Good morning, everyone. I trust you enjoyed that video. My name is Michael Fraser, and I'm the Chairman of APA Group Ltd, which is the responsible entity for APA Group that comprises APA Infrastructure Trust and APA Investment Trust. On behalf of the Board, I'd like to welcome you to this joint annual meeting of each of those trusts. Given that it's now past 10:30 A.M. and a quorum is clearly present, I declare the 2025 annual meeting of APA Security Holders open. I'd like to begin today by acknowledging the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation as the traditional custodians of the land where this meeting is taking place. We pay our respects to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Today's annual meeting is being held both in person and online. Before we move to the formal aspects of the meeting, I'd like to outline how security holders can participate in today's meeting. You can ask questions directly from the floor via the webcast platform or by phone. You'll also be able to vote on items of business in person or online. I now declare voting for all items of business open. All items will be determined by poll, and voting will remain open for the duration of the meeting. Security holders watching online will be able to ask questions during the meeting via the webcast platform by clicking on the Ask a Question box on your screen. Questions can be submitted online at any time, and I'd encourage you to start submitting your questions now, and I'll try and address them at the relevant time. Joining me today in Sydney, up the back there, is Nicole Lyons. Give us a wave, Nicole. Where are you? Up there. Thank you. Nicole is our General Manager for Company Reporting, Brand, and Reputation, and she'll read out the questions from security holders who are joining online. We'll aim to answer as many of your questions as possible today while ensuring we keep the meeting to a reasonable length. To that end, I'd ask security holders to please ask no more than two questions and to keep them as short as possible. It may be necessary for us to group similar questions or summarize longer questions. A number of written questions have been received in advance of the meeting, and we have aimed to address many of these in the speeches or when we come to the relevant item of business. To ask a question by phone, you'll need to press star one on your keypad. If you need assistance, please refer to the detailed instructions in the Virtual Meeting Online Guide that is available on the webcast platform. The webcast of today's meeting will be recorded and posted on APA's website as soon as possible after the meeting. I'd now like to introduce my fellow Directors joining me in Sydney today. At the end here, we have David Lamont, who's Chair of the People and Remuneration Committee, Vaya Davidson, Nino Ficca, Sam Lewis over here on my left, and Sam is Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee. We then have James Fazzino, who is Chair of the Safety and Sustainability Committee, and Rhoda Harrington, who is Chair of the Risk Management Committee. Also on stage with me this morning is Adam Watson, who will be familiar to many people, our CEO and Managing Director. Also, those people in the room have just, Bronwyn's just done the introductions. Bronwyn Weir, our Company Secretary. Sitting in our front row are the people who really know all about the business and can really answer all of your questions. Go and talk to them afterwards if you have any more by the time we get to the end of the meeting. That's the APA Executive Leadership Team. We're also joined this morning by Harriet Fortescue. Harriet, where are you? There you are, down in the front row. Harriet was APA's Audit Partner at Deloitte for this last financial year. On the screen is the agenda for today's meeting. The notice of meeting has been made available to all security holders, and I will take it as read. Adam and I will report on APA's performance for the 2025 financial year, as well as our strategy and outlook for the current year. We'll then move to the items of business set out in the notice of meeting. We've also set aside time at the conclusion of the formal business to answer any general questions that people may have. Turning now to my formal address. As you've just seen in the video we played before the meeting, this year marked a milestone year for APA as we celebrated 25 years as an ASX-listed company. Across our sites and offices, our people marked the day and celebrated how far we've come from our humble beginnings in 2000, listing with, as you would have just heard, only six employees and three pipeline assets. Our rich history links back to AGL, who in 1837 was established as the Australian Gaslight Company to light the streets of Sydney with gas. Over the last 25 years, we have grown as an independently listed business to own and operate a diverse portfolio of $27 billion worth of energy assets. We transport about half the nation's natural gas. We've also delivered more than two decades of uninterrupted distribution growth for our security holders, which we understand makes us one of only two companies currently listed on the ASX to do so. Our proud history of delivery for customers, investors, and communities continued into FY 2025 with a strong financial and operational performance. Our revenue and earnings growth was towards the upper end of our guidance range, reflecting robust asset performance and a sustained focus on cost and capital discipline. Highlights in the year in the execution of our strategy over the last 12 months included completing construction of the Port Hedland Solar and Battery Project and the Kuri Kuri lateral pipeline, progressing our East Coast gas grid expansion plans and early works in the Beetaloo Basin, as well as acquiring the Atlas to Reedy Creek pipeline. All of these projects will create value for security holders. Over the past 12 months, we've also seen strong recognition and acceptance of the essential role that natural gas plays in enabling Australia's energy transition. This really reinforces the critical role our assets will play to support Australia's energy systems over the long term. We're confident that our East Coast gas grid expansion plans, early works in the Beetaloo Basin, opportunities in gas power generation, and ongoing growth in remote power generation in the Pilbara will create value for shareholders for decades to come. Over the past year, we've also renewed our Board following the retirement of Peter Wasow and Debra Goodin. Once again, on behalf of the Board, I'd like to thank both Peter and Debra for their service. Sam Lewis and David Lamont were both elected to the Board at last year's annual meeting, with Sam, as I introduced her, taking on the role as Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee, and David, again, as I introduced him, taking on the role as Chair of the People and Remuneration Committee. During the year, Varya Davidson was also appointed as a Non-Executive Director, and she will stand for election today. James Fazzino and Rhoda Harrington also offer themselves for reelection at today's meeting, and we'll be hearing from both of them, as well as Varya, a little later on in the meeting. Climate has been a significant part of our sustainability agenda, and APA is committed to actively supporting Australia's energy transition, consistent with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The Board is committed to effectively managing climate risks, and we've made great progress over the last three years, delivering on the foundational commitments in our 2022 Climate Transition Plan. This has included a 13.3% net reduction, including offsets, in our gas infrastructure emissions, as well as an 11.6% reduction in the emissions intensity of our power generation assets through investments in renewable energy generation. These reductions have been achieved relative to our FY 2021 base year, and notably without new growth projects. The underlying reduction in gas infrastructure emissions would have been 22.3%. We've also had extensive engagement with security holders and other stakeholders on the development of our 2025 Climate Transition Plan, and we have very transparent annual emissions data disclosures and reporting of progress on our climate plans. Building on this work, we recently released our third climate report and our 2025 Climate Transition Plan. APA's 2025 CTP, our Climate Transition Plan, reconfirms our commitment to meeting our 2030 targets and goals and highlights the ongoing resilience of APA's portfolio to physical climate and energy transition risks. As part of our commitment to transparency and ongoing investor engagement, today's security holders will vote on a non-binding resolution to adopt our 2025 Climate Transition Plan. Now, I intend to make more detailed comments on our 2025 CTP when we come to that resolution on the agenda. This brings me to the four resolutions put forward by a group of security holders led by Market Forces, representing only approximately 0.0167% of the APA securities on issue. The first two resolutions propose to insert a new provision into the trust constitutions, which would give security holders the ability by special or extraordinary resolution to express an opinion or request information. The next two resolutions relate to the development of the Beetaloo Basin and disclosures around APA's planned capital expenditure and alignment with APA's climate commitments and procedures and processes related to APA's supplier code of conduct. The Board's response to these resolutions is set out in the notice of meeting. To be very clear, we do not support these proposed resolutions. Based on the proxies received ahead of today's meeting, these resolutions are also not supported by the vast majority of our security holders. On behalf of the Board and leadership team, thank you to our employees for their outstanding contribution to APA's success. I'd also like to extend our appreciation and thanks to our customers, communities, governments, and other stakeholders for their ongoing support and positive engagement. We are very proud of what's been achieved in APA's first 25 years, and we're excited about the future ahead. I'll now invite our CEO and Managing Director, Adam Watson, to address the meeting. Thanks, Adam. Thank you, Michael, and good morning, everyone. As Michael has said, we've delivered a strong overall performance in 2025. My focus today is on three items. First is safety. Second, our financial performance and progress with our growth strategy. Third, our operational highlights. Let me start with safety. Over the last 12 months, we've continued to work to elevate safety and care within APA. In February 2025, we launched our Further Things That Matter initiative, encouraging everyone at APA to think about the personal reasons why they make safety and care a priority. We embedded our psychosocial risk management protocol, and we delivered psychosocial risk workshops to improve the way we understand and manage mental health and well-being. Across the year, our safety performance was strong. That said, a serious harm incident involving an all-terrain vehicle was an important reminder of the need for ongoing vigilance with safety across our operations. Our financial performance for the year was also strong. Total segment revenue, excluding pass-through revenue, was up 5.2% to $2.7 billion. Underlying EBITDA was up 6.4% to just over $2 billion, which was towards the top end of our guidance. Statutory net profit after tax was 8.4% higher than the prior period after adjusting for significant items in 2024. We continue to expand our EBITDA margins through strong cost management and the investments we've made in recent years in our systems and processes. With those foundations in place, we have now taken steps to simplify our business and to become even more cost-efficient. In the last 12 months, we delivered cost growth below inflation, and we've announced a $50 million cost-out target for FY 2026. EBITDA guidance for FY 2026 is again strong, with the midpoint of guidance representing 7.2% growth year on year. This reflects our strong underlying business, inflation-linked revenues, growth from new assets, and the cost discipline I just mentioned. Turning now to our growth strategy. During FY 2025, we progressed a range of value-accretive organic growth projects. Highlights outside those already mentioned by the Chairman include executing an agreement with CS Energy for new pipeline infrastructure, connecting our Rome-to-Brisbane pipeline with CS Energy's proposed Brigalow Peaking Power Plant. We continue to see significant growth opportunities to support the much-needed gas power generation infrastructure that is required to facilitate the removal of coal-fired generation and the introduction of renewables into Australia's energy system. We executed agreements and early works to deliver the Sturt Plateau pipeline in the Northern Territory's Beetaloo Basin. We recently announced the receipt of the necessary approvals from the Northern Territory Government, and we also obtained our land use agreement from the traditional owners, enabling us to commence construction with the support of our key community stakeholders in the region. The development of the Beetaloo Basin is critical to ensuring long-term supply certainty, and the Sturt Plateau pipeline will ensure gas from the Beetaloo is available to power the Northern Territory from 2026, as well as Australia's East Coast market more broadly. We undertook a number of treasury activities during the year to ensure we have a strong balance sheet to support our attractive growth pipeline. We delivered increased certainty in our regulatory environment following several regulatory decisions, which will support our ability to deliver much-needed energy supply for our customers and consumers. In December 2024, the Australian Energy Regulator made a final decision to maintain the current form of regulation for the Southwest Queensland pipeline. This outcome gave us the confidence to announce our East Coast gas grid expansion plan, which has the potential to deliver a 24% increase in north-to-south gas transport capacity and support the delivery of new gas power generation. In June 2025, we also welcomed the final decision to convert Baselink to a regulated asset. Last month, the Australian Energy Regulator released their draft revenue determination. We're ensuring Baselink can continue to operate sustainably for the benefit of Victorian and Tasmanian households and businesses. Our ability to successfully navigate these regulatory reviews is a testament to our focus on delivering value to our customers, communities, and our security holders. We've had many operational highlights, so I'll mention just a few. We achieved an ongoing strong performance in employee engagement and diversity. Our annual engagement survey returned an employee experience score of 70%. Our inclusion index, which assesses equity, authenticity, and belonging, rose four points to 75%. We continue to build a pipeline of diverse talent, with female representation at 58% in our graduate program and 66% in our internship program. We now have 51% of our senior leaders being represented by women. In FY 2025, we delivered all remaining actions under our inaugural Reconciliation Action Plan and kicked off FY 2026 with the launch of our new Innovate RAP. We are committed to growing our cultural capability and deepening our relationships with traditional owners across our nationwide footprint. To summarize, FY 2025 has been a strong year. We've been disciplined with our allocation of capital, and we've maintained a strong balance sheet that can support the funding of our attractive growth opportunities. We've taken ongoing steps to simplify our business and deliver a lean and efficient cost base. I'd like to thank the Board and the Executive Leadership Team for their ongoing work to deliver for our customers, our communities, and for you, our investors. To all our employees, thank you for your contribution to our success and your commitment to securing Australia's energy future. With that, I'll now hand you back to the Chairman. Terrific. Thanks very much, Adam. Now turning to the formal business of the meeting, security holders and proxies attending the meeting online, as I said before, can vote by clicking on the Get a Voting Card box. For those attending in person, please mark your yellow card to vote, and your cards will be collected at the end of the meeting. Only those holding yellow or blue cards are entitled to ask questions at this meeting. Visitors holding red cards are welcome but are not entitled to questions. The resolutions for today's meeting are displayed on the screen. If you could bring those up, please. In addition to the ordinary resolutions in items 1 to 6, as I mentioned earlier, we have four special resolutions which have been requisitioned by a group of security holders led by Market Forces. To be passed, Resolutions 7A and 7B require at least 75% of the votes cast by security holders to be in favor of them. Resolutions 7C and 7D are conditional special resolutions which will only be put to the meeting if Resolutions 7A and 7B are passed by the required 75% majority. Based on the proxies lodged ahead of the meeting, I can say right now this will not occur, and Resolutions 7C and 7D will not be put to the meeting. Security holders will be able to ask questions specific to each resolution that is put to the meeting, and questions in relation to general business will be taken at the end of the meeting. For those security holders who are here in person and wish to ask a question or make a comment on a particular resolution, please raise your card at the appropriate time, and we'll have an attendant come to you with a microphone. Please state your name before asking your question. Once I've addressed questions from the online platform and telephone, I'll then take questions from security holders in the room. The first item of business today is the adoption of the Remuneration Report for the year ended 30 June 2025. The Remuneration Report is included in the Directors' section of the annual report and details remuneration received by directors and APA's key management personnel for the year ended 30 June 2025. The details of the total valid proxies for this agenda item are displayed on the screen now, and you can see that. I'd now like to invite questions or comments, any questions or comments people may have in relation to Resolution 1. Nicole, are there any questions or comments on this item of business from online or on the phone? Chairman, there are no questions in the online platform. We'll now go to the phones. Operator, are there any questions on the phone for this resolution? There are no questions on the phone line at this time. Okay. Is there any security holders in the room who have a question or comment? If you could please raise your card, an attendant will come to you with a microphone. It doesn't look like we have anybody there. All right, we'll move to the second item of business today, which is the adoption of APA Group's 2025 Climate Transition Plan. As mentioned in my opening address, APA is committed to transparency in the disclosure of climate-related information. Our 2025 Climate Plan is integrated with our strategy and highlights the important role our business continues to play in Australia's energy transition. The Board has been highly engaged in the delivery of the plan, the priorities of which are to decarbonize our own operations, while at the same time supporting both our customers' decarbonization ambitions and the Australian economy's transition to net zero. The CTP also reaffirms the headline commitments contained in our 2022 CTP, namely a 30% reduction in operational gas infrastructure emissions by 2030, a 30% reduction in methane emissions by 2030, and a 35% reduction in power generation emissions intensity by 2030. In line with our commitment in 2022, we have introduced Scope 3 medium-term goals and a long-term ambition. We've also continued to focus on enhancing resilience of our business to climate-related transition and physical risk. The role of gas in powering the Australian economy and supporting the energy transition is now clearly recognized by both state and territory governments, as well as the federal government. Ongoing investment in gas infrastructure is needed to support energy security, help power Australian industry, and provide the firming capacity needed to support renewables as coal-fired power stations retire. Such investment is also critical to support the federal government's commitment to cut emissions by between 62% and 70% on 2005 levels by 2035. Gas peaking generation will support the transition to renewable energy by providing essential and reliable backup. We recognize that the necessary future investment in gas infrastructure may result in emissions growth for APA. However, the economy-wide emissions reduction this will enable must be prioritized. APA will also look to integrate lower emissions options in new infrastructure whenever feasible. Our ongoing work in power generation in remote regions will also support decarbonization in key industries within our economy, as well as deliver reliable, affordable, and lower emissions energy to our customers and communities. APA remains committed to responsible climate action, transparent disclosure, and supporting Australia's energy transition. We now look forward to engaging with your questions and feedback on this resolution. The details of the total valid proxies for this agenda item are displayed on the screen, and I'd now like to invite questions or comments on Resolution 2. Again, going first of all to online and the phones. Nicole, are there any questions from online or the phones? Thank you, Chairman. The first question comes from David Everett. Global heating has already passed 1.5 degrees Celsius, and the chances of facing legal actions are surely increasing, which could harm the business. What measures are being taken to avoid legal actions for assisting wrongful production of carbon-based fuels? The first comment that I would make to that is that we are very conscious of seeking at all times to comply with the law and the absolute myriad of license conditions, regulations, et cetera, that we're required to comply with in the operation of our business. That's the first point I would say. The second point as to what we're doing, in fact, our Climate Transition Plan, which, as we've just seen from the voting, has been overwhelmingly endorsed by our security holders, sets out in great detail what the targets, goals, and ambitions are that we have in our plans to support the energy transition in Australia and to support the Australian government's goals, which are in support of the Paris Agreement. It's all contained in that Climate Transition Plan what we're doing. Is there another question? The next question comes from Peter and Susan Keldore. A growing concentration of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere is driving increased systemic risk for APA's largest investors due to the impact of climate change on global markets. Does APA have any intention to manage its substantial end-user emissions and mitigate systemic risk for its largest investors? Look, the first thing I'd say is if anybody is interested, we provide a detailed breakdown of end-user emissions, as it's called, even though they aren't within our Scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions because, in effect, we're the courier company. We transport the gas. We don't sell it. In the interest of transparency, we've made our estimates of what end users of the gas that we transport, what those emissions might be. In answer to the question, what are we doing about it, we're supporting our customers with their own decarbonization plans. You heard us talk in my formal speech about what we've done completing solar and battery projects at Port Hedland. We're doing things like building solar farms, batteries, wind farms to help our customers with their own decarbonization plans. If there's someone who's been in the media in the last week or so, BlueScope talking about their potential to decarbonize their operations in Port Kembla, moving away from coal to natural gas. If that were to come about, what would we do about that? We'd make sure that we had the necessary infrastructure in place to help them get the gas that they need because it's a very big chunk of gas. That's the single biggest thing that they could do to decarbonize their operations. We also have a future energy program where we're looking at the potential for CO2 pipelines to eventually support carbon capture and storage. We've invested money in hydrogen, even though the economics of hydrogen, as most people may know, just doesn't work today. We've also been looking at biomethane, et cetera. Those things are there to help support our customers and to support end users to reduce their emissions. Any other questions? No further questions on the platform. We'll now go to the phones. Operator, do we have any questions from telephone participants? There are no questions on the phone line at this time. All right. I'll then go to any questions from the floor. We have a gentleman in the middle over here. Thank you. My name is Martin Mansfield. Yeah. Yep. Yep. I'm a retired teacher, so I'm used to not having a microphone. My name is Martin Mansfield. I wish to speak against the resolution. The first point I would make is that my family have been APA shareholders or AGL shareholders for a very long time. My parents first bought shares in AGL in 1979, and I inherited the APA shares a couple of years ago. I want to get down to the foundational issue in relation to climate. I note that APA's 2024 Climate Change Policy accepts the science of climate change, and that's been obvious from what Michael Fraser and Adam Watson have said. I assume also that APA accepts the risk assessment recently released by the federal government. I believe that APA, as a company, and we as shareholders, have to make a choice. Not a financial choice, not a choice about the energy transition, but a moral choice that we and we alone have to make. The choice is this: are we going to continue to contribute to climate change by facilitating the use of fossil fuels, no matter how much we may reduce our emissions? If we do, we will continue to contribute to the world becoming increasingly inhospitable for our kids and grandkids, like my two-year-old granddaughter, who will probably still be alive in 2100, when, according to the risk assessment, Australia will face dire consequences, a lot more very hot days like today, for example, with all the health impacts that will cause. Will we get out of fossil fuels and turn our whole focus to renewables? This will mean ending our existing participation in the fossil fuel industry as soon as possible and not increasing our participation. For example, if we make this choice, we will not build new pipelines to transport gas from the Beetaloo Basin. If we get out of fossil fuels and focus wholly on renewables, we will be making a contribution, no matter how small, to making Australia and the world a more hospitable place for our kids and grandkids. The Climate Transition Plan envisages APA making the first of these choices, that is, to continue to contribute to climate change, so I cannot support it. APA is not required to provide gas as part of the transition to a net zero economy. If we do, it will be a choice that we make, and we will be responsible for the consequences. APA already has a significant involvement in renewables, so unlike some other companies, we will be able to ramp up our provision of renewables relatively quickly and easily. This will mean that we'll be making a positive contribution to the energy transition instead of contributing to climate change. I urge shareholders to reject Resolution 2. I want to be able to look my granddaughter in the eyes as she grows up and tell her that I did everything I could not to make climate change worse, but to combat it and ensure that she and her children and grandchildren have a habitable planet to live on. My question is this, and it's not a rhetorical question. I would like a response. Will APA make the choice I'm making, or will APA continue to contribute to climate change? Thank you. Thank you. The first thing that I would say is that we're absolutely on the same page with respect to the need to decarbonize the planet, and we're on the same page with respect to the fact that climate change is real. Where we're not on the same page is what actually needs to happen to make that transition and, as best we can, keep energy reliable and affordable and decarbonize as quickly as we can. You talk about the federal government, and it is a federal Labor government, so that kind of says something given where they sit on this spectrum. The federal Labor government is crystal clear that we need new supplies of gas to support the energy transition. We simply can't get there with the technology as we know it today, and I accept fully and hopefully there will be technology developed in the future that means that we may not need to rely on gas. Where we are today, as Madeline King, the Resources Minister, said, we can't rely on the investments of the past. We need new sources of gas to get us to 2050 and beyond. The simple fact is we need it to support the energy transition. You talk about the government and the risks and the assessment, etc. The Australian government has clearly stated its support for the Paris Agreement, and it recently announced its new 2035 targets and submitted those under what's known as our nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. That's committed Australia to targeting reductions of 62%- 70% below 2005 levels by 2035. What does that all mean for us? One of the major policy levers, in fact, I would argue in many respects the major policy lever that the federal government has to try and meet those targets is known as the Safeguard Mechanism. That's a mechanism that requires large emitters around the country to reduce their emissions over time. The Safeguard Mechanism actually covers 80% of APA's emissions. After having set those targets, the government has also said that next year, they will conduct a review of that Safeguard Mechanism. We are required to comply with that mechanism. Whatever it is, it starts with what Australia's targets are in support of the Paris Agreement. That then goes to the policy mechanism, which will apply to over 80% of our emissions. We expect the Safeguard Mechanism would also obviously apply to any large-scale pipelines that may be built to support the Beetaloo Basin. Certainly, it will apply to the upstream producers. We will have to comply with that. In short, if we're complying with the Safeguard Mechanism, we're complying with the Australian government's support for Paris, and we are doing our bit to support the energy transition and keep energy as reliable and as affordable as it can be along the way. Other questions? We have one up here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Leslie Hughes. I'm a Professor Emerita and former Pro Vice Chancellor of Research at Macquarie University. I've had a 35-year career in research looking at the impacts of climate change on people, ecosystems, and infrastructure. I'm a former lead author for the IPCC's fourth and fifth assessment reports. You have repeated at this meeting APA's support for the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperatures well below 2 degrees and to work very hard to keep them below 1.5. It is very clear from the IPCC's latest assessment, the latest assessment from the International Energy Agency, and abundant peer-reviewed scientific literature that in order to stay at 1.5 or below, no new fossil infrastructure can be afforded for that carbon budget. By fossil fuel infrastructure, I mean coal, oil, and gas. Let me say, for those of you that continue to use the terms natural gas, so-called natural gas is 97% methane. It is the second worst greenhouse gas. My question to you is that how does APA reconcile support for the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement whilst promoting fracking and transport of methane from the Beetaloo Basin? If that project goes ahead, it could release well over a billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent climate-wrecking greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. How do you possibly reconcile the Paris Climate Agreement with your support for that new fossil fuel infrastructure? Thank you. Thank you. Look, a couple of things there, and I noticed, and you did very well, thank you for the question. You pivoted from a well below 2 degrees to the 1.5 degree scenario. I think, as you would no doubt be aware, there are a range of scenarios for a 1.5 degree outcome that the IPCC has modeled. Those range of scenarios include gas being at about 60%, I'll say, round numbers of today's level, up to there are scenarios where you get to net zero, where gas usage is up to something like 160% above where it is today. There are a range of scenarios out there. Also, it's been widely acknowledged that the no new gas scenario to get to the 1.5 degree that you mentioned took no account of global security issues. I just point you to the example of Russian gas to Western Europe, which you can talk about strategically, whether that was a smart thing that the Europeans did, and most people would say not. They need to get their gas from somewhere else. I'd also point you to something much closer to home, which is common sense outcomes, like the East Coast of Australia not having to resort to high-cost, higher emission LNG import terminals to supply domestic gas. With respect to Paris alignment, I think I've already answered that in the previous question, how the Safeguard Mechanism is the key mechanism that covers us. If the government, if the federal government's supporting Paris, and we're in line with that, then that's how we support it. Do you have another question? Just to follow on very briefly. Sorry, the microphones. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. The microphone needs. It's all very well to hide behind the Australian government. In fact, I'm a member of the Climate Change Authority that advised the government on those targets. I'm very, very well aware of where they came from. To meet those targets, we actually need to be producing 92% of our energy from renewables, not from fossil fuels. I repeat, we cannot stay underneath 1.5 with any, and I mean any, new fossil fuel infrastructure. Beetaloo is a carbon bomb that puts us way over Australia's current emissions. I don't see how anybody that cares about their children's future, their grandchildren's future, like the previous questioner, can possibly reconcile their conscience with any fossil fuel infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you. I'll take that as a statement and just say that I think I have reconciled for you how we fall in line with the government's ambitions. Another question over here. Sorry, is there one down here? Sorry, we missed you down there. It's not a question. It's just a comment to the previous speakers. I'd like to remind them a thousand years ago, the Vikings were farming on Greenland. Somebody commented twice in recent memory, not memories, times, there'd be no snow in Antarctica or Greenland. Is it a natural turning of the climates, or is it due to our presence? I think a lot of this is due to a natural occurrence. Thank you. Thank you. I'll take that as a statement. Gentleman up here in the middle, thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. I'm Chef Paisley. My great-grandparents were shareholders in AGL. My parents were shareholders in AGL. Now I'm one and have been since I was passed along the shares into APA. We have had some interesting comments today. I think the thing that concerns me is we're going down too far of this path of decarbonizing, which perhaps is good, perhaps not. If you want to do something for the planet, for your children, for your grandchildren, in this auditorium, we're one of the one billion people on the planet who are well off. There's seven billion people who are not on this planet. I don't want to end up living in a cave. I want to live a life which I am used to. With that in mind, I suggest that let's get on with the meeting about making some money for shareholders. I would also like to comment that Market Forces should be billed for the paper and the crap that they cause this company with their interference with 10 basis points of shares in this company. That's outrageous. That should be allowed by the government for us to rebill them for that problem which they cause us as a company. I don't think I need to say any more. Thank you. Take that as a statement. I'm sure it's Market Forces you were referring to. All right. There don't appear to be any other—I'm sorry, there is one question up over here. Hi. My name is Carrie. Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. My question is about APA's reliance on carbon offsets. To date, in order to meet APA's emissions reduction target, APA has relied heavily on carbon offsets to reduce emissions from its gas infrastructure. The latest Climate Transition Plan and the Outlook to 2030 again emphasizes a continued reliance on carbon offsets. Following a recent greenwashing court case, APA's peer Energy Australia was forced to admit that carbon offsets cannot substitute for actual emissions reduction, and they had to make the following statements. Quote, "Burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gas emissions that are not prevented or undone by carbon offsets, and storing carbon in plants is not equivalent to keeping a store in fossil fuels by not burning them in the first place." Does APA agree with these statements? As you know, that was the finding of the court case, so far be it for me to argue with the court. Considering APA's ongoing use of carbon offsets and the fact that the company's claim to be Paris-aligned appears to be relying heavily on them, is APA concerned about exposure to greenwashing allegations and the associated legal risk faced by our company? We're very careful about our disclosures. Can I just say to you, it is net zero that we're talking about, and it is universally accepted, other than in perhaps some people in your universe, that offsets are going to be a part of the solution. I just make that comment. Okay, thank you. All right. If there are no further questions, there don't appear to be, I'll now move on to the next item of business, the next three items of business, actually, which relate to the election and re-election of directors on the board of the responsible entity, APA Group Ltd. Those directors being Varya Davidson, James Fazzino, and Rhoda Harrington. Two directors are required to retire by rotation under the company's constitution, namely James and Rhoda, and both of them being eligible for re-election. The nomination for Vaya for election is to fill a casual vacancy on the board. We intend to have each director up for election or re-election address the meeting before inviting any questions or comments from security holders on any of these resolutions. When we get to the end of their speeches, I will again put up where the votes have landed. Resolution 3 is the approval of the board-endorsed nomination of Varya Davidson for election as a director of APA Group Ltd. I'll now ask Varya to address the meeting. Varya. Thank you, Michael. Good morning. Standing for election to the APA Group Board is a privilege, and I appreciate this opportunity to seek your support for my appointment. The energy transition, as we've been discussing, is the biggest challenge this country has ever faced. I also believe it presents us with our single largest social and economic opportunity. Over the last decade, I've focused my efforts on solving sustainability, social value, and energy transition problems, finding new sources of value through positive action, and preserving value through the proactive management of risks. During my career, I have also worked with executives and boards around the world, developing strategies and translating those strategies and strategic intent into action, predominantly focusing on energy and heavy asset industries, including upstream gas, power utilities, and resources. I have shaped and led significant enterprise-wide transformation efforts, capital allocation and expenditure programs, and M&A activities. I am deeply passionate about the role culture plays in organizations and bring hands-on experience activating culture as a strategic asset. The opportunity to play my part in helping APA fulfill its purpose is exciting, working with a Board and executive team who are genuinely grappling with how to create value for all stakeholders through the energy transition. I believe APA has a pivotal role to play and is uniquely placed as one of the few Australian companies with the balance sheet and the national energy infrastructure experience necessary to succeed. I am committed to serving your interests diligently and with integrity, and I look forward to contributing positively to the continued success of APA over the years ahead. Thank you. Thank you very much, Varya. Once again, welcome to the Board. Resolution 4 is the approval of the Board-endorsed nomination for James Fazzino for re-election as a Director of APA Group Ltd. I'll now ask James to address the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. It's a privilege to stand before security holders today seeking re-election to the APA Board. Over the past three years as Chair of the Safety and Sustainability Committee, I've been proud to oversee significant achievements that have been delivered by management, which are a 42% reduction in the potential serious harm incidents and a 22% reduction in underlying emissions. These are substantial milestones that demonstrate our commitment to continuous improvement as we build towards an even safer, more sustainable future. The expertise I bring to the Board remains highly relevant and has been deepened over the last three years through active Board service. Firstly, customer insight from chairing Manufacturing Australia, and as the former CEO of Incitec Pivot, both of those give me unique insights into energy customers' needs. Secondly, policy and regulatory experience. Thirdly, project execution experience in complex infrastructure development, and that's critical as APA expands into what is arguably the world's most complex and challenging construction market. Operational excellence in safely managing high-hazard facilities in remote locations, leadership in diversity, inclusion, and psychological safety, and finally, running sustainable operations that deliver value to both communities and security holders. Looking forward, my commitment is to continue bringing practical experience, strategic oversight, and an unwavering focus on safety, sustainability, and security holder returns as we navigate the critical energy transition. I ask for your support to continue this important work. Thank you. Thanks very much, James. I just wanted to take the opportunity to say to security holders and say thank you to James for the fantastic job he does chairing our Safety and Sustainability Committee. In particular, there's an enormous amount of work that goes on not only from a management point of view, but at the board level in terms of the development of our Climate Transition Plans, the reporting on it, the engagement with stakeholders, security holders, et cetera. Thank you and well done. All right. Resolution 5 is the approval of the board-endorsed nomination of Rhoda Harrington for re-election as a director of APA Group Ltd. I'll now ask Rhoda to address the meeting. Thank you, Michael. Good morning, everyone. As Michael says, I'm Rhoda Harrington. I joined your Board in June 2022. Then as Rhoda Philippo, I recently changed my name as a result of marriage, but I'm definitely still the same person, I promise. I chair the Risk Management Committee, and I serve on both the Audit and Finance and People and Remuneration Committees. I'm honored to offer myself for re-election today at this, which will be my third term, and I thank you for your consideration. I am passionate about the infrastructure, in particular, the energy and technology sectors. Through both my executive and Board experience, I've gained deep insights into both the challenges and, as James has just outlined, the many opportunities in both the local and international market. Prior to my Board career, my executive career spanned 35 years in telecommunications, energy, IT, and infrastructure, the last 22 of those being in New Zealand and Australia. I hold a master's in telecommunications business and engineering, and I've worked in commercial engineering, customer service, and operations roles over that time. My global Board experience started way back in 2013, and in addition to my role on the APA Board, I'm a Non-Executive Director of Dexus, an ASX-listed real assets company, and Wavecon, which is the Omer Pensions Fund-owned Australian mobile tower phone business. My prior Board career includes chairing an IT company, chairing a global services payment provider, Deputy Chair of a New Zealand bank, and a Non-Executive Director on an ASX-listed telco, and a major Australian gentailer. Outside of work, I'm a proud mom and grandmom with family who live all over the world, including a son who is working for the United Nations in Ukraine at the moment. I'm a keen runner. I've completed 35 marathons, and I aim to complete my life goal of seven marathons in seven continents by running the Antarctic Ice Marathon in December 2026. Despite training for this, I confirm I do have sufficient time to dedicate to the APA Board role. If re-elected, I look forward to working with Adam and this great team as we navigate what you've been outlining today are the exciting strategic choices that we have to make over the coming decades. Thank you for your consideration. I can't let the moment go without sharing something with you because Rhoda just mentioned her training. Rhoda lives in Queensland, not the ideal place to train if you're going to run the marathon in Antarctica. She does have a local BWS shop, which has a large, as you know, walk-in refrigerator. She has got them to agree to allow her to put her treadmill in there, and she plans to train for the marathon by doing 10Ks at a time as part of her training in the cool room at her local BWS. I am absolutely certain that's going to get picked up by social media and the media more generally. She is running for charity, by the way. When you do see her and as the time gets closer, please support her. Thank you, Rhoda. The details of the total valid proxies for each of these agenda items are displayed on the screen now. I'd now like to invite any questions or comments on any of these three resolutions. It doesn't appear, sorry. Chairman, there are no questions on the platform. We'll now go to the phones. Operator, do we have any questions from telephone participants? There are no questions on the phone line at this time. Okay. On the floor, it doesn't appear that we have any questions. We'll move on. Thank you. Resolution 6 is the approval for the grant of performance rights to the CEO and Managing Director, Adam Watson, under APA's long-term incentive plan. The details of the total valid proxies for this agenda item are now displayed on the screen, which you can see people are overwhelmingly in favor. Are there any questions in relation to this resolution? There are no questions on the platform. We'll now go to the phones. Operator, are there any questions on the phones? There are no questions on the phone line at this time. Okay. Any questions from the floor? No, don't appear to be. Thank you. We'll then move to Resolutions 7A, B, C, and D, which, as I've said before, have been requisitioned by a group of security holders. I think, as I might have mentioned, 7A and B are special resolutions. They are seeking to amend the constitutions of APA Infrastructure Trust and APA Investment Trust, respectively. As mentioned earlier, Resolutions 7C and D are conditional on A and B being passed by 75% of security holders, so 75% of security holders being in favor of the resolutions. The board's response to those resolutions is set out in the notice of meeting and the total proxy voting you will see there. It's clear from the proxy votes and the votes represented on the floor of the meeting today that Resolutions 7A and B haven't been passed by the required 75% majority. In fact, there's more than 75% against. Accordingly, Resolutions 7C and 7D won't be put to the meeting. In the interest of transparency, as you've seen, we've put up the total valid proxies for all of those Resolutions A, B, C, and D. All right. I'd now like to see if there are any questions, comments. First of all, again, we'll go online first. Thank you, Nicole. Chairman, there are no questions from the platform. We'll now go to the phones. Operator, are there any questions from telephone participants? There are no questions on the phone line at this time. Okay. Any questions from the floor? Yes, we have one over here. Thank you very much. Chair, my name is Angelica Manticus, and today I speak on behalf of more than 100 security holders who have bound together to demand real transparency on APA's Beetaloo pipeline plans, the projected emissions, the track records of APA's partners in the Beetaloo, and the risks to water, health, culture, and shareholder value. Resolution 7C requests a pre-FID independently overseen analysis quantifying the full emissions from the proposed Beetaloo pipelines, testing alignment with APA's climate and methane targets, and disclosing the role and costs of offsets. This should be the bare minimum disclosure for these incredibly expensive and large-scale pipelines that could run until 2070, exposing investors to stranded asset risk as the clean energy transition rapidly accelerates. If transition risks materialize much greater and much sooner than expected, a 40-year asset can become a five-year headache and a bloody expensive one overnight. Further, operating these pipelines for 30 years could see end-user emissions in the order of a billion tons of CO2 equivalent, as our fellow IPCC scientist already has raised with us today. The IPCC has concluded that developing new gas fields is incompatible with the very global climate goals that APA claims it's committed to. Meanwhile, Resolution 7D simply calls for a basic, independent due diligence report on APA's key partners in the Beetaloo Basin, which, since 2021, APA's Beetaloo partners, Tamboran Resources and Beetaloo Energy, formerly named Empire Energy, have racked up more than 30 recordable and reportable incidents in the Beetaloo. Spills, leaks, contamination, the whole lot. Questions have been raised around how consent from traditional owners was obtained for fracking projects APA's pipelines were enabled, to the moving of and failure to report ancient Aboriginal stone tools found near a fracking well. This string of incidents happened during the exploratory phase, demonstrating a concerning pattern that should raise alarm bells for APA Group and its investors. Chair, if these pipelines are going to operate into the 2070s, then the disclosure on financial risks, climate impacts, and key partner due diligence must happen now before billions of dollars of capital is sunk and communities are put at risk. That is why I'm urging shareholders to support Resolution 7C and 7D, which would support greater disclosure from our company on these critical issues. My question to the board is the following. Commercial gas production in the Beetaloo Basin is only made possible with large-scale gas pipelines. Given APA would be playing a key role in facilitating the expansion of the gas fracking industry and a significant source of new climate pollution, is the company at all concerned about the potentially major adverse impacts such as climate, environmental, agricultural, economic, and cultural that may not ever be possible to remediate? Is that your question? Yes, correct. Okay. Obviously, we're concerned to make sure that any potential impacts are managed in an appropriate way. Let me just say, there is such a comprehensive approval process that has to be gone through just to deal with the environmental, the heritage, safety, etc., etc. There are over 200 different government approvals that just we need to get, let alone what the upstream players need to get in terms of their approval process. Those approval processes will include environmental impact assessments, both from the Northern Territory side, from the Queensland side, and no doubt the feds will be involved as well. It's comprehensive. That environmental impact assessment will take into account, I'm sure, all the things that you've talked about. From our perspective, you talk about the risks around these, and I would just say, yes, you're right in terms of these are big CapEx projects, and there's a heck of a lot that needs to come together for us as a Board to be confident enough to say, this is something that we should be investing in. It's very early on in the process. I mean, just the basics. Yes, they've had very favorable exploration results to date, but to build any large-scale project, whether that's a new LNG project sending the gas north or it's larger pipelines that go to send the gas to the East Coast, there's a lot more work that needs to be done to prove up the reserves before anybody would take an FID decision on the upstream side of things. From our own perspective, we've got that whole environmental process to go through and to go to something that you've just raised about, you know, when we would disclose. The reality is that those environmental assessment processes that we will need to go will require the disclosure of what the environmental impact will be, what the emissions will be. In terms of disclosure now, you know, technically, you could say we could take an FID decision before that. I can't, standing here today, I can't imagine the APA Board taking a decision to go ahead with a project until you knew what all the terms and conditions around the approval were that you had been granted. If you don't get the approval in the first place, it doesn't happen. There's a lot of water to go under the bridge. We will comply with whatever those conditions are. It'll be a very public consultation process. I do expect that you will be able to see what the emissions might be in. Now, the other thing I would say is who knows how it is actually going to be developed in the end. It may well be done in stages. We just don't have enough information to put anything that we would be prepared to stand behind publicly. When it comes to doing the environmental impact statements and the assessments and all the approvals we need to get, of course, we'll stand by what we put forward for our part of that. Again, remind everybody, the upstream players have to have all of that happen as well. I just have a follow-up question on that, if possible. I actually have with me a very real risk, actually, from the very Beetaloo Basin that we're talking about today. In my hand is actually a soil sample taken by an independent scientist just outside one of APA Group's fracking partners, Beetaloo Energy's sites. This was essentially from a spill that happened, and this was widely reported on ABC News, so you can look it up and have a look from the exact moment that this sample was taken. Acting on behalf of traditional owners, Professor Wright basically just sought access to test fracking wastewater against the very basic health and environmental guidelines we're talking about, right? He was initially granted access to the site by your partner, Beetaloo Energy, then denied entrance when he showed up there without a valid reason. He was then handed a stale, two-year-old report. We don't know if this is because there's potentially more to the story here. We don't know if Beetaloo Energy simply just doesn't value testing the impacts of its operations by independent scientists. In the words of Professor Ian Wright himself, he says this, and I quote, and this is something I want to raise directly with the board. I think we are in the early stages of unleashing a contamination chain reaction that we may not be able to stop or understand the impacts of for generations. Even in analyzing that two-year-old data, that stale data that he was given by your partner, Beetaloo Energy, Professor Wright flagged elevated heavy metals, nutrients, and radioactivity. In his words, once it's in the groundwater, it bonds with the soil. You risk a contamination chain reaction that traditional owners who still drink this water and harvest this land may be left to deal with long after the profits are booked. I guess my question is, if this soil is, if this is the contamination that is happening now at this stage, even with all these processes that exist, would any of you be comfortable growing your vegetables in this soil? If it's not good enough for you and your kids, then why is it good enough and why is it okay for the communities of the Northern Territory to have to deal with? Okay, a couple of comments. First of all, obviously, I have no idea whether what you say is true about where it came from, but I'll take you at your word in relation to that. I'll just say to you in relation to a couple of comments that I would make generally in response to what you've raised. The fact that, and I can't speak on behalf of those upstream people who are doing the development, I just can't speak on their behalf in relation to that. I do know that the Northern Territory has rigorous and transparent reporting requirements. I do know that, if not exclusively, almost exclusively, all of the incidents that you referred to have been self-reported by those upstream players. That's a good sign. That's what you want to see. Remember, they're out in the middle of nowhere. If they didn't want to disclose, they could potentially do that. They're self-reporting, and that's a good sign. The other thing that I understand is that none of the issues that have been reported have resulted in any material environmental harm, and any necessary remedial action has been taken. The other thing that I would say to you more generally about fracking, and I'll just go to, and I spoke about this last year, Professor Alan Finkel, former Chief Scientist of Australia, in relation to fracking, said the evidence is simply not there, that it's dangerous. In fact, the evidence is that if properly regulated, it's completely safe. There are also reports from the CSIRO, Macquarie University, the University of Queensland, ANSTO Research, which found little to no impacts on air quality, soils, groundwater, and waterways from fracking. As I said, there'll be an environmental assessment process that has to be gone through. I note, because it was live when we were at the AGM last year, Tanya Plibersek, when she was the federal minister, hit the water trigger to make an assessment of the works that were going on up there. That water trigger had a review done by an independent expert scientific committee, and that committee concluded that with appropriate mitigation, the impacts were minor. Those are just some comments that I would make. Right. Are there any other questions people want to raise? We've got one here. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dr. Megan Pickering. I'm a veterinarian and academic, and I have lived in the Katherine region of the Northern Territory for over 30 years. I'm not here to speak today as a veterinarian, but as someone who works and has worked widely across the region for a very long time. I work with pastoralists and mango growers, and more importantly, I particularly work with Indigenous communities across the Northern Territory and in the Katherine and Beetaloo basins. A lot of these people are not, there's none of those people here today because they don't have a voice. These people live in absolutely abject poverty. Most of them don't speak English as their first language. I note, Mr. Fraser, that in your opening remarks, you referred to APA 's record on dealing ethically and with great consent with Indigenous people. I have to say that we, as residents of the region, have grave concerns about this claim because Indigenous people have not been directly consulted, not at all. My understanding is that APA is using the Northern Territory government to do all of their consulting for them. The Northern Land Council has not been consulted. The traditional owners who live and own the lands on which you plan to run your pipeline have not been consulted. Mr. Watson, I note that in your address you said that land use access agreements had been granted. What we're aware of as community members is that particularly in the Tanimbrini land access agreement, traditional owners were put in a room without access to people who could speak their language and interpret appropriately for them. Land access agreements were written without their full consent and with many of those people really not understanding what it was that they were signing. This is my call out to the board today. If you really believe that you are ethically, with full consent, consulting with the people of the Northern Territory, you need to understand that the Northern Territory government is not doing this. The Northern Territory government rammed through a piece of absolutely brutal legislation earlier this year in the form of the Territory Coordinator position. We now have a single unelected bureaucrat who is able to negotiate anything he wants. If he determines that an area of the Northern Territory is an area of developmental importance, then land access agreements can be rammed through without the consent of landholders and without the consent of native title holders. We will just have to wear that. The places where we live and that are really, really important to us are the parts of the land where the Cambrian limestone aquifer is absolutely the lifeblood of these communities. Many of you probably would know about the Mataranka Springs, which are beautiful postcards. It's a lovely part of the Northern Territory, but they're not just postcards. That's our water source. It's our culture. It's our tourism. It's really our livelihoods. The Katherine region is dry. For six months of the year or more, we have no rain, and we rely on underground water. Today I bring with me some handwritten letters from members of my community, which I would like to hand to the board at the end. I would really like you to consider them carefully because there is no one that is coming from major capital cities to come and actually speak meaningfully with members of our community to know what we think about what you're planning to do to our land. I really want to raise APA 's role in facilitating these fracking projects because they are putting water at risk of damaging lives and culture. We have very alarming changes in water quality already, very limited baseline data, and new extraction licenses keep getting issued. The most recent water allocation plan, which is going to go to irrigated agriculture as well as fracking, didn't involve traditional owners, and it left almost nothing for Indigenous communities. These are the people that are going to be shortchanged in the long term. It's not people in this boardroom. It's not people in Sydney. It's not people who are shareholders who are making money out of this. It's very, very poor Aboriginal people who, as you said, live in the middle of nowhere. Just because they live in the middle of nowhere, it doesn't mean that they have no right to self-determination over their water and their country. That is how we feel at the moment, that we have been completely shortchanged. If APA and its partners continue down this path and our ancient springs decline because the water extraction licenses are utilized and enormous amounts of water are taken from our underground aquifers, it is our communities that are going to bear the consequences. My first question today is, does APA's Board accept any responsibility for safeguarding the Mataranka Springs from the water risks that are definitely, not possibly, definitely going to be risked by the Beetaloo gas and that your pipeline is enabling? I know that you are not the frackers. I know that you are not that company, but at the moment we feel like we have Dracula in charge of the blood bank. What I will say is that from, and again, I can't speak on behalf of the upstream parties, but the simple facts are that, as I have already alluded to, there is an enormously extensive, transparent approval process that has to be gone through where all of the issues you've just raised about water will need to be dealt with. Be it the upstream players or ourselves, we'll need to comply with whatever the outcome of that assessment is and whatever conditions are imposed if an approval is ultimately given for the large-scale development. As I've already said before, there's numerous work that's been done that talks about with appropriate safeguards, this can be done safely. I know you asked that question, but I really disagree with what you were saying about our consultation with Indigenous communities and how that's done via the Northern Land Council. I might just get Adam to speak to that because he's been talking directly. Sure, Michael. Thank you for your observation. We've got various obligations and commitments that we make, both through legislation and our own commitments that we make as a company under our reconciliation plan. Probably the best evidence of the engagement that we've had, in addition to the extensive engagement that our team and our people and our contractors have with the traditional owners, including going out to site, not just the site of the operation but to the traditional owner communities, is that as recent as I think it was six weeks ago, Liz McNamara and I met with the CEO of the Northern Land Council, Yusuf Dean. The Northern Land Council has statutory obligations to represent the traditional owners of any area that could or is going to be affected by a development such as the one that we're working on. They have extensive and deep engagement requirements under those statutory obligations. I've got the website here. I'm sure you've seen it. I could read through what they are. Engagement is without question the number one requirement they have. We feel incredibly confident. Not only have we met all of the statutory obligations to provide us with the necessary permits and approvals that we have now received to progress, but also the engagement they would expect to have undertaken. We were actually commended by Yusuf for the work that we did. I may get this a little off, but he effectively quoted us as saying it was the most extensive and professional engagement that he has ever seen or his team, who he spoke with, has ever seen at the Northern Land Council. That engagement was ongoing for months to work through the necessary processes, and the feedback was incredibly positive. We feel incredibly proud of the work that we've done with our consultation with the communities in the Northern Territory. Thanks, Adam. I think it's important for other security holders here when you hear something like that, that you don't go away from the meeting thinking that's us when it clearly isn't us or what we've done. I have a follow-up question. Sorry, I'm glad you're confident that you've done adequate consultation, but I was at a community meeting on Sunday in Katherine with Northern Land Council members who knew absolutely nothing about what you're talking about. Some people may know, but everybody doesn't. I guess my follow-up question was if APA will not accept any responsibility for the risks of safeguarding our water, will you commit to binding contract clauses that suspend gas transport if groundwater or Mataranka spring flow triggers are breached? What we will commit to is doing everything in our power to comply with whatever conditions are imposed on any development should it occur at some point in the future. Do we have another question? I'm only going to take, I'll take two more questions because I think everybody's seen what the voting is. Clearly, these resolutions are not getting up. Let's take two more questions or statements. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name's Trevor Gibb. I'm from 600 km north of Perth. Naturally, you've got the big wind farm out there halfway between Perth and where I live. Renewables, yeah, it's all well and good. Right, the sun doesn't shine all the time, nor does the wind blow every day. We have a great project that's going to go ahead. We're going to have 750 wind turbines plus 10,000 hectares of solar panels to create hydrogen up there. What we need is the infrastructure to transport all that renewables. It's not there. That's another issue that needs to be solved by somebody else. Gas is a backup to renewables, but we're starting to lose control of the gas. Like in Western Australia, they put aside, the Western Australian government put aside 15%. Over the East Coast, there's nothing. I know they're trying to get it that way, but the thing is, the lights are going to go out over here without the supply of gas to back up the renewables. What can be done? We've got a pipeline that's going to happen. Maybe down the track. Okay, so look, a couple of things, and thank you for that. What's going to happen? You're right. What the gentleman was referring to in Western Australia, they have a domestic reservation policy. It's part of the conditions imposed on the LNG players to export. That doesn't happen here on the East Coast. As you rightly said, anybody who knows anything about it, rather than what you might hear at the pub or whatever, knows that we need more gas and knows that gas has a critical role to play to back up renewables. That's recognized by, again, by anybody who has anything to do with it. What needs to happen from our perspective, logically, is that the gas in Bass Strait is in decline. More gas needs to come from the north, Queensland. There is some gas at Narrabri, but whether that gets developed or not. That gas needs to come from the north, Queensland, Northern Territory to supply the south. We have an East Coast grid expansion plan. We've completed stages one and two of that, which have increased the capacity by around 25% to be able to transport that gas to get it to where it's needed. We have plans announced for the next stages of that, which will see a further 24% expansion. What will happen is governments are doing a review. The federal government is doing a review right now around the gas markets. The very, I would say, strong expectation within the industry is that they will impose some form of domestic reservation on the East Coast on a forward-looking basis. That's really important to make sure it's available. What else happens is we need to make sure we've got the necessary infrastructure in place to get the gas from where it's produced to where it's needed. That's the basic plan. Last question. Thanks very much, Board. Thanks, Mr. Fraser. I'm Dr. Anthony Hull. I'm a Senior Anaesthetist, and I'm the Deputy Chair of Doctors for the Environment of Australia in New South Wales. I'm actually going to ask two questions. The question pertains to the health impacts of the Beetaloo Basin project and the associated APA pipeline proposed. I note that APA's pipeline project will be a major enabler of fracking in the Beetaloo. I want to talk about the health risk for populations. Populations living near fracking wells and pipelines relate mainly to hazardous pollutant leaks, such as volatile organic compounds from fracking fluids and from the gas itself. These affect air and water, hence the health implications. BTEX, or agents like benzene, toluene, and other agents, these pollutants have the greatest associated health risks. There's also an increased risk of widespread ozone pollution above acceptable limits. There are higher rates of leukemia for children who live near fracking wells and pipelines, low birth weight babies, premature deliveries, birth defects, asthma, increased severity of chronic disease. There are also higher rates of premature death for populations that live near gas and oil projects internationally. I'm providing this information based on robust, accepted, and recent medical evidence. The first of my questions is, how can APA proceed with a project related to the Beetaloo project in good faith, knowing these harms, or is APA comfortable with the idea of a human sacrifice zone, as they're known, around these wells, or Australia's version of Cancer Alley that would be associated with this project? Is this deemed just a necessary cost of doing business? That's my first question. Look, as I said, from APA's perspective, as I've said before, there is plenty of evidence. I quoted Alan Finkel. I quoted again that, you know, the evidence simply isn't there that it's dangerous. In fact, the evidence is if it's properly regulated, it's completely safe. There is a heap of research, CSIRO, Macquarie Uni, University of Queensland, ANSTO Research Fund, little to no impacts on air quality, soils, groundwater, and waterways. I could go on about the research that says it gets different conclusions to yourself. That having been said, there are over 200 different approvals that we will need to go through. That will have literally thousands of conditions that are imposed, as I said, if the project goes ahead and we're a part of it, that will be imposed on us. We'll do our very best to comply with them because that's what the process is about, in part to ensure there aren't those health impacts. What's the next part of your question? Thank you. Just in response to that, regulating or assuring that there is a lack of these health impacts is incredibly complex and difficult. That's been shown worldwide, and that would stand for this case as well. I should also add that the regulations and the approvals that have to be sought for these projects do not involve a strict assessment of the health implications. Unfortunately, that's a weakness of our regulatory sector. My second question is, how will APA manage a potential future legal risk given these facts of the health implications, which I should say are based on the very best and the most recent international evidence that's available, despite how you qualified that in answer to my last question? How would APA manage the risks of future claims made against it for health complications that occur to populations near the fracking site or near the pipeline? The obvious answer to that is that we will do everything that we can to comply with whatever conditions are imposed on any pipeline that we may be involved in. All right. I'm going to call that to an end, as I said, in relation to that agenda item, and that covers off all resolutions on the agenda. A summary setting out the details of the total valid proxies for all agenda items, including those not formally put to the meeting, is displayed on the screen for your reference, so you can see them all there together. Voting will close shortly, so please complete your yellow voting cards now if you've not done so already. A reminder to security holders participating online to please vote now as well. Representatives of MUFG will now collect your yellow voting cards. Polls will automatically close five minutes after the conclusion of this meeting. That completes the formal business of the meeting. The poll results will be released on the ASX and will also be available on APA's website later today. Now, to conclude the meeting, let me turn to general business, and I'm going to open the meeting to any questions security holders may have in relation to other matters related to APA's business that haven't been already discussed this morning. Just to be clear, I won't be taking any more questions in relation to matters that have already been discussed. If there are no further questions, I will bring the meeting to a close. Before we go to the room, are there any questions online or on the phones? Thank you, Chairman. There are two questions on the platform. The first question comes from David Bryce and has multiple parts. I'll read the question in full. The reported shortage of gas on the East Coast of Australia that is heading Australia's way is that the shortage is going to be a function of actual gas supplies and not the carrying capacity of APA 's network of natural gas pipelines. For Australian LNG producers to fulfill the gas supplies to the East Coast in the future, will APA 's current capacity of network of pipelines be sufficient to supply that LNG, or would APA need to build more pipelines? I think I just actually covered this off, so very quickly. The reason for the shortages is the decline in Bass Strait, primarily. That's what's actually going on. Do we need to increase capacity in order to meet the demand that is there? The short answer to that is yes. That's why we've already expanded by 25% our East Coast north-south capacity, and we've got plans in place for a further 24% expansion. The next question comes from Anthony Westwood. Why is there a fixation on a high proportion of female employees in the CEO's address? There is currently a majority of female undergraduates in many university courses, particularly in the professions. Surely, we should be looking for a higher male participation rate, particularly amongst university graduates employed by APA. We actually discussed this issue in depth yesterday at our People and Remuneration Committee, but Adam, do you want to respond? Sure, thank you, Michael, and thank you for the question. Diversity and inclusion is very, very important to APA, and in fact, it's core to what it means to us to be part of APA. One of the things that we've been trying to do to address the fact that more broadly, we have a disproportionate higher number of males to females in our organization has been really focused at two parts of our organization. One is at the senior level, and I think we've done an outstanding job, which I have to say is merit-based as we recruit new senior leaders into the organization. To ensure that we have got appropriate diversity from a gender perspective across the senior leaders of the organization, we similarly see an opportunity to do that at the entry level into APA, which is addressed through areas like graduates and interns and apprentices. We've been very targeted and focused on addressing that. We believe that by addressing our gender targets through the most senior people in our organization and the new entrants into the organization, that provides the gateway and the avenues to address what we call the tough spots, which is the middle part of our organization. We want to continue on that journey. We believe it's part of what makes us a fantastic place to work. We get feedback through our culture survey that supports that. It's something that I'm personally very, very focused on. It is something that the board is very focused on. If you actually looked at the remuneration report, where that focused on it, it ends up in Adam and the senior execs' KPIs for their incentives. Any other questions online? There are no further questions on the platform, Chairman. We'll now go to the phones. Operator, do we have any questions from telephone participants? There are no questions on the phone line at this time. Okay, we'll go to the floor. Okay, we'll go to number four up the back there. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is Rowan Gear, individual shareholder. I have perhaps a multi-part question to do with the three, I think the term is BEWS, giant batteries, which the company has in, I think they're all in Western Australia. I had a look at the map in the annual report. Firstly, the simple part of the question, are they all basically lithium-ion batteries or might they include some other type of battery? That's the first question. I'll just answer that to the best of my knowledge and belief. The answer is yes, that they're lithium-ion batteries. Right, thank you. The second part of my question is a simple one. If I may speak personally, informally, after the meeting closes, to perhaps one or more of your engineering executives with some possible suggestions I might have as to the prospect of diversifying the sorts of very large secondary batteries, which the transition to renewable electricity seems to me to be a crucial question and a very fraught one. I'm not a fan of lithium-ion batteries from what I've heard of them, but unfortunately, I'm also an ignoramus. I don't fully understand even their construction or ingredients, let alone their operation. The little I've heard about them, whilst I'm greatly impressed with their power density characteristics, they do marvels when they work properly. I'm very concerned about the exotic materials I believe are in them and they're possibly presenting grave difficulties to recycle the things at the end of their lifespans. That's one question. I have some other questions with regard to what I read in the annual report and the climate report about, I think, very commendable efforts being made by the company to bring into play some electrical powering of your compressor stations, which I assume at the moment are all gas-driven by bleeding off some gas from the gas transported. I think that's an excellent idea. I would like to make some further questions to any of your engineering executives as to how that's going to work. I'm not an engineer, but I nonetheless wish to ascertain what the nuts and bolts are that are involved. I don't want to bog the rest of the afternoon general meeting with technical questions. No, that's fine. Thank you for those questions. I think it's best there were three faces down here who are likely candidates whose faces lit up about the prospect of having that discussion with you. We'll take those questions on notice for the exec team down the front here. Thank you. I'm glad you said that their faces lit up because I— They did. They all, because they were looking at me. Don't look at me. No, they're all very keen to engage with you on it. They're a pain in the neck with getting involved with some things. Okay, thank you. Another question over there. Sorry. Oh, there we go. Thanks. Yeah, good afternoon nowadays, Chair. I've just got a quick question about CapEx, actually. So Rystad Energy has estimated that the two large-scale Beetaloo pipelines would cost the company between $8 billion and $10.5 billion. I'm sorry, I'm going to cut you off there because I said I'm not going to take any more questions in relation to those matters that have already been discussed. It's back to the Beetaloo question. No, it's about CapEx for. Yeah, it is about CapEx for the Beetaloo. I'm just curious to know how the company would find the capital for that. Would it be debt and equity raise? That's for the future. We, at this stage, as I've said, we need to understand what the scope and scale and timing of any projects are, and there's an enormous amount of work that has to go on. As I said, no more questions in relation. How do you feel about those numbers that Rhoda Harrington's put out there? We disagree with that work. I think there's another question. Do you perhaps have your own figures then, surely? As I said, we've dealt with those matters previously in relation to the Beetaloo. We're into general business. I think there's a question down here. Thanks. Thank you. My name is Richard Jackson. I'm the representative of the Australian Shareholders Association today. I've got a more prosaic question, a topic that's always of interest to our members, and that's the outlook for distributions. EBIT growth last year was excellent, but free cash flow growth was pretty limited, in large part due to the increase in interest costs. Given the growth CapEx and need to stay within your credit metrics, as the debt rolls over the next couple of years, leaving everything else to one side, there might not be that much scope for free cash flow growth. Does that imply a slower outlook for distribution growth over the next few years? I'll let Adam answer that because we're always very careful in terms of what we say with forward-looking statements. Thank you, Richard. Firstly, we've got a great history of being able to deliver year-on-year distributions. We don't have a progressive policy or anything that suggests that's what we're going to do in the past, but we certainly know that it's something that our shareholders really like. As you'd expect, I spend a lot of time with our shareholders on that matter. One of the things that we have done recently is we've moderated the level of growth in our distributions for a couple of reasons. One is we want to ensure that we've got sufficient cash to continue to, or preserve sufficient cash to continue to support the CapEx that we see in our development pipeline. That's all about trying to get the balance right between continuing to maintain a steady level of distribution growth, if that's what, and that's what we hope to achieve, but if that's what we can achieve, with being able to recycle that cash that we generate into the capital. We obviously work very closely with the rating agencies, and we actually provide them through the confidentiality agreements that we have with forward estimates, and they're just estimates, but forward forecasts to ensure that they can get comfortable with the ratings that they apply to us, which then goes to our ability to be able to raise, at least from a debt perspective, raise capital to fund that future growth. We spend a lot of time, obviously at a management level, but a lot of time with the board, taking them through a range of forecasts that we have, which are largely predicated on growth opportunities and different scenarios in that regard to then try to ensure that when we triangulate those models, we can continue to pay that distribution out. It's very comprehensive. I'd like to call it an ambition, not a commitment, but an ambition to continue to keep our distributions growing over time and get that balance right. Obviously, that is subject to the future, and we'll continue to monitor that as we look forward. Thanks, Richard, and nice to meet you in person. All right, I don't believe, yes, there's one more question. Hello, Michael. My name's Charlotte. I've got a very succinct question. It's just a yes or a no. That's all I need. I'll keep it brief. I'm representing members of the Big Rivers Environmental Advocacy Group. We represent residents from across the NT, most of them. Yeah, look, I'm sorry, but as I said before, and to be fair, I gave people plenty of time to ask. As I said, we're moving on from that, and I wouldn't take any more questions in relation to that. You've seen what the vote is. Does anybody have a question in relation to any other business? Will you take our papers? If you can give that to someone. Will you take our papers? Will you read our letters from our community? Will you read our handwritten letters from our community? Certainly, if you would like to hand them to the lady there, thank you very much. All right. There don't appear to be any other questions, so that does complete the business of the meeting. Please note that voting will remain open for a five-minute window following the conclusion of the meeting for webcast and online participants. All polls will then automatically close. Thank you for your attendance today, and I now declare this meeting closed, subject to finalization of the poll. Thank you.