil fuel expansion? Thank you, Amelia. And actually, as I said, we've actually been the leading bank in Australia to head down the path of requiring customers to lock in targets on climate change and carbon emissions. And if we get a chance to give you a copy, just a few weeks ago, we've now published the emissions pathway for six key sectors. And as I mentioned, we'll have done three-quarters of our book very shortly. We're ahead of the rest of the banks in doing that. And it comes not without risk to us because we're reaching new ground. We've been the first bank to do many things in improving climate change. And as I mentioned earlier, I think we'll be at the forefront on biodiversity. So I think the risks you're raising are very, very important. We recognize as a bank, our well-being depends on the well-being of the community and of the environment. So that's why I say we're trying to get to the same place. We're trying to do it in a very considered, structured, and deliberate way. So my hope would be that people like yourself, who will in time be important shareholders and influencers in our society, I hope that you'll see that we did act in your best interests and we tried to find the right balance. Thank you. Thank you. Next is a question from Evan Greer at microphone number two. Thank you. Welcome back. Hi. Thank you. Good afternoon now, everyone, again. Firstly, I want to say I appreciate the opportunity to be heard by all of you again now. I will repeat my question, which is, will ANZ commit to meet with School Strike for Climate and discuss your approach to climate issues with us? It is inarguable that the fight towards a sustainable future and companies like yourself play an integral role in this. Shayne Elliott, we have made the invitation to you for over a year, but unfortunately, a meeting has not yet been arranged. We feel strongly that to sit down with you or a member of your board and to have an in-depth conversation about how you will carry through on your promise to your customers about sustainability would be required. Yeah. I'm very happy to meet with you. I found out that actually you have approached my team, and my team offered to meet with you as a first step, and you refused to meet with them. And you only would meet with me, but I'm very happy to do that. That is exactly what we need. Yeah. We're happy to do that. You will understand, I can't meet with everybody who wants to meet with me. I do have a busy job, and we have millions of customers. But given the way you've represented yourself here today and the issues that you're talking about, I'll be happy to arrange that when we can. Yeah? So in the coming months, we'll figure something out. Well done, Evan. You've articulated it. You've articulated it perfectly. Well done to you. Okay. Next question is online. So Kath, over to you. Thank you, Chair. We have a question from Mrs. Margaret MacArthur. Is ANZ aware that EU nations are withdrawing from the energy charter? France, Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany. The recent floods are similar to those of us who were growing up in the 1950s. My husband and myself attended a lecture in New Zealand in 2006 at the Franz Josef Glacier, where we were told that although the glacier was receding at that point, we were actually heading for another ice age. This has been supported by a recent core sample on Greenland going back 10,000 years by scientists from Denmark. It included the ice age 500 years ago. Thank you. Thank you, Margaret, for your point and perhaps question. The implicit question really is, where do we stand on these issues? Look, we accept absolutely that the world is moving to decarbonize and that reducing carbon emissions are important. I think biodiversity will also be important. And we're running the bank in a way that is about supporting and hoping to accelerate that transition. Next question online, please. Yes. The question is from Devinder Chhabra of Junior Enterprise Proprietary Limited. Are there specific targets for the CEO for sustainability and environment? Yes. Thank you for the question. And the requirements in terms of sustainability and environment are implicit in the scorecard, as well as something that the board takes into account when we're looking at Shayne's remuneration. This is actually a really important area for the board. I myself chair what's known as the ESG Committee. And the S in that is very much around making sure we address sustainability issues. That's a meeting that happens on a regular basis. And that's where we discuss how we're performing against our targets, also how we're developing policies, and how do we make sure that the bank is living up to its commitments in terms of improving the environment and improving sustainability. Next question, please. We've got a question, I think, on the telephone. That's right. The next question is on the phone from Mr. Morgan Pickett. Operator, please put him through. Welcome, Mr. Pickett. Please proceed with your question. Yes. Good afternoon, Chairman and the board. My question relates to legal risk. Last year, the Federal Court ordered Commonwealth Bank to give a shareholder access to confidential documents so the shareholder could check whether Combank had complied with its own climate change policy in lending to oil and gas projects. Just last month, a UN high-level expert group focused on corporate greenwashing stated non-state actors cannot claim to be net zero while continuing to build or invest in new fossil fuel supply. And ASIC's Deputy Chair, Sarah Court, warned that ASIC is currently investigating a number of listed entities, super funds, and managed funds in relation to their green credentials and their claims. Companies are on notice that ASIC is actively monitoring the market for potential greenwashing and will take enforcement action, including court action, for serious breaches. I should also mention that just this week, Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the Australian government is focused on confronting and cracking down on greenwashing. ANZ has publicly committed to the goals of the Paris Agreement and to net zero emissions by 2050. So is the board concerned about potential legal action when we're still investing in new fossil fuel supply, which is incompatible with those climate goals? Thank you, Morgan, for the question, and I think this goes also to Mr. Vincent's point and concerns about how we operate. I want to stress, as I mentioned earlier, we will lend to projects in the energy sector where we're confident that there is a clearly defined plan to reduce carbon emissions intensity, where that's got public disclosure and where there's tight governance on it inside the organization. Therefore, our expectation is that our role and our influence will actually lead to a reduction in emissions over time. We've been at the forefront of doing that in Australia. We've looked to take a leadership position on it, and so I do believe that the board spends a lot of time looking at it. And I'm confident that we would be seen to have been sincere and honest and open in the way we've gone about that. Next question, please. We have a question on the phone from Mr. Vishad Sharma. Operator, please put him through. Welcome, Mr. Sharma. Please ask your question. Good afternoon. As some of you may be aware, HSBC has ruled out project finance to new or expanded oil and gas fields. According to the International Energy Agency, this is a critical step to reach net zero emissions by 2050. ANZ's oil and gas policy, on the other hand, only commits the company to withhold financing for customers who are diversifying or reducing emissions. Today's presentation was marked full of the firsts that ANZ has achieved over the years, as was Mr. O'Sullivan's response to Amelia. We also heard from the chair about how the bank will be looking at questions of biodiversity and nature, which are emerging concerns. Considering how well-established the links are between climate change, environmental impacts, and fossil fuel extraction and use, I would appreciate knowing what has prevented ANZ from being the first Australian bank in developing and announcing a revised oil and gas policy as HSBC has been able to as of this morning? Thank you, Vishad. Can I just get you to repeat the very last part of your question there? What has prevented ANZ Bank from developing and releasing? Such a revised oil and gas lending policy as HSBC has been able to. A revised oil and gas lending policy in line. Okay. So. Similar to the one that HSBC has announced today. Oh, you want us to replicate what HSBC announced overnight, which was that they were capping lending to the oil and gas sector. Apologies, Vishad, the lending to oil. I mean, that would be a good first step, Mr. Chairman. Yes. I would expect that that would be good considering the International Energy Agency's recommendations. So yeah, that is the question. Thanks, Vishad. No, thank you. And thanks for your patience. Look, we've said all along that we're going to need to manage this as a transition. And you've seen what happens in Europe as a result of Ukraine when you've got to turn off power generation or sources of energy overnight. We do believe that the pathway we need to take will be to substitute higher sources of energy, higher sources of carbon emission energy with lower sources. And that may require some reinvestment. It may require someone to invest additionally in existing infrastructure or indeed in expanding new infrastructure. But we would only do it where we're confident it's part of a plan to reduce emissions over time. And now that's a different policy than the one HSBC has taken. But we think ours is a responsible policy. Globally, the estimate is that the world's going to have to spend $125 trillion managing the investment that's required to transition the global economy to a low-carbon future. And we think a responsible bank like us should be willing to lend to companies that are looking to make that transition, but only on condition we're satisfied that they are reducing emissions intensity. I hope, Vishad, that answers your question, and it's why we're different to HSBC. We've got another question on the phone, please. Yes. The question comes from Paul Stevenson. Operator, please put him through. Welcome, Mr. Stevenson. Please proceed with your question. Hi. Yes. That's Paul Stevenson here again from Central Queensland. As mentioned earlier, I'm part of a group from the communities of Baralaba and Woorabinda Aboriginal community impacted by the proposed Baralaba South Coal Mine. ANZ currently has a AUD 250 million loan to the proponent AMCI to facilitate its coal expansion activities in the Central Queensland region, as well as the Baralaba South Coal Mine. AMCI proposes to build the 19 million-tonne per annum thermal coal project called the South Galilee Coal Mine. So echoing again our concerns around potential human rights impacts, impacts on our critical drinking water supplies, country, and so on, we'd like to invite ANZ to meet with our community members and representatives from traditional owners for the region. So I suppose that's my first question. Would you please meet with us to discuss our concerns about this project? The follow-up questions were around asking for ANZ to commit to engaging with their client here to ensure the withdrawal of this particular project and to review funding arrangements for AMCI and other clients where these conflict with the ESG commitments made by ANZ, particularly under the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment, whom we've previously engaged with very closely on this issue. Thanks. Thanks, Paul. Thank you for your question and also for your patience and for taking the time to come back again. And thank you. It's an important question. Let me start by saying that whenever we feel there is a risk associated with a project, be it environmental, be it reputational, maybe a negative impact on land rights or on a community, we have a specific set of extra screening that we apply. It requires a higher level of review within the bank. And included in that is wanting to be satisfied that there has been adequate community consultation that has been taken note of by the party that we may choose to lend to. So I can't comment specifically on the customer. As I said at the beginning of the meeting, I don't think I should. It is not appropriate here to be commenting on specific customers and activities, but that is a process we would go through. We would not proceed with a customer who did not meet those requirements. In terms of your request to meet, I'm going to suggest you send us that request, and I'll look at it on its merits. Thank you. And I suppose to make it more general, I mean, in terms of reviewing lending to companies more generally that don't align with your ESG commitments, maybe that's a way of addressing that without making it project-specific. And just to go to the point around adequate community consultation, we've had more than 97% opposition to this proposed coal mine as reported internationally in Reuters, Bloomberg, ABC News, and elsewhere. And we've also had opposition to the mine from our state and federal members of parliament for the region, our mayor, deputy mayor, and the mayor of Woorabinda Aboriginal community. So I think the community consultation on this one has been well and truly undertaken comprehensively by our local community group. And the results have been very clear. Okay. Thank you for that input. And we'll make sure that feedback also goes to our institutional banking team so that they're aware of that feedback. So thank you. We've now got another question on the phone. That's right. The question is from Mr. Bruce Robertson. Operator, please put him through. Welcome, Mr. Robertson. Please ask your question. Thank you and thank you, Chairman. The ANZ Banking Corporation is taking on far more risks than historically tolerated in lending to Woodside and the Associated Global Investment Partners' investment in Pluto II LNG project. Historically, banks mitigated risk in LNG projects by lending to projects that were structured as consorting with many substantial counterparties. Banks also lowered risk by insisting on 20-year LNG offtake agreements that matched their financing terms. Why is ANZ lending to Woodside, a company that owns 100% of the very large Scarborough project and has short-term, less than 10-year LNG offtake contracts? What has led to this fundamental reassessment of risk by the bank, given that major LNG customers such as Japan have firm commitments to lower LNG usage in their power system by 50% by 2030? Do the provisions in our bank's account take account of the far higher risks our bank is facing? That is why I asked this question in item one of the meeting. It is an item about the account and the provision. Thank you. Thank you, Bruce, and if I can assure you that we are very alive to the risks associated with climate change. That's precisely why we have the policies that we do. We think there are a number of risks associated with it. There's obviously transition risk, which is the requirement to invest in order to meet regulation or community expectations. There's actual physical risk, which is the risk of flooding or severe weather events or any other impact that climate change may have, and on top of that, then there's also the issue of community risk and the need to carry the community and to keep the community aligned and supportive of your policies. So we're very aware of this. I will say that we do see that there is a critical role to be played for certain energies in the transition to a lower carbon future. And that would be guiding us in general on our policies. I can't comment specifically on a customer. It wouldn't be appropriate to do that in public. But it's possibly an important view to understand our position, which is we do think we're being responsible and we do evaluate the risk associated with lending to energy companies. In fact, it's a very high area of focus for us. Okay. We've got one more question on the phone, and then we're going to come back into the room. So next question, please. No, we haven't got one on the phone, or have we? No, we haven't. We're back in the room. Okay. Back to microphone number one. Thank you, Chairman. We now have a question from Jonathan Moylan. Thank you, Chair and to the CEO for your presentations. They were very interesting. My question is around nature-related risk, and it's been brought up before, and perhaps you could tie into your answers some answers to what was raised previously. I won't reiterate the points about the UN High-Level Expert Group commitment last week or the UN Secretary-General's comments in relation to it, which you'd be aware of. But they did also point to the fact that for financial institutions to have credible net zero commitments for them to be accepted to avoid regulatory risk around them, that financial institutions also should avoid finance or credit to deforestation phase that out by 2025. Australia is now a global deforestation hotspot, one of the only developed countries in the world that is over 630,000 hectares of land cleared in 2018-2019 in Queensland alone, mostly for pastoral expansion. So in light of this global standard, does the bank perceive there's a potential risk to its reputation or regulatory risk if it doesn't cease lending? And in relation to this, has the bank conducted an assessment of its dependencies and impacts on nature? And if so, when is that likely to be released from a continuous disclosure point of view? Thanks, John. Thanks. Actually, very important points, and can I just make the general point that if you look at our purpose, it's to improve the financial well-being of our customers. It's actually counterproductive for us to lend to things which are bad for the community. As a bank, that would be a very short-term way to think. Because if the community doesn't thrive and do well, the bank's going to be in trouble. So it's important to us to have these policies. We're not looking to be purely altruistic. It is actually good banking and good risk management to take account of these sort of issues. We are, as I mentioned earlier, we're in the early stages. In fact, I think globally, the world is in the early stages of developing the protocols around biodiversity in the same way that we've seen them developed around climate change and carbon. But we are actively involved in that process. And we're looking indeed to develop our policies and our processes and our reporting around those. And I can't give you a firm commitment on when we'll actually disclose targets or whatever else. All I can say is you've seen our track record on carbon, and we do see ourselves as needing to take a position in this area too. If I could just ask a follow-up, which is probably more directly related to this question and probably part of the reason why there has been concern, including from many shareholders, about the climate change policy. It's really around transparency, around what ANZ considers a good transition policy, given that there is that level of consistency and consensus between the United Nations High-Level Expert Group, the IEA, and others around the fact that, well, we're not going to pull out support from fossil fuels overnight. There can be no new coal or gas projects if we are to remain aligned with 1.5 degrees. Recently, ANZ has increased from $50 billion to $100 billion its sustainable finance fund. There's emerging taxonomies around that. It's not clear. Most people in the community would consider that a good transition policy would not involve new coal, oil, and gas projects. What is the clarity around what a good transition policy looks like? Is that something that the bank will define? And would that rule out new coal, oil, or gas projects? Thank you for the question. We have a commitment as a member of the Net Zero Banking Alliance to demonstrate how at least 74% or 75% of our lending book is on a pathway to reduce emissions intensity in line with the Paris Agreement. And so what you will see over time is that our lending policies will move very strongly towards companies that have strong emissions reductions plans and that we are financing less emissions with more dollars. That's the direction. And you'll see that publicly reported over the next 12 to 24 months. I think that's an important distinction. I would say on the scenarios, the IEA scenario is an important scenario. We do include it in our assessments. But there are other scenarios. And I don't want to repeat too much, but as I've said, we do believe we need an orderly transition. As you've seen in Europe, and indeed you're seeing to some extent here, when there is precipitous reduction in energy supply, that drives prices up. The people who lose out most are those on lower or fixed incomes who can't adjust. And we think that's very inequitable. And on top of that, employment in sectors where energy is a significant part of the input price, that employment is at risk. So we're looking to support a just, orderly, and well-managed transition. And I know we agree we have different positions where we can agree to differ. We do think that provided the company we're lending to has a responsible, publicly disclosable plan that is accountable, then that we should finance them provided they will be reducing emissions. In our ESG supplement, which we published, it's a significant report that we also did a session on two, three weeks ago. We actually report within that for our top 100 carbon emitters, how many of them have well-developed or advanced plans, and how many are still improving. Out of the 100, I think the number is 62 are well-developed or advanced at the moment. And we're working on getting it all to 100. But let me also say, if we think a customer is not going to go there, we will actually pull away. And we did do that somewhat controversially with the Port of Newcastle about 18 months ago, where we didn't feel that they were wanting to align with our lending practices. And so we made a decision not to finance anymore. I know we agree to differ, but when I say we're trying to get to the same point, we actually believe we have a duty as a bank, as a leading institutional bank, to work constructively toward a sensible managed transition in our markets. And so just to disabuse an understanding of the policy, one understanding of the policy is that you can now, and have been recently, and there's been evidence that ANZ has in the last few years, invest in projects and companies up to 25 that are planning significant fossil fuel expansions well beyond 2050. And Woodside's been raised as an example. I'm not expecting you to comment on specific customers, but to significantly provide capital that would allow them to engage in a significant, very long-term fossil fuel expansion and then reduce your exposure over time so that on paper, ANZ's absolute emissions, financed emissions, or emissions intensity might have reduced, but that it's facilitated fossil fuel expansion that will carry on for very little time. So I would like. So theoretically, any customer would have to demonstrate to us that the emissions that they've got over time align with the reductions required for the Paris Agreement. So I'm not going to talk about a specific customer, as you said, but we are very serious and very disciplined about our lending practices. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. We now have another question on the phone. And then after that, look, I'm getting a bit repetitive, and I suspect I'm maybe getting to the stage where I'm frustrating you all. So unless there's questions of a different nature, I'm going to propose that we move on. Because at this stage, we've done 12 questions, I think, on that topic. But let's go to the question on the phone. Chairman, this is actually the final question on the phone or online. And it's from Edwina Lloyd. Operator, please put her through. Ms. Lloyd, please proceed with your question. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to ask this very important question. And I'm sorry that you're getting a bit frustrated with the number of people that are asking questions related to this particular resolution. But for me here in Lismore, climate change and climate collapse and subsequent economic collapse is high on the radar for us here. And indeed, I would think that the Chair would appreciate that and allow more people to ask questions on this. If I can be clear, Edwina, on that, I didn't say I was getting frustrated. I said I suspect I'm frustrating all of you listening to me because I am getting a bit repetitive, but I'm very happy to take the questions. And indeed, we've made the effort to open the line to you again because I know you called earlier, and I wanted to make sure we did get a chance to give you airtime. Yes, because I wasn't allowed to ask it last time. So I just wanted to let you know what happened to me on 28th of February this year at about 1:00 A.M. I was rescued off the roof of my partner's home in Lismore with my eight-year-old son. No one predicted the extremity of the flood, and so at midnight, when the water started to come inside the top floor of our house, we escaped to the loft, and a neighbor in his tinny rescued us and took us to shore and then onto a makeshift evacuation center. Four weeks later, we were hit with another catastrophic flood. It's been 10 months since, and thousands in my community still remain in unsafe and temporary housing as we face an uncertain future with more extreme weather events on the way and a government that refuses to listen to the science and take the urgent action needed to do our bit as a first-world country to mitigate against the impacts that will flow from fossil fuel operations that currently exist. The science is unequivocal. Unless we stop burning fossil fuels, we can expect climate chaos and consequential economic collapse. The IPCC reports and the International Energy Agency and the UN High-Level Expert Group on Net Zero Emissions Commitments of non-state entities have stated unequivocally that financial institutions making net zero commitments cannot provide finance to companies involved in fossil fuel expansions. Yet here we are. Earlier this year, our bank joined a AUD 1.2 billion syndicated loan facility for Woodside to build the Scarborough Gas Project, whose lifetime emissions will represent triple that of Australia's total annual domestic emissions, triple. The project has been forensically analyzed by eminent scientists, including Adjunct Professor Bill Hare, the Director of Climate Analytics, and he's a physicist and climate scientist. It is the most polluting development proposed in Australia. The research shows that the project would release in excess of 1.6 billion tons of carbon pollution, which is equal to 15 coal-fired power stations every year. That worries me greatly, sitting in Lismore at 1.2 degrees of warming and seeing our community completely torn apart by the catastrophic fossil-fueled floods that we've seen earlier this year. Professor Hare, who has analyzed the Woodside project and is someone of great eminence in the scientific community, has also been involved in the development of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. And he said, "It's clear from our own work that in pollution terms, the Scarborough LNG development is one of the biggest fossil fuel developments being considered in Australia. Edwina, can I just very briefly say, in the interest of everybody, is it possible for you to get to the question? Yep, I'm nearly there. The resulting direct annual emissions will compromise Australia's emissions reductions goals, while the global emissions from the project mean that it cannot be made consistent with global goals established under the Paris Agreement. So my question is, in light of the IPCC report, the International Energy Agency, and the UN High-Level Expert Group, those leading expert scientists have said unequivocally that this means no new investments or financing of fossil fuel operations to meet this target. Chair, there are no caveats to this expert position. Woodside has not been selected to be exempt, and the expert position is not, it's okay to finance or invest in these operations if the company has an offset plan or if the company is using carbon capture technology, as is the case with Woodside's project. The expert opinion and recommendation doesn't recommend that the ANZ can consider them exempt. They can consider the plans of companies like Woodside who are expanding or opening new fossil fuel operations before making a decision on financing. The expert scientific opinion and recommendation isn't singling the ANZ out and saying, "But to you guys, you can give your existing oil and gas customers four more years until 2025 to satisfy the bank about their transition plan." The opinion is to keep our commitment to the Paris Agreement. Our bank should not be considering financing any company expanding or building new fossil fuel projects. Thanks, Edwina. Can I ask you in fairness to everybody who's here? Can you get to the exact question? Thanks. Because what you've said is helpful. But I do think we'd like to make sure we get to the question. Thank you, Chair. And it's very important that you have all of the context of the question so that you can answer it with the clarity that it deserves. Why are we ignoring the expert opinions and recommendations of the IPCC report, the International Energy Agency, the UN High-Level Expert Group on Net Zero Emissions Commitments, and what scientific evidence says that the target can be met by the opening and expansion of new fossil fuel operations? Thank you. Thanks, Edwina. Look, thanks for your patience. And can I also say I'm sorry to hear about what happened. That's actually a very distressing experience. And I think most of us in Australia, just looking at the pictures on TV and listening to the interviews of people in Lismore who've been through the flood, it's quite shocking. And I think it has moved all of us. And I think we all are asking the question as to what is government going to do about it and what does it mean for those who are now exposed to future flood risk. Look, having said that, let me go on to your question. I think it's fair to say we're certainly not ignoring the science. In fact, I think of all the banks globally, we're probably demonstrating that we're embracing more and more the need to deal with climate change and to amend our policies and our disclosures in line with that. The scenarios you mentioned, the reports you mentioned, they are all input to us. We do take them into account. There are other sources of information that we take into account. And they are what have informed us on our policy, which is that we do believe there will be a need to invest in some energy infrastructure in order to make the transition from the heavy dependence we have today to the world we want to live in tomorrow. You know, nearly 60% of Australia's electricity generation is from coal. So how are we going to get off that, and how are we going to get off that in a sustainable way? That's why we have the policy we have. We are a leading bank in terms of the disclosures we give on emissions intensity paths. We have publicly committed to reducing those paths over time and to publishing the results. I've been quite explicit about the lending policy and the requirements we have and the escalations within the bank if we're lending to any energy company. I hope I've given a fairly fulsome set of responses on that question. Happy to move on if there's any other questions in the room. I don't think we've got any other questions online. Look, we have disclosed a lot of information in our ESG supplement. If you'd like a copy, you can access it online. That includes a lot of disclosure about our top 100 emitters and the work we're doing to work with them. We may disagree on things, but can I say I absolutely respect Market Forces and all the others involved. We give their time. I know your advocacy is well-intended, and you're looking to influence organizations like us. We do hear you. We do listen to you. We are keen to demonstrate to you that our intent is pure. If there are no further questions then on item five, let's show details of the proxies received before the meeting. Ladies and gentlemen, item five is the last of the resolutions that are not contingent. As such, and as the voting on items two to five has been opened since very early on in the meeting, I will close the electronic voting on items two to five and the ability to submit questions in approximately two minutes. While we wait for the results, we will play a short video. The electronic voting on items two to five has now closed, as is the ability to submit questions online. The results will shortly appear on the screens behind me. Subject to a final check by Computershare and KPMG, they will be released to the ASX later today. The results show each resolution having been passed with the exception of item five, which has clearly not received the necessary support from shareholders. As such, it has not passed. Item six will not be put to the meeting, and a poll on it will not be held. In addition, in the interests of transparency, I will now show the proxies received in advance of the meeting in respect of item six. This concludes the formal business of the meeting. On behalf of my fellow directors, I thank you all for attending this AGM and for your ongoing interest as shareholders of ANZ. I now declare this AGM closed, subject to the review and finalization of the poll. For all the shareholders attending the scheme meeting, please remain seated or stay connected online. We're just going to have a one or two-minute break while we shuffle a few things here on the podium, and then we're going to go straight into the meeting. I can confirm we've received only a small number of questions on the scheme in advance of that meeting, and we look forward to meeting with you outside. As I committed earlier, we look forward to meeting you outside as soon as the scheme meeting concludes when refreshments will be served. For those of you not staying for the scheme meeting, I wish you all the best. Thank you for your attendance today. We'll resume again in a couple of minutes.