Good morning, all. The AGM will now commence. AI is already changing how we bank, in Banking and Financial Services, we are focused on using AI where it makes a real difference for our customers and for our people. For our customers, our AI assistant, Q, is available 24/7 in the app and online. Since we launched Q earlier this year, it has already supported more than 500,000 customer conversations. Our customers can now get quick answers anytime, and when they need more personalized support, they are seamlessly connected to one of our team members. Behind the scenes, AI is improving the way we work. It is spotting fraud and scams faster and getting home loans decisions sooner to our customers. Across Banking and Financial Services, our people now have access to Gemini Enterprise, tools that free them up to think bigger and spend more time delivering great outcomes for our customers. With strong cloud and data foundations, we're scaling AI across the bank to better protect our customers and make banking simpler and faster every day. As a leading global asset manager, in Macquarie Asset Management, we're embedding AI to improve how we serve our clients, to invest better, and to drive performance across our portfolios. Our fixed income teams are using it to aggregate market and portfolio data to generate more timely, consistent research. Our systematic investment teams are screening tens of thousands of securities and millions of data points to identify opportunities faster and analyze at greater scale. In real assets, we're developing an AI-enabled portfolio learnings platform that synthesizes decades of historical deal intelligence into a central source, helping our teams to make faster and sharper decisions. We've made strong progress by scaling what works and ensuring our platform remains flexible as the technology evolves. Ultimately, this is about delivering better outcomes for our clients, helping us serve them better, invest with greater insight, and generate alpha through faster and smarter decisions. Well, very good morning, everybody. Welcome to ILUMINA and to Macquarie's 2026 annual general meeting. I'm Glenn Stevens, chair of the board. I warmly welcome you today to the meeting. I note a quorum is present. I declare the meeting open. I acknowledge the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, and pay my respects to elders, past and present. Today's a hybrid meeting. That allows us also to welcome shareholders joining online from around the world. To ensure the meeting is conducted in a courteous and respectful manner, can I remind you, both here in person and online, to observe the conduct rules that we set out in the notice of meeting. We can't accept disorderly conduct. Please don't do that. If there is disorderly conduct, you'll be asked to leave. With me up here on stage are our non-executive directors, Rebecca McGrath, Phil Coffey, Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, Jillian Broadbent, Mike Roche, Michelle Hinchliffe, and William Vereker, our CEO, Shemara Wikramanayake, CFO, Frank Kwok, and Company Secretary, Simone Kovaci c. Also in the room are our bank-only non-executive directors, Ian Saines, David Whiteing, and Wayne Byres. Present in the room or online are the Macquarie Bank CEO, Stuart Green, group heads Simon Wright, Greg Ward, Ben Way, Michael Silverton, Nicole Sorbara, Andrew Cassidy, and Evie Bruce. Shemara will shortly take you through the 2026 full-year results. She'll provide a first quarter 2027 update. Speak to the outlook for the 2027 financial year. We'll hear from directors seeking election or re-election to the board today. That's William Vereker and Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz. Pardon me. Following that, I will formally open the polls. We will take a break as we customarily do. We look forward to meeting those of you who are here in person during the break. After the break, we will reconvene to address the formal items of business on the agenda and take questions. If you're participating online, you can start to send your questions in now. We will address them during the formal business of the meeting. Let me turn briefly to financial results. For the year, Macquarie delivered a profit of AUD 4.8 billion in fiscal 2026. That's up 30% on the preceding year. Each of the four operating groups contributed to that improved result. That says something about the breadth and diversity of the group's businesses. The return on shareholders' funds was 14%. That's up from around 11% in the preceding couple of years. It's broadly in line with what Macquarie has typically achieved over the past decade. Looking forward, a disciplined approach, including being willing to reallocate capital towards those activities most likely to offer attractive risk-adjusted returns, remains key to ongoing improvement. The company ended the year in a strong position with surplus capital at the group and bank levels. With Macquarie Bank common equity Tier 1 capital of 12.8% of risk-weighted assets as per the APRA standards or 17.5% as measured on a strict Basel III basis at 31 March 2026. The board declared a final dividend as AUD 4.20 per share, making for a total dividend of AUD 7 per share for the full year. The board has also resolved to issue shares on market to satisfy the dividend reinvestment plan for the final part of the dividend, that's at a discount to the prevailing market price of 1.5%. The board also resolved to conclude the on-market share buyback. Turning to risk culture, our remediation work for past regulatory and compliance shortcomings continues, there's been good progress both on platform and data upgrades and on regulatory engagement. We seek to uphold the highest standards in meeting the expectations of markets, customers, clients, and regulators. If something goes wrong, we have to report that issue, we do. We engage constructively with our regulators, fix the problem, apply the learnings across the organization. Speaking up is part of the culture. We do value listening, we value what our people have to say, there are various ways for staff to raise their concerns, we take pride in the approach we take to that when issues are raised. I'd like to talk a little about sustainability. Macquarie is well-positioned to continue to play a constructive role as a financier, an advisor, an investor, and a fiduciary in the sustainability space, we expect that to the benefit of shareholders. We do have this year, the proposed resolutions requisitioned by a group of shareholders they are items 5A and 5B on the agenda. The board's response to each of those resolutions or those proposed resolutions is set out in the notice of meeting and in the explanatory materials, including our recommendation that shareholders vote against both those resolutions. As we stated last year, the board does not believe that constitutional amendment, as proposed in item 5A, would improve the ability for shareholders as a whole to provide feedback on how the company is managed. Item 5B is an advisory resolution that will only be put to the meeting if item 5A is passed. I should say that Macquarie remains committed to the goals of the Paris Agreement. Our longstanding view, we've articulated this for many years now, is that an orderly energy transition is the only way to balance availability, affordability, and emissions reduction. Macquarie continues to foster investment in green energy and climate solutions. There's over AUD 30 billion of such assets now on the MAM platform, where we invest alongside our clients over the full lifecycle of assets. We remain focused on supporting real-world emissions outcomes by scaling investment in green and climate resilient assets, by working with clients across carbon-intensive sectors to decarbonize their operations in a practical and sustainable way. I'd like to make a few remarks about KPMG. As you will recall, we announced in May 2024, two years ago now, that we had decided to tender our audit services every 10 years, that the first tender would be conducted no later than 2026. We did indeed conduct the tender in 2025, we informed the market in November of 2025 that KPMG had been selected as our recommended auditor for the financial year beginning in 2028, that, of course, is subject to regulatory consent and is subject to your approval as shareholders at next year's AGM. Subsequent to that announcement, as you've no doubt read, KPMG has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Obviously, we continue to monitor that situation very closely. Regarding the tender process that we undertook, that commenced in March of 2025, the competitive process attracted four highly capable, credentialed audit firms, each of which could have been suitable or was suitable to tender for the role of our global auditor. The management team designed and operated the process. The board approved appropriate protocols, including oversight by the board audit committee and the appropriate role of Michelle Hinchliffe, our audit committee chair. As the process continued, the field of tendering firms was progressively narrowed down to two on the basis of management scoring against preset criteria and management's unanimous recommendation of who the final two firms should be. That was endorsed by the board. From the two firms, KPMG was eventually selected as the recommended auditor, as I said, that was following final selection presentations, which the board attended and subject to approvals before that can be activated. Let me be clear about what Michelle's role was and what it wasn't. She's a highly respected former audit partner with a long tenure at KPMG prior to joining Macquarie's board in 2022. Michelle attended an equal number of presentations for each tendering firm, she recused herself from any scoring of any of the firms and from the decision process where the board came to a decision to appoint KPMG. We remain confident that the process that we ran was a robust one, that we found the right balance between using Michelle's highly developed skills, which are very beneficial for the company and very beneficial in ensuring we have a good tender, and managing her potential conflicts resulting from her previous employment, which were all fully disclosed and managed. Where does this stand at the moment? The board has made formal inquiries of KPMG and they include regarding KPMG's ongoing capability and capacity to deliver the audit, given that some people have left that firm. An assessment of the integrity of KPMG's pursuit of our audit tender process, that's to be supported by an external review conducted by Allens, with a scope that has been agreed by Macquarie management. We'll keep shareholders informed as this matter unfolds over the period ahead. I'd like to turn to the board now. In February, William Vereker, to my left, who you'll hear from shortly, joined the board as an independent director. William is based in Europe. He brings considerable global experience in financial services, both as an executive and as a director. Jillian Broadbent has decided to step down from the group and bank boards in December this year, having served for eight years. I'm very grateful for Jillian's significant contribution to the board over that time, including as Chair of the Remuneration Committee. Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, who's been serving on the board for three years now, offers herself for re-election to the board. If re-elected, Susan will assume Chair of the Remuneration Committee, as Jillian departs, and Sue will pick up that role, effective August 1st. You will have seen that this morning we announced that Greg Ward, who leads our Banking and Financial Services business, will succeed Shemara as Macquarie Group Managing Director and CEO later this year, subject, of course, to the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. On behalf of the board and the Macquarie team, I want to pay tribute to Shemara for her significant contributions to Macquarie over almost 40 years, not least over the past eight years as CEO. In that time, she's delivered significant growth and momentum. She steered Macquarie through expansion into new markets, through the dislocation of COVID, through other massive geopolitical events, some of which we're still living through. She's greatly enhanced the brand recognition of Macquarie and the value that we bring to our clients and communities. She's done all that with remarkable strength and incredible grace, I have to say, an unwavering commitment to the company, to its people, to its businesses, and to its ethos and its culture. Shemara, we salute you for that. Thank you for your incredible service for the organization over so many years. I can say that the board's non-executive directors who oversaw the process of selection were unanimous in deciding to appoint Greg as Shemara's successor. He's a 30-year veteran of Macquarie, including 14 years as our Global CFO, including through some interesting times like the global financial crisis. Of course, he's led the BFS business, transforming that to be the market leader and source of innovation and competition that it is in the market today. The board's excited at the prospect of working with Greg and the whole management team as they write the next chapter in Macquarie's remarkable story. It's my honor, having paid tribute to Shemara and congratulating Greg on his new role, it's been my honor to do that. They'll be working closely together on a transition over the next several months. I'll shortly invite Shemara to say a few words on that news before handing over Greg to make some comments. Shemara will then discuss the FY results in more detail and update you on recent performance. With that, can I thank my colleagues on the board, the staff, and this outstanding management team for your amazing efforts over the past years. Fellow shareholders, that concludes what I want to say right now. Thank you for your attention and your continuing support of Macquarie. I hand to Shemara. Thank you Thanks, Glenn, good morning everyone from me as well. Thank you for joining. Before I go through the results, let me just say it's been a huge privilege for me to work with a lot of the 80,000 people who've contributed to making Macquarie what it is today, including just over 19,000 people who work for us right now. I wanted to say huge thanks to them. Part of the reason I've stayed so long is because it's been an incredible intellectual and social stimulation to come into work every day and work with all these people using our deep expertise to have impact in communities. I was reflecting that it's amazing, just over 40 years ago when I joined, or it was 40 years ago, I've been here 39 and a bit, but we were earning AUD 12 million at the time, which was quite an achievement for a little Aussie business with 300 people in it. Today, as Glenn just mentioned, we've earned just over AUD 4.8 billion, so it's a 400 times growth in earnings, which is amazing, and we're in 33 global markets. The thing I'm most proud of is all the franchises our teams have built. Pioneered infrastructure as an asset class here for investors with a few others and are now the largest manager in that sector in the world. Plus in real assets. With Greg and his team, we built a leading digital bank, not just in Australia but globally. Our Commodities and Global Markets business is quite unique in regulated banks around the world in terms of the global commodities, financial market, and asset finance business we have. Macquarie Capital as well, where we not only provide advisory and capital market solutions but bring debt and equity to drive results for investors, and supported by our incredible four central service groups. I think the most exciting thing is the huge runway that the business still has from here in all of those areas. I did want to remark that our culture has been critical, our unique culture, to driving that and will be going forward, where we empower this entrepreneurialism and innovation together with a disciplined risk framework of taking accountability for identifying and owning risks and thinking about long-term integrity and impact on stakeholders. I think as we scale, it gets more challenging to have that nimbleness and responsiveness, that's why I'm so pleased, Greg, that you're stepping up, having worked with you for 30 years, to take on leading our incredible teams together with the leadership we have to respond to those challenges and deliver on the opportunities. Also, I think what I'm excited about is the fresh perspectives that you'll be able to bring now with the teams as we go to the next and next chapters and lift the business to the next heights. I might just hand over to you, Greg, if you don't mind, to make a few comments to our shareholders before going through results. Thanks very much, Shemara. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to, and thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to speak to shareholders. I just want to say I'm incredibly humbled to have been chosen by the board to lead this wonderful organization on our next phase of growth. I want to pay tribute to your amazing career, Shemara. 40 years is extraordinary. You've done wonders for the business and our team. Your tenure as CEO has been highly successful and a challenging one in terms of global events, as Glenn said. The momentum that we have across the platforms, as you've heard from the Chairman today, is fantastic. We are incredibly well set up for the future. We've got an amazing senior leadership team here, which I'm really pleased about. Of course, we've got a 19,000-strong organization all around the world, some incredibly inspiring people. I'm looking forward to working with that team to continue the Macquarie story of serving our communities and serving our stakeholders all around the world, and I hope I can continue to deliver outstanding returns for shareholders. Thanks very much. Thanks, Greg. With that, I'll turn now to the usual business we have of going through our results for the last financial year, how we're going for this most recent quarter, and the outlook. Starting with the history. As you saw, after 57 years of unbroken profitability since inception, we delivered a result of AUD 4.847 billion this last FY 2026 year. That you can see in this slide was up 30% on the AUD 3.715 billion we delivered the year before, and our return on equity was up 25% to 14%. Pleasingly, all four of those business lines I talked about, our operating groups grew their earnings, and I'll go through in more detail what drove it. In Macquarie Asset Management, principally increased performance fees. Banking and Financial Services, ongoing growth in our books subject to margin pressure. Macquarie Capital, we had increases across the business in our fee income, also our returns from the debt and equity books. In Commodities and Global Markets, we had increase from both the risk management, also the inventory management and trading in the commodities business. In the Asset Finance, we had one particular large divestment. Before I step through the groups, let me also just note the global diverse footprint of the business. We now earn roughly 30% each of our income in Australia, the Americas, and Europe, Middle East, and Africa, and about 10% out of Asia. As Greg and I have both mentioned today, we have just over 19,000 people delivering that and another 265,000 people in our asset management business also working to deliver the results we do. Looking at the businesses, Macquarie Asset Management, as you can see, they delivered AUD 2.602 billion. That was up 27% on the year before. Some of the key things there noted in the right-hand column, we raised capital of just over AUD 20 billion, and we have just over AUD 21 billion now to deploy in our private markets business. In our public investments, where we divested our North American and European business, we've had ongoing growth there, with AUD 19.3 billion of positive flows into that business. Macquarie Asset Management, great result last year and good momentum. Same with Banking and Financial Services. It was up 17% to AUD 1.6 billion, continuing the trajectory of year-on-year growth. We had meaningful growth last year, so you can see again in the box on the right that our home loan portfolio was up 28%, supported by a 25% growth in our deposits. We also had an eight percent growth in our business banking, and our funds on the platform were also up. Again, great franchise, great trajectory, growing really well. Commodities and Global Markets had a very large step up of 49% to AUD 4.221 billion. As I said, the underlying businesses there grew really well. In Commodities particularly, we had really good risk management income in global oil and global gas and power, and inventory management and trading increased income in North American gas and power. In financial markets as well across the board, strong client activity in FX rates, solid contribution in futures, increase in equity derivatives. Our asset finance business particularly made a large contribution with that on-stream meters platform that we acquired, restructured, and divested, and also the book there grew 25%, from AUD 6.1 billion-AUD 7.6 billion. Again, great performance, great franchise set to grow. Macquarie Capital also a 43% increase to AUD 1.491 billion. We had really good fee income in terms of particularly our brokerage income led by Asia. We also had our private credit book a step up to AUD 27.3 billion and our equity investing book at AUD 5.2 billion. A good year there as well from a great business. They were supported obviously by very strong funding and capital. Our balance sheet with our term funding exceeding our term assets comfortably as ever, a 12.8% CET1 ratio, and AUD 9.3 billion of surplus capital, and all our ratings with the three major rating agencies also very strong. In terms of the return we delivered on capital, as I mentioned, we did 14% across the whole business. That was made up of a 21% return from Macquarie Asset Management and Banking and Financial Services together, consistent with the 20-year record of 21%, and a 19% return from Commodities and Global Markets in Macquarie Capital, which was up on the 17% 20-year return. After we take account of the AUD 2.9 billion capital in the corporate level and the AUD 9.3 billion surplus, that made 14% net. Now turning to this most recent quarter. We had satisfactory trading conditions, but most of our groups were up on their prior comparable period. Macquarie Asset Management was the one that quarter-on-quarter was down, and that's basically because of the divestment of the North American and European public investments business in the second half of last financial year. BFS was up on the prior comparable period, again driven by volume growth in our loan portfolios and our deposits, partially offset by lower margins, and that was due to changes in the portfolio mix because of the exit of the car leasing, but also deposit competition in terms of funding costs. CGM net profit contribution was substantially up on the prior comparable period, and that was from increased income in commodities, where we had a much more subdued prior comparable period because of the liberation day tariff impacts on markets in the prior comparable period. We also had an increased contribution from the asset finance business, again, mostly due to higher activity. Lastly, Macquarie Capital also contributed up on prior comparable period, again, driven by investment-related brokerage income, but partially offset by lower advisory fees because we had a strong prior comparable period. Just going through each of those groups in a little bit more detail. Macquarie Asset Management, we've got AUD 748 billion of assets under management, which is up four percent on where it was at the end of last year. We had about AUD 4.2 billion of capital raised in the private markets and AUD 9.3 billion of net flows again into public investments. We've got some large transactions completed there, which is the divestment of our Mexican REITs, the FIBRA, and we made an acquisition as well of a European CLO manager called Spire. That franchise continuing to grow over this quarter. Same with Banking and Financial Services. Home loan portfolio up six percent, the business banking portfolio up three percent, our deposits up four percent, our funds on platform up five percent, ongoing growth in the franchise there as well. Commodities and Global Markets, as I mentioned, increased substantially on the prior comparable period, and that was mostly from commodities driven by increased trading activity in North American gas and power, and also from the asset finance book due to one-off activity, but strong contribution consistently again from financial markets. Macquarie Capital, as I said, higher investment-related and brokerage income, partially offset by lower advisory fees because that's strong prior comparable period. Our loan and equity books are holding at where they were at the end of last year. In terms of capital and funding and liquidity, again, we remain very strongly funded and capitalized. 13.8% is our Basel III CET1 ratio. The business has generally been absorbing capital in growing the business, apart from in Commodities and Global Markets. You'll see there on the bars on the right-hand side of the slide, there was a large release of capital due to the divestment of the on-stream meters platform in asset finance. Apart from that, Macquarie Asset Management continuing to invest in new strategies through funds and co-investment, BFS absorbing capital and growing the loan books, et cetera. Macquarie Capital, as I said, broadly flat on equity and debt. In terms of regulatory update, we've noted there the work we're doing with our key regulators and also on the situation in Germany. I'll turn with that to just touching on the outlook for this financial year, and it's broadly consistent with what we've shared group by group. Macquarie Asset Management, as we said, we expect base fees to be broadly in line, excluding the divestment of the North American and European Public Investments business last year. We expect net other operating income to be up, including the divestment of our Macquarie AirFinance business that we are in the process of closing shortly. Banking and Financial Services driven, as ever, by the growth in our loan portfolios and our deposits, subject to, of course, market conditions and customer activity, and also impacted by market dynamics in terms of competition, and the portfolio mix driving lower margins. Macquarie Capital, subject to market conditions again, we said that we expect transaction activity plus investment-related income to be broadly in line with FY 2026, but weighted to the second half of the year, particularly in relation to the equity realizations. In Commodities and Global Markets, again, subject to market conditions, we expect our net operating income to be broadly in line with the last financial year, but that's excluding, of course, the one-off positive impact we had from the divestment of the on-stream meters portfolio last year. At the corporate level, we expect our compensation ratio and our effective tax rate to be basically broadly in line with historical levels. These guidance indications that we've given are, as ever, subject to a range of factors. Market conditions where there's a lot happening, obviously, in the world, volatility, et cetera, completion of period-end reviews and completion of transactions, the geographic mix of our income and foreign exchange impacts, and potential tax and regulatory changes that may happen. That's why we continue, as ever, to maintain a cautious stance in terms of our conservative approach to capital funding and liquidity. That should position us well to contribute together with our strong operating platform that we continue to invest in our disciplined risk management approach and our funding and capital positions which, as you can see on this last page, in terms of medium-term outlook, we think position us to continue to deliver over the medium term as we have for decades, particularly with those four very diverse franchises I talked about. With that, I will hand back to our chairman, Glenn, to conduct the rest of the meeting. Thank you very much, Shemara. What we're going to do now is play a short video on how to vote and the process for asking questions at the meeting. Good morning, everyone. I'll briefly explain how shareholders and proxy holders can vote and ask questions today. These instructions are also in the notice of meeting. If you're joining online, please call +612 8075 0100 for help at any time. Once the chair opens the polls, those participating online can vote by selecting the bar chart icon on the Voting tab, then the voting option corresponding to your choice. You will see a confirmation message. You can change or cancel your vote at any time until the polls close. In-person participants can vote using the handset you received at registration. Follow the instructions on the agenda card or in the notice of meeting to vote. Registry staff are also on hand to assist. You can change or cancel your vote at any time until the polls close. The chair will give advance notice before the polls close towards the end of the meeting. Proxy holders with directed votes will have those votes automatically cast as directed. Open votes will be cast according to the option selected during the meeting. Online participants may submit a written question by selecting the speech bubble icon. Questions can be submitted at any time until the end of the Q&A session. You will receive confirmation once your question has been submitted. You may submit more than one question. Multiple questions on the same topic may be combined. Online participants can also ask their question by selecting the Request to speak button. Please follow the prompts and wait to be called to ask your question. Shareholders and proxy holders who wish to ask a question in the room should press the microphone button, then the green square button on the handset. Please wait until your name is called, then go to the nearest microphone. To leave the queue, press the microphone button and then the green square button again. Registry staff are also on hand to assist. Thank you. Thank you, Simone, for those very clear instructions. Let's turn now to the formal business. The notice of meeting and explanatory notes have been sent to shareholders, so I'm going to take those as read. The items of business are as on this slide. The board recommends that shareholders vote in favor of resolutions two, three, four, and four, and against resolution 5A. Should items 5B and 6B put to the meeting, the board recommends that shareholders vote against those conditional resolutions. Item one is to receive and consider the financial report, the director's report, the sustainability report, and the auditor's report of Macquarie for the financial year ended March 31st, 2026. There's no formal resolution for that item. Items 2A and 2B are the re-election of Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz and the election of William Vereker as voting directors. They will each address the meeting before the break. Item three is the annual non-binding vote on the remuneration report, which is in the 2026 annual report. Shareholders that are familiar with the company will know that the remuneration framework is longstanding, and it's designed to motivate staff to grow the businesses, to identify new opportunities, and to be accountable for their decisions and behaviors, including risk management, customer, economic, and broader consequences of their actions. We see that and continue to see that as a key driver of Macquarie's success over the long run. You'll recall that last year's meeting, just over 25% of the votes were cast against the remuneration report, constituting what the Corporations Act calls a first strike. The board took that feedback very seriously, we've worked hard over the past year to carefully address shareholder concerns. We've reviewed existing remuneration decision-making processes and the disclosure of the remuneration outcomes that we decide. If the remuneration report again today were to receive 25% or more votes against, the Corporations Act requires that a resolution, and this is item six on the agenda, would be put to shareholders today on whether all non-executive directors should stand for re-election at a spill meeting that would need to be held within 90 days. Item four is, as usual, to approve the managing director's annual participation in the Macquarie Group Employee Retained Equity Plan. Item five has been requisitioned by a group of shareholders under the Corporations Act. Item 5A proposes a change to the company's constitution, that would need to pass as a special resolution. Item 5B would only be put to the meeting if 5A passes. As I've already mentioned, item six is a conditional spill resolution that would only be put to the meeting if the resolution to adopt the remuneration report received 25% or more votes against at this meeting, which would constitute a second strike as defined under the Corporations Act. If item six is put to the meeting and passed as an ordinary resolution, all directors, other than the managing director, would need to stand for re-election at a separate meeting that we would have to hold within 90 days. As I said, the board recommends you vote against item six should it be put to the meeting. We're now going to turn to director elections. Item 2A on the agenda is the re-election of Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz. Sue's been a member and independent voting director of Macquarie since June of 2023. She's a member of the board audit committee, the nominating committee, and the remuneration committee. She has significant global expertise in investment and real estate, her deep understanding of Macquarie's businesses continues to strengthen and support the board's effectiveness as we try to oversee Macquarie's strategy, risk management, and governance. The board is confident that Sue will continue to serve shareholders effectively and recommends her re-election. I'm pleased to invite Sue to address the meeting, she has some leg difficulties today, she's going to do that seated. Thank you. Thank you, Glenn, and good morning, shareholders. It's a privilege to be speaking to you today in support of my re-election as a director of Macquarie Group. Since joining the board in 2023, I've worked closely with my fellow directors and management, including as a member of the audit, nominating, and remuneration committees. As a board member, I've also spent time engaging with staff in Australia and globally on topics that mattered to them, including culture, inclusion, and how we govern and leverage AI. This broad contact has allowed me to reinforce company expectations and bring staff insights into board discussions. The skills and experience I bring to the board draw on my prior executive and non-executive roles. My executive experience over three decades spans global investments and real estate sectors across Europe, Asia, the U.S.A., and Australia. I was the CEO of Mirvac Group for 11 years. Prior to that, Managing Director of Europe at LaSalle Investment Management in London, National President of the Property Council of Australia, Chair of the Green Building Council of Australia, President of Chief Executive Women. Currently, I'm a non-executive director of Rio Tinto, Chair of the Australian National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. I'm Chair of the Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion at Work Advisory Board at Sydney University, a trustee of the Sydney Opera House Trust, and a fellow of the University of Sydney Senate. These non-executive and executive roles across diverse industries and sectors enhance the breadth of judgment I bring to board discussions and complement the skills and knowledge of my fellow board members. My focus will remain on effective governance and oversight of Macquarie's global operations. I am confident I will continue to have sufficient time to serve the company and you, our shareholders. I thank you for your support. Thanks very much, Sue. Item 2B is the election of William Vereker, who joined the board as an independent voting director in February this year. William's a member of the audit committee, nominating risk and remuneration committees, quite a busy committee load. The board is already benefiting greatly from his significant experience in global banking, financial services, and his regulatory and governance expertise. We're confident he will continue to make a strong contribution, and we wholeheartedly recommend his election. I'm pleased to invite William to address the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Glenn. Good morning, shareholders. It's a privilege to offer myself for election as a non-executive director of Macquarie Group. Since joining the board in February this year, I've been familiarizing myself with Macquarie's diverse operations and its people in Australia and globally. I've also been engaging committee work as a member of the board audit, nominating risk and remuneration committees. Based in Europe, I'm excited to bring to the board and Macquarie my extensive executive experience across global banking and financial services, regulatory, government affairs. This experience includes my role as Vice Chair of the EMEA Investment Bank at JP Morgan, as Global Head of Investment Banking at UBS, other senior roles at Nomura, Lehman Brothers, and Morgan Stanley. I've also served in public and advisory roles in the U.K., including as a member of the U.K. Investment Council and as the U.K. Prime Minister's Business Envoy. I'm currently a non-executive director of the London Stock Exchange Group, where I chair the board remuneration committee. Until earlier this year, I was chair of Santander U.K. PLC and Santander U.K. Group Holdings PLC. Collectively, my non-executive and executive experience has given me broad and deep knowledge in important areas of board governance, international banking and financial services, risk management, and organizational change that I believe will be of benefit to the company. If elected, I welcome the opportunity to continue contributing that experience, knowledge, and expertise to Macquarie, to support the board in delivering long-term shareholder value. I confirm that I have the time and commitment required to discharge the responsibilities of a Macquarie director and appreciate your support. Thank you for considering my election. Thanks very much, William. We're going to turn now to item five. As I mentioned earlier, items 5A and 5B have been proposed by a group of shareholders under the Corporations Act. Their supporting statements are in Appendix B to the notice of meeting. The board does not consider these resolutions to be in the best interests of the company or shareholders as a whole. We've set out our reasoning. We recommend you vote against 5A and 5B. I now invite Morgan Pickett, a representative of the group of shareholders who have requested the resolutions, to address the meeting. Morgan, you have the floor. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, shareholders. I am here to introduce item 5B, the resolution on climate strategy and management. This resolution was filed on behalf of hundreds of shareholders, both institutional and retail, seeking clarity and accountability. At last year's AGM, more than 35% of votes cast backed stronger climate risk reporting, a clear shareholder signal Macquarie has ignored. This year's resolution asks: Does Macquarie remain committed to aligning its financing with net zero emissions by 2050? If so, how does it assess whether its fossil fuel financing is consistent with that commitment? The board's response in the notice of meeting failed to answer this simple question. If anything, it reinforced shareholder concerns. Macquarie's long-standing commitment to align financing with net zero by 2050 has been scrapped and replaced with a vague commitment to the goals of the Paris Agreement, with little evidence that this commitment is in any way guiding decision-making of the group when it comes to fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that lifetime emissions from existing and committed fossil fuel infrastructure, this was in 2018, would exceed the carbon budget for the Paris Agreement's well below two-degree warming limit. The International Energy Agency concludes that achieving net zero by 2050 allows no new coal mine expansions, new oil and gas fields. Despite this, over the last year, Macquarie has increased its support for a new wave of LNG developments. It has upsized and extended its support for fracking in the Beetaloo Basin. Macquarie has signed multiple 15 - 20-year LNG offtake agreements with yet to be approved projects, and is acting as a financial advisor for Alaska LNG, described as one of the biggest and most devastating LNG mega projects currently slated globally. This is not a passive exposure. Macquarie is helping construct the financial architecture for decades of new fossil fuel production and combustion. To justify these activities, the group has stated that under the International Energy Agency's current and stated policy scenarios, more gas will be needed. However, the IEA has made clear these are not forecasts and should not be considered as the business-as-usual scenarios. These models imagine a hypothetical world where climate policy stalls, clean technology progress slows, renewables uptake flattens, and rapid cost declines halt. Naturally, in this imagined world, fossil fuel demand persists, but Macquarie omits three critical facts that accompany these scenarios. These pathways lead to 2.5 - 3 degrees of warming by 2100. This level of warming carries severe systemic risks that should be avoided. The IEA points to significant LNG oversupply, not unmet long-term demand. Macquarie is treating a scenario where the world reaches severe levels of warming as a business opportunity for fossil fuel expansion, rather than treating it for what it truly is, a catastrophe that can and must be avoided. Macquarie's claim that fossil fuels, particularly gas, will be required for some time, does not justify financing new long-lived gas fields that are inconsistent with Paris-aligned pathways. The question from a risk management perspective is not whether some gas remains in the system during the transition, but whether Macquarie is enabling new large-scale projects intended to operate for decades. Exposure to the proposed Beetaloo Basin exemplifies these risks, demonstrating how Macquarie's financing activity undermines the climate goals it claims commitment to and invalidates representations regarding supporting clients to decarbonize. Macquarie's clients, Beetaloo Energy Australia and Tamboran Resources, are the Beetaloo Basin's leading proponents. They are non-diversified, pre-revenue fracking companies with no transition or decarbonization plans. Their sole business strategy is to develop full-scale Beetaloo production. Macquarie's ongoing catalytic financial support to these companies could enable one of the world's largest fracked shale gas basins, a major source of new emissions, coming into market in the 2030s, and with a commercial incentive to operate for decades. There is no indication that Macquarie has assessed this development against the Paris goals. In fact, at last year's AGM, the chair explicitly stated, "As these projects are still at pilot stage, they have not been assessed for Paris compatibility." It was only a few years ago the company's CEO was quoted in Time Magazine as saying, "There's just a lot of change we need to do to stop our planet from burning." One thing Macquarie can do to stop our planet from burning is to stop pumping hundreds of millions of AUD into what could become one of the world's biggest gas fracking developments. Investors now have more evidence to suggest Macquarie does not assess fossil fuel financing against even its revised core climate commitment supporting the goals of Paris. Macquarie's nearsighted and cavalier approach to financing fossil fuel expansion is cementing a path where the Paris Agreement fails and warming reaches catastrophic levels. Macquarie is not a passive actor in this. Its shareholders, stakeholders, and the broader community expect and demand the group to demonstrate its support for Paris rather than merely stating it. I urge shareholders to vote for Resolution 5B. No matter the outcome, I implore Macquarie to change course, revise its strategy, and commit to providing no further financial support for major fossil fuel expansion. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I'll now open the polls on all the resolutions put before the meeting today. They'll remain open until just before we close the meeting. We're going to adjourn at this point for a refreshment break, and we'll reconvene in about half an hour. If you've already voted with the handset and you don't wish to return after the break, could you please hand the handset in at the registration desk? For people in the room, shareholders or proxy holders, if you'd like to ask a question when we come back, it would be handy if you could sit near one of the microphones. For those online, there will be a notification on screen when we're about to resume. Thank you. See you in about half an hour. [Break] [Break] Attention everyone, the AGM will be recommencing at 12:00 P.M. Thank you. Attention everyone, the AGM will be recommencing very soon. We ask you to start to make your way to your seats. Thank you. In Commodities and Global Markets, we see AI as a core enabler to our business strategy, reimagining how work gets done. We are applying AI across the full trade life cycle, integrating it where it makes sense to surface insights faster, which improves agility, strengthens risk awareness, and enhances decision quality. In trade execution, it's streamlining workflows and reducing manual touch points, supporting a more consistent and efficient flow of information and detecting anomalies earlier. In the middle and back office, AI is reducing high-volume operational work, helping improve accuracy while shortening processing time frames. We are going beyond automating individual tasks. We are embedding governance and controls by design to ensure safe and strategic solutions. In summary, we're prioritizing where AI delivers clear business value and where solutions can scale. The result isn't just efficiency, it's a more responsive, resilient operating platform for our clients and our people. In Macquarie Capital Growth and Technology, we invest globally in growing companies, either as control or a significant minority investor. At the beginning of 2025, we saw that leading AI tools transition from toys to genuine force multipliers, and we knew that we had to go all in. If we wanted to capture that value and push our companies to do the same, we needed to lead from the front. Toward that end, we built just under 20 AI-enabled tools spanning everything from market mapping to lead generation to due diligence, to running hundreds of scenarios on a single investment. For the boardroom, we created more than a board pack reader. It's a coach. It finds errors, checks on actions from prior periods, tracks sentiment, runs scenario analysis, and makes suggestions, all with note-taking built in. In due diligence, our tool reviews all available deal materials, checks it against our 85 different investing criteria, and drafts our investment committee decks automatically. Every committee paper is now, to some extent, generated by AI. We're constantly rewriting our tools to make them better and to keep up with the latest foundational model release. If it looks like we're running hard, you would be right. We either stay in front of it or it rolls over us. Welcome back. Welcome back, everyone. I'll now reconvene the meeting. We still have a quorum, so let's continue with the formal business. Please be reminded that the polls remain open, and we're going to take questions and comments now. Just as a reminder, we are committed to ensuring that people attending the meeting feel safe and respected at all times, and that means we have to conduct the meeting in an orderly fashion, and we can't tolerate disruption. Thank you for your cooperation on that. We're going to start with questions that are submitted in advance, of which there are a number, and then work through written questions submitted online, questions from members in the room, and audio questions. As usual, you're welcome to ask two questions at a time. After that, we'll give other people a chance to ask their questions, and then we'll come back if you have more than two questions. We need to address as wide a range of issues as possible, so I may group some questions or defer consideration of a question until later if that makes sense for the running of the meeting. Now, if you have an individual customer issue or another matter that isn't related to the business of the meeting today, there are people, there are staff at the back at the shareholder table. They'd be happy to help. We're not really able to resolve customer problems at this forum. I note that Voula Papageorgiou from PricewaterhouseCoopers, our external auditor, is here today. She's available if needed to take questions on the conduct of the audit, the preparation and content of the auditor's report, the accounting policies adopted by the company in relation to preparing the financial statements, and the independence of the auditor in relation to the conduct of the audit. The external auditor did not receive any written questions in advance prior to the meeting. We'll now take questions that were submitted in advance. Can I have the first one, please? Chair, our first question comes from Lux Super Life Proprietary Limited. Their question is, why has the shares remained the same for two years? Look, we don't encourage the management team to try to run the company with a view to short-term share price performance. There are many things that affect share prices, many of which are not under our control. The focus of the management team is on the things they can control, and I think we can say that they've delivered great value for shareholders over the long run. As it happens, I think the share price today is noticeably higher than one year ago, but as I say, we don't try to run the company on the basis of short-term performance. We're well-positioned, I think, for the future, as Greg and Shemara were saying earlier. Can I have the next question, please? Chair, our next question comes from Mr. David Yuill and Mrs. Elizabeth Jean Yuill. Their question is, Does the board still see there is no conflict of interest in Director Michelle Hinchliffe, an ex-KPMG partner, being involved in the meetings to appoint new external auditors? I covered the KPMG matters earlier on. I think the key point is it's not a matter of not having ever any conflicts. It's a matter of knowing what the conflicts may be, disclosing, and then managing appropriately. We feel that we got the right balance between being able to draw on Michelle's skills and managing the conflicts. As I said before, she took no part in the scoring or the decision on which firm we ultimately chose. Can I have the next question, please? Chair, our next question is from Mr. David Yuill and Mrs. Elizabeth Jean Yuill. The question is: In the light of the recent and ongoing disclosures about the business practices of KPMG, including hounding of a whistleblower, resignations of senior staff, and the upcoming Senate inquiry, does the Chairman still stand by his reported comments of silly talk in regard to Michelle Hinchliffe's links to KPMG? I've got nothing to add about KPMG beyond what I outlined earlier for shareholders. I think on the question of Michelle's appropriate role, that was covered in the previous answer. The next question, please. Chair, our next question is from Mr. Evan Nicholas and Mrs. Barbara Nicholas. The question is: shareholders who have elected to receive communications by paper should automatically receive a paper notice of meeting and voting form as a matter of course. They should not have to trouble someone to use their computer to do an online vote. This sort of action is typical of Macquarie, who really don't care for retail investors. Well, Mr. And Mrs. Nicholas, I am sorry that you had an unsatisfactory experience there. I understand the share registry has reached out to you to review the instructions. There are representatives of the registry here today should you need any further help, and we will try to make sure that works better next time. Can I have the next question, please? Chair, our next question comes from Ms. Anne Marie Bevis and Mr. Sean Brooklyn-Salisbury. Their question relates to credit reporting leverage. The question is: is the board aware of documented evidence indicating that Macquarie linked the correction of adverse credit reporting to the withdrawal of credit-related and unrelated complaints? Does the board consider this an acceptable regulatory and reputational risk for shareholders? Look, I think this is a particular customer matter, and I do not think this is the right forum in which to address it. Where a problem arises, we will seek to address that and fix it, but I do not think I should seek to address particular customer concerns in this forum today. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Ms. Anne Marie Bevis and Mr. Sean Brooklyn-Salisbury. Their question relates to external dispute resolution integrity and enforcement. Their question is: do Macquarie Group's governance and risk frameworks permit a business, while an Australian Financial Complaints Authority determination is pending, to make an unagreed, non-consensual payment into a disputed loan and simultaneously directly ask the authority, without informing the customer, to expedite its decision and permit collections, including possible enforcement after closures? Concerns regarding possible inducement were raised at the 2025 AGM. Macquarie Group's integrity office, after consulting external independent counsel, concluded that the conduct did not amount to bribery or inducement and was ethical. Macquarie subsequently and shortly after issued a default notice while related matters remained with the independent external ombudsman and admitted it was an error only after it was challenged. Does the board endorse that conclusion, and what controls protect shareholders from recurrence? We do endorse the integrity office's work. We stand by those, and we're confident in that process. Beyond that, this is a particular customer matter which I understand has been addressed, and I'm not proposing to do any more on that in this forum today. This is not a forum for customer issues. Again, there are people here who can give any further assistance if needed. Can I have the next question, please? Chair, our next question is from Mr. Ti An Yeo. Their question relates to the commodity business. Their question is: I have often heard remarks that Macquarie makes a lot of money when commodity prices are volatile. Would you be able to share with us if Macquarie derives its profits via transaction fees, taking calculated positions, and/or any other trading strategies or factors? Macquarie is active in the commodity space, but I think this question perhaps I can refer to Shem and/or Frank. I'm happy to answer that. Frank, you can add anything if you like. We actually do generate revenue from all of those things. The main thing we do is serve customers in our Commodities and Global Markets business. We, in commodities, connect consumers and producers with transportation offerings, risk management, hedging, financing, and we principally get paid fees for that for the services that we offer, the financing we offer, et cetera. Because of the insights our people have and our access to storage and transportation infrastructure, et cetera, we might have the ability to take some positions around that. Generally, our inventory management and trading income, as we call it, is a smaller portion of our income than the service-based annuity income that we generate each year by growing the franchise. I don't know, Frank, if you want to add to that. Nothing to add. It's really client business where we're managing their risks. We provide them risk management services by providing them things such as derivatives, that's really what we do, which is very much a client-led business. Thank you, Frank. Can I have the next question, please? Chair, our next question is from Mr. Ti An Yeo. Their question relates to share price split. Their question is: congratulations to Macquarie for its share price getting heavier and heavier, especially in our local ASX context. Is there any merit to split Macquarie Group stock in some meaningful way? As a small retail investor, it feels psychologically better to own 5,000 Macquarie shares versus 1,000, i.e., a split of five, although value-wise, it is neutral. In addition, it will help to increase trading activity in the derivative market, where one contract is fixed at 100 shares currently regardless of the market price of the underlying security. I think on this one, share splits and so on, I'll pass to Frank. Thank you, Chair. Well, thank you for that suggestion, and any feedback from shareholders, we'll take that under consideration. As you said, this is a question driven by the fact that the share price is increasing, which is probably a good thing, but we note that feedback, and we'll take it under consideration. Thank you. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Craig Caulfield. Their question is, "Mr. Ward, shareholders and the wider market are interested to hear directly from you regarding our future direction. Your audit chair met with KPMG pitch partner Rachel Gatt and Charles Hachman before the tender opened, brought Mr. Hachman in to teach Macquarie how to run the tender, then attended EY's early bid meetings before the committee blocked EY from applying. Eileen Hodgett, also on Macquarie's pitch team, has since been sanctioned over the Westpac pitch, and the federal government has now barred KPMG from bidding for new Commonwealth work altogether while it's investigated. Mr. Ward, as incoming CEO, will you personally pause the KPMG transition pending that outcome or proceed regardless? Well, I'm going to respond to that by saying, as I said earlier, we have some inquiries with KPMG on the integrity of the way in which they pursued pardon me, the Macquarie tender. In regard to Michelle's attendance at meetings, as I said earlier, she attended in the pre-tender period meetings with likely tendering firms on an equal basis across firms. There were no particular special favors to KPMG. I think that was a proper process. The board stands behind that. Going forward, we have sought some information from KPMG. We don't have all of that yet. We probably will have that before too long, but I don't have it today. When we have that, we'll consider what, if anything, further needs to be done. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Craig Caulfield. Their question is, "Macquarie snubbed Deborah O'Neill's parliamentary inquiry invite in June with the CEO's office replying through a junior comms staffer, then an HR executive. Dexus, facing the same allegations, had its board summon KPMG's chairman directly to explain himself. Mr. Ward, as incoming CEO, will you commit personally to appearing before the committee if requested rather than snubbing it again? Well, let's establish some facts here. Macquarie didn't snub the committee. The committee made a request for any information that Macquarie might have about the matters into which they were inquiring. I think initially that request came via email to a media inbox, which probably complicated the process of responding. Macquarie didn't snub the committee. What Macquarie did was to go back and say, "We didn't have any information that we could offer on the matter at hand." Could I have the next question, please? Chair, our next question is from Mr. Chi Li. Their question is, "Considering the downturn for the residential property market, it may present a good opportunity to grab market shares from the Big Four. Will Macquarie provide further incentives to owner-occupier loans or incentives for existing shareholders? For example, AMP has offered a slightly better rate and no-fee offset account for their AMP First Home Loan to existing shareholders. Well, on a business operational matter, that is one perhaps, Greg, I might refer to you and/or Ben, whichever you prefer. Thanks. Thanks very much, Chair. Wonderful question. We've got some very compelling home loan product offerings. Of course, all of our home loans already come with fee-free offset accounts. All our deposit accounts have no fees or hoops or catches. We think we have got a very compelling offer. Likewise, with our home loan rates, they're very competitive. And we're growing market share, so we don't have any special plans to change the offer at this point. Thank you, Greg. Next question, please. Chair, we will now take questions from the floor. John Church, please stand to ask your question. Thank you, Chair. I'm an oceanographer and a climate scientist, fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, I've been awarded numerous high-level international prizes for improving the world's understanding of climate change and the risks it poses. I've been a convening lead author of 2 IPCC reports. In the 2026 annual report, Macquarie Group claims to be committed to the goals of the Paris Agreement, that is, committed to playing its part in, I quote, "holding the increase in global average temperature to well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels." The scientific consensus is clear. The world already has enough existing fossil fuel resources to breach the Paris goals. Achieving the Paris goals requires rapid and immediate mitigation of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and no new addition of greenhouse gas resources. In direct conflict with its commitment, Macquarie is making critical financing and advisory decisions today to enable major new fossil fuel projects. Projects that will enter the market in the 2030s and operate for decades into the future and well past 2050, when net zero needs to be attained. These projects will have long-term climate ramifications, increase world emissions, and the likelihood of exceeding 2.5 - 3 degrees warming scenario by 2100, what your annual report refers to as a hothouse world. I quote, "A world in which critical temperature thresholds are exceeded, leading to physical risks and irreversible impacts." The International Court of Justice has recently ruled that countries have a legally binding obligation to prevent significant harm to the climate from greenhouse gas emissions. Macquarie is creating risks to its investors, clients, and other stakeholders, as well as the broader national and international community, through supporting an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Macquarie has acknowledged that a hothouse world would involve severe physical risks and irreversible impacts. My first question is: Does the board accept the overwhelming evidence that Macquarie's decisions today to support new fossil fuel projects increases the likelihood of a hothouse world? How can the group claim to be supporting the goals of the Paris Agreement given that its actions are just the opposite of what is required? After your response, I have a second question. Thank you for your question. We're not in a position to debate the science. We accept the science as it is. In regard to Macquarie's own activities, our understanding is that actually there will need to be investment in various fossil fuels, especially gas, for quite some time ahead. As I understand it, that is envisaged in many of the scenarios that get talked about. As far as our own activities are concerned, the things that we're doing are consistent with earlier numerical targets that we had set out in previous years. We're continuing to test the outcomes against those targets and report on that in the annual report. Our appetite to continue supporting renewable energy of various forms consistent with our client demand, and it's ultimately a matter of how much client demand there is for that, continues as it was. As I said earlier, under the Macquarie Asset Management platform, those green assets have gone up about sixfold in the past five years ago. That is our position and what we're setting out to achieve. As I say, our understanding of the world is that there will need to be some investment in fossil fuel types, especially gas, for some time ahead yet, and our actions are consistent with that. Your second question? Yes. Given your inadequate response to those questions, will the board commit to bringing a full and open climate change risk assessment to the next annual meeting, one that is not driven by internal inconsistencies, does not contain greenwashing, keeps the market fully informed, and is actually based on the best international science? What we'll be doing for the next annual report is the sustainability reporting as per the standards as we have this year. Next year, we'll be seeing the MAM side of things brought more fully into the corporate reporting, as the standards will require. There is no greenwashing in what we've said in the annual report. We actually have a greenwashing standard that rigorously tests every statement we make and all the numbers we quote. The assumptions and estimations that we've made is all very transparent. That's what we'll be doing for the next annual report. Thank you. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Michael Sanderson. Please stand to ask your question. Good morning, board. Morning. Another year. Just got a quick comment before I ask the questions. I was driving down from Hunter Valley, and I heard on the radio that OpenAI was doing a bit of development work with their latest model, and it broke out of the sandbox all on its own. No prompting. Anthropic's Claude Mythos had a similar issue recently also. I wish you well with AI. Thank you. I assume it's two questions, sit down, join the queue? That's the rule, yeah. Okey-doke. Thank you. First question is Treasury is consulting on harmful lead generation linked to superannuation. Has Macquarie gained any direct or indirect benefit from lead generation involving super funds, products, investments, or members' money? If so, what benefits did Macquarie receive? What risk did this create? How did Macquarie manage conflicts of interest, legal risks, and damage to its reputation? Perhaps I could get Shem or one of the management team to respond to the particular questions there. Could you just repeat what you said in terms of treasury? Sorry. Lead generation. Treasury is currently consulting. Treasury put out consultation papers on different topics from time to time. One of the consultation papers related to harmful lead generation. I think the Financial Royal Commission called them introducers. Yeah, I was just going to say maybe Greg should talk about that because it impacts mostly the wealth area that Greg leads. Yeah, thanks for the question. We're aware of the proposals around lead generators. Obviously, we had a little bit of experience of that in the Shield matter, where some of that came about through lead generation, which we weren't aware of or involved in. We don't use lead generation of any form in our advice business or in our private banking business. We seek, in cooperation with ASIC, to identify financial advice businesses that are using lead generators perhaps in an inappropriate way, and we seek not to serve those businesses. We're very supportive of the work that Treasury is doing. Thanks, Greg. Your second question, sir? Macquarie worked with the Australian government in 2025 and 2026 in the U.S. with regard to superannuation summits. The summits connected Australian super funds with foreign governments, investors, and investment opportunities. Was this government-backed lead generation on steroids? What business did Macquarie gain or expect to gain from these introductions? How did Macquarie manage any conflicts of interest? In my opinion, Mr. Trump is probably the biggest grifter on the planet right now. Well, Shemara was actually present at some of these meetings. I think I'll suggest that she respond. Yeah. I think those summits were very different to lead generators, which are situations where people are trying to encourage less sophisticated retail investors to go into products and paid a commission for getting them in there. These were very sophisticated institutional investors that represent the multi-trillion Australian dollar pension funds in Australia, going to the U.S. to understand the investment opportunities in those markets and make calls themselves. We were not being paid any commissions to put them into products or anything like that. We were asked to help host this because we're very, very active in the U.S. and have been there for over 30 years in areas like infrastructure, commodities, et cetera. I think they were a great initiative. The savings pool here has now grown to multiples of the GDP of Australia and is needing to invest globally and doing that in a very responsible, paced, managed way. It was a great opportunity to give those sophisticated investors insight into these markets where they're going in with a very patient, disciplined approach. There's not those opportunities in this country? There certainly are, as I said, the pension pool has now grown to two times the GDP of this country. They are heavily invested in this country, but they have now a bigger savings pool than they can invest here. They're, in a very disciplined way, balancing other markets, just like all the huge pension funds globally come and invest here as well to diversify. It's just a responsible way of diversifying risk and return for the pensioners who ultimately they have great responsibility to delivering return on savings for. Thanks, Shemara. I think we might move to the next question now, please. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Philip Laird. Please stand to ask your question. Thank you, Chairman. Global circumstances, including oil security and the need to reduce emissions, almost dictate that Australia should be reducing its use of diesel. At present, we're using more diesel than ever. Just look at the increase in use in the last six, seven years. My question is, has Macquarie increased its investments and measures that could see Australia reduce its dependence on diesel? The second question is, would Macquarie be prepared to invest more in this area? Thank you. Look, our general position, as you know, is to be prepared to catalyze other people's capital and our own in pursuit of renewable energy where that makes commercial sense. As I've set out some numbers on that earlier, on diesel in particular, I don't actually know whether we have anything that specifically relates to that. I don't know whether anyone up here knows the answer to that. In terms of potential future investments, Macquarie's always up for looking at things which commercially stack up. They have to commercially stack up before we would put your money into them. On diesel in particular, I'm not sure I can answer that. We have, I'm looking at Sam, we have no material exposure to diesel. He's shaking his head. Okay, I think that's the answer. No material exposure. Did you have another question, sir? Yes. The acquisition of Qube, could you comment on that? Because they're into land freight, including rail freight, and rail freight uses one third of the diesel that road freight uses. A bit about Qube, please, and what you might do with. Okay. Well, Ben Way, who's in charge of Macquarie. Macquarie Asset Macquarie Asset Management. Ben, I'll hand to you on that. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for your question. It is true that sometime in August, we will become the owner of Qube, along with other shareholders. It is also right to say that in most of those sorts of businesses that we own around the world, there will be a mixture, if you like, of fuel types used in the various vehicles that will be part of those businesses. Often a large part of our investment thesis is actually how we electrify and modernize those fleets. While there may be some portion of any of our portfolio companies around the world when we initially invest in them that have perhaps traditional fuels, generally, our investment case will be to modernize that and to electrify it, because that's both often much cheaper, but also allows us to drive net zero transition plans through those portfolio companies. As you probably have heard from the board and Glenn today, a large part of what MAM does, where we have portfolio companies that we either control or have significant influence, is to really move them to being net zero by 2040. That we'll have a similar program when we invest and become the owners of Qube here in Australia. Specifically, I do not know the fuel mix, I will say, and so we would have to come back to you and answer that question with more specificity after the meeting. Thank you for the question. Thank you, Ben. Our next question, please. Chair, our next question is from Mr. Ian Dunlop. Please stand to ask your question. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to ask questions. I have a background in fossil fuels. Initially in oil exploration with the Royal Dutch Shell Group around the world, subsequently in coal developments here in Australia. I was CEO of the Australian Company Directors in the late 90s, and I chaired the Australian Coal Association in the late 1980s. I've been working on climate solutions for some 40 years. Currently, I'm an executive of the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group, which is a group of former military intelligence and security experts who are concerned about the security implications of the existential risk that climate change actually represents. I congratulate the company on the action it's taken on developing its renewable energy portfolios and are obviously continuing to do. Renewables thus far are only meeting the increase in energy demand. They are not doing anything yet to reduce the legacy of fossil fuels, and particularly the emissions from those fuels, which are at record levels and rising when they should have been dropping for the last 20 or 30 years if we are to have a safe climate. The actions I hear Macquarie taken seem to be disregarding the implications of what that really means. Your response to, I think, resolution 5B in the notice of meeting places great emphasis on maintaining energy security and really fossil fuel expansion, given the fact that renewables have not been growing as fast as they should be. Essentially, you seem to justify on a base of these IEA's current policies and stated policy scenarios, which essentially are providing for the depletion of existing oil and gas reservoirs, and also to meet increasing extra demand, despite the fact that we're actually heading into an LNG glut at the moment, and that the fossil energy return on investment is dropping because it's becoming more and more expensive to actually produce those fuels. I also note that you've abandoned the essential target of an absolute reduction on emissions in favor of reducing emissions intensity, which allows you, of course, to increase production and emissions whilst meeting the intensity reduction targets. In all of this, what I don't see is any reference to the human security dimensions of what is happening with climate change by prioritizing fossil energy. It's the damage to all the other staples of civilization and human survival, such as water, food, livable environment health, social cohesion, which are really now under threat from climate change in many parts of the world. Not to forget the supply chain problems, of course, that are obvious coming out of the current U.S.-Iran war. Those IEA scenarios are not predictions of fossil fuel demand. They're basically what happens if you keep doing things in the way we've been doing it, and they lead to the potential temperature increases that have been mentioned of 2.5, three degrees Celsius, which they are not livable worlds. These will be catastrophic, absolutely catastrophic. Even at two degrees Celsius, we're going to see, I think, widespread mortality, food and water shortages, and conflict, let alone economic devastation. My first question, Chairman, is, I know this is a wicked problem, but really, what is the Board's justification of prioritizing energy security from fossil fuel expansion in this way, whilst at the same time ignoring the human security dimensions of it? I think the basis of Macquarie's approach is our understanding that there will need to be some fossil fuel investment for quite possibly some time yet. You mentioned energy security. I think the world has changed quite materially in the past couple of years, and the security and availability, as well as the price and who you get it from, has become something much more to the fore. There may be a gas glut at some point in the future. I'm not going to try to predict that. Right at the minute, from what we see, there's shortages around. There's talk of gas reservation in our own country, for example. What we're trying to do, I think, is where commercially viable and sensible, meet needs that seem to be emerging. We continue to, as I said earlier, support the energy transition, mainly by the green energy investments. You mentioned abandoning targets. Actually, the targets that we set several years ago are the same targets now. It's true that they're emission targets for both mortgages and upstream oil and gas, but we haven't changed those. They're still in place. Quite possibly, you disagree with the targets we set, but they're the ones we set, and we continue to track our behavior, our outcomes against them. It is a wicked problem. We're seeking to play a role. We can't determine global policy. We are unable to do things, really, which address these problems for the world. We're seeking to play our part in a way that we think makes sense, is tractable, practical, and is in the interests of shareholders. That's as good as I can give you, I think, on that. Do you want to add anything? No, nothing else. Did you have another question? Yes, I would, Chair, if I may. Thank you for those comments. If you look at the sustainability report, it indicates that in assessing anticipated climate-related risks and opportunities, there are going to be no material financial impacts in the short to medium term on Macquarie, in other words, for up to five years, from execution of the current strategy. You indicate also that as the time horizon extends over the medium to long term, the range of outcomes becomes increasingly broad. Consequently, the uncertainty involved in estimating financial effects is such that you've chosen not to disclose any financial information. On that basis, the strategy, as I understand it, which includes increasing finance for long-term oil and gas projects, is supposedly robust against climate impact. Chair, I would suggest this is extremely dangerous way in which to treat uncertainty. You'll be well aware at the moment that the 1.5 global average surface temperature increase, which is the lower bound of the Paris Agreement, is to all intents and purposes here. We've exceeded it more than a decade earlier than we expected. Climate change impacts recent in Europe, the U.S., and China are extraordinary by any historical standards. The predicted super El Niño, which is currently developing in the Pacific, promises to be way beyond any previous experience. It is really quite scary stuff if you've been looking at what it means. This week's edition of "The Economist" magazine, which you may have read, sets out why this is happening. The key point in the whole thing is that while the basic science is settled, the uncertainties remain about the implications of that science, and they're all pointing in the wrong direction. That basically means the climate impact is probably going to be far worse and far sooner than the scientists thought, and certainly the way in which governments and corporates are currently planning for it. In these circumstances, I suggest that you can't ignore uncertainty, awaiting quantification as you're doing. There are almost certainly going to be material financial impact on Macquarie's operations even within five years, let alone the longer term. Why is- This comes through second and third order effects. We can't- I suggest it requires a fundamental recasting of the way you actually think about risk and uncertainty, incorporating the precautionary principle of taking an emergency action now in anticipation of worst-case scenarios. This includes dramatically reducing absolute emissions and operations in which you are involved. There must be some limited use of fossil fuels, I accept that, but that does not require expansion from the opening up, for example, of new gas basins like Beetaloo. We have enough already. We just cannot afford it. There must be far more focus on reducing fossil fuel demand, which I know you are partly involved in doing. In these circumstances, my second question, Chairman, is to secure Macquarie's future. Please. Will you please consider reframing your current treatment of risk and uncertainty to focus on emergency action to reduce emissions using the core capabilities that you have at your disposal for both fossil fuel supply and demand? Thank you. Well, thank you for the suggestion. I will just say on the material that is in the sustainability report, as you say, it was difficult to find material effects on the business over a short to medium horizon. It is highly uncertain in the longer term. I would note that that uncertainty could cut the other way, not just the way that you set out. But some of this, no doubt, is a result of limitations in our ability to model these things, and that is an area of our work that we hope to improve in the future. But thank you for the suggestion. Next question, please. Chair, our next question is from Mr. Kyle Robertson. Please stand to ask your question. Afternoon, Chair. I'll keep it brief. I just want to ask a pointed question about the group's current position on climate change, which is that claims commitment to the Paris Agreement, claims to accept that the science on climate change is clear and unequivocal. Chairman. They want a question, not. I'm getting to a question. Yeah. I'd like the Chair to enforce. Okay. The disorderly conduct thing that was. Yep, okay. Raised at the start of the meeting. Yeah, go ahead, Kyle, on the question. Macquarie claims commitment to the Paris Agreement, claims to accept the science on climate change is clear and unequivocal, while simultaneously supporting new fossil fuel projects. It justifies this behavior in its notice of meeting by saying that under scenarios that are aligned with catastrophic warming, such new projects are required. It disregards the severity of the physical climate risks from these projects, then openly acknowledges that the group's assessment of physical climate risks has led to no anticipated changes in strategy or decision-making, implying the behavior will continue. Does the board acknowledge there's a contradiction here? No, I don't. I think we've set out our case quite clearly. I've answered this in some of the previous answers as well. I don't think there's a contradiction at all. We're trying to navigate a balanced approach to all these things, and I think Macquarie has a pretty good track record, actually, on supporting the energy transition. All the things that we're doing in the oil and gas space do get tested against the targets we've already set out in earlier years that remain in place. Do you have another question? It would be further to that, which is that the notice of meeting said that the new gas projects are needed in scenarios where the world warms by 2.5-3 degrees of warming. Is that Macquarie's justification for supporting the new gas projects it does? Because if that is the case, that would seem to be an apparent contradiction with its commitment to the Paris Agreement. Well, I don't think there's any value to be added by getting into debates about particular scenarios. We're comfortable with the risk appetite that we've taken on in that particular project, which is actually quite a very small part of Macquarie's overall balance sheet. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Morgan Pickett. Please stand to ask your question. Thank you, Chair. Having scrapped your commitment to aligning finance with net zero by 2050, is the group committed to aligning finance with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement? We've made the commitments we've made in the documents. Nothing further to add. Next. You're not aligning finance with Paris. Is that correct? We've said we are committed to the Paris goals. We support those goals. That's what we've said. Yep. Yep. That's about as much substance as I found in the report as well. Okay. Look, regarding Beetaloo, you claim to be supporting your oil and gas clients to decarbonize. How are you supporting these clients to decarbonize their operations? Look, I don't think it's sensible to get into particular client situations. We do have an active process of trying to help clients decarbonize where that's their intention. That extends a long way beyond just oil and gas to other sectors of the economy. I don't think it's right to try to talk about particular client instances. Understand that, Chair, in your notice of meeting in the response to resolution 5b, you specifically speak to Beetaloo as a project that you believe will be required for energy security. You specifically state that you're working with these clients to decarbonize their operations. It's a simple question. It should be very simple to answer. How are you working with them to decarbonize? I can't give you the fine detail on that particular case. I don't have that information. I'm not sure whether anyone up here does. Will you take it on record to address that? We'll take it on notice. Thank you. Can I have the next question, please? Chair, our next question comes from Amanda Richman. Please stand to ask your question. Thank you, Chair. First, congratulations to Shemara on her tenure as CEO and to Greg Ward on his new appointment. I'm Amanda Richman from Australian Ethical Investment. We're an institutional shareholder in Macquarie, we co-filed the shareholder resolution. I think Macquarie's had feedback from shareholders on its climate commitments and implementation, which I hope Macquarie will consider, we're keen to continue to engage on this. Just a couple of points of clarity based on questions that we've had today. Chair, Macquarie's notice of meeting, as many have mentioned, refers to IEA's current policies and stated policies scenario. I suspect there might be some perhaps misunderstanding about what Macquarie intended to communicate by referencing those. As I understand it, those scenarios describe outcomes which would result in warming well beyond the goals of the Paris Agreement, the IEA presents them as scenarios to be avoided. Could you clarify why Macquarie chose to reference those scenarios and confirm whether Macquarie also views them as outcomes to be avoided? I think we use those scenarios as just a way of framing discussion. At the moment, the world is not on track as far as we can see with the net zero by 2050 scenarios that the IEA has set out, I'm not an expert in these scenarios, but that's my understanding. That scenario has seen consistent upward revisions to its near-term emissions trajectory because as been earlier outlined, emissions actually have not fallen other than in COVID. We've reviewed the current policies and stated policies scenarios, which is a useful framing for where the world may be heading. I don't think we're endorsing those as any particular desirable. We're not expressing that view. They were just things that we use for framing the discussion. I think we would say that if the science says two and a half to three degrees warming to be damaging, then we would accept that. Thank you. Just one other clarifying question. I think Ian Dunlop's question related to how Macquarie's thinking about the impacts of physical risks on Macquarie's own business and understand the difficulty of looking ahead when there's a lot of uncertainty beyond a five-year period. I understood Macquarie's approach to risk management is to understand worst-case scenarios. Has that principle been applied to how Macquarie considers physical climate risk? That is the approach that we take to all risks. To the extent we can quantify them, we do look through those worst-case possible outcomes in all those things. In this particular case, of course, it's not possible to do that quantification to the same extent for the very reason that potentially some of these things don't have precedent in the data. We seek to adopt that practice wherever that's possible. This is inherently difficult to model out beyond, I guess, the medium term. We will keep working on that, but that is as good as we could do on this occasion. Thank you. Next question, please. Chair, our next question is from the Australian Shareholders' Association. Please stand to ask your question. Good afternoon, everyone. Peter Gregory is my name, and I am here today representing the Australian Shareholders' Association, which is a not-for-profit body that represents the interests of small and individual shareholders. I have proxies from shareholders today totaling 367,000 shares. I also note that Macquarie has 205,000 shareholders on its registry that own less than 1,000 shares. This is 90% of the shareholders on Macquarie's register, and as well as ASA members, we do work to represent and be the voice of all small and individual shareholders. I would like firstly to comment on the remuneration report. In spite of the improved financial results delivered by Macquarie's leadership this year, ASA has reservations about the remuneration plan, and for the following three reasons, ASA is voting open proxies against the remuneration report. Firstly, ASA is of the view that the CEO and leadership team need to be rewarded to attract and retain and motivate the best people. We also believe that the overall quantum needs to be reasonable and supported by appropriate benchmarking of peers. We have completed a detailed analysis of benchmarking data that is largely been provided to us by Macquarie and have concluded that the quantum of a remuneration is at a higher level than needs to be to meet our shared objectives. Secondly, in terms of the mix of the remuneration components, we see that the long-term incentive plan is based on earnings per share and return on equity. That growth of these metrics, as stated in the annual report, drives long-term shareholder value. Yet this measure is only 12% of the CEO package. We ask that to give a better alignment of leadership and shareholders that the proportion of long-term incentive be increased. We also note that the earnings per share growth, as I read the data in the annual report, has not met its hurdle for 50% of the time since it was introduced in 2009. Thirdly, to the profit share, which is 84% of the CEO maximum package. While we welcome the greater amount of disclosure this year, we don't see transparency about how the size of the maximum award is arrived at, nor do we see clear performance hurdles or how specific outcomes are linked to defined rewards. There is, in our view, an over-reliance on board discretion. In short, ASA believes that shareholders should be able to understand how remuneration outcomes have been determined and how they reflect performance over time, and we don't have this understanding with Macquarie's profit share. I know there's a lot of material that I presented to you in that, Glenn, I'm not expecting a full resolution to our points of view here, but I would appreciate your overall comment, also would like to add that ASA is willing to work with Macquarie to achieve what we think is a better alignment of the interests of Macquarie leadership and shareholders. Well, thanks, Peter, for your comments and welcome suggestions. We've done a lot of work on the REM framework and disclosure, as you said, over the past year. I respect your responsibility to vote your proxies as you see fit, absolutely. We do think the remuneration system, which is very long-standing, has worked well. We're always open to continued evolution, continued evolution is something that's ongoing. Thanks for the suggestions. I would only add that in the discussions we've had with shareholders thus far in recent weeks as we've led up to the AGM, I think the REM outcomes have been well-received, what we've tried to do, and I would say my assessment, Jillian, if you'd like to add, feel free. I think the framework overall is very strongly supported by the vast bulk of shareholders. Thank you again for the engagement we had with you and for your observations. No, only to reinforce that comment that we found there was broad support for the framework, even when there was more information requested on the consequences of regulatory matters that arose, that could we have more disclosure on the process of making those judgments on consequences. We addressed all those things. Overall, I think the framework's been supported because it is a profit share arrangement, it is very much aligning the shareholders with the focus of the executives, and that's what other shareholders have indicated they support. If you say it's just too high, that's sometimes because our profit is outperforming other financial institutions. Thanks, Jillian. Peter, did you have another question? I do. Just, if I can say, thank you for taking consideration to our point of view. On the regulatory question, there's been a resolution of the issues of short-selling reporting to ASIC and Shield Master Fund's inclusion on the Macquarie Wrap program. This has come at a cost, more importantly, has brought reputational risk to our company. With the regulatory issues, specific known causes I understand are being dealt with, as you've referred to earlier. I don't think we've heard much disclosure about what you referred to as underlying root causes. Has there been a sufficient review to ensure regulatory compliance and confidence that there will be no more surprises in this regard? With the Macquarie Wrap platform, we note that there's been a greater degree of screening of included products. We would ask, has this action been sufficient to mitigate this risk, both financial and reputational consequences of possible future occurrences? Thanks for the question. On the short selling matter, there's a large program of work underway to rectify those issues that's making good progress. Importantly, to pick up a point you made, there is a thorough root cause analysis that's part of that. We've identified a few common themes going back through history, which I won't go through. We've done that work, and we believe there's good progress underway to rectify those things. On the Shield matter, I would say that we have felt that the way Macquarie responded to that matter has actually been reputation-enhancing for the company. We believe it's been brand positive. I acknowledge that there was a cost to shareholders for doing that, but that has been brand positive and I think has also improved our standing with regulators. On the specific things we've done, Greg, perhaps would you be able to comment on the way we've been revising access to the Wrap platform and so on? Thank you, Chairman. Yeah. I think we feel we've responded well to the Shield matter. Obviously, there were a lot of parties involved in that in the industry that are being investigated by ASIC, and their work continues, and we're very supportive of that work. We made extensive enhancements to our compliance and governance arrangements, including to the fund menu, to provide additional protections for investors that are investing in funds on the Macquarie menu. We're really satisfied with the work that we've done there. Thanks, Greg. Can I have the next question, please? Chair, our next question is from Mr. Enzo Prata. Please stand to ask your question. Good afternoon, Chair. I have two questions today. My first question is actually a request to Macquarie Bank. It is, can you please publish on your website the interest rates on offer for business term deposits as you already do for personal term deposits? The reason for my question is this. I am treasurer in four strata schemes. All of them, all the four, invest their surplus cash in Macquarie Bank term deposits, business term deposits, because a strata scheme is a business. Every time one of those term deposits matures, in order to decide what to do next, to roll over for how long or not, I need to call the strata manager, who in turn calls Macquarie Bank, gets the rates for me, and communicates them to me. This process adds additional costs for the owners that I represent. I was wondering whether it will be possible to publish the interest rates on offer on the website so that I do not need to go through this long detour to decide what I have to do. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to look at the front row as to whether there's anything we can say about publishing rates on the website. Greg or Ben? Thanks very much for the question. Thanks for your support of the Macquarie product offering. Term deposits at Macquarie and in the market are quite a historic sort of operating product. You may have seen media in the last couple of weeks that we've launched a new term deposit offering, which we think is a dramatically different and better offering than is available in market more broadly. As part of that, you'll be able to see the rate of interest that is available on the term deposits, and you'll be able to roll over term deposits very, very quickly. It will also show the total interest that will be earned on a term deposit as well. I think going forward, I appreciate the feedback, and you'll be able to see this going forward. Excellent. Just a quick question. Is it for business as well or only for personal investors? Yes, it will be for business as well. Perfect. All types of customers. Thank you very much. Okay. My second question is procedural. At this AGM, we have a numeric limit for every shareholder and proxyholder to ask a maximum of two questions. At the next AGM, can we have a time limit as well of, say, 90 seconds per question? The reason for that is I believe that a question that cannot be articulated in 90 seconds It's probably too complicated to be addressed in a general meeting. Thank you for the suggestion. On that very note, we do have a lot more questions yet, so if people could keep the questions short. Thank you. Can I have the next question, please? Chair, our next question comes from Helen Scotts. Please stand to ask your question. She's never going to be- We'll find out if that's true. 40? All right. Thank you. Thanks so much. Thank you for a very informative presentation. I just want to commend you on the way that you run this meeting. It's very well done, having a break and then coming back and having the questions. Those that want to leave can leave. Look, I just want to commend you, Macquarie Bank, on investing in oil and gas. I don't know of a country, I might be wrong, I don't know of a country at the moment that relies totally on renewables for their energy. While we do need to invest in renewables, I just think we're on this fast pathway to Paris 2050, and it's involving a lot of collateral damage along the way. I think one in five families is under energy stress at the moment, and there have been reports of suicides due to financial stress. I personally have been a victim of financial stress due to the recession that we had to have. Thankfully, due to hard work and resilience in Macquarie Bank shares, we got back on top of it. I just want to say, I think it's really wise to be investing in fossil fuels because while we do want to invest in renewables, we really need to keep going with fossil fuels to supplement the renewables until we're ready for the changeover. I just hope down the track somewhere, we hear about Macquarie Bank investing in nuclear energy. Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Andrew Somerville. Please stand to ask your question. Thanks. Good afternoon, everybody. My first question is to Jillian Broadbent. What were the two major things that you did on the board during your time? Do you have any regrets in your time on the board? Any things you feel you shouldn't have done? My second question, if you like, is to Shemara on the same question. What two good things have you done, and do you have any regrets? One comment, if I may. Chairman, could I suggest we have a clock? Yeah. Two minutes, when the question starts, you start the clock, and when two minutes is up, the person sits down. Thank you. Thanks for the suggestion. Limiting the great things both of these people have done to two might be difficult, Jill, you're- Will I go first? I'm glad to contain it to two minutes. It's hard to say two things I have done or haven't done, it has been an extremely stimulating board to be part of, and I think Shemara has expressed this view. There are so many changes, I've been lucky to be able to draw on a fairly diverse financial background in the commodities derivatives business and financing generally to both enjoy and contribute to Macquarie's journey, I feel. In terms of whether I was supposed to specify things I wished I hadn't done, I don't think there are any of those. The one good thing about Macquarie, or there are lots of good things about Macquarie, is that things evolve and change. If you do make a bad decision, you correct it pretty quickly, and you're open to input, and I think that applies both at the board and across the executives. It's very dynamic, and I don't think if I've made any mistakes, I haven't corrected them pretty quickly. Thank you. Shemara. I'd just say in terms of what I've done here, obviously I have no regrets or I'd have gone and worked somewhere else. I've really enjoyed working here and it's been, as I said earlier, a privilege to be here. I really can't point to things that are just me that have made this organization do so well because, as I said earlier, it's very much a team effort, and it's just been a privilege to work with incredibly smart but very diverse people who bring other perspectives, and between us drive everything we've done. I don't think I can take personal credit for anything this place has done because it's always a team effort. Thanks very much. Next question, please. Chair, our next question is from Mr. Peter Starr. Please stand to ask your question. Do we need to go to some of the ones? Good morning, fellow shareholders, and good morning, board and Shemara. It'd be remiss of me not to say that on behalf of the shareholders I represent, that I want to thank you personally. I've seen you often at the business summits and the banking summits and I will pass on those comments that we shared about Matt when I see him in a few weeks. I'm sure he wishes you well, too. Just two quick questions. In relation to the AUD 500 penalty capital that APRA has on us, two of the major banks, being Commonwealth Bank and NAB, have had that removed. I'm just wondering if you'd like to just give us some detail about what's happening to try and get that removed, because it'll be for the benefit of all shareholders if that happens. Second thing, in relation to what happened with the Shield Master Fund and what's going on there with the fixing up of that and the remuneration back to the people that were affected. Thank you. Thank you. On the capital penalty, well, that's still in place. We have been making progress with the work programs that were put in place to address the various matters that led to that. As we said in the annual, there was actually a capital and a liquidity penalty that we had. We've had a partial removal of the liquidity penalty over the past year, given that APRA was, I think, satisfied with the progress we were making towards rectifying those issues. There's still some to go there yet. We are working hard to try to satisfy them with the full suite of work so that the capital penalty can, in due course, be removed. I think most banks' experience when they've had these things in the past is that it is a number of years before you can satisfy the regulator in order to get it removal. We're continuing to work towards that. On the Shield matter, what Macquarie did was make whole the investors that had gone into those particular products on the platform, and then we've stood in their place in the wind-up to recover the bulk of the money. That process, I think, is still ongoing and not as yet complete. Hopefully, we'll have an update for you at a future date. That's all we have today. Thank you, Glenn. Next question, please. Chair, our next question is from Mr. Stephen Mayne. Please stand to ask your question. Very close, Steve. Very close. Thanks, Chair. Two topics, chair succession and then audit. Firstly, are you planning to stand for re-election at next year's AGM at the end of your term? Well, happy birthday, Stephen. I understand. We should have got a cake. My failing, sorry. My term comes to an end in about a year. We are working on the chair succession matter. Nothing more to tell you about that today, but I think it's all in hand. Right. You can't confirm that you will? You're not ruling out retiring at the end of the term? I'm never saying never, but nine years is the normal rule. I think there's a good reason for that. Yeah. That's good to hear. Is the next chair on the board at the moment? I believe there are people already sitting here who are more than capable of doing the job. Right. You've done the CEO succession, next is chair. You're not having to go outside. It's all a good process. I think there are people on the board who are more than capable of doing the role. Yeah. Great. On audit, I remember being in Queensland at a conference, sitting at a dinner talking to, I won't say who, but someone who was involved in the EY audit of Babcock & Brown. They were furious that the ex-PwC partner on the Babcock board had insisted that EY had a conflict and couldn't possibly manage all of the Babcock listed funds. Then lo and behold, PwC managed all of the Babcock listed funds. The allegation was conflicted director steering work to old firm, citing good governance because you can't have the same auditor for the listed funds and the head stock. That was interesting to hear that from someone at the coalface. Then I had a look at Macquarie, and of course, PwC was auditing everything. The head stock, all the funds that we paid over AUD 2 billion. I was thinking that was actually bad governance. You should have had a different auditor from the head stock to the listed funds. Hence, four years ago, I started banging on about when are you doing a tender? When are you getting rid of PwC? It's been AUD 2 billion. It's been too long. At first, you just sort of fluffed it and said the actual answer to the question was 30 years plus, never had a tender, no intention to have a tender. You just said, "Oh, it's been a long time." Then each year, the last four years, you've slowly got more and more, "Yes, we're having a tender. It's coming up." Then you've actually run the tender. The thing that confused me the most is that you had to get rid of PwC. They'd been there for 40 years. Why were they included in the last two? That put Michelle I don't in an impossible position where you've only got KPMG or the incumbent. The good governance road was to get rid of the incumbent. The mistake you've made is to give Deloitte and EY the punt too early in the tender process and leave the final choice between the incumbent and KPMG, which opens the door for all the conflict of interest allegations. No. It looks like a one-horse race because you can't give the job to PwC. I disagree. We thought carefully about whether PwC should be included, I should say that we think PwC's done a very good job for us over all those years and continue to do so. The main aim here is the best auditor for the firm, it was open to us, we believe it was open to us, to choose PwC again at the tender if they put the best proposal. The way the tender was run was to seek the best offer from the firms, that got progressively narrowed down. I don't agree that we could not have chosen PwC. We could have. That is the view the board took. We chose to allow them to tender. We would not have put them through that if we had no intention of choosing them. In our view, it was open to us to choose them on the basis of if they had the best quality offer. In the end, these are all very capable firms. We made the choice we did, I don't accept personally the argument that there was no way we could choose PwC. It was open to us to make that choice. Yes, they'd been through the reputational problems, none of those problems actually were related to audit quality or integrity. As you know, they were in the other side of the firm. That's my view. Now, I know that our new CEO came from PwC, I think it was 1994, long time ago. Are you even prepared to admit now that it was wrong to never run a competitive tender for the entire 39 years that Shemara was employed at Macquarie? Well, look, the attitudes that the boards of the past had, they had. In the time I've been here, we have evolved on from there and gone to a position where we will tender every decade at least. I think that's a better and more defensible position. The past is what it is. Final point on audit. Australia has a unique ability- You're on question four now. Well, it's- One more It's two topic limit, I think. No, it's not. It's two questions. Well, everyone else is asking 10 questions, so I'll sit down after this. Australia has a unique ability to ask questions of auditors at the floor of the meeting. Very few other countries have that. It's good to get the auditor to sing for their supper. Could Voula Papageorgiou, the audit signing partner from PwC, please comment on whether the distraction and the complexity of participating in a highly scrutinized and watched competitive tender process compromised or challenged the actual day-to-day audit process that her and her team had to do during that tender process? You're allowed to ask questions about the audit process, so you can't rule that out of order, I just say to you in advance, Chair, if you're about to try that. Voula can talk about the audit process. I'm asking, did the tender interrupt with the process in any way? Voula, I think you can comment on the integrity of the process, if you wouldn't mind. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon, shareholders, and thank you for your question, Mr. Mayne. I can confidently say that my primary focus during the audit tender process was to ensure that we continue to deliver an audit of the highest quality and integrity to Macquarie, I was not distracted for a minute from that focus. I would concur that we got the usual outstanding service. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Terry Lee. Please stand to ask your question. Good afternoon, Chair, and fellow shareholder. I usually don't want to get involved with climate change, fossil fuel debate. I'm more interested in the company profitability and accountability. There's so many people talk about us, I have to have a few word for it. No one else come up and say anything. Well, on my judgment, Macquarie policy is grounded on fossil fuel lending. It's grounded in economic reality, not ideology, that people are going around at the moment, the climate change people. This is not a negligent, but it's a pragmatic risk management. The result on page 25 of your, what's it called? Notice of meeting. You can check the result. Macquarie made AUD 2.5 billion, AUD 2.4 billion. Yep. Way ahead of all other big bank in Australia. Now, Macquarie diversify approach produce highest return on equity, high return on earning, and a very stable dividend. Basically increase almost every year. Now, as a shareholder, I'm very for this kind of management. Profitability is not a failure. It's not a moral failure, but it's the evidence of Macquarie responsibility in managing the profit of the company. If you check today's share price is AUD 255.90, last time I look at it. That's the highest on record. As a shareholder, we should be very pleased with this result. Mr. Lee, did you have a question? No, I don't. I just want to make you a question. Okay. Maybe that we should continue what we're doing and we're going to vote for question five, and shareholders should take this into consideration. Yeah, that's basically all I have to say to you. Thanks so much, Mr. Terry Lee. Next question, please. Chair, we will now return to questions submitted online. Our next question comes from Mr. Peter Calogero. The question is, in March 2026, the New South Wales Supreme Court ordered Macquarie Securities to pay AUD 35 million for multiple failures that caused the misreporting of millions of short sales between 2009 and 2024. They found this was due to serious deficiencies in Macquarie Securities' systems, processes, and controls, many of which remained undetected for years despite a number of internal reviews. The court found Macquarie engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, failed to have risk management systems, and failed to provide accurate regulatory data to the market operator. This has cost shareholders AUD 35 billion and kept us in the dark on aspects of the market. Why did Macquarie allow this situation to last for so many years? What steps has Macquarie taken or will it take to make sure these types of failings do not happen again? What lessons did we learn? Well, there were certainly problems in this area for far too long. We acknowledge that. That's a fact. That's what we acknowledged in the settlement. We believe it was in the best interest of shareholders to reach a settlement and then rectify the problems. That's what we've done. As I said earlier, there's extensive work underway to make sure that we don't have this problem again. I believe we have learned quite a few lessons, which I won't go into the details of all the root cause analysis that's been done, a lot of that work was very valuable. Many lessons for us, and we will endeavor to our very best to fix these problems and avoid recurrence. Next question, please. Chair, our next question is from Mr. Craig Caulfield. Their question is, Chair, was the board aware of Ms. Wikramanayake's intention to resign and Mr. Ward's appointment before this morning? If so, why wasn't that flagged to the market ahead of an AGM where shareholders are today electing directors and adopting a remuneration report built entirely around her leadership? The board took the decision to appoint Greg yesterday evening just after 5:00 P.M., it was disclosed ahead of market open this morning. We've met our disclosure obligations here. The remuneration report on which you're voting today is regarding the remuneration for the year that finished in 31st of March this year. I don't think that's directly connected to the decision that we took regarding appointing Greg. Next question, please. Chair, the next question is from Mr. Craig Caulfield. Their question relates to item two, re-election of directors. Their question is, Ms. Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, were you aware of Ms. Hinchliffe knew both KPMG pitch representatives socially from their time together at KPMG London before you voted to approve the tender outcome? Repeat that question, please. Ms. Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, were you aware Ms. Hinchliffe knew both KPMG pitch representatives socially from their time together at KPMG London before you voted to approve tender outcome? Just before Sue responds to that, yes, Michelle knows many people in KPMG. She worked there for several decades. That is not inappropriate. As I said earlier, her conduct in the meetings that she was willing to attend with all the tendering firms, I think has been entirely appropriate here. I don't know, Sue, whether you want to add anything. I think, Glenn, the comment about Michelle knowing a lot of people in KPMG over a long career is obvious. I'm very supportive of the process that we put in place in balancing using Michelle's extensive experience to help us through that process, which was designed and run by management and endorsed by the board, and I thoroughly endorse the way that we balanced using her experience and having her recuse herself when scoring and their final decision was made. Thank you, Sue. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Ms. Anne Marie Bevis and Mr. Sean Brooklyn-Salisbury. The question relates to artificial intelligence and complaint compensation. Their question is, AI sentiment analysis, behavioral scoring, and settlement propensity software can analyze complaint records, communications, and meetings. These systems can predict whether a complainant will accept a lower offer, escalate a complaint, approach a regulator, or commence legal action, and can recommend compensation or confidentiality terms. Can the board confirm whether Macquarie or any service provider acting for it use these capabilities in complaint handling, even where a staff member makes the final decision, and whether any group policy favors meetings on Macquarie's premises or online over neutral third-party venues to facilitate recording, transcription, or data analysis? Okay. If so, does the board consider it ethical and consistent with procedural fairness for compensation to be influenced by predicted settlement behavior rather than the fair value of the harm caused, and what controls protect shareholders? Artificial intelligence doesn't decide compensation. As I understand it, I'm assured from management that decisions on those things are made by human beings, not by an algorithm. On recording meetings, we do not record meetings on our premises that are in-person meetings, and we certainly would never do so without permission. Things that come to the call center, I believe we're required to record those unless the client expressly asks us not to. That's the story on those things. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Craig Caulfield. The question is, Mr. Ward, you ran Banking and Financial Services, including the mortgage book, car loans and reverse mortgages for over a decade. AUSTRAC has now directed Macquarie and nine other lenders to hand over home loan data in a multi-billion dollar mortgage fraud investigation. What personal responsibility do you accept for the loan file controls in place during your tenure, and how many Macquarie files have been referred? I don't know how many files have been referred. I don't have any information on the thing to which you refer, so I don't think I can give any other comment. Next question. Chair, our next question is from Mr. Craig Caulfield. Their question relates to item two, re-election of directors. Their question is, Mr. William Vereker, given what's now emerged about this audit tender, will you use your position as the newest and least conflicted audit committee member to push for an independent review before shareholders vote on KPMG in 2027? You are also joining the board risk committee today. Has that committee been briefed on the AUSTRAC mortgage fraud data request? Can you assure shareholders its oversight will be genuinely independent of management on this matter? William, would you care to respond? I have nothing to add to the comments already made around the conduct of the audit tender. I obviously was not on the board while this was underway, but everything that I have heard has been consistent with the description provided to this meeting. In relation to the risk committee, I shall look forward to participating in that, and the committee in the one meeting I have attended discharged its responsibilities in an entirely independent way, and I'm very confident it will continue to do that in the subsequent meetings over the next period of time. Thank you. Thank you. Next question, please. Chair, our next question is from Ms. Anne Marie Bevis and Mr. Sean Brooklyn-Salisbury. Their question relates to risk appetite and use of ombudsman limits. The question is, at a group-wide level, does Macquarie permit its businesses to use the independent financial ombudsman's compensation limit as the most they will offer after admitting an error or control failure? Documented correspondence provides an example. After admitting that a default notice resulted from human error, Macquarie stated that the Australian Financial Complaints Authority's maximum guidance for non-financial loss was AUD 6,300, and then they offered exactly AUD 6,300 in full and final settlement. The issue for shareholders is not the outcome of that individual matter, but whether it reveals a repeatable group practice of pricing customer harm, effectively acting first and capping the cost later. What controls prevent the independent ombudsman's limit becoming a pricing guide for Macquarie's internal complaints process and exposing shareholders to uncapped regulatory penalties? I'm confident we have a good process for deciding what compensation should be offered. I believe there's adequate controls in place, and beyond that, this is an individual customer matter, and this is not the forum at which we will deal with that. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Craig Caulfield. The question is regarding item three, remuneration report. The question is, Mr. Ward, will you commit today to your own future remuneration being explicitly reduced if the ASIC, APRA, and AUSTRAC matters currently open against Macquarie remain unresolved at this time next year? Chairman, given it has just been revealed that Ms. Wikramanayake is resigning amid unresolved regulatory matters and the cultural allegations raised this year, will any of her unvested equity or deferred profits be forfeit under the board's malus and clawback provisions? Well, the remuneration of all the senior executive team is a thing that the board will decide through the remuneration committee process as we normally do each year. We do not prejudge what those outcomes will be. In Shemara's case, she hasn't resigned. She's retiring. There's no connection between that decision and any of the matters to which you refer at all. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Craig Caulfield. This is a question for the auditor. The Parliamentary Joint Committee's inquiry into KPMG following the PwC scandal has highlighted the importance of auditor independence and professional skepticism. At the same time, AUSTRAC has identified systemic mortgage fraud involving billions of AUD in suspect lending across the banking sector. In auditing Macquarie, what procedures did you perform to independently assess the integrity of individual residual loan application files, including whether income, expenses, supporting documents, and digitally generated or AI-assisted documents showed indicators of fraud or manipulation rather than relying primarily on management controls and representations? Can you provide shareholders with a meaningful description of that work? Voula, well, thank you for responding. Thank you for your question, Mr. Caulfield. We design and perform our audit procedures in order to express an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole, with due consideration to relevant matters, including materiality and an assessment of significant audit risks, including fraud risk. The combination of all of those procedures enables us to issue our audit opinion. Those procedures include both testing the controls that management has in place to address those risks, Also detailed substantive procedures to get us the comfort and audit evidence that we need in order to be able to do so. It's the combination of all of those that allows us to express an independent audit opinion. Thanks very much, Voula. Now, Mr. Caulfield, you've asked more than two questions already, I'm going to go to questions from the floor, please. Next question in the room. Chair, we will now take a question from Mr. Michael Sanderson. Please stand to ask your question. It's okay. Yeah. Back again. A couple of quick questions, but just another comment. I believe- Can we keep the comments brief and just stick with the questions- Oh, very brief if you don't mind. Thank you Very, very brief. Thank you. It's a climate change one. Go nuclear or go extinct. Thank you. If you want a practical example, compare nuclear France with renewable superpower Germany. Perhaps it is time for a government auditor. It will maybe solve the KPMG and EY issues. First of my two questions. Macquarie donated AUD 103,543 to Labor, AUD 101,940 to the Coalition. It is often called a bet both ways. Mercer Super reported no political donations. It was also not invited to the 2025 U.S. Superannuation Investment Summit. Was Mercer’s exclusion coincidental? Who decides which super funds were invited? Now, I make that in the context that Macquarie was a sponsor of the 2026 one, I believe. I do not know who decides which funds were invited to those meetings. It was not us that decided. It is not us. You'll have to follow up with the people that did. Sorry. I didn't hear that. I didn't hear that. I said we didn't decide who was invited, you'll have to follow up with the people that did. Sorry. Who did? It's organized by the Australian government. Jimmy you should follow up with. We'll ask him. Your next question. Yes. The annual report says only that, in brackets, some changes were made to funds on Macquarie's platform after Shield. What are those changes? Were any funds removed or restricted? What problems were found in Macquarie checks before funds were added and in its later monitoring? Why does the annual report not explain this? Shareholders need to know whether the same risks are still on the platform. Greg, I'll get you to respond to the work that was done on that. Thanks. Yeah, there was extensive reviews done. There are hundreds of funds on the Macquarie platform. We didn't identify problems in particular funds that we think have exposed members who are using our platform to risk and so forth. We wanted to narrow the number of funds on the platform. We've restricted it to very substantial asset managers. It's just a narrowing of choice. We thought that was important from a risk point of view. We didn't identify specific issues. We have sent full details of this to people who are users of the Macquarie platform. Thank you very much. Thanks very much, Greg. Can I have the next question from the room, please? Chair, our next question is from the Australian Shareholders' Association. Please stand to ask your question. I have a question each for the two directors who are standing for election today. Firstly, Mrs. Lloyd-Hurwitz. You have been asked by ASA on a number of occasions about your workload. I'd like to specifically refer to the role that you have now as Chair of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, a government body, I understand, that's dealing with critical social and economic challenges, and that is facing Australia and has high visibility. Can you give us an understanding of your role within that as Chair of that council and what impact it might have on your ability to do your role at Macquarie Group? Thank you very much for the question. As you say, it is very important work for Australia to solve our housing crisis, and I'm very proud to be involved in that effort. That's a council that meets six times a year. It is in no way an impediment to my ability to devote the time that I need to the Macquarie board and the Macquarie company. Okay, thanks very much for that. Mr. Vereker, I'd like to ask in the context of ASIC recently having written to company directors saying, "Rapid evolution of frontier artificial intelligence models marks a significant shift in the cyber threat landscape." Given that, would you be able to give shareholders an understanding of how you would contribute to board discussions in terms of cybersecurity threat and AI? Thank you for the question. My background is in financial services, as was clear from the earlier talk I gave. I do sit on the board of the London Stock Exchange Group, which has a very significant and deep technology stack, and the topic of cyber is absolutely front and center in that board. I've had a good deal of board experience from those discussions. In my prior roles in investment banking, again, the topic of cyber has always been a critical consideration as an executive and the way we thought about protecting against that. It's a topic I have a broad familiarity with, but I'm obviously not a deep technical expert. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Peter. Next question please from the room. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Andrew Somerville. Please stand to ask your question. Good afternoon. I'm just wondering, we talk about the Big Four auditing companies. Are there any other auditing companies that we can look at overseas? I know the Big Four are owned by overseas people anyway, but are there any other companies overseas that we could look at as an auditor in the future? Thank you. It's a question we've thought about, the reality is this is a very big audit. There's entities all over the world that the auditor has to cover. It's, I suspect, just not feasible for firms other than one of the major global firms really to be able to stand up the resources that would be needed to carry it out. I think that's the reality. I think there's more than 200 entities, something like that's part of the audit globally. Macquarie's active in 35 plus jurisdictions. Realistically, there are very few firms, and I suspect none outside of the Big Four that really can accommodate that. Thanks for the question. Next question from the room, please. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Stephen Mayne. Please stand to ask your question. Chair, the shareholders have paid for all the microphones in front of the top table, it's good to get as many shareholders, directors as possible to use them. A question for Rebecca McGrath. The annual report discloses on page 165 that Rebecca or a closely related party had a AUD 2.7 million loan from Macquarie at the March 30 balance date, the loan peaked at AUD 6.5 million during the financial year. It's not a good look for independent directors to be borrowing off a company they govern. Could Rebecca please update shareholders on the current balance of the loan and explain what this loan is for? Will she undertake to refinance with an unrelated organization before next year's AGM so she can just go forward as a director and not as a customer as well? There's one. Rebecca? Thanks for the question. I sought advice about using Macquarie as a lending institution and the company's policies for non-executive directors does not prevent us using the bank and its facilities. I specifically changed my banking arrangements to Macquarie because I was deeply dissatisfied with the service I was getting from another bank, I'd heard through a number of people how good the service is, I was very impressed and continue to be. The numbers that you have there include lending to a family member, in fact, one of my children who went far and wide to look for a very good deal independently of me and found the best mortgage service he could get was from Macquarie. I can't comment on the balance. It's my personal business as well, I'm not going to. I can tell you that I have complied with all the policies they required of me, and I have no influence over and no intention to influence any of the dealings of the team in BFS and how they relate to myself and my family. Thanks, Rebecca. Stephen, do you have one more? Yes. Thank you for a good comprehensive response, Rebecca. Question on the staff share situation. I would've thought that given that Shemara's retiring, that we wouldn't need to put resolution for. In responding to this, can you address that? Normally when CEOs go, you might pull the bonus item. Shemara's got AUD 370 million worth of shares, never sold one, doesn't need the cash, obviously. I would've thought that pulling that item would've been the thing to do if you've announced the farewell at the AGM. Just on that question of the staff share scheme. We're our biggest shareholder in ourselves. Macquarie owns 7.27% of Macquarie, so it's worth AUD 7 billion. When you do the staff bonus each year, you have to acquire shares. This year it was AUD 730 million, and you've actually bought AUD 681 million of those shares. Off market, off other executives and staff members who previously received bonuses. Now, this is an incredible process that you've managed to do a transaction between past and current bonus recipients. Literally, it's AUD 691 million, and you arrange this sort of private auction. Can you give us some insight as to how it actually works? How many people does it involve? Is it 500 sellers of the 691? Is Shemara one of the sellers of the 691? How does it work, and do the staff shareholding numbers all appear in the annual report? Are they part of the 226,893 shareholders that you say you've got in the annual report? Because I'm guessing that quite a few thousand of them are going to be staff, and staff overall probably own about 15% of the bank. You've got that 7% stake, which is named, and I'm presuming they're voting in favor of all resolutions today. I'm guessing a lot of Shemara's shareholding is probably outside of that, and then Nicholas Moore with his AUD 600 million or whatever it is. Give us a bit of color about how that actually works, how you run that auction, and how many people are involved. Plus, answer the question about why Shemara needs to get another round of bonuses when she's done so well over 39 years. You've asked three there. The MEREP are things that we're required to do in order for Shemara to share in the remuneration arrangements that she has well and truly earned and which the board has awarded. On the other matter, Frank, I think you're probably best placed to explain that. As you noted, staff are at large shareholders of Macquarie, which we think is a good thing. Staff are subject to trading windows. Typically, that trading window is opened after results, as it would've done post the May results. What we do is that in relation to the staff sale, there's obviously quite a lot of staff who decide that they would like to sell their shares, and what we do is that we match it with the MEREPs that we award, but we do it at the share price on the day in which the staff member decides to sell the shares. It's completely matched at the market price. It doesn't disrupt the market. If anything, it actually makes the market much more orderly given the short windows which staff are allowed to sell their shares. I think that's a good explanation. Thank you, Frank. We're going back now to online, please. The next question. Chair, our next question is from Mr. Craig Caulfield. This is a two-part question regarding item five, shareholder requisitioned resolutions. Item 5A, constitutional amendment. This board opposes shareholders' rights to formally request information on material risks. Yet the federal government has now barred KPMG from new Commonwealth work pending investigation, updated its procurement policy to require officials weigh a supplier's unethical behavior, and Greens Senator Barbara Pocock has called for a full ban on new KPMG contracts until the allegations are properly investigated. If government procurement now demands that scrutiny, why shouldn't Macquarie shareholders have equivalent formal mechanism? What- 5B, climate strategy and management disclosures. From FY 2028, KPMG will also provide assurance over Macquarie's non-financial reporting, including the climate disclosures central to this resolution. Given the integrity concerns already raised about how KPMG won this contract, what confidence can shareholders have in the rigor of that assurance specifically? No comments on what governments may choose to do about KPMG or what senators have to say. That's a matter for them. As I said earlier, we have confidence in the integrity of the process by which we appointed KPMG on our side. We are seeking the appropriate assurances on what happened on their side, just to make sure that that's okay. We don't have that information yet. If we do proceed, as is the KPMG is scheduled to come to the shareholders in one year from now, if that proceeds, that will be on the basis of confidence on our part about their integrity. Next question, please. Chair, our next question is from Mr. Craig Caulfield regarding item four, CEO incentive MERP. When Mr. Ward's incentive package comes before shareholders, how will it weigh vesting conditions tied to resolving the ASIC, APRA, and AUSTRAC matters rather than EPS and ROE metrics alone? Those issues are taken into account in setting remuneration, and they were in FY 2026, as is apparent, I think, from the REM report. The remuneration committee will consider any risk matters, financial or non-financial, as appropriate when we do the year-end processes just ahead of the next reporting date. Next question, please. Chair, our next question comes from Mr. Peter Calogero. The question is, other than the Big Four, EY, PwC, KPMG, and Deloitte, is there anyone else capable of conducting the Macquarie given our global diversity and complexity? I think I've answered that question earlier. We'll go to the next question, please. Chair, we return to questions on the floor. Our next question is from Mr. Michael Sanderson. Please stand to ask your question. I apologize for Mr. Caulfield. He had all intention of being here in person, but airfares were getting rather expensive. My question Macquarie Home Loans grew by 28% to AUD 181.3 billion. Economist Steve Keen warned about high private debt before the global financial crisis. He is now warning that another serious financial crisis could occur when borrowing slows. Does the board accept that rapid mortgage growth can push up house prices and increase the risk of a banking crisis? Has Macquarie tested what would happen if debt fell, house prices dropped sharply, and one or more Australian banks failed? What would happen to Macquarie funding, cash reserves, profits, and capital? We do stress testing quite regularly that covers all manner of possible scenarios, including falls in house prices, global recessions, pandemics, energy shocks, energy prices skyrocketing, collapsing, various other things. We routinely test all those things. That's how we set our risk appetite and our various limits. We have looked at these sorts of things, and we're confident that the company is strongly capitalized in any likely plausible scenario, even some pretty unlikely ones. Do you have a position on Steve Keen's projection? A lot of people claim they predicted the GFC. I was around at the time. Not too many actually did. I do remember another prediction he made about house prices that resulted in a long walk to Mount Kosciuszko at the time. Plenty of people predict crises. Most predictions are actually not very accurate. We need to always be mindful of risks in the system, and we spend a lot of time thinking about just that. Did you predict it in your public position? Excuse me? Did you predict it in your public position? Well, I was around people who had exceptional understanding of the risks in the system then. Some of them were raising concerns. I can't say that any of them foresaw quite how it would unfold or exactly when or the depth of it. I think that's very difficult to do. I suppose I will come back with my second question. The New Deal responded to economic collapse with large government spending, public jobs, and new infrastructure. It also increased taxes to 79% on very high incomes, wealth, and excess profits. Does Macquarie accept that government spending and fairer taxes can support the economy and reduce inequality? Does it also accept that relying on households and businesses to take on more debt makes the economy less stable and gives more wealth, power, and risk to the financial sector? Macquarie's not putting a position on matters like that. These are economic policy questions, I think, for the relevant people. I've had personal views about those in the past, but this isn't the occasion for me to talk about them. Thank you. You can if you like, it's- This is about Macquarie, not about my views. Okay. Next question, please. Chair, our next question is from Mr. Stephen Mayne. Please stand to ask your question. Okay, last go. Chair, as you know, these are the six things I've asked Macquarie to do over the years that you continue to refuse to do. I'll just rattle through them. Annual elections of directors like News Corp, Rio Tinto, BHP Group, and Treasury Wine Estates. It's mandatory in the U.S. and the U.K., William, but too hard for Macquarie. Disclose the proxy position early to the ASX along with the formal addresses so we can have a discussion about the protest votes. This meeting is like Antony Green analyzing the elections with no poll data, because you've withheld the proxies. Best practice is to disclose early so we can discuss it. You continue to refuse not to do it. You don't even disclose it at the meeting while we're debating. Last year, I walked out, had no idea there was a REM strike because you didn't tell us until after everyone had finished talking for three hours. It's just poor practice. Three, follow the agenda. It's ASA policy. You don't go into a board meeting and say, "Has anyone got a comment on anything?" You've sent us an agenda, and then you ignore the agenda, so the debate's all over the place. We should be doing the audit and the accounts at the start. We do directors, we do REM, we have a session at the end on climate. Instead, you don't want any focus. You don't want to have lots of questions, so you just do one big all balls in the air. It's poor practice. Keep asking it and not doing it. It's breaching ASA policy. Macquarie, I can understand why the senators are frustrated. You just refuse to help out. It's Dr No. It's not the law. Sorry, I'm ranting. Number four is, well, look, the best thing you do is you've got 10 years of video webcasts. I'm not going to complain about the transcript. You're actually best in the market on full video of this meeting back to 2014, so well done for that. Disclose how many of our shareholders vote. Voting has crashed since the move away from paper. Rupert Murdoch got 112,000 shareholders to vote in favor of his move to Delaware on paper. Now it's crashed to 2.2%. We've got 226,000 shareholders. If you reveal how many vote for and against, at least we can see the crisis in participation. You refuse to reveal that when many companies are now doing that. I'm going to ask you to specifically detail how many shareholders voted by proxy before today's meeting. Did you even get two percent? Did you try very hard? two percent? Did you get two percent? I don't know the answer, Stephen. The share registry's got the data, and you could put it in the poll results. That's what good, transparent companies do. You ask us to vote, and then you hide the data from us. If you want to understand the sentiment of retail shareholders on climate and REM, publish that there were 3,000 in favor and 4,000 against. That's what the good, transparent companies do. Otherwise, we just feel useless because we get swamped by the big shareholders. Please, get with the program on that. Then this silly break in the middle, and your press briefing at 9:30 A.M. The press briefing at 9:30 A.M. is designed to feed the chooks, get the press away from the meeting, and then have an hour presentation, a half-hour break. It takes a long time to get to this debate. You throw the agenda out, it's just so many breaches of normal governance practice. Please, can you give us something next year? I don't want to have to do my fourth run for the board next year, because you just won't move on anything. I will. In answering questions, has there been a more than 10% protest vote on the climate issue today? 35% last year. All proxy advisors recommending to support the board's position. Some press this morning of institutions offshore are going to back market forces. What does Antony Green say is the poll results on that? Has there been a double-digit protest against the board's position? You'll find out very soon, because after the votes are what we have, we'll be revealing the proxies, I think, before the meeting concludes. Thank you for your suggestions. Is there another question? Chair, our next question is from Mr. Michael Sanderson. Please stand to ask your question. One last, too, I promise. This is directed at Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz. While you were on the audit and remuneration committees, Macquarie received a vote against its pay report. Macquarie also admitted to failures over shield and received an AUD 35 million penalty for long-running reporting failures. What did you personally do to challenge or correct these problems? Why would shareholders reelect you and support you as chair of the Remuneration Committee? Do you want to take it? Thank you for the question. As a board and through the committee structure, we took those issues very seriously during the year, and there were quite serious consequences to remuneration outcomes, which we've disclosed in a very transparent way. Hopefully, in a remuneration report that was completely redesigned and completely rewritten to be more understandable and more transparent around the very significant consequences that were applied to profit share during the year. As Jillian said before, the remuneration structure at Macquarie continues to evolve. I'll continue to make sure that the framework that has worked very well for Macquarie keeps up with the expectations and standards of our shareholders and the community in general as chair of the Remuneration Committee. Thank you for that. My second question is for Mr. Vereker. I hope that's pronounced right. While you chaired the London Stock Exchange Group Remuneration Committee, more than 30% of shareholders voted against its pay report. Your departure from Santander U.K. was also reported to involve disagreements over governance and resources. What did you learn from those experiences? Why should Macquarie shareholders believe you will challenge excessive executive pay and demand real accountability? Thank you for the question. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of other businesses and other discussions. As a broader comment, I think as I went through earlier, my background is a very diverse background, both in financial services and in fact in government service, both as an executive and as a non-executive, and as chairing a systemic bank in the U.K. I think that record speaks for itself in terms of my experience and my ability to challenge where appropriate. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Chair, there are no further questions. Shame. Thank you. Shame. I don't know what to say now. All right, ladies and gentlemen, there are no further questions. Let me encourage any of you who haven't voted yet, if you haven't, now is the time. We're now going to bring up a summary of the proxy voting. As you can see, proxy votes were strongly in favor of resolutions two, three, and four, strongly against item 5A. Since 5A has not passed, 5B technically is not put to the meeting. Item three received strong support, therefore item six will not be put to the meeting. If you haven't yet voted, I'd ask you please do so now. Our share registry, MUFG Corporate Markets, will act as returning officer and determine the poll results. Could anyone who still wishes to vote please ensure they've done so now? We're going to give you a minute or so to do that before we close. One moment. Getting among it. Thank you, everyone. The polls will now be closed. The results will be announced to the ASX later today. That concludes the business of today's AGM, and I close the meeting. If you have a handset, please return it at the doors on your way out. Thank you for your attendance and for your ongoing support of Macquarie. Have a great day.