Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Peter Day. I'm a Non-Executive Director and Chair of Alumina Limited. As the Chair of Alumina Limited and of this meeting, it is my pleasure to welcome you to the 53rd Annual General Meeting of the company. I'd like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we stand and pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. I will briefly discuss some housekeeping matters before moving to the business of the meeting. In the unlikely event that evacuation of the auditorium is required, attendees are to follow the directions of the venue staff, and the meeting will be adjourned. The emergency assembly area is the Old Melbourne Gaol, just be careful unless otherwise broadcast over the public address system. I welcome shareholders who have joined the meeting in person and who are listening on the webcast. Before formally beginning the meeting, I would like to introduce you to my fellow Directors. Seated in the front row, we have Shirley In't Veld, a Non-Executive Director and Chair of the Compensation Committee, Deborah O'Toole, a Non-Executive Director and Chair of the Audit and Risk Management Committee, John Bevan, a Non-Executive Director and Chair of the Nomination Committee, and Chen Zeng, a Non-Executive Director. On my far right is Mike Ferraro, our Chief Executive Officer, and on my immediate right is Nick Wallace-Smith, Alumina's Assistant Company Secretary. The company's Chief Financial Officer, Galina Kraeva, is seated in the front row. The company's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, is represented by Miss Amanda Campbell, who is also present. Miss Campbell is available to answer any questions regarding the conduct of the audit and the content and preparation of the audit report. A quorum of members is now present. I now declare the meeting open. The notice of meeting has been circulated. I will take it as read. As previously notified to the ASX, all resolutions today will be decided on a poll, including and based on any proxies that were submitted before the meeting. The proxies received for today's meeting are held by the Assistant Company Secretary. We have received proxies representing approximately 2.3 billion shares or 80% of the company's issued shares. Votes cast in person today will, of course, be tallied with the proxies to arrive at the final outcome advised to the ASX. The first item on the agenda of the meeting is to receive and consider the financial statements. No resolution or vote is required on the financial statements. I will deal with this first item by making some remarks. I will then ask Mike Ferraro, our Chief Executive Officer, to address shareholders. I will open the meeting for questions on this first item before dealing with each of the remaining agenda items in turn. Let's turn our attention to the 2022 year. I should note that all references in currency in my and Mike's presentations are in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise stated. The company reported a net profit of $104 million for 2022. The decline in profit from the previous year was reflective of the turbulent commodity markets during 2022. Not just volatile energy prices, but also prices of major consumables, such as caustic. Mike will discuss these impacts on the company's results further in his presentation. In 2022, the total fully franked dividend for the year was $0.042 per share, paid from the first half's results. There was no second-half final dividend. The total dividend for the 2022 year was lower than for 2021, reflecting the decline in the AWAC joint venture's profit. The average dividend yield to Alumina shareholders, before any benefit of franking over the last five years, has nevertheless been 6.5% per annum. In the first half of 2023 so far, net cash flow from operations will not result in a first-half dividend to shareholders. Our net debt level at the end of 2022 was $106 million, with the company having debt facilities of $350 million. The company's net debt had increased to $180 million as at the 30th of April 2023, as capital contributions to AWAC have been funded by drawing down on debt facilities. Alumina's strategy is to invest in bauxite mining and alumina refining operations through AWAC. Our alumina refineries benefit from competitive scale and technology, proximity of long-life bauxite reserves, and favorable energy and emissions positions. In its most simple sense, AWAC's operations, for example, in Western Australia, utilize gas and other raw materials in the process to convert bauxite into a much higher value-added product in alumina, the basic feedstock to smelt aluminum metal. Alcoa of Australia, the AWAC joint venture business in Western Australia, is one of the great value-adding businesses in WA, having built some of the most competitive alumina refining assets in the world and operated them over many decades. At the foundation of its competitiveness is the strategic, reliable, long-term gas resource located in and around WA. Gas has become highly strategic in times of changing energy markets and the needs of a lower carbon world. In this context, maintenance of a reliable and cost-competitive natural gas supply to Southwest WA, which has been critical to Alcoa of Australia's success, is essential for not only Alcoa of Australia, but the broader WA industrial community. Alcoa of Australia is also uniquely placed in having plentiful long-life bauxite resources in the Darling Ranges. Our joint venture's Australian refineries combine its competitive energy position with close geographical proximity to bauxite resources. This unique combination has delivered enormous value for shareholders, employees, and the community over a 60-year period. Alcoa of Australia has a consistent record of economic contribution and has, for example, over the last five years, paid more than AUD 2.8 billion in taxes and royalties, and AUD 3.5 billion in wages and benefits to employees. Alcoa of Australia and the Alcoa Foundation has also made AUD 20 million in community contributions over that period. Australia is now taking steps that will challenge many of its established industries, including alumina and aluminum, that are dependent on coal and gas. Many of these industries are products of previous state and Commonwealth policies that favored adding value to Australia's resources, so that jobs and wealth could be created here, diversifying our economic activity from exporting raw commodities only. The steps we as a nation are taking will see industry in this country beginning to transition off fossil fuels. This will result in a very significant increase in demand for electricity from renewables. The first challenge is to install the required increase in renewable energy capacity and supporting storage and transmission capacity. Australia has world-leading solar and wind generation values and potential to generate other renewable energy sources, such as green hydrogen. This will be an enormous undertaking. The renewable generation inputs required for AWAC's anticipated non-carbon-based technologies to reduce emissions have not yet been built. The firming requirement of this electricity gives rise to the second challenge in the transition to renewables. In the transition to renewables, having power that is available 24/7 is a particular challenge which will require consideration of electricity storage solutions within the network. Solar and wind-generated electricity must be supported by significant storage capability and backup capacity. A transition to renewables ambition without certainty on storage and backup solutions has real potential to threaten the future of Australia's best-in-class value-adding industries. Industries such as alumina refining and aluminum smelting require power and heat available 24/ 7. That means renewable-generated electricity must have adequate infrastructure which firms that electricity and can deliver heat to process. Transition plans in Australia are currently not addressing the issue of backup capacity adequately, given battery technologies do not currently provide a viable long-duration backup solution. For example, the largest battery currently in Australia could power half of the Portland smelter for a maximum of one hour. Gas peaking, which involves gas-fired electricity plants, which can be quickly brought on, appears to be one of the solutions to properly support the transition. Gas peaking can provide the backup firming capacity during this energy transition. Greater government and business effort is thus needed to ensure gas can properly provide the necessary backup capacity. Aside from its role in backing up renewable energy, the role of gas in Australia's energy transition warrants greater acknowledgment. Actions to reduce carbon emissions that threaten Australia's value-adding industries, which are already in the world's lowest emissions quartile, are counterproductive and risk carbon leakage occurring in our global industry. Our concern is that the plans for Australia's energy transition threaten to create immense uncertainty on the availability and cost of future energy supply. While my remarks today have mainly focused on the transition to cleaner energy, AWAC also faces quite challenging energy and technology hurdles in achieving its own net zero ambition. Our joint venture operator, Alcoa, has set itself high ambitions to achieve technological breakthroughs, such as mechanical vapor recompression, electric calcination, which are both aimed at the alumina refining stage, and inert anode installation, which is aimed at the smelting stage. These are monumental change processes that will require significant investment and patience. You, our shareholders, will also need to have confidence in this program and support this transition over a long period. In conclusion, your company was impacted in 2022 by changes in commodity and energy markets and a decline in alumina production. The AWAC business is undergoing a period of consolidation as it works to increase operating stability and address regulatory requirements and higher costs. At the same time, the alumina market remains fundamentally attractive. Your board and management are committed to working with Alcoa so that AWAC addresses its current challenges and generates long-term value from the AWAC business. With those remarks, I'll pass over to Mike. Thank you, Peter, and welcome everyone. 2022 was a year of contrasting halves, with buoyant alumina prices producing a strong first half profit. A decline in alumina prices later in 2022, coupled with higher costs, led to a flat second half result. Our net profit of $104 million in 2022 was a 45% decrease over the previous year. The average alumina price for the year increased by 10% to $362 per ton. The cost of alumina production rose by 29%. Refining margins were $67 per ton, compared to $85 in 2021. Higher production costs were driven by higher raw materials and energy prices, particularly in Europe. The Western Australian operations were also affected by unplanned outages, higher maintenance costs, and lower bauxite ore grades. AWAC's alumina production of 11.8 million tons in 2022 was 800,000 tons less than the prior year. This was due to the factors affecting WA operations and a decision to reduce production at the San Ciprián refinery. In addition to reducing operating capacity, the partners are pursuing options to improve the viability of the San Ciprián operations. There has been a number of disruptions to gas supply in Western Australia in 2023. This has caused the Kwinana refinery to curtail one digester since early January, and it remains curtailed. Disruptions at the Portland Smelter and a section of conveyor collapsing at the Alumar Refinery in Brazil have also impacted production. Two sustainability issues, particularly important to AWAC, are decarbonization and biodiversity. Peter has talked about decarbonization and the company's plans. On biodiversity, AWAC is fully committed to taking action to successfully and responsibly meet the challenges that arise. In particular, I want to talk to you about Alcoa of Australia and its environmental and biodiversity actions on bauxite mining in the Darling Ranges in WA. Alcoa of Australia has a 60-year history of mining bauxite in the southwest of WA. It has understood the importance of biodiversity, environmental protection, and rehabilitation throughout its 60 years of operation. Alcoa of Australia's track record of rehabilitation excellence has been recognized through a number of environmental awards. These include the Golden Gecko Award and recognition from the United Nations for Rehabilitation Excellence and being placed on the Global 500 Roll of Honour. Mine rehabilitation planned in the early stages of mine development, with the objective of restoring a diverse and self-sustaining jarrah forest. Alcoa of Australia has achieved world-leading results in achieving self-sustaining jarrah forests where it once mined. Over the last 20 years, it has achieved a net return of 92% of flora species to restored areas compared to the original reference forest. Mine rehabilitation is a critical part of broader measures to avoid, minimize, restore, and offset impacts on biodiversity. In 2021, it also planted 570,000 native jarrah forest plants at the Huntly and Willowdale mines. I'll pause for a moment for a video footage which illustrates a successful rehabilitation of the Jarrah Forest over a 25-year period. That's good rehabilitation at work. Those areas used to be mine areas. To date, more than 75% of the areas cleared for mining have been rehabilitated and are at various stages of development. The raw percentage numbers does not readily provide the full picture. Given the progressive nature of bauxite mining, rehabilitation rates can vary each year depending on the infrastructure, like roads, conveyors, and crushers required to service existing and future mining areas. Due to the lead times for building infrastructure in areas prior to a mine move, a temporary higher rate of clearing compared to rehabilitation is required for several years while mining continues in the current region. Mine region changes have occurred twice in the past 11 years in WA. This and other factors can cause a proportion of areas rehabilitated to be less than the areas cleared. Over the past five years, on average, about 570 hectares has been restored annually in Western Australia. Alcoa of Australia has developed a plan to sustainably increase rehabilitation rates to progressively reduce the disturbance footprint. Consistent with the growing focus on biodiversity and environmental health, regulators are requesting and expecting greater assurance from mining operators on environmental impacts. Alcoa of Australia has been working cooperatively with regulators in WA, producing new data and proposing engineering plans as part of these approval processes. Some of this work relates to mining in areas proximate to the Serpentine Dam. Alcoa of Australia has mined in the southwest of WA, as I mentioned, for over 60 years, without having had any negative impact on the public water supply. This work takes time and has extended the approvals process for mining in WA. The work being undertaken with government is well advanced, but is not yet complete. We have previously advised that Alcoa of Australia has reduced the bauxite ore grade from quarter one 2023 to extend the bauxite ore supply available under existing approvals and provide more time to work through the next set of approvals. Turning to market conditions. The alumina market is one of the key elements of the company's strategy, as discussed by Peter. Let me explain why we believe the global alumina market and the way it functions works favorably for your company. The alumina market reflects finely balanced fundamentals, where supply and demand changes are efficiently reflected in spot prices. The alumina supply and demand balance and the near-term outlook can quickly tighten and result in shortages and price spikes. This can be due to disruptive elements, such as refinery outages and regulatory interventions, or changes in energy or economic conditions. There's been frequent disruptive events from a variety of causes, resulting in periods of exceptional prices over the last five years. In most of these disruptive phases, AWAC has realized very positive earnings, reflected in higher dividends to shareholders. To illustrate, the alumina market in 2022 was heavily influenced by the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Alumina prices rose sharply in the first quarter following the conflict and other alumina production disruptions globally. Alumina prices did later fall, impacted by sanctions imposed on exporting Australian alumina to Russia. The alumina market has been more stable in 2023. This has been supporting average alumina prices for the year of approximately $355 per ton. The supply and the demand outlook for the remainder of 2023 for the alumina market remains positive, but we are still cautious and somewhat dependent on global economic activity and end-use demand for aluminum. Now, we welcome legislation that encourages industry to decarbonize, such as the Australian Government's Safeguard legislation. However, and this adds to the comments Peter made, it needs to acknowledge the timeline for development of technology solutions and availability of sufficient, suitable, and cost-effective renewable energy resources. Alumina refineries and aluminum smelters are complex industrial manufacturing activities which cannot switch quickly to renewable energy. The technology is not yet developed and fully proven, and it will take a lengthy period with much investment to prove it up. It is important to recognize that facilities such as AWAC's WA refineries are already global leaders in terms of emissions intensity. It is harder for the top performers to do better without changes in technology, which takes sufficient investment and time to develop and implement effectively. The top performers should not be disadvantaged under Australian legislation for being the lowest carbon emitters in the world already. AWAC is investing in research and development for new technologies. If R&D progresses well, a pilot plant for mechanical vapor recompression would begin construction in 2024. Before closing, I would like to turn to outlook. In the year to date, there have been declines in AWAC's materials and input costs. However, lower bauxite grades in WA for the remainder of the year and high operating costs will negatively impact margins. We nevertheless have confidence in the market outlook beyond 2023. There are limited new refinery expansions committed outside China to meet expected growth in aluminum demand in the next two years. This should benefit the supply and demand balance for the market beyond 2023, which is an important factor underpinning confidence in our industry. In the longer term, we expect aluminum to play a key role in global decarbonization efforts. We believe that the global energy transition and decarbonization should increase the demand for aluminum. Thank you for listening and being here today. We now move to the formal part of the meeting. Before opening up the discussion period for today's items of business, I want to mention quickly a few procedural matters. All of the relevant information for today's business is already set out in the notice of meeting, which shareholders have had for some weeks. I will take the notice of meeting as read. Voting on relevant items of business will be by way of a poll, without the relevant matter first being voted on by a show of hands. As shareholders are aware, no formal vote is required on item one. The poll on the remaining items two to five will be conducted at the end of the meeting. The proxy position on each relevant item will be displayed after the specific discussion on that item. To facilitate discussion and subsequent voting by shareholders, I will formally put to the meeting each item of business in the notice of meeting in the terms set out in the notice. I will now also formally open the poll for voting on each relevant item of business. If you need to leave today's meeting early, you may lodge your vote with Computershare before you depart, as the poll is now open. A voting box overseen by Computershare personnel is located on the table near the exit door. There will be plenty of time after discussion of the items of business for those not leaving early to complete and lodge your vote. While all of the items are now formally before the meeting, I propose to step through a specific discussion on each item in turn. Let's now turn our attention to item one, which is to receive and consider the financial report and the reports of the Directors and the auditor for the 2022 financial year. If you wish to participate in the discussion on this item, please move to a microphone in one of the aisles and show your voting paper to the attendant. They will take your name and introduce you to the meeting. As this is a meeting of shareholders, only those shareholders or their representatives holding yellow or blue admittance cards may ask questions or make comments. Does anyone from the floor wish to discuss the motion? Mr. Chairman. Is this coming through? Yep. Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Stephen Mayne. Good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon, shareholders. Chairman, my first question is whether there's been any recommendations against any of the resolutions today by any of the proxy advisors that follow us, and if so, has that caused any material proxy protest votes that would be useful to know about before we have the discussion on each individual item, as opposed to being told after the event? There are three or four main proxy advisors in Australia: Ownership Matters, ISS, CGI Glass Lewis, and ACSI. As far as I'm aware, all those proxy advisors have recommended voting for the resolutions. We had meetings with each of those four proxy advisors. I think in the interest of absolute transparency, I think a proxy advisor from overseas, Nick, has recommended not voting for one of the items because they don't believe in Directors being paid more than $80,000 a year. That's their criteria. Thank you for following the agenda today and dealing with each item, one at a time, so we can deal with the pay rise resolution, I guess, when we get to it. Just in general business on the accounts, I do have a question for the auditor, Amanda Campbell, from PwC, and perhaps one that the board can address as well. We're claiming to have net assets of AUD 3.7 billion, and with the recent weakness in the share price, that's not much above the market cap of around AUD 4 billion, with the stock down at AUD 1.41. I noticed in the audit report, it talked about the valuation of the stake in AWAC at the book value of $1.656 billion being a key audit matter. That was something that was closely assessed by the auditor, who then accepted the Directors' recommendation that there be no impairment. My question is, what's the history of impairment on that $1.656 billion figure? Why are we just valuing the overall 40% stake, as opposed to the individual assets within the joint venture? 'Cause I would have thought it would be more transparent if we could see, you know, book value, 40% of Portland is this, 40% of Kwinana is that, Brazil is this. We could look through, not just have one job lot valuation. What is the argument for the job lot approach, as opposed to some asset granularity on valuations that are presented to shareholders? Whilst the PwC auditor is on her feet, in light of the decision of Lendlease to not renew or to effectively bar PwC from its audit because of the stench around the federal tax leakage issues, what is the official response from PwC to shareholders in public companies like Alumina on that situation? I know there's been a big announcement today about nine partners have been stood aside and all this sort of stuff. Please talk to us about the PwC response, and can the board also address whether it's taking the matter so seriously that it's gonna terminate PwC and call for a tender? Is it the Lendlease approach, or, you know, what is our approach to the fact that we do have PwC as our auditor, and they're obviously in a world of pain over their governance and tax leak issues with the federal government? Thank you for those comments and maybe 10 questions. Amanda, there's clearly some items that are addressed to you, the auditor, so by all means, take your time to answer those. In relation to other matters, not related to the audit, I'd be happy to respond to those questions myself after you've spoken. Sure. Thank you. I might just stand at the end here. I'm Amanda Campbell, audit partner, from PwC. First of all, I might address the question just in terms of work that was conducted on the impairment. Obviously, that work was conducted in line with international accounting and auditing standards, and in line with that, as we, it is articulated in the accounts and also in our audit opinion, the carrying value of AWAC is looked at as one cash-generating unit in line with accounting standards, and the work that management did, and we did on the impairment assessment, was done on that basis. I'm just trying to follow the next question, 'cause there was about 10 questions in that. I don't know if you'd like to, repeat your next question? I think I'm hoping that answers your impairment question. Amanda, as I understand it, there's never been an impairment in relation to the Alumina assets in terms of its investment in the joint venture. Correct. That is correct. There has never been an impairment. In relation to other matters, the board has not considered the issue relating to the audit of the accounts, and obviously, the events that you referred to are unfolding. I think the other one was the granularity as to why we're only valuing the 40% versus the underlying assets within the joint venture. According to the auditor, the international accounting standards require us to look at it as one asset rather than all the individual facilities. That is the requirement. Correct. Questions, please. Mr. Chairman, I have Sam Zuker Buerk. Thank you very much. You acknowledge that Alcoa of Australia is mining in highly sensitive native forests and public drinking water supply catchments near Perth in WA. Media and local actors have recently reported destructive and unsustainable practices in those forests. How will the board act to prevent further clearing of high conservation value forests and highly sensitive water catchments? Is there a failure to recognize the significant social and financial risks if this clearing and mining is to continue? Thank you. Alumina, as a board, we understand that it's a privilege to mine in areas such as the Darling Range. We have a long-standing commitment not to mine in conservation reserves and mapped old-growth forests. That's our position. We have rehabilitated many hectares of property, and done so at a very high standard. We're very conscious of the community expectations in relation to rehabilitation and restoration, and Alcoa of Australia is in discussions with the WA government at this time regarding the new criteria that will be assessed. We and our joint venture partner operate according to the rules that are set for us, and we go above and beyond those rules. I understand the concerns that you're expressing, I can assure you that we endeavor to fulfill our obligations and beyond. Thanks. If I could just ask a follow-up, do you see mapped old-growth forests as encompassing all high conservation areas, or are you accepting that there might be some high conservation areas that are being cleared as part of the mining practices? We, as far as I'm aware, we have never mined in old-growth areas. We have only mined in areas that are, if I could put it poorly, of lesser significance than old growth. Every area is, of course, significant, because you are removing forests that have been there for many years. As I hope Mike commented in his speech, and the very small video illustrated, the rehabilitation process is conducted to a very high level, and where we have made disturbances, we have endeavored to return it largely to the original state. It's impossible to get 100%, we've achieved 90% biodiversity restoration in many areas, which is well in excess of the standards that were set to us. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have Richard Hughes. Thank you, Chairman. With the corporate regulator indicating that greenwashing is an enforcement priority, can you provide shareholders with reasonable information on how the company's mitigating the risk to reputation and operation? I guess I'm primarily thinking in terms of the operation, mining operations in high conservation areas and native forest areas in Western Australia and water supply catchments for Perth. It's a very important issue you raise regarding greenwashing, as it is known, as you rightly comment, the corporate regulator has been very concerned to ensure that doesn't happen. What I can say to you is that the combination of the risk committee of Alumina Limited and the sustainability committee, we go through a very deliberate process of understanding the key risks that the organization faces, whether those are reputation, whether they're financial, whether they're social license to operate, whether they're modern slavery, whether they're rehabilitation, whether they are impoundments, management, and residue facilities. We take, even as a joint venture partner, as a non-operator, Alumina Limited takes those aspects of its duties very seriously. I can refer you to, for example, the sustainability report that we issue every year, and that sets out a very comprehensive statement of the material issues that Alumina faces and the way we go about mitigating the risks. In addition, Mike and the team give an annual presentation to the market on what might be termed ESG issues. In every case, before those materials are published, whether it's the Audit and Risk Committee or the sustainability committee or the board, we review those items with management to ensure so best as possible that we are not, in any sense, misleading people. We're very conscious of some of the targets that have been set in relation to energy usage and emissions targets and the net zero targets that we test to try and ensure that we have a pathway to achieving those items, and they're not just words. There are actually actions underpinning those words. Thank you for that response. I guess I'd really like to perhaps just ask a bit further around the operations in the forests in Western Australia, native forest areas and those water supply catchments. Even in this presentation, there doesn't seem to be much acknowledgment that those are occurring in high conservation areas and areas where there's high levels of public concern. Greenwashing really is about providing the full picture and the full picture to your shareholders, 'cause these are, you know, these are real risks to the company, to its reputation, in terms of public perception, but also in terms of regulation. I'd just encourage if you were able to provide a more specific comment around that aspect. Do you want me to provide those comments today, or are you looking, can you just help me? Are you looking for us to provide more information in the published material that we put out? Is that, is that your suggestion? I mean, I think it's about the company's operations and communications more generally. If you can provide an initial response today, that would be appreciated, and then any follow-up also. Well, let me give you some material to go with. I've talked about the rehabilitation performance and how we have a long-standing commitment not to mine in conservation areas. Let's, for example, take completion. There's been a lot of discussion in the media about how much has been completed or not completed. We, Alcoa of Australia, rehabilitates mined areas to meet the state's completion criteria of the day. At any given point in time, rehabilitated areas will have been assessed against some, but not necessarily all criteria. If the forest is three years old, the relevant criteria is for a three-year forest, not a five-year-old forest. The Department of Biodiversity has confirmed that appropriate and relevant criteria have been met by Alcoa of Australia. The department undertakes an annual inspection to ensure we are achieving benchmarking to the completion criteria that are relevant to each rehabilitated area. Alcoa of Australia has rehabilitated 22,000 hectares since beginning mining operations. In excess of 90% botanical species return have been achieved over the past 20 years. It far exceeds the 60% requirements of the state. 77% of all areas cleared for our mining have already been rehabilitated, and this work is continuing. Then people say: What is rehabilitation? The rehabilitation definition has been agreed between Alcoa of Australia and the Department, and is consistent with those used by other mining companies that report annually on their mine site rehabilitation. For example, an area meets the definition of rehabilitated after 12-15 months, but it is not returned to the government until it is at least 12 years old and is mature. For example, there is a lot of detailed process that goes on to achieve what we say is rehabilitation. Thank you for that initial response. Again, I guess in terms of follow-up, I'd really be interested in a response around the company's operations in native forests, high conservation value forests, and public water supply catchments in Western Australia. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stephen Mayne once again. Chair, who are our representatives on the AWAC board? There isn't an AWAC board, Mike. We have basically a strategic council, which includes myself and the CFO, Galina Kraeva, and then we have separate Directors on Alcoa of Australia, and again, it's myself and Galina who are Directors of that company. Mike, you're probably in a good position to answer this one. Given the lack of granularity in the accounts, as discussed earlier, what do you think are the three most valuable facilities in the portfolio? What are the three biggest liabilities that we're facing in terms of remediation and cleanup? You know, which facilities have got the biggest task ahead of us, do you think? I'd like you to address the questions to the Chair, please. Through you. Through Through you, Chair, of course. Thank you. Mike, do you want to have a crack at that? If you look at it from an operating perspective, San Ciprián is clearly an issue for us. It is operating at a loss, has been doing so since the Ukraine conflict, taking into account the high energy costs, and that continues to be the case, and action is being taken to ameliorate those losses, including reducing production down to 15%. I would answer your question in that way and say, the other assets are good assets. You have your ups and downs, as we're seeing now in WA at the moment, but basically, over the long term, Alcoa of Australia and the operations in WA have been significant generators of income and dividends for our shareholders. The other assets are performing fine. I would not say they're the three best or the three worst. We don't have that many assets left in that context. Does that answer your question? Yep. Thank you. Just one other question. We've got an unusual share register, where we've got CITIC with 18.8%, which we placed to them at $1.235, 10 years ago. You've got Allan Gray, a stock picker, with about 18%, and you've got Schroders with 6.1%. You've got the big three with about 43%. Your normal garden variety ASX 200 company will have the big three global index funds, BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, sitting there with a collective, 15%-20%. Why don't we have any of them on our register? Have they got a problem with us or, what's, why do we have this unusual situation? Why does CITIC get a board nominee, but Allan Gray doesn't, when they've got the same, pretty much the same size shareholding, about the 18% mark? It's been 10 years since Chen Zeng was appointed to the board to represent CITIC. Could you provide an update as to how that's gone? Whether it's still appropriate to have a large shareholder like CITIC, CCP-controlled, represented on our board? Would it not be better to treat them like Allan Gray and have a fully independent board? Finally, in the spirit of 10 questions at once, I think it was less than that, but that's how you both chose to frame it. Continuing with that, we've got about 55,000 shareholders. The annual report says that more than 7,000 of them, including myself, are unmarketable. Obviously, that number is growing with the share price falling. Have you thought about doing another takeout offer to wipe out the cost of harboring all those sub $500 shareholders? When did we last do one of those? Well, taking your last question first, no, we haven't thought about that. I'll take it on notice that we will have a discussion about that. As to why we have particular shareholders, that's a matter for them in terms of their desire or not to hold this particular asset, a share in Alumina. I'd like to think that the shareholders that do hold significant holdings in us are reasonably sophisticated shareholders. They also understand the position that the AWAC joint venture assets are in, which are lowest cost quartile, lowest emissions, in the lowest quartile of emissions worldwide. They obviously see something of value, but they don't see value, I think, in terms of day-to-day share price movements. They see it in the medium and longer term, and the fact that aluminum, which is an absolutely critical mineral, and that's actually a really critical metal in the future decarbonization of the world. I think they see longer term perspectives in relation to value than shorter term perspectives. In terms of CITIC and its investment, CITIC has been an incredible shareholder, and for a number of reasons. First, it has been a solid 20%, around 20% shareholder, but the representative that it has sent to be a Director on the board, is Chen Zeng, and Chen has conducted himself impeccably over those years in terms of his focus on generating value for Alumina shareholders as a whole. I know that there is a firewall between Chen and the CITIC shareholder that holds the shares, we know that information is effectively quarantined and not passed over to that shareholder, but is held by Chen as a Director of Alumina, for the benefit of Alumina shareholders generally. I've got every confidence in the arrangements that have been put. I won't comment on Allan Gray because they do not have a shareholder representative on board, and they haven't asked us. If they were to ask us, we'd obviously consider it in the context of the circumstances of the time. Those are some of the reasons I think those two or three significant shareholders are holding their shares. Mike, you meet regularly with shareholders? We do. I think, we've had index funds come and go, over a long period, and different types of index funds. We were paying, you know, strong dividends. We had income funds and so forth, and really, at the end of the day, they're driven by the index, not. They don't make that individual decision. As to having the three large shareholders and a group of large shareholders, that's been consistently the position of the company ever since I've been there, that we've had these shareholders. The top 10 have largely remained unchanged, or some have increased, some have gone down. Allan Gray has increased over the last two or three years. It, as Peter said, it's not within our control or our desire to necessarily change that. Do we have enough retail investors? We've done some work around that, and we have a good representation, but could do it with a little bit more over time, particularly during the periods when we're paying strong dividends. I think it's in the interests of retail investors to look at our company. one more comment on CITIC. I'd be very disappointed if Chen stepped off the board. I have told him that, not only taking into account that he represents a larger shareholder, but more importantly, the industry knowledge that he brings, both about the sector and what China is doing in the sector, and his ancillary knowledge is next to none. I find that a valuable input to help me in management from a company perspective. Are there any further questions on item one? There appear to be no further questions or comments on this item. There is no vote undertaken on item one. We'll now focus on item two. This item involves a non-binding resolution to adopt the company's remuneration report. Each Director recommends that shareholders vote in favor of the motion on this item. Does anyone from the floor wish to discuss the motion? Mr. Stephen Mayne. Chair, I don't have any particular concern with the remuneration arrangement, but I'll take the opportunity with this resolution to raise the transparency question around proxies and voter participation. An increasing number of companies are now disclosing the proxy position with the formal addresses that are lodged with the ASX. That means that everyone is informed at the same time. You know, it's just the way the trend is going. Rather than us having a debate in the dark, not knowing what the proxy position is, except for your verbal advice, there's been no opposition from the proxy advisors. Best practice is to disclose it to the ASX and then also to put it up when you're discussing the meeting so we can see what the position is. The other best practice that some companies are voluntarily moving to, which I'd like to ask you to do today, is we've got a bit of a crisis with retail shareholder participation in Australia. It's fallen to sort of 3% or 4%. Of the 55,000 Alumina shareholders, you'll be doing well to get 2,000 or 3,000 of them participating. That's because we all feel swamped by the big end of town shareholders, and we feel that it's pointless because our vote doesn't count. The way to turn this around, and some companies are already doing this, is if you pretend this is a scheme meeting and you disclose the voting outcome by votes and voters, you will demonstrate some transparency around the retail shareholder sentiment. My guess is that on this report, you'll be 95% of voted shares in favor, and it'll be closer to 50/50 in terms of the 2,000 shareholders who voted. You can choose not to reveal that, so none of us in the room know what the retail shareholder sentiment was, or you can follow the lead of Tabcorp, Southern Cross, Myer, and a few other companies that have said, "We've got the data. What's to hurt? We'll show respect for our retail shareholders, and we'll reveal this information as well, seeing as we're already paying to get it, and then we shouldn't just keep it secret to the board." Will you do that when you make your announcement to the ASX this afternoon? If that's too difficult to get in a timely manner to get it out before close, will you just put it on your website tomorrow with the announcement, so that we know how many of us voted and which way we voted, on the remuneration report? Thank you. I feel there are two main suggestions there. One is in terms of the way the proxy advisors have given their opinion. The second is the analysis of the voting patterns. Can I say we will take that away, those suggestions, and we will have a good think about it. I'm not gonna commit that we will do, but you've made some suggestions. In good faith, we'll have a discussion of that at the board at the appropriate time. Are there any further questions on this or comments on this item? There appear to be no further questions or comments on this item. Before moving on with the meeting, the screen shows the details of the proxies validly lodged with the company in relation to this item. We'll now focus our discussion on the next item on the agenda. Item three relates to my proposed re-election as a Director of the company. In accordance with the company's constitution, I retire, being eligible, offer myself for re-election as a director. I'd like to make a few remarks about my candidacy before I vacate the chair for this item and ask my fellow director, Mr. John Bevan, to stand in as Acting Chairman of the meeting for the consideration of this resolution. I joined the board in 2014 and became chairman in 2018. During 2022, the board discussed Director succession planning, I agreed to extend my role for up to one more term. The same time, the board initiated a search for an additional or replacement Director and undertook a process which is now well advanced with a candidate targeted to join the board in the second half of 2023. Subject to your support, this will be my last term as a director. In my time on the board over the last nine years, I believe we have experienced, and I acknowledge this was started by John Pizzey, a continued improvement in working relationships with our joint venture partner, Alcoa, at both management and board levels. Continuing benefits to the AWAC joint venture from the insights and value the Alumina management team has brought to the table. Maintenance of a strong and capable Alumina board with the right level and diversity of experience. A renovation and refresh of Alumina's management team under Mike Ferraro's leadership, and a stronger delivery on shareholder communication and information into the market. Finally, greater focus, engagement, and influence on ESG and sustainability matters in the joint venture and Alumina. At my last re-election in 2020, I also emphasized the importance that Alumina strives to be unquestionably strong, especially in the context of our industry and our own position as being one of a kind. I said we needed to be strong enough to withstand periods of cyclical and unexpected stress in our joint venture and the industry, as is happening right now with market disruptions and volatile aluminum and alumina prices, in order to achieve and deliver acceptable returns to shareholders over the medium to longer term. I said we needed to be strong enough to absorb unexpected headwinds, strong enough to support attractive and timely additional investment in the AWAC portfolio to help grow the value of the company, and strong enough to transition to a clean energy future. We needed to be sufficiently strong to advance our interests generally, should the opportunity arise. The importance of this positioning and those efforts must continue. I'll now vacate the chair and ask Mr. John Bevan to stand in as acting Chairman of the meeting for the consideration of this resolution. Thank you, Peter. Good afternoon, everyone. Good to see a lot of familiar faces in the room who we've seen over, who supported from the retail side, in particular, of Alumina over many years. Look, before proceeding with this resolution, I'd like to confirm that the rest of the board unanimously recommends to shareholders Peter's re-election as Director and to continue on as the Chairman. He's been an excellent Chair through that period of time. Are there any questions from the room? Yes. I'd like to introduce you to Rochelle Janjanic, who's representing the Australian Shareholders' Association. Good afternoon. Rochelle Janjanic here. I hold 190 proxies, approximately 2.6 million shares. We note that Mr. Day was first appointed to the board in 2014, and as Chairman in 2018. With the re-election today, this will extend his appointment to 2026. Does Alumina have a policy regarding the total length of Non-Executive Directors' terms? Does Mr. Day intend to serve this full next term? What succession planning is in place for Directors? Okay, thank you for that couple of questions there. Generally speaking, we adhere to about a 10-year term for Directors. Peter will bring up 10 years, probably in the next 12 months or so. As Peter indicated, we're going through a succession process now, and what's important on the Alumina board is that there is continuity of understanding. It is a 60-year-old joint venture, and the relationship between our partner and ourselves is a really important relationship and has to be transitioned carefully. We intend to bring on a new director, but with that, before Peter transitions off, we need to ensure that the knowledge and the relationships are adequately managed through that period. As Peter has indicated, this will be his last term, and whether he fulfills it, all of the term or less than that, will depend on that transition process. Yes, there's plan, and Peter indicated that in his address. Are there any more questions? Stephen Mayne. Mr. Acting Chair, I just wanted to seek clarity. Are we looking for a new Director or a new Chairman or both? We're looking for an additional Director, this resolution and the following resolution that relates to the total payroll of the board enables us to go up to six for a period of time. We believe we've got enough talent on the board to seek a Chairman from the board if we need to. We have all options open. We haven't had a discussion yet as to who that Chair would be, but we believe we have the talent within the board to be the next chair. All right. The headhunter is specifically not seeking a new Chair of Alumina? What we do with a headhunter is a discussion between us and the board. We'll work that out over time. We do want to go up to six and have a period of time of working with an enlarged board to ensure that Peter's knowledge is transitioned to all of us, of which one of us will be, end up being the next chair. Right. Normally, if your succession plan is in place and you've got an internal successor, there's no need to go the extra, you know, 10, 12 years or whatever. You could have done that today. I just want to address the. There is a little bit of a not often commented on, but in my view, very realistic, you can call it conflict of interest, that chairs and CEOs have, which is it's a great gig and you'd rather stay there for quite a while. You don't have an incentive to invite people onto the board or into your KMP ranks who might potentially be so stunningly impressive that they replace you. I just hope that that's not the case here, and that we're looking outside for a Chair because succession management hasn't been managed internally. If you're saying that there is talent within the board who can step up, then I don't understand the need for delay. I think it is good practice that Peter has said this is his final term. I had a Chair the other week who was doing the similar terms and wouldn't commit to that. It is good practice to give us that clarity. I think we should support his re-election today. The only comment I'd seek from Peter today is, Alumina is a postbox company. It's got, what? 10 staff and, six Directors, and not a lot's happened in 20 years. I'd just like to ask him, what's the biggest couple of things that has happened since he's been on the board? Has anything much happened? We're all waiting for you to get taken out, Alcoa never does it. Does he agree that with Alcoa's market cap having tumbled to only $6 billion, is right now, are we, Alumina, relatively bigger and more powerful and more valuable relative to our parent or our joint venture big brother, than he's ever seen before in his nine years on the board? Well, Stephen, I'll answer that question. When you last visited us on the AGM, which I think was in 2012, so 10 years or so ago. I have been. I have. I I have. I remember it well. I was here. The industry's gone through a very rapid change in that period of time. The joint venture has been through a lot of change. The speculation of Alumina being acquired by Alcoa has continued through the whole 20 years of the organization. We don't dwell on that all the time. We want to build a good relationship with Alcoa. Yes, we are a small organization, and therefore, knowledge, and history, and understanding the triggers that drive the joint venture require all Directors to have a good understanding of the business, and hence, we want to have a full complement of Directors through this next period of time, while before Peter transitions off the board, and that's our strategy. To ask us, have we made a decision about internal or external? We haven't had that conversation yet, and we're certainly not going to make it today. Okay, any other questions? Thank you. I'll hand back to Peter. Proxies are shown on the, on the above. Thank you. You know, Stephen, I wish you wouldn't talk about us being a postbox. This is the biggest postbox that I've ever been involved in. Okay, agenda item four. This item relates to the grant of performance rights to the company's CEO. These rights were previously approved by the board for issue to Mr. Ferraro in January 2023, as part of his remuneration, subject to shareholder approval. The Directors, other than Mr. Ferraro, unanimously recommend that shareholders vote in favor of this motion. Are there any questions or comments in relation to the motion? I've got one here while that gentleman goes to the microphone. I've got Mr. Stephen Mayne. Yeah, Mike, I normally cut and paste this one with the online AGM. I've asked it about 25 times now, I presume you probably know what it is, and I haven't got it in front of me, I'll have to ad lib it. It's quite difficult for us retail shareholders to work out the full history of LTIs. Have they granted, have they not? You've been in the role since 2017, as we're being asked to award you this latest incentive grant, could you, in the space of 60 seconds, provide a brief summary as to the history of whether your past grants have vested or not, and also whether you've sold or bought any shares on market to build your position in the company outside of this incentive scheme. I usually have to say, "Don't just say, look it up in the annual report," 'cause it's complicated, and the CEO will know it like the back of his hands and can tell us in about 60 seconds. The, in terms of the LTI scheme vesting, my recall is the last two years have not vested. I can't recall beyond that, but I think you make a good point. There's no reason why we couldn't, in the annual report, give a little summary of when LTIs have vested or not vested year by year. I'll take that suggestion, if you will, on notice. I don't know that... I'm not necessarily going to ask you, Mike, to answer LTIs in your own case. Do you want to make any observations? I think, I would also need to double-check, but Stephen, I think it's about two years out of the six years that I've been CEO, some proportion of LTIs have vested. I don't believe there was 100% vesting in any of those two years. In the context of buying or selling, I've not sold any shares. When I was a Non-Executive Director of the company from 2014 to 2017, I did buy shares. Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Cook for you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank you for the privilege of talking, I have two sections I wish to address. This is regarding executive remuneration. In my comments here, first of all, I've been a shareholder since the inception of Alumina. Back in 1968, I sold all my worldly goods, invested them in shares, and had a wonderful career in mining and oil and gas as an engineer. The first thing I learned is, when there's a downturn, the engineers go. Okay, it's a fact. My reputation was built on maximum availability, minimum cost, and getting LTIs down to zero. I was trained by Shell, and they trained me well. Okay, on with the questions. I became a shareholder of Alumina as a result of being a Western Mining shareholder and the work or the crafting of Mr. Leigh Clifford. He did a wonderful job in setting up Alumina, and I was able to observe executive performance in a range of different companies, including Rio Tinto. I'll just say this: I commend you on your transparency in your annual report and the clarity. There is one shortcoming, but I'll come to that in a second presentation. I commend the efforts of the executive team, and they've been very effective in the way they've run the organization over the period. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. Mr. Chairman, I have Richard Hughes. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to make a comment, regarding performance rights, and the issue of perverse incentives, given the destruction that's occurring in the Jarrah forests in Western Australia and water supply catchments for Western Australia. Mr. Ferraro is quoted as saying and acknowledging that the company's mining in areas in the Amazon, in the Jarrah forests in Western Australia, in sensitive areas, and so we need to make sure that we rehabilitate. Yet there's been no achievement or improvement in rehabilitation that meets the standards of the Western Australian Government. Sorry, could you repeat that, please? There's been no improvement in the achievement of rehabilitation that meets the Western Australian Government standards. At the moment, like, there are no historic, historically mined areas that meet the existing standards for rehabilitation by the Western Australian Government. I think I'd be encouraging a 'no' vote on this item, in terms of a perverse incentive for poor performance in that area. Thank you. Well, thank you for your comments. I don't accept that we have not achieved the government's requirements. We have, in fact, achieved a number of certificates of completion for particular areas that have been mined. There are other areas that are still going through a process of achieving completion, they take many years, upwards of 10+, 15 years. In terms of perverse incentives, it is absolutely not in Alumina's interests or Alcoa's as the joint venture operator, to do anything other than meet the requirements that are set. To do so would naturally abrogate our obligations and our responsibilities, and we would lose a social license to operate. We understand that very clearly. I don't accept that we have not achieved completion in some areas, and there... I do acknowledge there are more still to come. I don't believe that the long-term incentive arrangements are perverse, because ultimately, the chief executive and the senior team that have access to LTI arrangements need to ensure that the company maintains its license to operate, its reputation, and adhere to requirements imposed upon it by government. Thank you for that response. I would simply highlight that in terms of social license, in recent months, the social license of the company, I would say, is significantly eroded in Western Australia, particularly given the operations and planned operations within Perth's water supply catchment. I take your comments. I understand your comments. I think, unfortunately, there has been a lot of reporting that is that needs to be addressed. I think in time, Alcoa of Australia will be able to comment on that publicly. At the moment, Alcoa, as the joint venture operator, Alcoa of Australia, is in discussion with the Western Australian Government regarding the future requirements. Until that process works its way out, we don't propose to give a running commentary on the things that are of natural concern to people generally and to the Western Australian Government. We propose to conduct those negotiations in the spirit in which they're done, and when we're ready, and when the Western Australian Government is ready, there will be a full accounting for what is now required going forward. Thank you again for that response. I would simply highlight that negotiations between the company and government aren't necessarily going to address the issues of social license, which I'd say are significant in Western Australia at this time. Thank you. Thank you. There appear to be no further questions or comments on this item. Details of the proxies validly lodged in relation to this motion are displayed on the screen. Item five in the notice of meeting relates to a proposed increase in the maximum aggregate amount of Directors' fees or remuneration that may be paid to the Non-Executive Directors of the company in a given financial year, from AUD 1.5 million to AUD 1.7 million. The current cap or pool was set by shareholders seven years ago. The board considers that an increase in the cap is important to provide for board succession planning, which may require a temporary increase in the number of Non-Executive Directors during a transition period. In view of my planning to retire before the end of my term, it is expected that there will be a temporary increase in the number of Non-Executive Directors during this transitional period. There is no current intention for Non-Executive Director fees to be increased during the company's financial year 2023. This item is now open for discussion. Mr. Chairman, I have Richard Hughes. Thank you, Chairman. On this item, I'd simply highlight, similar to the previous one, that there's issues of perverse incentives, occurring here, where operations, particularly in those southwest forests of WA, are impacting high conservation areas, water supply catchments. There's issues of sustainability and social license, there's a perverse incentive here in increasing the cap amounts, I'd encourage a 'no' vote. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Mr. Chairman, Stephen Mayne. Chair, no problems with this. You're stewarding $4 billion of our capital on behalf of 55,000 shareholders. We need competent Directors, and we should pay them properly. I guess my only comment is, we're now dealing with three Labor governments, in Victoria, just been re-elected, WA, a landslide, federal, probably be there for a long time. Our board doesn't seem to have, from what I can see, too many overt Labor connections. We've got another ask of Tim Pallas coming up. How do you know that? Well, just off the papers, Chair. You know, you can show me your donations you've made to the Labor Party. I'll be proved wrong, happily. We've got a big, another big ask coming up with Tim Pallas in the next 18 months to subsidise our power at Portland, which has been happening for 30 years in different ways. Governments sort of kick it down the road, and they normally keep us alive. Obviously, we've got these environmental issues which have been raised, where we've got to have good relations with the Labor in, WA. Whether you try and recruit Steve Bracks or Pallas's mate, James MacKenzie, or someone from the industry firms or just.. I would, from a risk management point of view, when we're giving you this fee cap, I would be tactical in how you go about it and appreciate that social license, subsidies, et cetera, are real risks to be managed, and who's on the board and who can pick up the phone matters. I don't want you making donations, that's bad practice, but I do want you to be able to pick up the phone and have connections. When you make this appointment, just be conscious of that. My final comment on process today is, next year, it would be great if you could get with the program and offer a hybrid AGM. I don't like leaving the city of Manningham. I love doing it in my moccasins from there on the, on the webcast, but you made me come in today. If you offer a hybrid, you mightn't see me for another 10 years. I'd encourage you to do that, and secondly, the final point is that for transparency with AGMs, you should promise a webcast archive, not just of your magnificent formal addresses, but also of maybe people disagreeing with you. Best practice, again, many companies are now doing it, a full transcript, so that there's a full record. You don't have to sort of listen to 90 minutes to find out who said what and when and why. You'll tick all the boxes if you can, if you can do that. I'd encourage you to do it, to be fully transparent, and thank you for running a good AGM, taking all the questions, giving considered answers, and good luck if we don't see you at next year's AGM because you've retired. Well, some good advice there, Stephen Mayne. Thank you very much. Just a small comment in terms of the webcast of this meeting. We did go back and have a look at the number of people that participated in the online AGM. If you were to do it from your home, I think it would double the number of people that were online. We did have a look at both the logistics and the cost, and the fact that it seems as though this is such a wonderful event that people turn up in person. I think we may fall down on your last suggestion relating to the electronic presentation of the AGM. Okay. I don't think there are any further questions or comments on this item. The screen shows the details of the proxy appointments validly lodged in relation to this motion and all motions. Are there any further questions from the floor on any of the items of business? We've now dealt with the items of the business in the notice of meeting. Last call, are there any questions, any further questions or comments people want to make? Let me run through some procedural matters in relation to voting. Only persons holding a yellow admittance card are entitled to vote at this meeting. The voting paper for the poll is on the back of those yellow cards. In order to vote on a relevant motion, a voter must mark the appropriate box for or against. If you have difficulty completing your voting paper, please seek out a Computershare staff member, who will assist you. I appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers, the company's auditor, represented today by Amanda Campbell, as scrutineer for the poll. I also appoint Wayne Hopkins of Computershare as Returning Officer for this vote. I now ask you to complete your voting paper. Poll collection boxes will be passed along each row for you to insert your completed paper, and there is also a voted, voting box positioned at the exit. The poll will close in a few minutes, and I'm gonna pause now and let that process continue, and then I'll eventually close the meeting. This meeting is still open, but if you could pass in your votes. Has everybody who wanted to vote, voted, please? Anybody. Okay. Thank you. It appears that everyone has voted, so I now declare. Could you go up to the microphone, please? You can still close the poll. Okay, I declare the poll closed. Right. Just hold on for the moment. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I've just got some further comments I wish to make, and I'm not going to nitpick, but as an engineer, there are some observations I wish to make. The Victorian taxpayers contribute to running the plant and so forth. I understand that, and it creates employment, and so forth. In Western Australia, we have a gas reservation policy that was set up by both Liberal and Labor governments, and it provides a 15% policy, and it works very well. I won't go into all the ins and outs of it. They have moved from coal-fired power stations to gas-fired power stations to renewables, and are now in the process of shutting down the Collie Power Station, which is the last coal-fired power station. That's been done with both Labor and Liberal governments, and to some extent, Alumina has been a beneficiary of that. Whereas on the East Coast, we don't have a gas reservation policy. Recently, I went along to a meeting arranged by the local federal member, and she had the Minister for Energy and whatever. He's a gentleman who's very well-versed in politics, and he spends his time swanning around Australia and the world, going to meetings, talking a lot of blue sky about hydrogen, et cetera. What I propose is this: the Board of Alumina could do some useful work in getting a gas reservation policy on the East Coast. I know it's not simple because you've got a great big hub up in Queensland, and you've got three shareholders with 13 different companies. The gas is going out of Australia left, right, and center. We export more gas than Qatar. It's approaching 100, whatever it is. Now, the gas reservation policy is something that you could promote with government, and I know it's a long process because I'm an engineer, I've been involved in this process. This is how it can happen. First of all, it won't happen with the oil companies up there in Gladstone, because there's 13 of them from all around the world sharing in it, and one of them in particular, so if you put three circles on the wall, you tick the top one and the bottom one, they've got enough gas to provide their customers. The one in the middle is short-selling the gas by nearly 70%, and I'm sure most people here understand what short-selling is. They're selling gas they don't have, so that is draining the East Coast. This particular politician said, "Due to legislation, we can't change it." In Australia, we're the lucky country. We've got very capable people like your team. You can change it. It may take time. Here we go. The West Coast is a good example, and that's what we should try to replicate. It's a long process to get the people who've selling the gas to change their mind, and there's all the discussion on Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. You've got APPEA, which is lobbying, a very effective lobby group, overarching the oil companies, and I'm sure you know who they are. They've got very excellent researchers, mainly all ladies, who've had experience in the coal industry. They know just where to target. Every other day in the national press, there's an article in it that says they're doing the right thing. Right. To conclude, we need to get a gas reservation policy on the East Coast, because you'll be the beneficiary of it in Gladstone, to some extent. In Portland, you can help the Victorian government. By all means, let them have let them give you the subsidy. The ordinary consumers then get the benefit. It could be a good public relations exercise, and it wasn't something I intended to talk about today, but I thought, "Well, it's a good opportunity." That's really basically what I want to say. How do you implement the Gas Reservation Policy? I was involved with all of the oil majors, and most recently, I worked for the French oil company, Total, for the Raffinage division. The French are very innovative. They're great at marketing, but they have very good engineers, extremely good engineers. I started with Shell Bass Strait, 1968, when they had the blowout, and I learned a lot through the years. Onshore in Gippsland, we have a whole lot of reserves which don't need fracking. They have water contamination. They're not far from Longford, which is the processing plant, and it would be just a case of take that contaminated gas, put it through the processing plant. The water could go to agriculture for irrigation because it's not contaminated. It doesn't require fracking, and we've got a gas supply in Victoria. It means we don't have to import gas. Mr. Chairman, thank you for listening, and the people, and I think there's some merit in my proposal. I know it's a bit rough around the edges. The other thing is, I think that, and it's been mentioned anyway, compared with other multinationals that are operating in Australia, you perhaps need to gear up your ESG policy a little. Finally, in conclusion, as a shareholder, individual shareholder, in both superannuation and personal, which I've had since the inception, I won't swear, I won't say a rude word, but it hasn't been a very good ride for me, compared with other multinational companies. I'm talking about companies like CRA, Rio Tinto, that Leigh Clifford was involved. This one, Leigh Clifford crafted. He did well. Unfortunately, the individual shareholders don't do so well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, maybe at the risk of prolonging it too long, I'll ask Mike just to talk about some of the leadership roles that he takes in Australia, we do actually punch above our weight on quite a number of these issues. Mike, can you give a bit of a heads up? Sure. Mr. Cook, I agree with some of the comments that you've made. I think WA has operated quite effectively with the domestic reservation policy to our benefit, where the price that we pay for gas in Western Australia is significantly less than East Coast users. I'm part of Manufacturing Australia, which is made up of large manufacturing companies in Australia, and, in representations we've made to federal politicians, ministers, and I'm going back to Canberra this week, it is all about certainty of energy policy, certainty of gas supply on the Eastern Seaboard and at an acceptable price, and we have argued for a domestic reservation policy on the East Coast. I think the government has taken some time to come to terms as to what gas means and its future, and, you know, you've seen the Victorian government that imposed prohibitions on extraction of gas. Certainly, the aluminium industry view in Australia, and I'm Chair of the Australian Aluminium Council, is that gas will continue to play a role as a firming part of energy way out to 2050, because the technology around storage and firming of energy just is not developed and unlikely to develop sufficiently. There's just not enough minerals to develop all that storage capacity that people talk about. It's a complex question. Gas on the East Coast is not a direct issue for us, other than wanting, you know, firm energy coming through to Portland. We use electricity at the moment, certainly something we're very conscious and quite supportive of the points you've made. As to the developments and getting access to that gas in Gippsland, I'm not across that, but I'm sure greater minds than mine are looking at that. On the ESG policy front, I think we're pretty good. We've spent quite a lot of time over the last few years developing our ESG programs, our structures internally, both through management and board level, our reporting and our benchmarking. I've spent a lot of time looking at what other companies do, and I think we do it very well. In fact, we are the lowest emitters of carbon compared to our industry peers. But we can't rely just on that. We've got to continue the race and improve. Hopefully, I've, that answers your queries. Thanks, Mike. I'm now going to close the meeting. Once votes are counted and Returning Officer's report is available, we will advise the results to the ASX, and those results will constitute the resolution of today's meeting. Just before I do declare the meeting closed, I want to acknowledge the excellent service that Stephen Foster, our Company Secretary, has given to Alumina over a period of more than 20 years. He's on leave at the moment. Secondly, Colin Hendry, who is Assistant Company Secretary, who unfortunately cannot be here today because of illness. We have Nick Wallace-Smith here with us, who is our newest addition to the Company Secretary team, and I'd like to thank him for him stepping up into the breach. Just to show that nothing stands still at Alumina, Catherine Kloeden is in the audience, and she joins us on the 1st of June this year as the new Company Secretary. With those remarks, there being no further business, I declare the meeting closed, subject to the determination of the poll results. Thank you very much.