National Australia Bank Limited (NAB) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, and welcome to National Australia Bank Annual General Meeting. I'm Louise Thomson, Group Company Secretary. Before commencing this meeting, I would like to invite Wurundjeri woman, [ Stacie Piper ] to welcome us to country.

Thank you, Louise. [Foreign Language] So that's probably a language you don't hear often. And I'd like to share my language and then translate it for you. We, as Wurundjeri people, we're not allowed to speak our language on the missions. So I'm sure many of you are aware of missions around Victoria, but my family descend from the [ Corindi ] mission up in Hillsville. And I particularly descend directly from [ Burak, William Burak's ] sister and [indiscernible]. So all Wurundjeri people come through that maternal line. It's only 5 generations ago, my grandmother, so my mom's mother was born on Corindi mission and couldn't speak her language or practice ceremony. So my mother then being the first generation of the mission, but growing up in a very hard time, growing up in poverty. I'm the first generation that gets to wake up our language and share it with you and be a part of a society that's experiencing a huge shift. And I get to be one of those voices to share our language. And also, I don't want to say reap the rewards, but we get to experience the hard work that my ancestors paved the way for. My mom worked very, very hard to make sure that we had opportunities that we have today. And she was an activist. I've got a family full of activists. Our cause is obviously -- there's so many different causes that we're all trying to speak to. And for us, it was just about us having the opportunities that everybody else has. So what I can see through NAB that there's a lot of great work happening with our black businesses. We call them black business. But a lot of incredible work I can see it coming through because there's so many -- not just through NAB, but a lot of people who are really progressive in that space. And I'm so happy even this Christmas to see all the black businesses that are being promoted and people supporting them. It's just incredible. And as I said, for us, that's our lane. That's making sure that we have the opportunities to grow and to get our education and start our businesses and just thrive. That's all our ancestors ever wanted. And particularly with language. So I'll translate that for you. I introduced myself. So my name is Stacie, and I'm a proud Wurundjeri Djadjawurrung and Ngurai Illum-Wurrung woman. I'm also Irish. I acknowledged country first. I acknowledged the [Foreign Language] is the Wurrung name for -- the proper name for the [indiscernible]. I acknowledged the Liwik, which is our ancestors. We always honor them. And I acknowledged your ancestors, too. We all have ancestors. We all descend from somewhere, and we walk in their footsteps. I acknowledged the Wilam Biik. Wilam Biik translates to home country. And I acknowledged that I'm a curator, and I'm also studying at Melbourne University doing my masters in social policy and social change. And it's a hard space. So I know it's hard to navigate so much that's going on, and it's helped me understand more things don't happen overnight. But Wilam Biik, I curated an exhibition, just to tell a story from a First Nations perspective, but also about the fact that it's all our home. We all belong to Wilam Biik. We all belong to the planet, into the earth. And the work -- any work that we can do to make it a better place for our next generation is going to -- we'll see the ripple effects. I also acknowledged the 6 layers of country. That's the lens that we look at, and I did it at an event. There was a picture that came up in the video at one of the NAB events with my First Nation's peers who work out at that branch, the head office. And we had a 35th floor view. So it was really beautiful to see the bird's eye view. You don't really get to see country from that perspective often. And I know a lot of First Nations artists around the country, they paint. And even the old artists used to paint the bird's eye view. So it's a really important perspective, and I love sort of bringing people's minds into that and remembering that that's what sustains us. So the 6 layers of country. We've got the Tharangalk, which is the dreaming or where the ancestors are, country above the clouds. Sky country, Wurru wurru Biik. Air, wind, Murnmut Biik. Baanj Biik, which is water country. On country, which is Biik-dui. And then below country, which is the Biik-ut. So I could talk all day about culture, but it's not about me today. But I just wanted to, yes, acknowledge country. I acknowledged the [Foreign Language] which is our next-generation. Every -- per child and baby is inheriting what we do, so I acknowledge them, our future leaders. And I also acknowledged the [Foreign Language], which is our friends and just people that help us amplify our voices. This is a platform for me to speak. And I appreciate having that opportunity on behalf of my ancestors and my elders. I take it very seriously. So [Foreign Language]. Welcome to Wurundjeri Country. I hope your meeting goes well, and thank you for inviting me to speak. [Foreign Language].

Thank you for your welcome, Stacie. This is NAB's first hybrid AGM, allowing shareholders or their proxies to attend in person or online. A significant number of shareholders have already voted and has submitted questions in advance. Thank you. In our notice of meeting, we set out some standards of conduct that we ask attendees to meet. We ask that all attendees are courteous and respectful to others attending the AGM and that all attendees in the room respect our security measures. Please also respect the privacy of people by not taking photos or audio or video recordings other than if you are accredited media. That will help with the orderly conduct of the meeting. Earlier in the week, we have seen disruptions at other AGMs. I'll remind everyone here today that this is a shareholders' meeting and if anyone persists in disrupting the meeting, the chair will ask them to leave. For those attending in person and for broader awareness of those online, there are several NAB information and help desks located in the foyer outside. The help desk is for customer and shareholder inquiries, and we have information desks on cyber and scan safety, digital banking and private wealth. All matters for voting today will be by poll. Votes can be submitted at any time from when the chair declares the poll open, until 10 minutes after the end of the meeting to provide ample opportunity for shareholders and proxy holders to submit their votes. Christina Piccolo from Computershare will act as the returning officer and the results will be announced later today in an ASX announcement. I will now explain our procedures for today. For people here with us in the room, when you registered this morning, you will have received a white or green card, if you are a shareholder or a proxy holder. You will have received a yellow card if you're a visitor. The white card is for voting. After the chair declares the poll open, please either scan the QR code on the front of the card with your mobile device or complete the reverse of the voting card and put it in the ballot box at the end of the meeting or on your way out. We have Computershare staff available to assist you if you require assistance. Holders of white cards may raise questions at the appropriate point in the meeting. The green card is for joint shareholdings. Holders of a green card may also ask questions if they wish. We have 4 microphone points in the room. If you have a white or green card and wish to ask questions during the meeting, please move to the microphone nearest to you when the chair invites questions. If you are unable to get to a microphone point, please raise your hand and a roving microphone will be brought to you. Please show your card and give your name to the microphone attendant, who will introduce you to the meeting at the appropriate point. Please remain in your seats for now, though. Holders of yellow cards are visitors and are not eligible to vote or ask questions but are welcome to listen to today's meeting. For shareholders and proxy holders attending online, you can vote and ask questions by using the vote and Q&A action buttons at the top right of your screen and following the instructions and prompts. You may change your vote up until the time the chair declares voting closed. If you require technical assistance at any point during the meeting, our online meeting guide is easily accessible by clicking the document icon on your screen or by going to the AGM page of our website. Alternatively, you may call the number displayed on screen now. If you are joining us online and wish to submit a written question, we encourage you to do that now. At relevant points in the meeting, one of my colleagues will read out shareholders' questions and the chair will respond. If you're using the online platform and wish to ask a question orally, you will have preregistered to obtain the telephone number and PIN. An operator will assist you and the Chair will invite questions from the phone line at appropriate points in the meeting. The chair will take questions from shareholders in the room first, followed by the telephone line and then online written questions. For efficiency, when there are logical groupings of items of business, the Chair will invite questions on these together. The Chair will take all questions on climate-related matters at item 6A, so that related topics are discussed together. For the orderly conduct of the AGM and to ensure shareholders attending today have a reasonable opportunity to participate, please ensure your questions are relevant to all shareholders. Limit your questions to 2 per item of business and keep your questions concise. Questions submitted online will be amalgamated if there are multiple questions on the same topic to avoid repetition. We may also summarize questions if they're lengthy. Given the large number of shareholders and questions expected, it is possible that not all questions will be answered. The Chair will aim to address questions on a broad range of topics. As this is a hybrid meeting, if we experience technical difficulties during the meeting, the Chair may decide to pause the meeting, adjourn it to a later time or continue the meeting. If the chair decides to adjourn, that will be announced on the ASX platform. I would now like to introduce our Chair, Mr. Philip Chronican.

Good morning, and welcome to this meeting. It's after 9:30 a.m., and this is a properly constituted meeting and a quorum is present. I therefore declare the Annual General Meeting of National Australia Bank Limited open and welcome shareholders, proxy holders and guests. It is a pleasure to chair this meeting in person in Melbourne, and terrific to see those of you here in this room. Welcome also to those who are joining us online and on the phone. I too would like to acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we are hosting today's meeting the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation, and I pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging, and I want to thank Stacie for being here to welcome us. I encourage everyone to consider supporting the From the Heart campaign for an aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament that is enshrined in the constitution. This is how we can move from words supporting our First Nations people to practical action, and I will speak more about this later in my address. Before delivering my address, though, I would like to make some introductions. On stage with me today are: our Group Chief Executive, and Managing Director, Mr. Ross McEwan; our Group Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Gary Lennon and my fellow nonexecutive directors, Anne Loveridge, Simon McKeon, Ann Sherry, Peeyush Gupta, Kathryn Fagg, and Doug McKay. On my right, as you have met already, is our Group Company Secretary, Louise Thomson. Unfortunately, one of our directors, David Armstrong, is unable to join us in person today, but David has joined us by phone. Hello, David.

Good morning, Phil, and good morning, shareholders.

Also present with us is Sarah Lowe, who is the lead engagement partner of our auditor, Ernst & Young, to answer any questions related to the audit report. NAB's senior leadership team is also present in the room. Assisting us today is Virginia Porter, a senior member of the NAB team, who will be reading out written questions that come through the online platform. As Louise said, all resolutions to be conducted at this meeting will be decided on a poll. I now declare the poll open on all resolutions to give shareholders maximum time to vote. The poll will be open until 10 minutes after the end of the meeting. Thank you again to those shareholders who submitted questions in advance of today's meetings. We received 100 questions, all of which I have personally read. Many were on similar topics, and I will cover some of the common themes in my address. Today, I would like to reflect on our performance to shareholders during the past year and to discuss the future of our business. NAB has continued its journey to becoming a better bank. NAB today, is a much more focused and capable organization than it was 3 years ago. We have a track record of disciplined execution and are delivering sustained performance while maintaining strong balance sheet settings and keeping the bank safe. This performance is recognized by investors with NAB's total shareholder return of 8.6% in the 12 months to September 2022, against an average return of negative 12.9% for NAB's major bank peers. NAB's total shareholder return is also now a clear #2 among its major bank peers over both 2 years and 5 years. Our progress has been made in a sustainable way while continuing to support our customers and communities, particularly where they need us most. This has included stepping up to help communities devastated by floods and customers experiencing the pressure of cost of living increases. The continuity and strength in our leadership and strategy underpins the stability we now have in the bank. It is improving our business in a variety of ways. NAB's products and processes are simpler for customers and colleagues. Loans are approved more rapidly and digital banking is more resilient thanks to the investment in NAB's underlying technology and in our digital, data and analytics capabilities. Strong technology platforms helped to protect customers against cyber attacks and fraud. High-profile cyber-attacks against large Australian businesses this year demonstrate the need for continued vigilance and cooperation. Every year, we invest tens of millions of dollars to keep our customers and the bank safe. We employ hundreds of people across our cybersecurity, scams and fraud teams. And we work collaboratively with government authorities, including the Australian Cybersecurity Center and the Australian Federal Police. As we have improved the bank, we have not forgotten the lessons of the Financial Services Royal Commission. Many of the issues identified are now addressed, but we need to remain vigilant about getting the basics right. Earlier this year, we entered into an enforceable undertaking with our anti-money laundering regulator, AUSTRAC. This follows an enforcement investigation undertaken by AUSTRAC in relation to NAB's compliance with Australia's anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing law. We are on track to deliver the actions agreed with AUSTRAC. We are acutely aware of the important role the bank plays in monitoring and reporting suspicious and potentially criminal activity and we will continue to make investments that help keep our communities safe. NAB is making excellent progress on our strategy, and the Board is encouraged to see the operational results that this is delivering. This is reflected in improved earnings with all businesses contributing to underlying profit growth and significant and sustainable momentum across the group. Our most recent colleague engagement score is 76, which is consistent with our results throughout 2022, although short of the goal that we had of meeting the global top quartile score of 78. The Board has determined a final dividend of $0.78 per share, bringing total dividends declared this year to $1.51 per share and returning $4.8 billion to shareholders. This outcome sits within our target payout ratio in the range of 65% to 75% of sustainable cash earnings. NAB delivered a cash return on equity of 11.7% for the 2022 financial year, a pleasing increase of a full 1% on last year. NAB's strong balance sheet settings are integral to keeping the bank safe. Our capital ratio at the end of September '22 was more than 11.5%, which sits above our target range of 10.75% and 11.25%. Taking into account the remaining $600 million of the announced buybacks and the estimated impact of APRA's revised capital framework, NAB's capital ratio as at 30 September 2022 would have been 11.8%, comfortably above our revised target range from January 23 of 11% to 11.5%. Executive and employee remuneration outcomes determined by the Board for the financial year 2022, reflect an assessment of performance against all of the targets in NAB's 2022 plan. This includes financial performance, customer outcomes, colleague engagement, safe growth and NAB's performance against its peers. The Board awarded a group performance indicator outcome of 92.5%. This reflects a strong performance on financial measures and the fact that challenging colleague and customer targets were not fully met. It was also adjusted downwards in recognition of the impact on financial performance of the rising interest rate environment. In view of the challenges of recent years, economies globally are facing new trials and uncertainty remains. We are actively considering the geopolitical landscape and its impact locally. Next year could be a little rocky, but I am optimistic for the medium term. Your Board is confident that Ross McEwan and the executive leadership team have the experience and strategy in place to manage the challenges of the future. While we are alert to the issues that rising interest rates, inflation and geopolitical risks may bring, we have demonstrated our ability to manage through and look after our customers. The Australian economy is resilient, and we're in a strong position to take on the challenges that may arise. Identifying long-term shifts in NAB's broader operating environment, and acting appropriately is critical to protecting and building value for shareholders and helping our communities prosper. Climate change is one-off, if not the most significant long-term challenges and opportunities of our time. The federal government's legislated 2030 and 2050 emissions reduction targets and the associated changes provide welcome certainty and send a strong investment signal to businesses and the world. NAB has an impact through what we choose to finance. And we're playing an important role and progressively redirecting funding from emissions intensive sectors towards low and 0 emissions activity. There is no question that this needs to happen. By 2050, Australia's economy will look very different. It will have to be so to achieve net zero. We already see this in the significant growth in renewable energy. NAB continues to fund more projects to expand the global supply of renewable energy than any other Australian bank. Today, more than 73% of our total lending to the power generation sector is for renewables, hydro, solar and wind. This represents a 58% increase in just 5 years. and it will continue to grow. Decarbonization makes good business sense for our customers, and they are taking this seriously, too. We're seeing them increasingly invest and innovate to make the reductions necessary but also to drive down costs and improve productivity. Australia is at a critical juncture in its transition to a low-carbon economy. If we get it right, the opportunities are immense in protecting our environment and growing our economy. We all have a role to play in delivering on this potential for ourselves and certainly for future generations who demand our attention and action. Another major opportunity in the year ahead is the prospect of a national referendum on the constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians. To further the Board's understanding of this issue, we spent time with land councils indigenous businesses and activists during our Annual Regional Board meeting, which was held in Darwin this year. I also had the privilege to spend time with one of our indigenous business bankers, and saw firsthand the great work that can be achieved by our bankers who are also affiliated with the indigenous community. As a bank, we thrive when we operate in cohesive, well-functioning communities. Indigenous recognition is an important step forward, and it's why NAB is supporting the proposed voice to federal parliament. Engaging NAB's 29,000 Australian employees about indigenous recognition is important and is underway. Ensuring that your Board is well appointed to carry the bank forward is at the constant focus. Kathryn Fagg, Doug McKay, and I are standing for reelection at the Annual General Meeting today with the full support of the Board, and we are anticipating appointments in 2023 that will enhance the diverse skills and experience of directors. In closing, thank you on behalf of the Board to NAB shareholders for your ongoing support. To the team at NAB, thank you for your hard work in serving customers well and in helping our communities prosper. And to our customers, thank you for continuing to bank with us. We're not there yet, but we are getting closer to being in the bank that we want to be. I will now hand over to our Group Chief Executive Officer, Ross McEwan.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to our shareholders who are here with us in person today. It's great to have so many of you joining us following 2 annual general meetings that have been held only virtually. Thank you also to everyone who is joining us online wherever you may be dialing in from. I would also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land in which we meet today, the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation and pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. NAB has pledged support for an indigenous voice to parliament as we strongly believe that the economic advancement and the financial aspirations of First Nations people reflects our ambition to serve customers well and help our communities prosper. When I spoke at this meeting last year, I was optimistic that after 2 years of COVID-related interruptions, Australia's economy would rebound strongly in 2022. And while there have been setbacks, it has been tremendous to see that the Australian businesses have had a very good year overall. 2022 saw businesses rebound with strong credit growth of 14.7%. And it's clear that 2023 will be a year of slower growth than 2022, and challenges will continue to emerge and to evolve. However, I continue to be optimistic about the future for Australia and New Zealand and our customers and communities. Resilient business conditions and a return to higher levels of migration mean Australia is well positioned to deal with headwinds coming from rising interest rates and higher inflation. New Zealand looks like its business conditions will face more headwinds with interest rates rises slowing the economy down considerably. Many of our customers are now facing conditions they have not experienced for a number of years. Higher inflation, rising interest rates and slower growth are starting to impact both businesses and consumers. Thankfully, the vast majority of our customers are well positioned to manage. For those in difficulty, message is very simple. Please contact us. The earlier customers experience difficulties speak to us, the quicker and more likely it is that we can help. As the chair noted, NAB has made good progress this year in making our business stronger, safer and simpler while remaining firmly focused on our twin peaks of customers and our colleagues. Our recent full year results reflect this progress. By continuing to execute our strategy, we have delivered better outcomes for customers and colleagues and improved earnings and shareholder returns. Being a relationship bank is core to who we are and to help support this, we added more than 300 customer-facing business bankers this year. This has helped our business and Private Bank again perform strongly with small and best and medium business lending and agri gaining on what was already market-leading share. More than $1 in $3 lent in agriculture now comes from NAB. In Personal Banking, Australian Home Lending grew at 7.1% while unconditional approval times were nearly halved in our retail channel. We are well progressed in our journey to becoming a simpler and more digital bank. In particular, we are building and delivering better digital experiences for customers as the use of cash and checks declines further. Over-the-counter transactions were down a further 18% this year while the use of checks fell a further 24%. 97% of customer interactions are now through digital channels. During the year, we also completed the acquisition of Citigroup's Australian consumer business -- banking business and we welcomed 800 new colleagues to NAB and contributing further to our growth. The acquisition will help give us unsecured lending business the scale it needs to provide even better propositions for customers in the future. Our Corporate & Institutional Bank had a very disciplined approach to growth while again ranking #1 in the latest Peter Lee survey. This is a strong recognition of its ability to deliver customer outcomes while also improving returns. In a challenging market, our New Zealand banking business achieved small and medium business lending growth in line with system and disciplined growth in Home Lending. BNZ's overall financial results were very good. NAB's customer Net Promoter Scores ranked first or second of the Australian major banks across key segments, supported by a simpler business and the delivery of more seamless digital experiences for customers. There is still more to do to achieve our objective of being #1 of the major banks with positive NPS. An area we're increasingly looking to support and protect our customers and banks in is the issue of cybersecurity. I said recently that cyber attacks are the sort of thing that keep a CEO up at night. It is a huge issue for businesses, including ours, for customers and for society more broadly. We are devoting more resources to combat cyber attacks, fraud and scams working within our own bank and as part of a national effort to protect all Australians and New Zealanders. Our customers and our bank are constantly under attack, and we must all be vigilant to this global threat. We do have bankers and experts here today in the floor ready to share tips and information about scams and fraud prevention. I encourage you all to take the time to talk to them to learn how to recognize scams and to keep yourself and your family safe from cyber criminals. Throughout the year, we have continued to focus on serving customers well and supporting those who need help. Devastating national disasters, including recent floods in Victoria and New South Wales have impacted many communities, which continue to be there to support people to get back on their feet and to build resilience against future disasters. Through our NAB Ready Together program and the NAB Foundation, we've provided $4.87 million in support to customers, charities and communities affected by natural disasters across Australia. We continue to invest in our colleagues to raise the professionalism of our industry with almost 10,000 having completed the career qualified and banking program which builds capability and lift standards. Our distinctive leadership program is about developing great leaders and ensuring we have consistent leadership across the bank. We've trained more colleagues through the Melbourne Business Schools climate program so we can better support customers through the transition. And we've provided training to more than 4,800 colleagues through the NAB Cloud Guild to help transition our technology applications to the cloud, which helps provide more stable technology for customers. Like many businesses in Australia, we have not been able to find enough people with the appropriate technology and digital skills that are critical to execute our strategy. That's why we've also now operate a technology innovation center in Vietnam, with another being built in India to help supplement capabilities in Australia. Colleagues are one of the twin peaks of our group strategy alongside customers. So it was disappointing that our recent proposed enterprise agreement did not attract the support of the majority. Despite this, I appreciate the high level of engagement with more than 84% of the colleagues voting and that people were able to freely express their views. We have now commenced a process with colleagues to listen and understand their feedback. And we've made the decision to provide the first year of the pay increases and additional benefits proposed in the new agreement. We will continue to work with the Finance Sector Union on a revised enterprise agreement for the next few years. At our full year results last month, we released our first climate report. Responding to climate change is one of our key priorities. The transition to a low-carbon economy as we move to net zero presents environmental and economic opportunities and challenges for our customers and NAB. NAB has announced the appointment of our first Chief Climate Officer. This position reflects the increasing requirements in all parts of the economy and all parts of the bank to help customers make the transition to a low-emissions future. Everyone has a role to play in achieving this country's net zero ambition. Government business and every household will need to make changes. Research tells us that around $20 trillion will need to be spent differently in Australia in the next 30 years to get there. We are the #1 Australian bank for global renewable energy transactions and among the top banks in the world on this measure. We are reducing our exposure to fossil fuels in support of an orderly transition of the energy system. As we look to the year ahead, we expect to continue to have very low unemployment and robust business conditions though they will be slower than in 2022. And as I mentioned earlier, clearly, there are headwinds and the economy is slowing, but we do still expect growth. NAB itself is also in good shape. We are staying disciplined, focused on what matters and getting the basics right more often. We have the right business mix, targeted momentum and a strong balance sheet which means we can make very deliberate choices about where we invest to continue to grow and to maximize returns in this changing environment. I'm pleased with our progress and excited about what's ahead. Thank you again for being here and the Chair, and I look forward to taking your questions. And I'll now hand back to the Chair.

Thank you, Ross. I'll now proceed with the formal business of the meeting. The notice of meeting was made available to shareholders on the 9th of November, and I propose that it be taken as read. All items other than item 5 and Item 6b, are resolutions to be voted on at today's meeting. Item 6b is a conditional item, which would only be put to the meeting if Item 6a is passed. For Item 6a to be passed, at least 75% of the votes validly cast on that item would need to be in favor of that resolution. Voting restrictions were set out in the notice of meeting. Where the Chair of the meeting has been nominated as a shareholder's proxy, all open and available proxies have been voted against items 6a and 6b and in favor of all other items. So that shareholders can see the full picture of direct and proxy votes received in advance of the meeting, direct and proxy voting for each item is now displayed on the screen, including on the conditional item 6b, which may, of course, not need to be put to a vote later in this meeting. Further detail has been included in our ASX announcement released prior to the start of the meeting. If you're joining us online and haven't already done so, I encourage you to submit questions now. As Louise said, for the orderly conduct of the meeting, I ask that you hold any questions related to climate change including on our policy position and on our disclosures until Item 6, so that we can keep these related topics together. I also take general questions after the formal items of business. I'll now turn to the first item of business, reelection of directors. This year, 3 directors retire at this meeting in accordance with the company's constitution and offer themselves for reelection. The 3 directors are Kathryn Fagg, Doug McKay and me. If reelected, this will be Doug's and my third term serving you on the Board and Kathryn's second term. The Board has undertaken an evaluation of the performance of each of the directors standing for reelection. The Board also considered their independence and whether they have the capacity to undertake the duties expected of a director of the company. Having considered these factors and the combined skills of the Board, the Board fully supports each reelection. Details of the qualification, career, experience and other interests of each of the directors standing for reelection are set out in the notice of meeting and in the annual report. Kathryn, Doug and I will each speak to you about what we bring to the collective capability of the Board. I will then take questions on the reelection before asking Anne Loveridge to chair the meeting while the resolutions carried through relating to the reelections. So I will now address the matter of my reelection. I have now been on the Board of NAB for over 6 years and the last 3 as your Chairman. Three years ago, we were emerging from the Royal Commission and the significant disruption that this had to our operations and on our leadership. Despite the significant challenges thrown at us by the COVID-19 pandemic and the global logistics challenges that the pandemic has entailed, I am very pleased to say that I think the bank is in a much stronger position today than it was 3 years ago. The credit for this, of course, belongs with Ross McEwan and his leadership team who have done the hard work and served the bank so well. My ambition for the bank was to see it restored to its leadership position and to have a reputation for treating customers, colleagues and shareholders well and for embedding discipline into how we manage risk. We've made good progress on all these dimensions, but we are realistic that it will take continued diligence to ensure that this progress is deeply embedded into the culture of the bank. We will also need to navigate the challenges that the rapidly changing economy will confront us with. I've had extensive experience in banking and finance over the last 40 years and have seen a number of challenging environments, and I'm pleased to be able to bring that experience to bear in my governance role on the NAB board. In a post Royal Commission world, I am acutely focused on restoring the community standing of both NAB and the industry more broadly. I remain committed to the bank, and I'm offering myself today for reelection so that we do not lose sight of the goals that we set out. I've been privileged to have had the support of a very good Board and you, our shareholders over the last 3 years. I continue to have capacity with only one other listed company Board in an unrelated industry. It would be an honor to be reelected for another 3-year term. Thank you. Kathryn, would you now like to address the meeting on your reelection?

Thank you, Phil, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen and fellow shareholders. I am pleased to put myself before you today seeking reelection to the Board. I joined the NAB Board in December 2019, so almost exactly 3 years ago and a few months before the COVID pandemic was to dramatically change our lives. Since that time, I have sought to contribute to the Board and the bank drawing on my experience from a range of industries and organizations both as an Executive and as a Non-Executive Director. In particular, I have found my executive experience leading large organizations in Australia, New Zealand and Asia whether in retail and corporate banking or in industrial companies, providing a robust set of experiences and skills, which are very relevant to the issues discussed at the NAB Board table. I have found that my experience outside financial services has brought a different and valuable perspective to our deliberations. Furthermore, as an experienced nonexecutive Director, I enjoy engaging with management and my colleagues on the Board and providing the necessary challenge when appropriate as we tackle the tough issues that must be addressed. Delivering strong results in the short term whilst meeting longer-term strategic objectives requires relentless attention and very clear accountabilities, a particular focus of mine. In addition, I would like to call out my experience in technology and innovation. Originally an engineer, I am now Chair of the CSIRO, Australia's National Science Agency. In this role, I am engaged at the forefront of the trends that are transforming our economy, particularly decarbonization and digitalization. I am pleased to be able to bring this perspective to the Board. Finally, drawing on my experience of the last 3 years and all of the challenging circumstances we have encountered, I am confident that I have the time to devote to the requirements of being a member of the NAB Board and of its committees, in my case, the audit and the risk committees whilst also having the time to participate in additional engagement opportunities with colleagues and customers. Thank you for your support.

Thank you, Kathryn. Doug, would you now like to address the meeting on your reelection?

Thank you, Phil, and good morning, fellow shareholders. In putting myself up for reelection today, I thought I would cover 3 areas that would be of most interest to you. Firstly, my experience and its relevance. Second, what I believe are my strengths for the NAB Board and what has happened since I last spoke to you in 2019. And thirdly, to confirm my enthusiasm and capacity to continue on the NAB board for another term. I have a background of senior executive roles across Australia and New Zealand in various industries. I have dual Australian, New Zealand citizenship being born in New Zealand, but lived and worked in Australia on 3 separate occasions. I joined the NAB Board in 2016 and have been on the BNZ Board since 2013 and Chair of BNZ for the last 8 years. My track record at both is positive and contributes to strong and resilient performances over that time. I am not the best or impartial judge of what I personally contribute at the NAB Board. What I can say is through our board evaluation process this year, my colleague said that they appreciate that I am an unconstrained thinker, courageous, commercial, realistic and pragmatic, challenges management effectively and understands the business levers. I believe I am trusted by my colleagues and bring perspective from a diverse background and career across various industries and enjoy focusing on operations, customers, execution and people. I reside in Auckland and have 100% attendance record at NAB. I serve on the Audit Committee, the customer committee, and have been on the Nominations Committee and the CEO Selection Committee. I can confirm there is no issue with my capacity to commit to and perform at the highest level as your director. I am a full-time independent director and have been working at this level of capacity for 10 years. Our portfolio of Boards in different industries like I have adds value to all my Boards, especially NAB, and I learn all the time how to handle challenging Board situations and draw on that broad knowledge, which reinforces my contribution across all my Boards. I look forward to your support in being reappointed today. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Doug. I'd now like to invite questions on items 1a, 1b and 1c the reelection of directors. If you're in the room and wish to ask a question and are eligible to, please move to the microphone point nearest to you now. Microphone attendants, are there any questions on the reelection of the 3 directors? Microphone 1?

Chair, I would like to introduce Mr. [ Chris Schott ].

Mr. Schott?

Mr. Chairman, it's great to be back at a face-to-face meeting after 3 years.

I'm very pleased to see you again as well.

I'm not 1 of those who would join Zoom meetings, et cetera, over the last 2 years. And I just point out, I've been a customer of this bank since 1970. I'm in my 52nd year as a customer of this bank and in my 20th year as a very small shareholder. And I have been coming to these meetings most years for nearly 20 years. The question I have about the reelection, it raises on a matter that I will raise later in the financial report and the audit report. Only recently, we had newspaper reports about people being found guilty of defrauding the bank, an unbelievable scandal in any way you look at it, and an unbelievable damage to the reputation or one of -- the second biggest bank in Australia. And when I read about it in 2019, when it first came out, I asked a question. The Chairman -- then Chairman said we can't make any comment about it because it's before the court. I accepted that. Well, now that's been before the court and the 2 people concerned, one, a full-time employee of this bank is now in jail for 8 years. And the other has just been found guilty, in jail, waiting sentencing and a further 30 cases of fraud against our bank. My question is, how could the person who was the executive assistant of 2 CEOs get away for several years of defrauding the bank of millions and millions of dollars had an authority delegated that she could spend up to $20 million a year on her own authority. Therefore, my question is to the 3 members of the Board, and I think Ms. Fagg is only just coming on to Board in 2020. But you, sir, and Mr. McKay were on the Board when this was occurring. I want to know, did you know as members of the Board and as an Executive Committee on the Audit and Risk Committee, what did you do that allowed this to happen year after year? And what did you do to the auditors that they didn't find it until a whistleblower somewhere down in the lower level of the bank came forward? I have to say, under whistleblower legislation, the person remains anonymous and protected. I understand that. But I have to say, he is the only person I would vote for this year in the remuneration report to get a bonus because he put the finger on it, et cetera. If it hadn't been for him, they might still be doing it. So Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you seeking reelection, you were on the Board then, you weren't Chairman; and Mr. McKay, you're on the Board, and I see on the list, you're on the Risk Committee. Were you on both on the Risk Committee and the Board generally that how did this delegation, how did this authority be given to one person without reference back to the Board or to the senior manager. To me and to many of my colleagues, I spoke to our shareholders and the general community everybody scratches their head. So Mr. Chairman, before I vote, not that I see on the -- you've got 98% of the vote. I wish I got that vote when I was a Senator standing for election. But what were you doing at that time that you can stand for election and say whatever excuse there is for this scandal that has damaged the standing of the bank for -- in a very bad way on top of many other problems we've had with the Royal Commission and everything else?

Thank you. And I might surprise you to know that I can do nothing but share your sentiment. I think the -- it was a very sad chapter in the history of this company, and it is inexplicable how a single person could have authority of that nature. I can't go back and redo the past other than say to you that when we became aware of it, we significantly overhauled the controls around that. You can rest assure that the person in that position today has nothing like that level of authority. There is much more external scrutiny of every part of the organization, but it was a shocking issue to arise, one that has been deeply embarrassing to this company and one we have done our best to ensure it could never happen again by completely overhauling all of those controls. So I'm sorry, I don't have a better answer for you than that.

To you and Mr. McKay, you were on the Risk Committee. Have there been, therefore, a complete examination of all the people who've got delegated authority to make expenditures without reference to either the Executive Risk Committee or the Board's Risk Committee. And secondly, is it possible to get -- is she the only person who've had $20 million? Does the CEO have $50 million?

The CEO does have high levels of authority. But you should be assured that it's not just a case of an individual being able to expand the money. What we have overhauled is to ensure that there is external scrutiny to anyone spending money so that the finance community have complete oversight. We did -- as you can imagine, we had a completely thorough overhaul of all the control environment when we became aware of that issue, including ensuring that an independent finance function had complete transparency around these delegated authorities. We had one of the major law firms go through overhaul our processes. We took this issue incredibly seriously because it was as embarrassing as you had highlighted.

Can I ask Mr. McKay, what's his response to my question.

Don't think Doug is going to have any different response from me on that one, but I'm happy for him to speak to it, if he has any other perspective on it.

I don't have anything to add over and above what Phil has said, Mr. Schott. But be assured, I see it as a real blot on my stewardship in career, and I remain standing before you extremely embarrassed at that situation. It is a breakdown -- it was a breakdown in our internal controls around that person in those delegations. There has been a comprehensive revamp of that area. And I can assure you, we do have a delegations policy that is properly structured and is fit for purpose. We were subject to fraud. Fraud by its very definition, means it has been expertly disguised and covered up and very difficult to find. Eventually, we did through our whistleblowing, as you said, and I'm extremely grateful for that. Once we knew we moved with all the powers that we have as directors. Could I just, because you are voting on my reelection today, say that I'm not on the Risk Committee. I am on the Audit Committee, however. Thank you.

Does the Audit Committee deal with the appointment of the auditor?

Well, the appointment of the auditor goes through the full Board indeed, is endorsed by the general meeting, but the Audit Committee reviews the work of the external auditors, yes.

Well, when do we get to -- I'll ask my question of the auditor. I don't know whether Ernst & Young were the auditors back in '17, '18 or there was a different company. I know we change auditors every few years for good reason. And secondly, I'll have further questions in the financial report about it. But I just wanted to raise the question that Board members have to take -- clearly, you both take responsibility. And finally, Ms. Fagg, many, many years ago, I was a Minister for Science in charge of CSIRO. I had a lot of differences of opinion with the management of CSIRO at the time, and I look forward to your chairmanship of improving CSIRO. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Mr. Schott. Microphone #3.

Chair, I would like to introduce [ William Ross ].

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for having me. I've got a question for the directors, but open to the whole panel to answer as well. So Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you a question on behalf of coal mining organizations and companies like Whitehaven. In the past, NAB has been a big supporter and provided hundreds of millions of dollars in financing to Whitehaven, my company, Australia's biggest single coal company. Whitehaven has really, really exciting plans to double its coal exports by the end of the decade with 3 new coal projects. But we're having some issues, pesky activists and lefty socialist orgs like the International Energy Agency are kicking up a huge fuss about the carbon emissions of coal, claiming that Whitehaven is aligned with 3 degrees of global warming. Can you guarantee that NAB will continue to provide corporate finance to companies like Whitehaven so they can keep opening up new coal?

Thank you. Do we have a question at Microphone #2, Microphone #2. Thank you.

Chair, I would like to introduce [ Luca Lamont ].

Can you please go ahead with your questions? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry, can I ask please to leave the meeting. Can I ask you please to leave the meeting. Thank you. Apologies for the disruption. Please go ahead.

I've traveled all the way from Queensland. I'm a homeowner in Queensland for this question. And I've got to catch a flight, so I've got to leave straight after this, unfortunately. So this question is for Kathryn, but also for the CEO, Ross McEwan, because it includes some of his words.

This is not -- you can't ask Ross a question at this point, but you can ask Kathryn.

Okay, certainly. That's fine. We've had record-breaking floods across Eastern Australia throughout 2022 on the back of fires a few years earlier and my insurance premiums went through the roof. These costs have added financial burden on top of high inflation and increasing interest rates. In fact, I have not been able to afford them and so currently have no insurance on my home. A couple of months ago, Mr. McEwan, you told a Trans Tasmanian business event that "climate in action will continue to be costly. We know too well that natural disasters exacerbated by climate change not only take a human toll, but a huge financial one, too." I'm one of those people currently experiencing that human and financial toll. And I can tell you that it's awful and only getting worse, but are much better off than other people I know. It needs to be acknowledged that many people are copping the full brunt of extreme weather and it's devastating people's lives. My sister's farm house near [ Balana ] flooded for the first time. My brother in law has been using his weekends to get...

I'm sorry. Please get to your question.

Yes. I'll get to that. You just need the context, I think. It's quite important.

I think we've heard a lot of context. Can you please get to the point of your question?

Their neighbors and elderly couple lost everything and are living in my sister's garage. Their future is on a pension with no home is bleak. At the same Trans Tasmanian event, you told attendees in certain areas, if certain areas are going to be constantly flooded, do we have a problem with our funding of these areas? And will it have a long-term impact on, a, do we fund these areas; and b, what's the price of funding if we do. However, based on your own words, NAB is happy to continue to profit off companies making the problem worse. You said that people may not like it. But we're in a commodities boom where coal prices are extraordinary, and gas has probably got another 40 years plus. Are NAB fine with being hypocrites and betraying Australian communities? You've acknowledged that the cost of climate in action will be an enormous human and financial toll. But that's okay because it's going to be borne by people like me and those who have already suffered much worse, some paying with their lives. All the while, NAB is refusing to play its part in addressing the climate crisis and profit off corporations and projects contributing to the crisis. The lines are clear, Mr. McEwan. You're either on the side of Australian communities or you're on the side of fossil fuel companies. You can't have it both ways. You have a problem with the cost of climate change. Well, I have a big problem with you funding the climate crisis while passing on its cost to me and others like me. Will NAB do its share to reduce the severity and likelihood of natural disasters by committing to not financing companies who want to build new fossil fuel projects? Or will you just keep dumping the cleanup bill on me and people like me as the cost of inaction grow ever higher?

Thank you. I will answer that question because you asked it of Ross, but he's not up for reelection. I am. And the answer is that our approach, which is a comprehensive approach to climate change is set out in our climate report. So thank you for your question. Can we now go to any other question, Item 1 -- microphone 1.

Chair, I would like to introduce [ Christine Hayden ], a volunteer monitor from the Australian Shareholders Association.

Fantastic. Thank you, and welcome.

Good morning, Chair. We have a very simple question. We'd like for you to address to Mr. Doug McKay and Ms. Kathryn Fagg. And that is, would they please tell us their personal achievements as Board members and how that may further the interest of shareholders.

Sure. I'm going to ask Doug to go first and then Kathryn.

Well, I started on the NAB board in 2016. And we pretty soon after that, headed into the Royal Commission, which was a very challenging time. I was very resilient and supportive Board member through that time and have been part of a team, both executive team and a Board team that saw the need for renewal in our leadership and saw the need to reposition the bank once we had dealt with the aftermath of the Royal Commission. None of that was easy. I never blinked, and I never thought to not give my best for as long as I was able to make a positive contribution to the turnaround that we are so fortunate to be talking about today. And we're now on the way to being the bank that we want to be. In addition to that, I have chaired the Bank of New Zealand since -- and been on that Board since 2013, and the Bank of New Zealand has progressively moved from strength to strength in terms of its key performance indicators and its profitability. We continue to beat year-on-year, our key benchmarks that we measure our performance by. And as the Chair, I have led that for the last 6, 7-odd years. And I stand here before the shareholders today absolutely full of enthusiasm for what will probably be my last term on the NAB Board and look to take a path in building from here with the foundations that we have established.

Thank you. I would add that Doug, in the year 2019, which shareholders may recall was a very difficult year for the company. Doug was a tower of strength on the Board and along with Ann Sherry, who was on the CEO selection committee. So Doug, you shouldn't be too modest. One of Doug's greatest achievements is ensuring that we have Ross McEwan here as our Chief Executive today. Kathryn, you've been on the Board for only half the time and haven't chaired a committee. So it will be a different perspective. But can I just say before you speak up that Kathryn bring us a real strength to the Board through the fact that she uniquely has both industrial and financial services experience, which gives us a really balanced view and is a very solid contributor. But please.

Yes. Just very briefly, and thank you, Phil, because I do feel that combination of both financial and industrial experience is particularly helpful that I can share at the Board table. But like my Board colleagues, I'm very conscious of my responsibility as a Board member to provide very effective oversight of -- on the organization and to make sure that what we're doing is in the best interest of the organization. And to do that oversight role, what do we bring? We bring years of experience and skills, some tough situations we've dealt with as well as an inquiring mind. So we ask and look to get to the gist of the questions and challenges that are put in front of us and to be comfortable asking when necessary, those challenging questions whilst also, at the same time, providing appropriate support and encouragement to the organization. And I can assure you that this Board, the NAB Board provides that effective oversight to the organization so that we're making sure that the decisions and actions taken are in its best interest. Thank you.

Thank you. Is that okay? Thank you. Great. Can we go to microphone #3, please.

Chair, I would like to introduce [ Simon Lisle ].

I've got a question for Kathryn Fagg. I'm just wondering as a lady, you've got a family. How do they feel about all your Boards and various other jobs and things? Could you sort of run through that for us, please?

No, I'm sorry. I'm not going to allow that question. That's an outrageous question.

Not really.

Thank you. Can I please go to microphone #2.

Chair, I would like to introduce [ Peter Star ].

Good morning, Phil. And Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and fellow shareholders. The first speaker, Chris Schott, stole a lot of the things that I had to put forward to you, Phil. Certainly, in relation to what went on there under the 2 previous CEOs was an absolute disgrace. I wonder if you can tell me who was the Head of the Risk and Audit Committee from the Board and also who were the auditors because there is no way that, that could not have been picked up by blind Freddy given that the CEO was approving -- the CEO's PA was approving from the same company of the woman who's been found guilty of 60 charges, 60 charges in the District Court 2 weeks ago. Now I cannot believe from the shareholders I represent, how nobody picked it up. And it took a whistleblower, as Mr. Schott said, down the low. And I think -- and you've been on the Board since 2016, Phil. And it's -- I know you're not on a lot of other Boards, and that's good. But certainly, in relation to this, I think you owe the shareholders because you talk about the dividend, $100 million. We're we covered for insurance to get that back? Because it's $100 million could have gone to dividends to everyone in this room, which are self-managed, super funds, ordinary mom and dad investors, it's an absolute disgrace, Phil, absolutely. And not only did Mr. Schott raise that question, I also raised that and was told the same thing on behalf of the shareholders I represent. And one other thing I'd like to say to you, Ms. Fagg is that you have big shoes to fill because David Thodey, who stepped down as the Chairman, David and I have -- we've been colleagues probably 20 years, as I'm sure you're aware. And so you have big shoes to fill. But certainly, Phil, I'm seeking some answers. And I think the other shareholders in the room are entitled to have some answers in relation to that. It's an absolute disgrace. I can't believe -- the shareholders I represent, are you telling me that nobody, the auditors, nobody on the Risk Committee of the bank picked it up? Nobody asked any questions? Nobody said, oh, this is a bit strange. It's the same person. It's from the same events company. All right. I say, what, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times over how many years. Really, Phil?

Thanks, Mr. Star, for the question. I can say no more than I've already said to Mr. Schott, which is that was a very embarrassing failure of the control environment over a very long period of time, that obviously significantly predated either Doug's or my time on the Board, but kept going after we had joined the Board. And we were as embarrassed as anybody to find out that, that had been going on. And when we found out about it, we moved very rapidly to deal with the individual involved and to completely overhaul the control environment so that it can't happen again. But I can do nothing other than apologize to investors for the fact that the company let them down. Thank you.

It's appreciated to hear that you've apologize, Phil. And I think that's of some comfort. I would really hope that this can never happen again.

You can rest assure that I'm -- you may recall I stepped in as an acting Chief Executive in that following year. And so I personally got to oversee the implementation of the new controls.

Just one final thing just on the reelection of the other 2 directors. I think it was a very good -- I know Ms. Sherry was involved in head hunting Ross McEwan. And I think I said at the time when he was appointed that it was CBA's loss because had Ross McEwan got the job, which you should have got the job at CBA, we wouldn't have been hit with all those fines and AUSTRAC things.

We were happy to have them here, so thank you. All right. Can I go to microphone 1?

Chairman, I would like to introduce Ms. [ Shohag Samgputa ].

Go ahead. Thanks, Ms. Samgupta.

Good morning to the Board. I have a question that is relevant to the entire Board, but in particular, would like a response from you, Phil. This is something that I actually talked to Ross McEwan about 2 weeks ago and had the same response that I've heard from you today to read your climate policy regarding the risk of your relationship with Whitehaven Coal. Now I have read your climate policy, and I found no mention of ending corporate finance to companies who are planning to expand thermal coal production. So my question relates to NAB's current exposure to Australia's biggest single player coal mining company, Whitehaven Coal. So in February 2020, NAB has loaned $110 million. A loan that is now up -- matured and up for renewal next year, and we've heard that Whitehaven Coal is in preliminary discussions with its banking partners about refinancing this loan. Meanwhile, Whitehaven Coal have massive expansion plans for the thermal coal mining sector. And these plans -- these climate wrecking plans have drawn the attention of the Move Beyond Coal movement and campaign, which has brought thousands of community members, 2 NAB branches, having consistent protests to voice their concerns. So my question for Phil, but really for the entire Board, is NAB concerned about the bank's reputation being tarnished by association with Whitehaven Coal and has the bank and have those seeking reelection, considered the risk of losing or failing to recruit staff, customers and attract ongoing investment due to its ongoing banking relationship with Whitehaven Coal?

So thank you for the question. The conduct of this meeting is not going to be talking about any individual customer of this bank. So I'm not going to answer the question the way you've asked it. Furthermore, we have published a comprehensive approach to climate and emissions, which way, way more comprehensive than any question about a single company in Australia. So thank you. Now can I also please make a point for the benefit of anyone else who is about to speak but if there are any more questions that relate to the company's or any individual directors' approach to climate emission strategy, we will be turning the microphones off and moving on to the next item business. Do we have any more questions? Microphone 2?

Chair, I would like to introduce Billy Greenham.

Good morning to the Board. And 3 members for reelection. My name is Billy. I'm a sixth generation beef farmer from Southwest Victoria. Our property includes a broad acre of grazing with over 400 head of cattle as well as protected swamps and remnant bushland. My question relates to the impacts we are seeing in the agriculture sector from climate change.

Thank you. I suggest you hold your question over to Item 6. So thank you very much for that. Can we now go to Virginia? Do you have a question online?

Thank you, Chair. We have 1 question from Mr. James Byrne. Mr. Chairman, how can you have the time to dedicate 100% of your work hours to the NAB shareholders when the shareholders of Woolworths are paying new $260,000 a year for your time on their board.

Well, thank you. So shareholders who have at least been following things may appreciate that for most of my time as Chair of NAB, I have not had another listed company board that shortly, over a year ago, I took up 1 other directorship and that's my only other public listed company directorship. The role of Chairman of NAB has never been intended to be a full-time executive job, although I have to say there are times it absolutely does feel like that. But I do only those 2 listed company boards. And in both cases, I have dedicate myself and my fellow directors at each of those companies that I'm able to dedicate myself to them. So thank you for the question. Direct -- shareholders may be somewhat reassured that I'm certainly not seeking any other listed company boards, so I don't intend to add any further to that. Do we have any more questions on the floor? Microphone 1.

Thank you. Chair, I would like to introduce Mr. Michael Sanderson.

I put your attention to a question I asked to the Board back in '19, a couple of chats, Andrew Thorburn and Ken Henry were in charge. I questioned the board diversity back in those days and suggest that perhaps you need something more akin to the German model where you draw resources from within -- you're all nice people, but you come from an area that is different to what we in the lower restaurant are used to. And I would suggest that because of that, there's a sort of self-reinforcing group think you have it. For instance, do you have anybody on the board that's on the door that is ringing. Yes, I'm sure if you had somebody like that, the conversation within your boardroom would be different. So -- but I'm not saying to go to that extreme because -- but the German model, my understanding, draws from within the organization. And 1 of the suggestions I put at that back in 2019 that perhaps you have a certain percentage of your board drawn from within that these people will be able to say, well, in my experience in the branch this is what's happened. And perhaps this person that, of course, there is a little bit of fraud would have been identified a lot sooner than what had, it's just a suggestion.

Well, thank you for that. I think you'd be surprised by 2 things. One is the diversity of the actual experiences that the life experiences that most of us have had. And secondly, I can assure you that the 1 thing this Board does not have is group think in the boardroom. We have active and lively conversations on a whole host of issues. But I do take your point and thank you very much for that. All right. Operator, are there any questions on the phone line?

We have 1 question on the phone line. Your question comes from Jeff Wilson, shareholders.

Mr. Wilson?

Yes, congratulations. And I'd just like to sort of talk about new directors and franking credits. It's clear the government has started to dismantle the franking system. Now both Mr. [indiscernible] and Mr. Chairman promised before the recent election, not to touch franking. Unfortunately, now the government is trying to stop company paying their franking credits with 2 proposed pieces of legislation. One reoff market buybacks and the other, which I'd like to talk about today called franked dividends and capital raisings. The wording for the proposed franked dividend legislation is ambiguous and wide range. They mentioned ordinary course of business, which isn't defined anywhere and treasury and the ATO give no clarity. These new rules move the goal post and create significant uncertainty with unintended consequences. I mean, 1 interpretation of the proposed rules means that if you raise any amount of equity before, during or after you pay fully franked dividend, then that dividend will be unfranked. And my question is really will the new directors, but really the whole Board stand up for the about 600,000 NAB shareholders and sue the ATO, if they try to stop you paying fully franked dividends due to this legislation.

Thanks, Jeff. Let me just say a couple of things. One is, we are strong supporters of franking as it was set out, what it was set out to achieve, which is to avoid our shareholders bearing the double taxation of their dividend income. And measures that threaten that would obviously threaten -- would concern us. We've -- there's some ambiguity on the second piece of legislation. And -- so I appreciate you bringing it to people's attention. The advice that we've received is that the measures would not apply where the distribution question is in line with the established practice of the entity making the distribution. And the capital raise is directly -- seem to be directly related to it. So we're not as concerned with the underlying intent of the legislation. But as you would appreciate, and as we often find out, the final form of legislation doesn't always stay true to the intent. And so we are concerned that there could be potential unintended consequences. So we are keeping a close watch on that issue and are acutely aware of the risk that is involved. But certainly, the advice we have received is that the announcement of what was intended would not threaten our normal course of business and passing franking credits on dividends through to our shareholders. Virginia, do we have another online question.

Chair, we have a question from [ Paul Hathaway ] of Thruway Proprietary Limited. Thank you for your leadership and hard work on behalf of all shareholders during the last few very difficult years, Mr. Chairman, progress has been impressive. Thank you to your Board also.

Thank you, Mr. Hathaway. Now if there are any further questions? Microphone 2.

Yes, Chair. We have [ Ms. Emily Cross. ]

Okay. Since the -- now Board has consulted with the First Nations people and is advocating a voice to parliament be recognized in your constitution. I'm looking forward to seeing a First Nations person sitting on the board in the future. Also, I'd like to congratulate you on the ratio of men to women on the Board. It's improved, keep improving it. My question relates to cybersecurity. I have recently had the misfortune of being -- of losing over $200,000 from an account at another bank, which I won't mention and they encouraged me to be very digital. I went very digital, and the result was a loss of a lot of savings. So despite the reassurance that cybersecurity is wonderful. I have 0 confidence in it. How can I be assured that this bank or for that matter or any other bank can keep my money safe? Or should I just put it under the proverbial mattress. Thank you.

And let me just deal with each of the points you raised. Well, not quite an order. We are very conscious of the gender balance of the Board, and I'm certainly hopeful that we can further improve it. I also agree with you that it would be a fantastic outcome when we are able to improve the ethnic diversity of the Board and it would be a great achievement to have First Nations personal to our Board. And I'm very sorry to hear about your experience on cyber risk. This is, as you appreciate, is 1 of the most serious challenges that we face where we have hostile actors out there, both attacking infrastructure and seeking to steal money. And we spend an incredible amount of time and effort into trying to make things safer for our customers. And I know as an industry, we don't get everything right, but we are absolutely -- and I should be assuring all of our shareholders and customers we take these issues very seriously and spend a significant amount of time trying to ensure that we can look after our customers and keep them safe. And I'm really sorry if that's not worked for you. Item -- Microphone 2 got another question.

Chair, I would like to introduce Craig Caulfield.

Good morning, Mr. Chronican and to the Board and to all the shareholders. I've got questions that I'll bring up later, but I'm bringing these up because it relates to the Board. I would like to reiterate the points that my colleague, Michael Sanderson raised just about Board structure. And I'd like to endorse the outrage from Mr. [indiscernible] to Mr. [indiscernible] over the -- those past trends issues. I know that NAB is doing a lot better and NAB has made a lot of improvements so I don't doubt that. I also know that the skills that have been mentioned when we were talking of Mr. McKay, that would be right. I believe that the Board has excellent skills and excellent qualifications. But I don't believe the Board has all of those skills and qualifications and experiences covered. I'm passionate advocate for bank reform, a founder of Bank Warriors and an adviser to Bank Reform Now. We have -- Bank Reform Now has 15,000 members and followers. I travel the East Coast of Australia. I've been to 25 AGMs. I've met hundreds of victims. And we look at things like internal dispute resolution, external dispute resolution AFCA. I mean AFCA is a major failure. And the Board, the members of the Board, I don't think clearly see this. And unless you bring some other people onto the Board now, I think you could create a sub-board or a subcommittee but it needs issues to be elevated up. Clearly, with the Paul Rizzo [indiscernible] issues didn't raise up. Clearly, I accept that you're definitely earnestly changing things and doing things for the better. But we don't know that in 6 years' time, there's going to be other things out there. You made comments Mr. Chronican about the Royal Commission. You've certainly made improvements. But it was left that it's like we're post Royal Commission, and we've still got our eye on the Board. There's dozens of recommendations by Commissioner Hayne that have not been enacted. So I'll just mention one. NAB is the leader for agricultural loans in Australia. Farm Debt Mediation was 1 of the very clear simple recommendations. Let's have a national farm debt mediation strategy. We've got a hotchpotch of state systems that work, don't work. Surely, 1 simple system across Australia would be better. Now I've heard every bank, say, back from 2016, let's have national farm debt mediation, a national standard and [indiscernible] has said that from predating the Royal Commission. No one's done anything about it. So I expect National Bank to proactively bring this in. So when I hear you Mr. Chronican saying, yes, we've passed through Royal Commission with mindful of things, that's not enough. And so this is where the Board requires extra people like myself or Mr. Sanderson or others that are here to get this alternative mix of views. So I hear strength and courage and challenge. All those are correct and all of the Board members are excellent and all of the skills are excellent, but there are some critical emissions, a little wedge of emissions that needs to be addressed.

Thanks very much, Mr. Caulfield. And I think, Ross, you probably can follow through on the Farm Debt Mediation issue with the ABA. Yes. Okay. I think Ross will take that on board. So thank you very much for this. Are there any further questions, Microphone 2.

Chair, I'd like to introduce [ Rita Mazalucas ].

Good morning, Chair and Board. Nice to be here face-to-face. My questions I have today are more for the annual report later. But I just want some clarification with the directory evaluation process.

Yes.

Do you engage independent external facilitators to conduct reviews of the directors? Or do you do them in-house?

So we do a combination. So in every 2 years -- every 3. So we do every third year, we do a full external review, and then we do an intermediate update. This year, we was 1 of the -- 1 in 3. So this year, we had a full external review of the Board.

Okay. So I understand boards get reviewed externally every 3 years. But the process -- the Board process were the Chair would sit with directors and go over their performance and their duties seems to be dwindling in moving externally.

No. We do that every year, and I'm sure every director here will quite consciously remember the last review they've had because I'm very deliberate about highlighting each of the areas where I thought they have contributed, where they could have done more. We have other elements that we go through because under the bank executive accountability regime each director is required to make certain attestations. So we have a very rigid process around annual director reviews, which I conduct.

Chair, I would like to introduce [ Nellie Malseed ].

Good morning to the Board. The first part of my question is directed to the Chair, Mr. Philip Chronican. This question is about comments you made in last year's AGM. So in April 2020, NAB was involved in financing TC Energy's highly controversial Coastal GasLink pipeline. This pipeline has been fiercely opposed by...

Sorry. I've asked for those questions to come up at Item 6, please.

Yes. But this is just about something that you personally said about the pipeline that's been opposed.

Can you get to -- can I ask you to do some because I know where your question is headed. So can you read out what you want to say about what I said, and I will give you a response to it.

Okay. So Mr. Chairman, you assured shareholders last year at the AGM, that funding TC Energy's highly controversial Coastal GasLink pipeline was a historical issue only. What did you mean by this is a historical issue only?

So what that says is that it's highly unlikely today we would approve that because it would fall outside of our policy on financing greenfield gas projects outside of Australia and New Zealand.

But in July of this year, NAB did refinance the loan for this pipeline.

No, No. I now interrupt you. We did not, and it's better that you do not make misleading statements like that.

My mistake, but my research highlights that.

Your research is incorrect, nothing changed in July this year. Our original exposure -- our original exposure from 2020 has not yet runoff. And nothing changed in July this year.

And you're still funding TC Energies controversial pipeline, correct?

In line with the contracts that we entered into in 2020. And therefore, what I said last year is absolutely correct.

Yes. Other banks were changed and exited the deal in July.

But had nothing to do with us. No, I don't believe anyone exited or at least, I'm not aware of it.

2 banks exited the deal in July this year and you're still funding...

My understanding is the only thing -- my understanding is the only thing that changed in July this year is that the borrower brought in a number of new banks.

Right. Multiple banks exited, which means that they had the opportunity to exit, but you and NAB did not exit the deal.

We had no opportunity to exit. So I'm sorry, your research is incorrect.

Chair, I would like to introduce [ Julien Vincent. ]

Thank you very much. I'd like to ask my question to Kathryn Fagg, if possible. But if you'd like to take it.

Ask it and I'll determine whether it's for Fagg.

Well, it's because of -- because of Ms. Fagg's role on the [ outdoor ] and Risk and Compliance Committees. So it relates to human rights and the applications of our human rights policy, it refers to a specific example, but I want to reassure you, I'm only looking to respond about NAB's processes and policies, not a particular client relationship. So the context is that in August, NAB contributed to a $1 billion loan to Santos, which is related to the Barossa gas project. This was after a case had been filed in the Federal Court in June over concern the Tiwi Islands traditional owners have not been properly consulted. In September, the Federal Court ruled in favor of the Tiwi Islands traditional owners, halting the Barossa gas project. At the start of this month, the full Federal Court slapped down an appeal by Santos and upheld the original decision. Following that decision, the representative of the Munupi clan of the Tiwi Island said they will continue to fight the project. Did NAB conduct the due diligence required by our human rights policy when considering the August loan to Santos?

The answer, unfortunately, you said you weren't going to ask a question about a specific client. I know you've asked a question about our specific clients. So it is incredibly difficult to answer that question, Mr. Vincent. I'm sorry.

Why? . Why can't you answer with your policy.

I can't tell you about Santos' business here. I'm not going to talk about Santos.

You can tell us whether your policy was followed or not.

I can tell you that our policy was followed, but I can't tell you anything about Santos. I can tell you, our policies are followed generally.

So the policy was followed and NAB still participated in a loan that was contested over human rights issue in the Federal Court.

We have policies that fall over and get contested all the time. So I don't -- frankly, I don't quite sure what the point of the question is.

Okay. Listen, then Santos and their project partners need the Darwin LNG extension to facilitate this field development which has not gone ahead. Will not commit to not financing at least the Darwin LNG extension project in light of the human rights issues related to the Barossa gas to Darwin LNG project.

No. Our review of that transaction will be in accordance with our climate policy, which has been set out. And our human rights policy remains intact. We will follow our human rights policy. Just for the benefit of other shareholders in the room, one of the issues that has arisen in a number of projects, both here in Australia and overseas, is that when people are consulted to ensure that there is 3 prime informed consent from traditional landholders. There are often disagreements among landholders, and therefore, you have issues like the Tiwi Islanders, where they are contested. And sometimes the courts take a different view, in which case we react to that. So we will follow our policy and sometimes we will get it wrong.

But you are aware of the court case that was in progress in June.

But it hasn't been -- yes, but it hadn't been won.

But you could at least hold off on making the transaction decision, the financing decision until the outcome of that case surely.

I'm sure that business people will be thinking about that.

Why weren't you thinking about it?

I have. Thank you. All right. Are there any further questions?

Chair 1 more here. I would like to introduce [ Ray Michelle ].

Thank you. We're very pleased to hear how would the whistleblower uncovered the fraud that was having previously. And I was just very interested to know over the last 8 years, the number of whistleblower complaints that we've had? And are these being investigated internally or externally?

Well, it depends on the nature of and how serious the issues are, but there is an internal process to deal with them initially. It's independent of the business units and where the matters seriously, we bring in external reviewers. All right. If there are no further questions, are there any further questions Virginia, online?

No further questions, Chairman.

All right. I'm not going to ask Anne Loveridge to take over the chairing of this part of the meeting while the resolution to put.

Thank you, Philip. As set out in the Notice of Meeting, the Board recommends that shareholders vote in favor of the reelection of the 3 directors. Shareholders, I now formally put to you items of business 1a, 1b and 1c as set out in the notice of meeting. Please record your vote now if you have not already voted. Thank you. I now hand the chairing of the meeting back to the Board Chair.

Thank you, Anne. The next 3 items of business relate to remuneration. Item 2 is the remuneration report. The remuneration report is in the 2022 annual report. Items 3a and 3b relate to the deferred rights and the performance rights to be granted to the group Chief Executive as part of his remuneration package. The explanatory notes in the notice of meeting describe this in detail. One theme in your questions in advance of the meeting was how much our executives receive and pay and benefits. We have set our executive remuneration strategy to meet market benchmarks and to retain and attract talent appropriate to a company of NAB size and complexity. NAB, executive team's remuneration is a combination of fixed and variable remuneration, some of which is short term and some long term. As I said earlier, the variable reward outcomes for the executive team this year reflected very strong financial performance but were moderated for customer and colleague results that did not fully meet the targets set by the Board. Before turning to the resolutions, I'd now like to invite questions on the remuneration items. If you're in the room and wish to ask a question and are eligible to please move to the microphone point nearest to you now. Microphone attendants, do we have any questions on the remuneration report? Microphone 2.

Chair, I would like to introduce [ Ms. Justine Sherwood ].

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Justine Sherwood, and I'm a proud NAB colleague with 30 years of service, and also a financial -- Finance Sector Union member. I'm here today to raise questions on behalf of all my colleagues. At last year's AGM, yourself and the CEO, acknowledge the receipt of the FSU report into excessive hours of working that it was occurring across the bank. The report detailed the experiences of over 1,200 NAB colleagues suffering severe health and well-being consequences as a result of exploitative hours of work practices, which has enabled patents of work over and above 50-plus hours per week spanning back by a decade. You said at the time that the health and well-being of colleagues was your highest priority. However, in the 12 months since the AGM the Board and executive team have failed to meaningfully respond to this report or adequately address the concerns raised within it. Over the same period, management has sought to cut the real wages of 30,000 NAB colleagues with a below inflation pay offer and a nonunion EA proposal. This is despite the fact that we have posted a $6.8 billion profit, and the executive team are in line for an actual pay increase with the remuneration report providing for increases well above inflation. The NAB Board of Directors and executive team have a duty of care to their employees, and ultimate responsibility for providing a healthy and safe work environment. How then do you expect colleagues and shareholders to have faith in the leadership of the organization when you have failed to respond and work with the union on such serious overwork concerns. How do you justify the excessive executive remuneration outcomes and yet expect colleagues to take a real world pay cut? Will you ensure colleagues will not continue to suffer an erosion of their living standards by delivering pay outcomes in line with the cost of living?

Thank you. Thank you for your question. I'm just going to make 2 points, but I am going to ask Ross to respond because I think it warrants that. First of all, it is not the intention of the Board and I hope not the intention of the leadership team of this bank that our staff work excessive hours. Now we've been through a very unusual period with COVID and absentees and rises in cybercrime and fraud and so on. So I know that there have been some hot areas and it's difficulty at staff. But I just want to assure you, we do not expect over work to be a matter, of course, in our business, and I'm sorry if that's shown up somewhere. The second point I want to make is that this year, the senior executive team, because they have a combination of fixed and variable, almost person for person, their variable award has gone down this year. And therefore, it is not fair to describe this as an increase in their pay. The total remuneration of our executive team is lower for 22 person to person than it was last year. Nonetheless, I am going to ask Ross to comment on the substance of your question. So thank you.

Thank you, Phil, and thank you very much for taking the time to come and ask the question, Justin. I do appreciate it. And we have gone through the last 3 months just for the shareholders benefit of having conversations with our colleagues through the Financial Services Union to see if we can find ourselves a position to update the 2016 enterprise agreement. After 3 months, it was put to the vote. And actually, our colleagues to a majority actually voted it down. I did make the choice, though, at that point in time to actually pay the money and the benefits that I said I would because I didn't want our colleagues, particularly our level 1s and 2s going into Christmas, not knowing what they were going to be paid next year. And we've started -- we start again the conversations with our FSU colleagues, there was a meeting yesterday, and there will be a meeting in February is my understanding. So -- and I think the FSU for continuing to have those conversations with us, they are very important. On having our enterprise agreement voted down. We have done something close to 500 listening sessions with our colleagues over the last couple of weeks, and they have been very important. One of the issues that's come up is quite rightly, as Justin has pointed out, is the question about working hours. And whilst we've done a lot of work in the last 12 months having a look at those areas, I think we still have more work to do. So I do acknowledge that, and we will do that work. And I know Susan has responded, but we've also done a lot of work with our own colleagues. But it's been an interesting time at NAB over the last year with COVID and a whole raft of other things that we're having to work very hard on it. And just getting like every business, the colleagues that actually are available to work because the pool of colleagues around has got low for every business. So it's certainly not our intention to having our colleagues over worked. I've made that very clear to my executive. I myself have made it clear about what I'm prepared to do work-wise and I expect everyone to have at least 2 good days off to refresh and get themselves ready to go again for the next week. So we've got work to do, and I'm quite open about that, and we will certainly do that work with our leaders and the FSU and I drop to note out explaining to all staff what the big issues that they had raised with us were and what we need to start viewing -- looking at next year. Just for our shareholders, the range of pay that we've put out range from 5.1% for our Level 1s, 5% for our Level 2s, 4.6% for our Level 3s right through to a 2.5% for our most senior executives. I do appreciate we didn't get agreement, but I wanted to make sure our colleagues got the recognition and the money in their pockets from 1st of -- or fifth of January to be precise. So thank you for the question. We have lots of work to do. It is 1 of our 2 highest priorities, both our colleagues and our customers. We've got work to do still with our colleagues, and I do appreciate you asking the question.

Thank you. We have a question at microphone #1.

Chair, I would like to reintroduce Mr. Chris Schott.

Mr. Chairman, remuneration report, in these years I've been coming here, and we've had the remuneration report. I've worked today, and it's not similar for most major companies. There's nearly 40 pages in this annual report dealing with the remuneration report that deals with bonuses for the top 10, 15 people in the bank. There's not 40 pages talking about the remuneration of the tens of thousands of our employees. I know that's a requirement about the remuneration report because of the law, et cetera, of payment. But it always strikes me that we have more reporting about the remuneration report then our own business plan. We don't mention the Secretary of the union, the FEs -- I'd mention I'm not a member of that union, but I've been a member of 2 trade unions for 55 years. So I declare that interest. I'm sympathetic. I've also said since I came to these meetings bending in 2003, the reason I've stuck with this bank as a customer since 1970 is not because of the Board or the Chief Executive or the senior executive. It's because of the 30,000 employees you have who provide me with the service when I go to the branch or make a phone call and take the call. And they are the 1 reason I have stuck with this bank. If it wasn't for them, you wouldn't exist and I wouldn't be here. I don't know where I'd go to find another bank. I must say, you've all got the same problem. But I do think it is not unreasonable. But you have to be in this time, if that means I get a less dividend that you put a bit more money to pay salaries to the 30,000-odd staff or whatever it is, I would forego part of the dividend because I know in the long run, the bank will survive. If you don't do that, no matter what you do up there, you wouldn't want to bet that you're here in the same form in 10 years' time. The only reason this bank hasn't been taken over or sold up in the last 15 years is because the federal government labor and liberal has a policy. The 4 banks can't merge or take each other over and there's no foreign bank can come in and buy you. That's the reason you still exist as it is because of that policy, which I support, by the way, but it means the Board has a protection for no many -- how many mistakes you make like the Royal Commission pointed out or go back to the middle of the last decade, 2005. Remember, homeside $3 billion was wiped out in losses because of a stupid investment not done with proper due diligence about our investment in the home market -- home mortgage market in America. So the only -- at that time, you might have been taken over if it had been of absolute free market. So I think it's -- the Board has to consider. The only reason you've got any goodwill, in my view, a lot of goodwill is the 30,000 workers who deal with me and everybody else as customers every day. And I am sick of having to come and say that again and again, at AGMs, the reason I'm with the bank is not because of the Board, it's because of the staff who serve it and serve all of us. And I have to say, hoping going to a local branch down where I live in Adelaide at the Glen branch. Every time I went into that bank, 4 to 5 times a year to do something, 1 of the times I had to pay a speeding fine and bloody lack fear of all places. And I had to transfer the money. I couldn't work out because it was in Polish and [ Latin ]. I went to the bank, I showed them the form, the woman at those tellers said, "Oh, yes, Mr. Schott. I know how to do that and then 35 seconds, she did it, transferred the $200 fine. Now while I was waiting, there was a queue. Every time I've been to that branch, there was a queue of people, I have to say overwhelmingly of my age group, 50, 60s and 70s many of them with an ethnic Italian or Greek background. So what do we do at end of last year? We closed the branch, closed the branch and I thought, hang on, why are we closing a branch when every time I've been there, there are dozens of people queuing up to get a good service from that bank,those bank tellers. I actually wrote a letter once congratulating Stacy on helping me. And she was staggered that someone would take the trouble. She's more important to the future of this bank. I don't know whether she's been laid off now or sacked. But it comes back to the point that we -- you've got to be understanding in the negotiations and you're still open to that negotiation. If someone said to me -- don't say to me, "Look, if we give them more money, you're going to get a less dividend -- all I say if that's the view about your negotiation, you ought to all give up. I think the union has a pretty good case here, not because they're a union, but because their members have created a bank that survives through all the scandals that we have had. And therefore, I look forward next year, Mr. Chairman, when I come again, if I'm still alive in this place. But in the report, there is more report giving about what we're doing with the staff and supporting them and their pay and their conditions than the 40 pages for the top 10 executives in the remuneration report. And I finish on a comment about the -- maybe I should stand for the Senate again if they're clapping like that. The -- I just finished on a remark, Mr. Chair, and you've been very indulgent to give me this time. In 2018, at the AGM, I asked again about the remuneration report. Ken Henry was the Chair. And I thought Ken Henry, despite the performance of The Royal Commission inquiry, when he was the Head of Treasury, he was an outstanding figure. Probably the greatest public servant in the previous 20 years of my knowledge. I asked him about the 40 pages. He looked down the board, he paused for 20 seconds and looked down the Board and said, "You're right, Mr. Schott. I'm like you, I don't understand it either." And because I don't think Einstein can work out these formulas. And they're all there because you're required legally partly to do it. That is true. But please, I can't ask you not to do it, you've got to do it under law. But how about a few more pages? And what you're doing for the staff, what you're doing for maintaining banks or branch offices, et cetera, even if it means that earning AUD 3 billion profit next year is AUD 2.5 billion. The bank will survive longer if you do that. Thank you.

Thank you. So all I can do is agree that in fact, one of the conversations we frequently have is, why do we spend 40 pages talking about 10 people, when we've got 30,000 people keeping the place together? So that message is deeply understood and appreciated by all of the senior group, and most particularly those who have to actually pour over the detail of the 40 pages. So thank you, I absolutely endorse that view. And I also endorse your comment about the people who make up the day-to-day staffing of this organization. I know Ross and his team and the Board spent a lot of time visiting various parts of our organization, and we are always inspired by the energy that our teams in the various places bring to the table. Can I ask if there any more questions, Microphone 2?

Yes, Chair, can I reintroduce Mr. Craig Caulfield?

Thank you, Mr. Chronican. Mine has some similarities to Mr. Schott. I was -- my first comment was to say that the rem report is simply too long, and I don't know anyone that...

I think we've got unanimity on that one. And unfortunately, as Mr. Schott has pointed out, we are required under Australian corporate law to provide all that information. So please go.

I understand the law, but I'm sure that there's ways that you could still simplify it. Bring it back to 30 pages, make some of the formulas simpler. Where Mr. Schott was talking about employees, and I concur with that, I'm talking about customers. So we're talking about millions of customers, and I don't see enough of the proper customer metrics. In Mr. McEwan's opening statement, he talked about our customers' Net Promoter Score, which ranks first or second of the major banks. Can you tell me what is the Net Promoter Score? I haven't had time to go through the whole annual report.

Sure. So Net -- you may recall, if you've been around long enough, that banks used to talk about their customer satisfaction measures.

I understand it. I just need the number. Is it 4? Is it 2? Is it...

Well, we measure it different for each segment. So we have a Net Promoter Score for our mass market personal customers, for our business customers. The answer for the retail personal customers, and I'm sure I'll get corrected if I get this wrong, hovers around net 0, isn't it? It was around negative 17. It has got up to around -- I think we got a positive 1 at one point, and it's bounced around a little bit like that. So showing -- it is, in fact, showing 0. It's the one area of net 0 we appear to have achieved.

Yes, okay. I wouldn't call it much of an achievement myself. And I think it's the wrong measurement, which is why I'm...

No. And can I just add to that point, the Board has been quite clear with management that we have never been comfortable with having Net Promoter Scores with negatives or zeros on them, that we are seeking to have positive Net Promoter Scores.

Yes. I would say don't be comfortable with positive Net Promoter Scores either, because the system is gamed. Net Promoter Scores are gamed. People that are unhappy customers -- I know with my bank, if I make a complaint, I'm not called up. Mr. Caulfield, what do you think of the bank, et cetera? If I'm happy, I'm called up. I actually get staff members that if there's something that's going really well, it's like you might be receiving a survey, yes. So these numbers are gamed. And I do understand, Mr. McEwan was comparing them relatively to the other banks. So in relative terms, you've been approved, I get that. But on a -- sorry, on absolute terms. But compared to, say, [indiscernible] Banks, Net Promoter Score is 24 -- 24.5. Perpetual is 50. Now, Net Promoter Score...

And we saw some data -- recently. In fact, in this Board meeting around, we saw some data that said our UBank business is now up around positive 29%, or -- so it is doable, but it's been very hard on the mainstream.

But even UBank, and it's a positive number, it is still not an adequate system. And if I look on Page, I think it's 53, there are no pages there. But 54, you've got a table in annexure. Why not have 1 table, 1 annexure, of a list, a host of 20 measurements of customer metrics, numbers of complaints somewhere in there? What I'm saying, it's not adequate. Numbers of complaints, how long are those complaints? Number of customer advocate, how long are they? Number that goes to AFCA, how long did they take? Number of breaches that we've had, how long did they take? We can come up with 20 metrics in a single page, and all the banks could publish it. Let's do something there that gives a better customer feedback because if anyone's talking Net Promoter Score -- I know one of the banks, it's a 100% Net Promoter Score, it's the short-term variable rem for the CEO. So something like that, that's gamed. I'm not saying that's here, but it's totally inadequate. It should be discarded.

Thank you. You actually made quite an important point, which I'd like to pick up on, Mr. Caulfield, which is in the interest of simplicity, we come under pressure to have fewer measures in these scorecards from our investors. But when the Board interprets them, and the NPS example is a good one, we look at the number that comes up. But then we do say, where are we on our AFCA complaints, where are we on our complaints handling, where are we on customer attrition, have we actually gained market share? So while we use that one number in the scorecard, we are alert to the fact that it may be a number in conflict with some other experiences. Similarly, on colleague engagement, which is in these scorecards, we're conscious that, that too has risks and -- because it's survey based. So we do look at unplanned turnover. We look at our ability to recruit and retain people. So the Board is -- just as when we look at our financials, they might meet the earnings numbers. But we go deeper and say, well, how did they meet the earnings numbers? And was it actually the way we wanted to? So the Board does exercise its judgment when interpreting the numbers we get. So thank you for your point. I just wanted to give you that reassurance.

Yes. Thank you for those comments. I would like to see that further simply by being transparent with everything here. And let me congratulate NAB, because NAB was one of the few banks that actually made the APRA report transparent.

Yes. Thank you. All right. Microphone #1.

Chair, I'd like to reintroduce Mr. Michael Sanderson.

Thank you.

I'd like to build on Mr. Schott's comments about staff and branches. Banking is a unique service with unique powers and responsibilities. I put it to NAB, it's not possible to digitize a personal interaction reflected in a file or do it remotely. National Australia Bank has 286 regional branches still open, but has closed or cut services to a point where the facility is no longer classified as a bank branch to 474 locations. This is a cut of 62% of the original regional network of 760. My question is, how do NAB branch closures comply with the mandatory, very important word, mandatory, contractual warranty of the Banking Code of Practice that states, We are committed to providing banking services which are inclusive of all people, including, A, older people. Very important to me. People with disabilities. This is a good one, indigenous Australians including in remote locations. And D, people with limited English. Now I'm an Alice Springs boy, grew up in the center. And I'd like to focus in on indigenous Australians including remote locations, seeing all things indigenous seems to be flavor of the year. Does NAB have a branch in [indiscernible], Papunya, [ Aryanga ], [ Dr. River ], [ Irmensburg ], Wharton, Santa Teresa? Just for news, I was a member of [indiscernible] in [ Bays ] Creek on the [indiscernible] Council, just comment at the back there. That's my question.

So thank you. I'm not sure I've been to many of the towns that you've just articulated, so...

I'm quite sure you haven't.

Although I have been to some weird and wonderful places this year, including as part of our Board trip to the Northern Territory, but we didn't come as fast south as the Red Center. But I do get into some pretty wild places a couple of 3 hours out of [ Darwin ]. We have -- even though our branches' numbers have fallen over years, and that is the inevitable result of the changing pattern of usage, we still have 283 regional branches, which I think still puts us actually ahead of almost all our competitors. But more importantly, we have entered into the contractual arrangement with Australia Post to make sure that the post office branches are available to provide some banking activities and services to our customers. As you appreciate, it's never been possible. We've never been in every community as a bank. And the number of branches -- I can only hazard a guess that the number of branches will continue to slowly decline over time as fewer and fewer people use them.

I just got a follow-up. You mentioned Australia Post. Between 1991, 1996, for the [indiscernible] labor government sold out working, indeed, all Australians by fully privatizing the Commonwealth Bank. My question is, would the NAB support the reestablish of a public-owned bank, perhaps through Australia Post, seeing as doing all the heavy lifting, to offer all Australians bread and butter banking, irrespective of location and circumstance? And would NAB support the reintroduction of modern Glass-Steagall regulation that separates bread and butter banking from risky, speculative banking?

So I'll answer the second part of that first, which is I don't know that we do any risky, speculative banking, and therefore, there's not much to ring fence from that. And I don't think that the question of opening a government-owned bank has been raised in any other forum. So I've never turned my mind to it.

That's probably an indication of your detachment, so -- been spoken about quite extensively in Parliament. I actually spent the last week of sittings in Parliament, and yes. There's another chatter. I'd suggest you start to engage a bit lower down, which goes [indiscernible].

Thank you for that. Microphone 2.

Chair, I would like to reintroduce Peter Star.

Mr. Star, thank you.

Thank you, Phil. I'm just wondering if you could comment on July last year, if NAB in Victoria was taken to court in relation to -- by the Wage Inspector General here in Melbourne in relation to underpaying the wages for NAB staff?

Actually -- can we give some detail of the case? We identified some underpayment issues ourselves and have raised that.

Is this the actual underpayment, or -- ratio? Or is this -- was it the case? This may well be the case. May I?

Yes, please do.

Mr. Star, can I just get a clarification? Is this to do with the case that's going before fair work on casuals?

No. This related to both, NAB and CommSec, okay? So CommSec and NAB. And the Wage Inspector has launched 10 prosecutions since July last year, including against NAB and CommSec. I don't expect you to comment on CommSec.

No, no. I probably prefer not to. But only one -- the one I'm aware of is 2 things that I'm aware of. One, we've been quite clear over the last couple of years, there was an underpayment in the sense of we hadn't calculated correctly across quite a number of quite difficult payments that we had to correct. And we've been communicating with colleagues, both present and past, and making payments to them on that. The second one that when -- where fair work has to do with whether casual staff are included for long service, which is actually excluded out of our enterprise agreement specifically, yet the fair work thought it should have been included. So that one I'm aware of, but the other one I'm not aware of, but I may be wrong. So -- but those are the ones I'm aware of.

And just a follow-up, if I could, please, Phil?

Yes, please.

Just for the benefit of other shareholders in the room, Mr. Caulfield and Mr. Sanderson, and I believe Mr. Schott and myself. We certainly, Mr. Caulfield and Mr. Sanderson, pushed really hard behind the scenes to get The Royal Commission up for the benefit of disordinary customers and people who have been affected across the board of all banks. So I'd just like to just raise that and bring that to the attention. Thank you.

Thank you. And quite cautious of the role you played in not only initiating the grounds of The Royal Commission, but attending on a regular basis, so we are seeing all of you frequently. So thank you. Are there any further questions? Item -- question, Microphone 1. Thank you.

Chair, I'd like to introduce Mr. Mark [ McLintock ].

Just a very quick question. How do I explain to my grandchildren, well, if they save money, they'll get 1% or 2%. They borrow any on a credit card, they're paying 19.9%, or -- how to explain to them?

Thank you. So just -- if I can just say very briefly, credit card debt should never be used as core assets, therefore, convenience come and go. It is high risk, and a very small proportion of the total outstandings on credit cards actually bear interest. But I take your point, and personally, I don't recommend that people rely on credit card debt. That should only ever be used as a temporary overdraft type facility. But thank you for the question. I appreciate it. Microphone 1, the next question.

Chair. I'd like to introduce Mr. Terrence Sawyer.

Thank you. I'm prompted to ask this question after hearing Mr. Schott's evaluation of the Board. While I recognize the expertise of the Board, in the highly unlikely event that the remuneration reports were voted down, would we expect any resignations from the Board?

Well, as you say, in the highly unlikely event, I've seen the pre-voting.

I said, in the highly unlikely. It's a theoretical question.

So we're dealing now purely in the hypothetical situation. And so I can only give you a hypothetical answer, which is I have no idea. So thank you. All right. Virginia, do we have any questions online?

No further questions, Chair.

Thank you. Operator, are there any questions on the phone line?

Chair, there are no phone questions.

Great. All right. Well, if there are no further questions, shareholders, I now formally put to you items of business 2, 3A and 3B, as set out in the Notice of Meeting. Please record your vote on these items now if you have not already voted. [Voting]

The next item of business is Item 4, which relates to the approval of amendments to the company's constitution. A summary of the amendments is in the explanatory notes to the Notice of Meeting and the amended Constitution, which is available for shareholders to consider on the company's website. The company's constitution was last amended in 2008, and there have been many developments in corporate governance law and practices since then. The Board recommends that the proposed amendments are made so that the company's constitution appropriately reflects these developments and supports the administration of the company and its relationship with shareholders. I now formally table the amended constitution. This item is a special resolution. The special resolution requires approval by at least 75% of eligible votes cast on the resolution. I now invite any questions on the amendments to the company's constitution. If you're in the room and wish to ask a question and are eligible, please move to a microphone. Microphone attendant #2.

Chair, I would like to reintroduce Mr. Caulfield.

Thank you. Mr. Caulfield.

Thank you, Mr. Chronican. I'm really not across the details of the amendments to the constitution. However yesterday, I attended the ANZ Annual General Meeting, and I'm sure you're all aware they introduced -- there was a separate Extraordinary General Meeting to introduce a non-operational holding company, NOHC. And I would just comment that that's a business still to make money, but I call it a NOHC for-profit business. Either way, I'm wondering, is this related to enabling NAB to operate a separate holding company so as to have different or lesser oversight of regulators like EPRA?

So the answer is no. This has nothing to do with establishing a non-operating holding company. And we have no current intention to pursue that course of action. Microphone 1.

Chair, I would like to reintroduce Ms. [ Christine Hayden ], a volunteer monitor from the Australian Shareholders Association.

Thank you, Chair. The proposed changes to the constitution, will you please just ensure that the shareholders who wish to receive their Notices of Meetings, dividends, notices, et cetera, still have the option of receiving postal communications?

There's no change on that. I'm assured by Ms. Thompson that there is no change envisaged in the way in which shareholders receive these notifications.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Microphone #2.

Chair, I would like to introduce David Brown.

Thank you. Mr. Brown?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In relation to the unclaimed distribution of dividends, I note that you're talking there in the changes that the amounts under AUD 500, maybe given to institutions or organizations, I've got no problems about that. But what I'm wondering about is how do you get rid of the people and their stockholdings that continually don't claim their dividends? And how do you know that they're still alive for the -- whatever happened to them? Because it doesn't seem to be covered in this.

That's a very good question, and there's another one I've never turned my mind too. So Louise, have you looked at that? Okay. I'm sorry, we do need to take that on notice. I don't know that we have an answer for you on that. I'm sorry.

Chair, I would like to reintroduce Peter Star.

Thank you. Mr. Star?

Thank you, Phil. Just in relation to the adoption of the company's constitution. Broadly, I think it's in relation or one of the matters is in the -- how you receive your communications. And I know for some older shareholders, they -- who may not be tech savvy and things, they still like to get their dividend statements by post and the Notice of Meeting by post. I think that's really important. As long as that's going to continue, we won't be opposing it. And maybe this needs to come to Ms. Thompson or you, Phil, in relation to, what's the main changes you're seeking to do with the Item 4 as opposed to what was in place? Thank you.

Thank you. I think there are a number of changes in the constitution that effectively modernize operations. For example, the original constitution never envisaged things like a hybrid meeting or indeed, where we are forced into virtual meetings next year. Although let me be very clear, we are not proposing to have virtual-only meetings in this constitution. That is not something that our shareholders have indicated support for. We had situations where resolutions could only be passed by people who are present in Australia, which seems nonsensical in a day and age when we could be joining a Zoom call from anywhere in the world including our New Zealand base, [ colleague, Mr. McKay ]. There were other procedural issues where the changes in the corps law have changed. Our procedure's required by law, but our constitution was at odds with them. So there is nothing particularly earth-shattering. I can assure investors of that. And those who have had the time and the resources to pour into it, you will have seen in the proxy votes that -- and direct votes, it's been well received. So I can assure all shareholders that there is nothing controversial in those changes. But it is about modernizing for a world in which telecommunications are much more prevalent, and we use alternative means, both of conducting meetings and or voting even within the Board.

Thanks, Phil. I think it's just good that you clarified that for all the shareholders. And just the other thing, it's really is important when we had the COVID lockdown. It's really important that shareholders, mom and dad shareholders, self-managed separation funds can come. And sometimes, they'll ask other people who get up and speak, would you mind asking the question? Because we don't. And we've always been happy to do that, Phil, as you know. So I think it's just really important.

It may surprise you to know that I actually quite enjoy coming back to physical meetings as well, so thank you. Microphone 2.

Chair, we have -- I would like to reintroduce Rita [indiscernible].

Great. Ms. [indiscernible]?

Pronounces of my name is getting closer each time. We'll get there. I'm just having a look in regards to this item, the conduct of meetings generally, which is proposing to give you a lot more powers within the meeting, Chair. So for example, the amendments expressly set out certain actions that Chair may take, including to refuse entry to, require the removal of or require security measures in respect of a person using a recording device without consent, or if you think someone has reasonable grounds to be removed. We attended the ANZ AGM yesterday, and the Chairman, Mr. O'Sullivan, whilst some shareholders weren't happy with excessive climate change questions, he promoted freedom of speech and allowed everyone to speak. Then on Wednesday at the Westpac AGM, the Chair, Mr. McFarlane, and members around him instructed security to remove a noisy group within the AGM who refused to leave, and then instructed police to escort them out. So I just want to ask, as Chair of the bank, is this not overreach in your role when you hire so much security and the security measures are just incredible at an AGM? Do you think someone's going to go in there and do something? It's worse than going through an airport. I just don't understand the degree of power for an AGM to be able to dismiss whatever you want is justifiable, really.

Thank you. Can I make a point though? It is -- there are issues about providing a safe environment for the overwhelming majority of our shareholders who attend these meetings. Wanting to ask questions about the business, wanting to ask questions about the banking industry, wanting to idle all the directors and the senior executives on issues that comes in. And I have pretty unlimited patience when it comes to taking questions from shareholders. And those of you who were at my first AGM in 2019 that went on for some 5.5 hours will appreciate that I'm quite happy to be held to account on behalf of the bank. But I do find that it's not in the interest of the majority of our shareholders to have disruptions in the meeting that interfere with the conduct of the meeting because it doesn't give people like yourself, people like our colleague, who was here asking questions on behalf of the [ FSU ], our Australian Shareholders Association representative. And those who want to ask us questions in earnest about our approaches to the major issues, I think they need to have a fair hearing and do it in a safe and constructive environment. So that is why the constitution gives powers to the chair to allow that to be done. But thank you.

I agree, but you already have those powers. Don't you already have those powers, like all the other bank Chairs? You can just ask anyone to remove someone or people to be quiet, or...

Or we can ask people to be quiet, but this makes it quite explicit in the constitution.

But you can have people removed as well because it's your meeting, you're chairing the meeting.

It's the shareholders' meeting, and I'm representing here the shareholders. So thank you.

Yes. Okay.

I've been attending bank AGMs for 20 -- well, actually 30-something years. And some very long ones, I might add as well. And I appreciate the important role they play for our -- particularly for our retail shareholders who, only once a year, get an opportunity to come along and see the leadership of the bank that they have been faithful shareholders to. And I want to make sure that they, and their time, is treated respectfully. So thank you. Are there any further questions in the room? Microphone 1.

Chair, I'd like to introduce Ms. [ Joanna ] Richardson.

Thank you. Ms. Richardson.

I want to follow up on that last one because I was at the Westpac one, and it does seem that you do already have powers to remove people who are particularly disruptive, and I support that. But when you put it into the constitution and make such an issue of it, it's a bit like some of the things we see overseas where you do get worried that it is going to be a power that is capable of being abused, making it fairly clear that certain forms of dissent are not tolerated.

It's certainly not our intention. And I expect the centered meetings like this, and I've never been disappointed. So thank you. Are there any further questions in the room? No. Virginia, are there any questions online?

No further questions, Chair.

And operator, are there any questions from shareholders on the phone for Item 4?

Chair, there are no phone questions.

Indeed. All right. Well, if -- in the absence of any further questions, I'll now formally put to you the item of business 4 as set out in the Notice of Meeting. Please record your vote now if you have not already voted. [Voting]

I'll now turn to the next item of business, Item 5, which is the consideration of the financial report, the Directors' report and the Auditor's report. The Corporations Act requires the directors to lay before the Annual General Meeting the financial report, the Director's report and the Auditor's report for the last financial year. I confirm that NAB has not received any written questions for the Auditor. But if you're in the room and you wish to ask a question on the financial reporting suite and are eligible to, please move to the microphone point nearest to you now. Microphone 1, do you have a question?

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to reintroduce Mr. Chris Schott.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was at the Westpac meeting 2 days ago when the demonstration took part. I thought for 5 minutes, fine, make their point. If it was going to go on for 30 minutes, I would have said piss off. Because I think they made their point, and I believe in demonstration where you make your point, et cetera. I don't -- and I [indiscernible] your remarks. There are some other companies, public companies, not in the banking sector, I see elsewhere that have very restrictive processes that make it very difficult for an ordinary shareholder to ask more than one question before they're ruled out by the Chair, et cetera, and we don't want to go that. And I respect you doing it for 30 years. It means you might be a bit of a masochist, Mr. Chairman, to do all of that. But I think other people have made the comment. A heavy hand will do more damage to the reputation of the bank than being a bit more open and letting the demonstration go for a few minutes, if it is. My question is to the Auditor that I gave earlier about the unfortunate scandal, et cetera. And this is about -- the Ernst & Young is our auditor now. Were they the auditor back for '16, '17, '18?

Yes.

Right. And my question to the Auditor is, how did you miss it? What were you doing when you get paid a large sum of money and lots of people to go through the accounts, how did you miss it? And if you have -- and you have missed it, which you clearly have, until a whistleblower way down the system pointed it out itself. Therefore, I want them to say, explain how they missed it. Two, what have they done since the scandal became public to do anything in changing their auditing processes that catches it in the future? And in particular, have they insisted that the list of all the delegated authorities to individuals to be able to make payments without reference to the Audit Committee of the executive or of the Board. And what are the limits they put on now the -- how much can be delegated? I don't expect them to chase down the local branch manager of the -- Glyn Bank, who's no longer there, of course. Having the right to delegate to spend AUD 50,000 a year on painting the office or bloody something. But if someone gets AUD 20 million, I want to know that that is being checked, and that no one else at that sort of level of millions of dollars of delegated authority, including the Chairman, the Chief Executive, and the chief and the other top executives that are in the bank. Therefore, those are that -- one, how did you miss it? Two, is the bank seeking a refund from Ernst & Young for missing it and the damage done to the brand of a national bank? That is extraordinary. And I think if you're not asking for it, Mr. Chairman, you should, and I think you should take legal action because they have done by their incompetence, and that's what I call it, they have done damage to the bank standing. It's done damage to the business for it. And third question is they're still the auditor, and I'm amazed they still are, I think you ought to review whether they should continue the auditing, Mr. Chairman. What have they done to monitor the delegated authority of all the staff who have seen -- have delegated authority to spend what most ordinary people would see is considerable sums of money? I'll ask that question now, and then I got some others on the general report.

Okay, fine. I am going to allow [ Ms. Lowe ] to respond to your question after I just make one very important point. The primary accountability for the production of the financial reports and the financial statements is with the company. It is not the responsibility of the auditor. And therefore, it is our fault that, that control failed and it is our accountability. Now, that's not to say that the auditors didn't have a process which they go through, but I just want to be very clear that it is the primary responsibility for the financial control of this company rests with the Board and the management of the company. The auditors don't do that work on our behalf. But [ Sarah ], is there anything you'd like to say?

Thank you, Mr. Schott, for your question. And I'm sure it's for the interest to all shareholders. Let us start by summarizing our audit responsibility under the Corporations Act, which is to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial report as a whole is free from material of the statement. To help users of the financial statements better understand our scope and procedures of our audit opinion, so -- and our procedures, our audit opinion is on Page 245 to 252 of the Annual Report. And it also summarizes the key audit matters, which were most significant in our audit for the current year. In relation to your specific question and in accordance with ASA 240, the auditor's responsibilities relating to fraud in an audit of the financial report, the auditor is responsible for obtaining reasonable assurance that the financial report taken as a whole is free for a material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. The fraud that you've related to is immaterial to NAB's group financial statements in both, the year it was identified as well as in each of the preceding years of which the alleged fraud is proposed to have occurred. I remain satisfied that the audit opinion for the year ended 30 September 2022, as well as the previous reporting periods' audit report still remains appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I -- in the past, I've Chaired a number of not-for-profit organizations, and we have an auditor. And I have to say the auditors I've dealt with, these small, non-for-profit, have asked questions about the accounts, what was paid and double checked by us informally. And so I'm a bit amazed that all this delegated stuff was not asked, if it was, I hope it was. And it's -- now that the scandal has happened, have they got -- that they should go back as an independent auditor. And so that's not an unreasonable thing for you now to check. But [indiscernible]...

Can I just reinforce my point?

Mr. Chair, I know what you said. The bank takes full responsibility what happens. I accept that, I accept that. But why are we paying an auditor just to go through the process at the end of each year to say everything is reasonable, we had a good look at it. In the general picture, the financial cost losing a few tens of millions of dollars for the bank, this fraud in a bank turnover of several billion dollars is not material to the survival of the bank, et cetera. Well, it is material in that it did damage to the standing of the brand name of the NAB. That is material. And I accept that you have apologized and Doug has also apologized, et cetera, and have said how embarrassed you are. I think that's wonderful you've done that today. I think that improves the standing of the bank by doing it. But I do believe -- I don't know what we pay the auditor. Probably whatever it is, it's a big job.

It's in the report. It's in the report.

What? In the report, which I've forgotten to read that part, I suppose you might say I've missed it. But I just want to leave it is that under the Corporations Act, or under the arrangements of ASIC or wherever it is, how often do you have to change the auditor?

We're not required to change the audit firm under the current guidelines. You may recall there was a parliamentary committee inquiring into that issue, which did not make any firm recommendation about changing audit firms. Nonetheless, the firms are required to change the lead partner every 5 years. And this, in fact, is the last year that [ Ms. Lowe ] is our signing partner, and we have a new signing partner, Mr. [ Dring ], who's also sitting in the front row here today.

One last question.

The last time we changed firms, I believe it was around 2004, '05, shortly after the issues that arose in [indiscernible].

One other question that I'm sure there's -- the answer would be absolutely no. You have not employed Ernst & Young to do any other consulting work for the business of the bank other than the audit. Is that correct?

So we had a very tight process around the employment of Ernst & Young. They are required to do the audit. There are some audit-related services that apply, and there are some slower activities that it is usual and normal for an audit firm to provide. But we do not provide -- we do not employ Ernst & Young for any general consulting work, all right? And then I think there is one exception to that which occurred through a joint industry project in New Zealand, and it's been articulated in the report.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have any more questions on the -- more than adequately dealt with. In view of it, and you've been very open about the scandal. I want to ask now a question about buybacks. At the Westpac meeting I went to 2 days ago, I pointed out that they -- it was in their report. Earlier this year, they completed a buyback. They spent AUD 3.5 billion. And in the report, it says only 5% of the shares were bought back. They spent AUD 3.5 billion buying them back. They expect less than AUD 3 billion to pay the dividends to the whole 100% of us in that bank. I raised the question, is that an efficient use of the profits of the bank and the financial? But 5% of the shareholders got an extra AUD 3.5 billion on top of their dividend, and the rest of us didn't. And I come to the [ collission ] some time ago. Many countries in the Western world actually ban buybacks. And I think I've come to the conclusion that it would be straighter for everybody that we didn't have it. So I just want to say, do we have a policy in the future? In the foreseeable future, you're going to put up a proposal for a buyback. And if you do, I hope -- well, I hope you don't. But if you do, I do not want the buyback being used to boost the payment to the senior staff because it's a clear-cut way to boost the salaries of the top executives to say, "Oh, we had a buyback, there's now less shares. There's now less shares. The share price has gone up. Therefore, you get a bonus because the share price has gone up." I only think you should get a bonus under strong conditions if you've improved the business of the bank, not by using a buyback. Now the Chairman, Mr. McFarlane took on note what I said, he didn't disagree -- he didn't agree with me but he did note the point I was making for it. So I just want to know where we are on buybacks, if they are in the foreseeable future in the planning of the bank?

So let me just provide some additional context before I come to the direct answer. Over a number of years leading up to 2020, NAB was involved in what you might call the opposite of buybacks, which is that through dividend reinvestment plans and various measures, we were continually issuing new shares. And the effect of that was to dilute our shareholders' investments in the company because each year, more and more shares were on the books and therefore, we were paying the earnings out across more and more shares. As a strategic position, we've set an objective to try and stop doing that. So what we are now seeking to do, and we will occasionally use buybacks to achieve this, is to make sure that the share count, rather than continually increasing, remain stable or slightly decline. It's not our intent to use the off-market buyback mechanism, which in any event, the government has recently sought to make less attractive for consumption of franking credits. But I cannot say that we're not going to do buybacks because it will be a way for making sure that when we are forced into situations of issuing shares, it enables us to ensure that the share count doesn't continue to grow and dilute our shareholders' interests.

A pretty reasonable answer, but you've taken a warning that one shareholder might be back here in the near future if you try. I also presume we do not provide money lending facilities to companies that are into short selling, where like, they buy shares. They borrow money, buy shares or -- not buy. They borrow shares for 3 or 4, 6 months. Once they get the money, pay immediately, sell those shares at that price, then spend 3 months doing everything to force the price down so when they have to return the shares, that only cost us AUD 2 less a share, they make a profit. But they wrecked the performance of the company, they destabilized it. And the companies that are in long-term manufacturing, et cetera, that can be a very untoward outcome. Now I just wondered -- I presume that you don't lend people money to go and be short sellers.

I presume so, too, and I will be very disappointed if that was the case. So -- and David, I presume that you would be, too. The Head of our Institutional business says that he [indiscernible].

Mr. Chairman, I -- one other matter you talked about briefing -- about briefing the market, et cetera to the financial advisers, the investment consultants, et cetera. They can all phone into when the new, or particularly the CEO or CEO of the Chief Finance, gives a briefing to the market. Is it possible that shareholders like me can join that briefing you give to the market about the performance of the bank from time to time? Is there a way of which we can register to -- at least listen?

I don't know. They can? The answer is yes, you can.

Okay. And it's just a normal way to -- you don't have to have a code to get in or anything?

I don't believe so. If you do, there will be instructions on the website. So on the -- in the website on the shareholder calendar, it should say that there's a results briefing at a given point in time and then details of how to log in there. I've done it from home, so I presume it's still...

Yes, okay. Fine. But you're the Chairman, I would expect you to have...

Well, sometimes, I haven't told them I'm looking at it, so.

Very good. Very good. I finished remarks on the general report. I have got one later on when we get to the Resolution 6, I have a comment as I made similar at the Westpac. You talked about Board composition. Other people have made it. I'm very pleased to hear your open-mindedness about some indigenous background. When I look along the names by the male or female or the board, all but one are a white, Anglo-Saxon name. That's almost impossible to avoid in view of getting experience, et cetera. Mr. Gupta, I don't think I could...

I prefer to use the term Anglo-Caltech myself.

Yes. Of course. But I just -- I do think and the changes that are going on, in particular, you've emphasized the climate change issue or everything that goes with it, you can't stand still as a Board of what the traditional structure of the Board is. We can have 40% women, 40% men, that's fine, but you do need a broader range. And is it possible, very hard, can you find somebody who's not in my age group? Is in the age group of the 30s, et cetera, the millennials as they described elsewhere or whatever, not us old baby boomers to be on the Board? And I just -- Chairman, you've made some very good comments about the need to renew the structure of the Board. And I appreciate that, and good luck to it.

Thank you, Mr. Schott. Microphone 3?

Chair, I would like to reintroduce Simon [indiscernible].

Yes. Good afternoon, I suppose it is now. Just a story. When I started work 55-odd years ago, we -- next couple few doors down the road, there's a bank branch. And you get paid just before the lunch, you go down to the bank, put your money in, they'd write it in a little passbook and stamp it and then initial it, and off you go. Well, anyhow, one day, I went on Bank [indiscernible] and then thought about it later on the day. I know there's some money at, so I went down there. And the normal teller wasn't there, but somebody else was. And he said I was a bit of a problem with this. Can you come back in an hour? So I went back an hour later. And as I was going in the door, the original teller was escorted out of the bank by 2 detectives. And I said to the new teller, I said, "What happened there?" And he said, "Oh, he was betting on the horses. He was using your money to fix somebody else's account that he'd taken money out of the day before. And tomorrow, he will get somebody else's money, put in your account". Well, my question is, this was 55 years or more ago. How much fraud goes on in the bank, and why don't we hear about it? And the second question is, how many shares that are on issue get voted in the Annual Meeting?

I'll answer the second question for you first. The answer is 53% of our shares have been voted in this meeting.

It's not many, is it?

That means that 47% aren't, so you're right.

Do more about that.

So I'm very keen to have more voting. The very largest shareholders do vote. I suspect that the missing shareholders are the smaller investment firms and the bigger retail investors. That's the best evidence that we have. Small retail investors are usually okay at voting, probably only in the 50-percentage range. But the very largest shareholders, the top sort of 30% or 40%, do vote.

Back to the fraud.

Fraud. Fraud is a -- both internal fraud and external fraud is an ongoing bane of our lives. The reduction in the use of cash in banking, which -- and checks over the last 30, 40 years means that fraud now shows up in different ways. So it's -- we very rarely see fraud of the nature that you're talking about, which is misuse of cash in a branch environment. It's not to say it never happens, but we -- it's simply not an ongoing problem. But we would -- most of the cost of fraud that we hear is where people -- it's credit card fraud, where some criminal gets hold of somebody's credit card number. That would be the largest consistent source of fraud. That's an external fraud, not an internal one. Internal ones are quite rare, which is why it was particularly disappointing the one that was -- that's been talked about in this meeting today because that clearly was an aberration.

And another question is just -- Chris brought it up. Does the bank lend shares to short sellers?

No. The bank does not.

Any division of the bank?

No, we don't -- we don't really have an area of the bank involved in that type of activity. I mean, the only areas that engage in shares at all are our online broker, which clearly doesn't and our JBWere business, and it's not a feature of their business. Microphone #2.

Chair, I would like to introduce Craig Caufield.

My heart skip a beat when I heard the response from the auditor to [indiscernible] question that $20 million was not meaningful. So that means the external, there's no external auditing done. And given that there's 2 people in jail, there's no internal auditing that was sufficient then. I'm flabbergasted. But that leads me to think that if $20 million is not meaningful, what is meaningful in the bank's business is Home lending. That is the biggest part of the bank. And we know that in some, a minority, not the majority, but in some home lending, there is fraud.

Yes.

We've heard of lines. Llyod loans could be the borrower that is fraudulent in their application. Sometimes, it's the broker. Sometimes it's bankers. UBS has reported that Llyod loans could be up to $200 billion. On the back of the auditor's comments, I would like to know from the auditor how many loan application files does the order to interrogate and of those loan application files, how many have found to be fraudulent?

So I do need to be clear, it is not the role of the external auditor to review loan application files. Let me just describe the risk management framework and a large organization. There are what are called 3 lines of accountability. The first line of accountability is the business itself. The people who run the home loans business are responsible for the integrity of the home loan process. It's their job to ensure that there are controls in place to make sure that fraud is either prevented or if it's sneaks through as detected. There's then what's called the second line of accountability. And these are the functions within the bank, be it the risk function or an internal audit function that check on those processes to see whether or not they are working. The role of the external auditor is to provide an assurance on the end result, which is the financial statements of the bank. So as part of that, they will review the overall framework for controls, but it is not the job of the external auditor to do a file-by-file review of the home loan book. It is the responsibility of the people running the home loan business to have in place a control environment, and it is the responsibility of our risk function and our internal audit function to periodically check that those processes work. So I just want to be clear. I just don't want Sarah being put in a position at asking questions that are simply not appropriate for her. But I'm happy, and I know that Russell Gary would be happy to take the question, which is how do our review processes work. And as you appreciate, we did discover in the Royal Commission, that there were issues around frauds and the home loan process from introducers, and we shut that program down.

Yes, thank you for explaining the 3 lines of defense. And I now understand that the auditor doesn't look at any of the loans and that that's done internally. Yesterday at the ANZ AGM, they mentioned that using artificial intelligence. They found in the current year or a year recently, 3,500 loan applications that contain fraud. So they've used this new technology to find that. Is NAB using this technology to find fraud in loan applications?

Ross?

Thank you very much for the question. We do, but we also have a very thorough process at front end, be it through our own personal bankers that do the application. There's a lot of technology that is used to validate the information that the customer puts in or that the broker has put in via the customer because that is where the fraud will come. The second point is around income validation that we have to do the checking on. The second validation is does the property exist? And is the valuation of the property, the right valuation or whether the bad. That's something else that we do to check again through fraud because some of the fraud comes through from putting valuations that are incorrect, that's the second check we do. We also have a team that do the second assurances the Chairman has said to make sure that we're going through and checking files. And when you're looking at a new lender, you do considerable file checking, i.e. 100% and to lay our experience. And then you're constantly going through on a base of, I think, about 5% of checking files to make sure fraud, but also that we're following our responsible banking requirements. And we're using more and more data searching that actually is enabling us to be A, be quicker; and two, to find exactly what you're looking -- you're talking about, but that is not the external auditor's role. It's role done by our businesses and it's their accountability. Thank you.

Yes. Thanks, Mr. McKeon. The verification -- I understand the valuations in confirming the property. In my CBA loan, [indiscernible] has found out obtaining it through Freedom of information. There was a property added in my loan that I never owned and never knew about. So these things happen and verification is required, so that's good to hear. But some more granular insurances for this verification. I see that across the board that verification failures occur, but thank you for responding to that. Now I would like to hear more on that later privately.

Thank you. Microphone #1.

Sure. I'd like to reintroduce Mr. Michael Sanderson.

I'd just like to feel a little bit on what Mr. Caulfield has just pointed out, but from the perspective of your customers consumer. It goes to the issue of access to justice when things go wrong and issues of disproportionate power. AFCA, Australian Financial Complaints Authority, is perceived by banks. Bank consumers to be a bias in favor of its members yet banks routinely claimed that AFCA is independent and impartial. Some examples that the banks are wrong are. A former AFCA case manager who will call RC worked for NAB for 29 years before working for AFCA for 2 years. He then took up a position with Bankwest. Just prior to leaving AFCA, RC found in favor of a Bankwest matter as a case manager. Also Gerard Brody of Consumer Action Law Center, CALC, found that of all home lending complaints made to AFCA in the year 2020, there were no determinations that favored the consumer. Also in March of this year, 2020 an AFCA ruling was overturned by the New South Wales Supreme Court due to the absence of impartiality and independence, and I would say that if more consumers had access to the courts, that would be a common place finding. I personally know as a complainant and as an ex member of AFCA that AFCA is biased to the point of corruption. And I don't say that lightly because there's no meaningful AFCA merits review of NAB cases and other bank case for that matter, outside the courts. Is NAB prepared to consider funding a merits review of NAB AFCA cases in the federal court?

Well, I've never contemplated that. And if you want us to look at that, you can write to us and ask us that and I can give it some thought, but certainly not prepared to comment to it today.

I'd like a little bit more focused. I'd like to write to somebody because you don't write to an organization.

You can write to Ms. Sharon Cook.

Ms. Sharon Cook. I do have another issue here. I'll just -- here we go. Regarding NAB risk going forward with particular focus on the mandatory contractual warranty of the bank, the coated banking practice. Does the NAB Board acknowledge that NAB and its internal and external lawyers are mandatory required to comply with Clause 35 of the code. If not, why not? If so, is NAB aware of any occasion where its lawyers have not fully complied with Clause 35 the code in the past?

I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that question, but I believe that we would comply. And you've asked about in the past, and definitely I would have to want to go back and do a review to answer that, I don't have an idea.

Okay. The [indiscernible] code banking practice states at disputes handling will be free of charge and meet the standards set out in the Australian standard AS4269-199 follow just for information, you've got to buy that stead, cost you $170 to buy an Australian standard offshore. I just find that with these, but it features in the code of banking practice. My understanding that while in dispute, NAB also uses its credit issuing powers and routinely issues additional credit to some borrowers and charges them interest to pay for their lawyers. So effectively, what they do is use credit to the loan account to pay the lawyers. Experiences, and this is my case of Bank of Queensland. The Bank of Queensland net at $115,000 from a farm. They valued at $900,000 when the legal costs reached $115,000, the Bank of Queensland wrote off the debt and discontinued legal action. I understand from that point to make Queensland would have had to use their own capital to continue. Apart from the obviously abuse of the bank's credit issuing powers can NAB explain how this is not a breach of the code in the standard, and would NAB agree that such a practice is an abuse of power which further amplifies your equity or quality of arms in the court.

Is that the extent of the question?

Thank you.

Well, I can't provide any answer to any of that question. You've asked me a hypothetical as to whether something would be a breach. If it was set out that way, the way you've described it, that's probably the case, but I have no knowledge of the underlying facts you're talking about. So perhaps we can go to the next question.

I'll just make a comment that the fact that you're unable to answer the question, obviously demonstrates a disconnect and lack of knowledge of what's actually going on out there.

I appreciate that you said there and prepare a very convoluted hypothetical question, but I'm just not in a position to answer questions like that.

Is there a possibility to talk?

Look, you can provide those questions in writing. You can come up to us and ask us afterwards. In fact, the sooner we get through the questions, the sooner will be able to come and have conversations with our shareholders. Microphone 2?

Chair, I would like to introduce Peter Star.

I'll be brief, Phil and shareholders. Phil, can you just elaborate on what Project Eagle was all about?

Sorry, in the context of the Rosemont fraud, Project Eagle was the term used for the onboarding of a former executive of ours.

Which was Mike Baird, correct?

That is correct.

So in the process of this recruitment of Mike Baird, can you confirm for the shareholders that Ms. Rosemont obtained $2.2 million by billing NAB for fraudulent expenses relating to a planned Code 9 Project Eagle

That's correct, and that was in the court proceedings.

So here's the question if we have the former executive to 2 CEOs, and they were long-term CEOs. And the other lady billing the bank through the same company that should set up and nobody picks it up, the shareholders I represent, Phil, scratch their heads were just disbelief because the thing is that the common sense thing you would think that somebody would say, "Hey, there's a reoccurring invoice for this to same thing, same thing, same thing, but nobody picks it up." And whether it be the audit? And can you tell the shareholders and everyone in the room and everyone who's listening who was in charge on the Board as the Head of Risk and who was in charge of risk within the executive. And we can't be blaming Mr. McEwan because he wasn't here.

So I'll broaden the question for you because there's both a risk issue and audit and controls issue here. The people in charge of the risk committee through that time would have varied because there would have been between 2013 when it started and 2017 when it was broken out. I think we would have had 3 different chairs of the Risk Committee. And for the last year of that, the 12 months leading entity blowing I was the Chair of the Risk Committee.

Can you confirm, please, Phil that the whistleblower actually informed you.

No, no, because the whistleblower process goes to the Chair of the Audit Committee. So the Audit Committee Chair was Mr. David Armstrong, and he was the person who received and dealt with the whistleblower complaint.

The reason I asked you that, Phil, was because the wide-scale fraud came undone in December 2017 after the whistleblower informed NAB executives and the bank's Chairman. The reason I asked you that wasn't to try and trap you or anything like that, Phil, it's not the purpose. The purpose I raised these issues on behalf of the shareholders I represent, and all the other shareholders in the room, is that I still find that gobsmacking -- and I appreciate you've apologize, and I accept the apology on behalf of the shareholders that I represent. But I look at it, Phil, with all due respect to you, as a simple common sense, Phil, like I tried to apply common sense in most things I do with the clients I interact with, and it seems that the common sense was missing here or people were just asleep at the wheel because I still can't understand that. The shareholders I represent say to me, Peter, are they seriously telling us or hoodwinked us. And I'm not trying to label the point. I'm just trying to make you understand as...

Peter, you can take my assurance. I was at gobsmacked as you are when I discovered what was going on. So I fully understand why you would be because it is shattering.

It is

I'm a former Chief Financial Officer myself. I've been in charge for financial control environments. And it was unbelievable that we had a situation where that was allowed to occur, and that's why I have apologized, and that's why I have had an overhaul of all of the controls around the way much expenditures operate.

Just one final thing. Are we entitled and I think Chris has already raised this, but do we have insurance? Or do we have some way of recouping that 100?

To be clear, the overbilling was $20 million, not $100 million. And I appreciate that you may have felt that the auditors' comments around materiality were concerning. But if you have $20 million over a 5-year period. This is actually understandable why an external auditor looking only at the macro picture, wouldn't have drilled down to that level. That doesn't excuse it. it's inexcusable. I don't think it was covered by insurance. We do have insurance. But in X like this, I'm not sure we would have sorry. we're still seeking to recover. Okay. So there is -- I mean the bank does have insurance, but you can imagine like most insurance policies, there are deductibles that need to be taken into account.

I understand that you might have to pay $1,000 if you make a home claim or something like that. But look, if it's $20 million, and we have to make -- we had to make a $250,000 payment. I think that it's worth it to get the $20 million back to the shareholders, Phil.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. Microphone #1.

Chair, I'd like to introduce Mr. Lynton Freeman.

Mr. Freeman?

Phil, in the early part of the 2000s, the bank accused of manufacturing way of taking money from all and to very get into loans and returning it back to Ireland with no tax paid on. AFCA did a report into it, and I found that the bank was not explaining probably to AFCA or anyone else. So they will do with a corporate culture of doing things and then covering it up. Now the problem we have here is that in 2004 to 2011, you paid 36 refunds to customers reported to be a forecast for the bank as $1 billion. Now since then, these things have happened, again, and the bank's accounts are incorrect for individuals. So you now got the situation where before the courts for what happened between 2015 and 2019 on PPEs. The court has returned it to you for a discussion for more money or why the group might be. But there was no fine yet. But how many others between 2011 and 2015 have been caught with the same team within correct accounting and the bank continues.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand.

Well, the bank space situation the people are correct, and you're not doing anything to correct it.

The bank's accounts are not correct?

The bank statements that you're issuing to people are incorrect. You're not doing anything to fix it.

I'm sorry. In what way are they not correct?

The quantum. In 2015 to 2019 claim is for PPEs, an extra cost for PPEs. Now these things are continuing.

I'm sorry. I do not understand the point you might...

All right. Okay. point is that you're charging fees that don't exist. In any of your contracts, they don't exist. And when you get pulled up for it, you cover it up.

That's not true. There have been a couple of items included in there was a core case on periodic payment fees, where it was determined that we were not entitled to charge those fees, and we have settled that and remediated customers. So I'm not -- I don't get your point.

The point is that between 2011 and 2015, there was a lot of other people that worked damage by the same sort of problem and you haven't yet found a way to sort it out, so it doesn't become an issue.

Okay. Well, I'm sorry, but you'll have to provide us with some more information then I follow through. Thank you. Microphone 2.

Chair, I would like to reintroduce Rita Mazalevskis.

How's power is going? I don't want to start calling you Mr. Morrison.

My powers will be -- we settled after the meeting apparently when the voting closes.

You don't need anymore. You're fine, you're creating along. Okay. I just want to discuss the AUSTRAC issue. Yes. So I just want to read a little bit of this out just for the audience. In April this year, AUSTRAC accepted an enforceable undertaking from NAB to lift its compliance with anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing laws. Following its investigation into compliance with certain AML/CTF requirements by certain reporting entities within the group. AUSTRAC enforcement investigation identified concerns about NAB's AML/CTF program, systems and controls. AUSTRAC identified noncompliant and targeted compliance assessments as well as through self-disclosures from NAB. AUSTRAC states NAB has undertaken to implement a comprehensive remedial actual action plan, which will see improvements to its systems controls and record keeping, including: applicable customer identification procedures, customer risk assessment and enhancement and enhanced customer due diligence, sorry, transaction monitoring, governance and insurance and the NAB Design business group AML/CTF program. Then further in the annual report under financial crime, it states financial crime has a devastating impact on the group's customers and community. The group has 0 tolerance for criminal activity and remains dedicated to effectively managing financial crime risk and ultimately keeping customers, communities and the financial system safe. So I would like to highlight to the Board and make them aware that you would have a lot of agreed customers out there who have been harmed through this exact AML/CTF noncompliance through the loan process and which some, some, which would include fraud, which is not easily found as we've ascertained today, and which some have had their homes repossessed. So I wanted to find out with this AUSTRAC issue and the undertaking, what is the structure of the remediation plan for this issue?

So for the benefit of other shareholders who may be aware, NAB was found to have a number of shortcomings in its AML processes. And we have entered into a remediation action plan to correct those. Ms. Mazalevskis has already articulated many of those, which are about customer identification processes, ongoing customer due diligence and in high-risk customers enhanced customer due diligence. Very little of the AML/CTF legislation applies to -- it does apply to loan accounts. but that's not itself a significant risk area. Most of the AML controls relate to properly identifying customers and then monitoring their activities, particularly payment activities, bearing in mind that AML is essentially trying to identify where money laundering may exist or AML/CTF is to prevent the financing of terrorism, and that typically involves payments. So the particular controls are most significance in terms of payments offshore or payments outside of the banking group. But that's not to say that there aren't some areas of lending that are covered by AML because purchasing of the property and then reselling it may well be a money laundering activity, if not done properly. But that's different from other forms of home loan fraud. I don't want to make sure we don't confuse those.

Okay.

And we have a program which we agreed with our regulator, and we're proceeding to implement that program. We have a structure in place where the Board oversees that on a regular basis.

So we're now in December 2022, given what happened to Westpac and CBA, how has there been so much time frame between these issues? So this to only just rise now about that?

It didn't just arise now. We started, as I recall, in our 2017 annual report. We put in place a contingent liability disclosure identifying that we have some of these issues underway. And we've been working with AUSTRAC pretty consistently on those to resolve them. So it's been going on for some time. Microphone #1.

I'd like to introduce Mr. Jonathan Moylan.

I might defer to you on where I should ask this because my question was actually about nature-related risk.

Sorry, about?

Nature-related risk. Is this an appropriate place to ask?

Yes, go ahead.

On Monday, NAB was identified in the benchmarking report as one of -- as the only 1 of the big 4 banks to have really started to engage in the process of identifying and assessing maturated risks. That's an important first step. But obviously, there's a long way to go. It's why at the moment, world leaders are gathered in Montreal and are on the cusp of coming to agreement on mandatory nature-related risk disclosure, which is a Board-level issue. And we heard last week from the treasury [indiscernible] that it's likely that some of this will come under the ambit of regulation around -- there be oversight by possibly the AASB or another regulator. And it's not hard to understand why this would be the case consider the impact that the critical importance of pollination of water filtration, of the potential loss of ecosystems like the great Barrier Reef, the Murray-Darling Basin, upon which entire sectors of the economy depends. So I guess it's really a 2-part question. The first one is, to what extent does the independent auditor have is expected to have oversight of material misstatement when it comes to risks that were once perceived to be tangential not core business for banks like nature-related risks. The other question is really perhaps more for you, Mr. Chair or Mr. McEwan around whether or not -- whether it would be prudent for the bank to consider the consistency with internationally agreed standards like the UN high-level expert and group recommendations on net 0 emissions, which precludes financial credit to deforestation, given the high level of interest by regulators in the integrity of environmental claims by financial institutions and others.

Thank you. And thank you for raising that. This has been something that we are alert to. And in fact, for over 10 years, we've been a signatory for that full capital declaration. We are a large lender in the agricultural sector, and therefore, the long-term sustainability of agriculture is very much dependent on ensuring environmental protection and encouraged with a biodiversity and supporting biodiversity. And I know Ross and I have both done a number of customer visits where we've seen firsthand some very good work that's been done on regeneration of bush in order to improve soil productivity through improving moisture retention, for example. Your question about the role of the external auditor. As you would be aware, there's been a task force for nature-related financial disclosures, and we've been an active participant in the work for the TFND. And that will ultimately much as the rest of the climate-related disclosure work, the task force on climate-related disclosures, that work will end up with the International Sustainability Standards Board, which is likely to come out with reporting standards. And at the point those standards are clear and they're adopted in Australia, it will then be the role of the external auditor to ensure that our disclosures are consistent with those standards and are accurate. At the moment, they are not part of the formal financial reporting suite. That's not to say that the external auditor doesn't review all of our disclosures to make sure or help us identify any potential material misstatements. But the formal obligation on the auditor is not likely to occur until those standards are adopted, but we are very alert to the issue and thank you for raising it.

And the second part of the question was really about whether it would be prudent for the bank to if that has assessed that there is exposure to deforestation and agriculture lending portfolio, whether it would be a standard condition.

It is something we support the direction of the question you were saying. For no other reason than it is fundamentally a risk issue if we're active in the agricultural sector, the long-term sustainability of the sector is going to be dependent on quality environmental controls. So we are looking at it not just from an ultraistic viewpoint, but in fact, from a risk management viewpoint. Thank you. Microphone 2.

Chair, I'd like to reintroduce Peter Star.

Thank you, Phil. Is the Board aware 2 weeks ago that settlement was reached with Commonwealth Bank ANZ and Westpac in relation to $126 million settlement? That's the first question.

On what?

In relation to a class action brought by Slater and Gordon. Now some of those banks that have to pay that money was in relation to issues to do with customers, thankfully, not from NAB. Has the AUSTRAC investigation, given us an undertaking that they are not going to pursue that for a financial penalty?

When we signed the enforced -- prior to signing the in-force school undertaking, they said they were not pursuing civil penalties at that time. The signing the enforceable undertaking then puts us in a position where they are not pursuing civil penalties in respect of past activity, but we, of course, have to complete the remediation action plan that we've agreed to. And until we do that, we can't say that there won't be any conflict.

The reason I raised that, Phil, is because the Board or yourself may not be aware, Ross may be aware that case has just finished in the federal court and that's been going for nearly 8 weeks that involve that AUSTRAC and what happened to shareholder value against the Commonwealth Bank. And I just wanted to know, given where that AUSTRAC matter now 6-week NAB last.

You can imagine we're acutely aware of the issues there, and that's why we have worked so hard to make sure that we can satisfy AUSTRAC.

Right. And if we do satisfy is it your understanding that they will not pursue a civil penalty? And the reason I asked this question is that are any of the other regulatory bodies that oversight the banks, are there any other actions that are coming down the thing that we don't know about, please?

So the ones -- are there any that you don't know about, the answer I'm pretty confident would be no. They're -- you may recall that ASIC had a number of actions against NAB off the back of the Royal Commission.

That's correct.

The last of those, to my understanding was in court recently. It was to do with periodic payment fees.

That's correct.

And the judgment has been finalized only a matter of weeks ago. And all we are at the moment is awaiting the final tells you're hearing. I'm not aware of any other ASIC action against us. I don't believe any other regulators in Australia have any issues on [indiscernible] or aware of any other others either, and I've got my General Counsel shaking their head, so I'm taking that as assurance that I'm right.

Just on that penalty, the General Counsel shaking ahead, any idea what the penalty is likely to be because that will impact obviously all the shareholders in the room?

Look, no, is the answer. And I don't want to speculation. Microphone #1.

Chair, I'd like to reintroduce Ms. Christine Hayden, I volunteer monitor from the Australian Shareholders Association.

Thank you, Chair. It's pleasing to see such the stronger, safer and simpler bank strategies working for us all. Our question is in terms of the dividend, which is still below the dividend amount that was paid pre COVID and before the APRA caps that were put on dividends. Could you please give us some further detail on the dividend policy. And I know the target payout ratio is 65%, I think, to 70%, something like that. Could you just give us some more thinking about the Board's strategy in this respect? Can you just sort of elaborate a bit on that piece?

So just to provide some additional context to the question, and it really cuts back to question Mr. Schot asked earlier, which is our cash earnings are now above where they were in that pretty well commission period, but our dividend is below that. And that's because the number of new shares that were issued over a long period of time means that we are paying that dividend across a larger number of shares than we would have been. This approach of the bank is, as I indicated earlier, to stop that continual dilution of our shareholders' interests and actually have the share count falling rather than growing. And therefore, we should be able to sustain dividends as long as the earnings are sustained. We say that we will pay around 65% to 75% of sustainable earnings because there are periods in which the bad debt charges can be quite volatile. And for example, at the moment, irrespective of some of the issues in the economy, our bad debt charges are actually quite low. And therefore, we're slightly at the lower end of the range because we have to anticipate they might rise and we don't want the dividend to be too volatile. But as earnings grow and if we are successful in our strategy of containing the share count, then we should see dividends grow through time. And it certainly is my aspiration, if possible, to get back to a pre-2018 levels of dividend because I think that would be a great place to get our shareholders back to. Thank you. Microphone #2.

Chair, I would like to introduce Rowan Boe.

Thank you, Chair, shareholders, Board. what I'm about to ask is probably applied to a number of the items already and I'm listening closely to your hope that a lot of what I would like to say might relate to item 6. I've got plan to catch back to Narrabri this afternoon. So I could just ask your indulgence.

I'm sure a number of us had planes to catch.

Yes, and unfortunately, look, as I said, I traveled here representing not only myself as a shareholder and others, but also to represent some of the rural communities that we've already talked about. And you recently just mentioned quite a lot about the importance of the agricultural sector. So as you would be aware, and most people would be aware that the Maules Creek and the narrow bright communities host mines funded by NAB, but these mines have created very significant removal of groundwater across a very large area of country and new mines are going to see significantly greater impacts. 100,000 hectares of great farming land has been removed by NAB funded projects. And 1 local primary school is now down to 1 pupil for next year because of this depopulation. So all of these fundamental risks still fundamental tasks that overall community once shared broadly are now shared by 1 or 2 stalwarts and sporting clubs have gone like the groundwater that was once abundant. So just over a year ago, Chair, and quite recently, you've articulated a lot of promise, a lot of hope, and this is what I really want to get to. This is the fundamental part of my question. And that new region was about renewable energy and how really important it was for the bank and for the Australian economy generally. You've actually said that the scale of action is far broader than the industrial revolution that we've be half of that time. And I think this is a really good way of characterizing what we're against and what we're up for, but there's a great opportunity and where we're talking about the directors, I'm really hoping that the directors can actually equip themselves particular Director Fagg is now in Cairo. I think that's a tremendously good move to, there's a great deal of technology, and I have a concern here, and this is what I was going to bring u before. is that the Board really doesn't understand or I don't think has the capacity to understand the actual size of the question that you put well, I think. And so people like me are already leading the charge, okay? So this is why I'm a large-scale developer of renewable energies in the Northwest. I wouldn't wonder whether there is an opportunity for yourself, your executive and Board members to quit themselves with and listen to some of the people who really know what the future is going to look like. And I'm developing currently with my group bioenergy that will future -- be the future fuel of the global shipping area, and that will come from the Narrabri district. So what I'm saying is there is a future after fossil fuels.

Yes.

But how would you see the bank quitting itself to actually learn the really from the people who've got the checkbooks, people that you would be lending to? And would you then come to Narrabri and listen to the story of what the future really does look like, what this industrial revolution will become.

Great. I was going to make a couple of quick comments. One, which is a comment to others in the room, the sooner we can deal with Item 5, the sooner we can get on to Item 6 and everyone can be fairly treated. So I am going to ask if we can now be in the last couple of questions on item 5. I'd love to go to Narrabri. I think I might have said that on the phone line 2 years ago. So I will point out that I did spend quite a lot of time this year, both in the Northern Territory and Queensland visiting businesses, in some cases, agricultural businesses that are doing quite concrete things, including some of the biofuel activity. So the answer is I absolutely agree. It's important. But can I -- I really want to see if we can get off Item 5 and then have a more thorough discussion on item 6. So the answer is yes, we are doing work on the Board to make sure that they are further informed, and we are trying to build up the skill levels of the Board, and we are trying to engage with people who are active in the area. But seriously, if we could close off Item 5 in the next couple of minutes, we can get on to Item 6 and then have a really thorough discussion on it. Micro #1.

I'd like to reintroduce Ms. Joanna Richardson.

I'm also interested in item 6, but hopefully, this is pretty quick to follow up to a point Mr. Sanderson made because I've got a particular interest in independent Merits review. So what is the rate of success of Merit's review with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority for the bank? Because if it's no one, that's just shocking.

I don't know the answer to that, but it would be reviewed by the committee. So it's not no one.

It's certainly not no one?

No. There certainly isn't no one. There are definitely reviews that..

Can I follow-up with [indiscernible] someone.

you can. Ann Sherry is the chair of our customer committee, and they are the people who review the processes for complaints handling. Thank you.

Chair, Mr. Chris Schott.

Thank you I'm going to take that item 3, we'll take one. I've got 1 online and then we'll move on to the next line.

Chair, I appreciate the deadline because I've got to drive back to Adelaide shortly and it's a 9-hour drive and I don't want to be...

No. I don't want you driving late at night either, but I want to see you again next year.

I do ask you to meet at the AGM next year in Adelaide be very nice. By the way, I also noticed that you've had 3 big banks, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, meeting in Melbourne. For many people, retail have got shares in the number, that's very convened to come to 1 city and have 3 eggs in 1 go. You know what I mean, but you've got to talk to other banks. But I want to come back to the question you just about share issue about the structure. I accept what you say about giving the dividend people converted into shares, right? And therefore, the share numbers keep going up. The capitalization doesn't change that much. But what about -- instead of saying to people if you don't want to increase the number of shares, say to people, well, it got a good dividend rather than issuing to its shares, which increased the share value, use your money to go and buy shares in the marketplace. So you are bidding in the marketplace, in the stock market to buy extra shares of the existing number of shares. Two things will happen. I suspect some people will do it some way, but the share price might go up and the rest of us will be happy about that. But is that a way to deal with this issue other than another way is to say we've got $3 billion -- $2 billion whatever the number, we're going to half every share down to we've got a smaller number of shares, still the same value in capitalization. But I do just do want to just raise that with you. And then as I'll make one of it when you have the item 6, I'll speak quickly on that. I just want to point out, you've been very good in saying the bank's policy to support indigenous the voice and that I think that's fantastic. I do want to say I'm I've been a long-term member of the Australian Republican movement. And therefore, I hope sometime in the near future without too much controversy. I do note that our CEO is a CBE, commander of the British Empire, and I hope that 1 day, he can change that to be an order of Australia and, therefore, support the Australian Republican movement. That's a very idiosyncratic comment, but I'll leave it at that time.

All right. Virginia, do we have any questions online?

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Andrew Haywood. Is the CEO aware of any further misconduct investigations that may result in material additional remediation to customers.

So the answer is no material, but the harder and harder we dig into all of the issues that we've worked on since the Royal Commission we have found a long tail of some very small errors and problems, but none of them have been material. And this is, for example, how we found some of the issues with the payroll issue. But we have -- we are now well through the big remediations, which were largely relating to the financial planning and advice and in some cases, superannuation industry. But no, there are no new material issues that we're aware of. But we have had a large number of smaller ones, I have to say. Microphone 2, I'm sorry, but if -- who is question coming from?

It was -- sorry, Rita just had a follow-up question.

Okay. I am going to close this item after this. Yes.

Because no one had an answer. Once there's a determination or recommendation given, there's nowhere else for a complainant to go. So a bank that has the most complaint lodge with AFCA pays the highest fee and has the biggest say.

I don't think we get much say for the fees we pay from my memory.

Well, we've had other evidence in regards to that. But I just wanted to ask, before you go to AFCA, the bank has removed the customer advocate. Have you put a role in place that in there?

We haven't removed the AFCA, no. We're currently replacing it.

Is it still in place?

The role is there. We're just -- the person who was in that role has decided to resign from that role. So we're hiring somebody.

Okay. So are they actively doing complaints for customers as a customer advocate? The reason I ask is because the asset change the guidelines in a complaints process that they must respond the bank now. We have 45 days to 30, and some of the banks have removed that process because they can't meet that schedule because it's too short for the...

We have a team who's doing that.

Yes. Maybe if I can either talk with Ann and maybe Joslin, who you can...

Sorry to bring it up just that because of that, people are pushed to AFCA.

Okay. No, thank you. All right. Operator, are there any questions on the phone line in respect of this item? Yes, understandable. Okay. Well, if there are no questions on the phone line -- Virginia, are there further questions online?

No further questions, Chairman.

All right. I declare the financial report, directors' report and auditor's report have been received and considered. The next items of business are Items 6a and 6b, which were requisitioned by a group of shareholders. These resolutions relate to an amendment to the company's constitution and climate disclosures. I'll briefly explain the Board's position on these resolutions before inviting questions from shareholders on these items and on NAB's climate change policies or disclosures more broadly. Item 6a is a special resolution and requires approval by at least 75% of eligible votes cast on that resolution. Item 6B is conditional upon Item 6A being approved, but I will still speak to the item even if the resolution for 6B isn't required to be put to a vote, but we will deal with them together. The resolutions for Item 6A and 6B are not endorsed by the Board. While the Board respects the rights of shareholders to requisition a resolution to amend the company's constitution, the Board believes the proposed resolution is not in the best interest of the company and shareholders as a whole and recommends that shareholders vote against it for the reasons outlined in the notice of meeting. In short, under the company's constitution, the power to manage the business of the company is vested in the directors who are required to make decisions and manage risks in the best interest of the company and shareholders as a whole. To discharge the duty, the Board must consider a range of issues having regard to the nature and complexity of NAB's business and its operations in a global environment. The proposed amendment would provide a platform for groups of shareholders to promote any number of matters that may not be in the best interest of the company and shareholders as a whole. The Board considers that it would be inappropriate for any one issue being promoted by shareholders to be given increased prominence over another. NAB encourages transparency and appropriate shareholder discussion and provide shareholders with several avenues to raise issues or concerns. These are described in our notice of meeting. The Board recommends that shareholders vote against the proposed resolution for Item 6A. Item 6B being conditional upon Item 6A being passed by shareholders relates to the disclosure of information on how the company's financing will not be used for the purposes of new or expanded fossil fuel projects. The Board and management recognize that climate change is a significant risk to the planet and a major challenge for society to address. The company's climate ambition is to act as a catalyst to a climate action, supporting emissions reduction and aligning with pathways to net 0 by 2050, consistent with the maximum temperature rise of 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels by 2100. NAB is working to support its customers to decarbonize and build their climate resilience while creating prosperity for customers, colleagues and communities. Working towards this ambition NAB updated its climate strategy this year to further embed consideration of climate change into its business and deliver a whole of bank response to climate change. The company also set interim 2030 sectoral decarbonization targets -- sector targets for 4 of the most emissions intensive sectors in its lending portfolio. Power generation, oil and gas, thermal coal mining and cement production. NAB prioritize these sectors as they represent the majority of finance emissions attributable to its lending portfolio and are among the most emissions-intensive sectors. This is disclosed in NAB's 2022 climate report and summarized in the explanatory notes in the notice of meeting. I'd like to address the inaccurate implication of the market forces explanatory statement before asking shareholders and proxy holders to vote. First, market forces claim that there is a gap between NAB's action and the requirements of the international energy agencies, Net-Zero Emissions 2050 scenario, which outlines a path for the global energy sector to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees by 2050. This is simply not correct. NAB has used the IEA's net zero emissions 2050 scenario as the reference scenario to inform its target setting for its first tranche of interim sector decarbonization targets published in November 22, and this is made clear in NAB's 2022 climate report. NAB will publish targets for the remaining sectors as part of its membership of the Net Zero banking alliance. These targets will be informed by relevant reference scenarios aligned to 1.5 degrees. Secondly, market forces claims that NAB is being left behind when compared to other financial institutions. In fact, NAB is the only major Australian bank to have capped its oil and gas extraction exposures. NABs also put clear restrictions on direct financing of greenfield oil and gas extraction. For 1 October 2025, new lending and renewals will require oil and gas customers to have a transition plan in place. NAB has capped thermal coal mining exposure at 2019 levels and is reducing it to effectively 0 by 2030, apart from some residual performance guarantees to rehabilitate existing coal mines. Over the last 3 years, our thermal coal mining exposure has reduced by 44%. Across its lending portfolio, NAB is supporting the transition to net zero by assisting customers to accelerate their decarbonization plans. The company is working to rebalance its portfolio exposure to customers with lower emissions intensities. It will consider selectively reducing exposure to high-emitting customers that have been unable to demonstrate how they are aligned with NAB's sector targets. The Board considers that it is appropriate for the company to take an orderly and considered approach to responding to climate change, acknowledging the important role that NAB plays as a bank in supporting customers to decarbonize, build climate resilience and help achieve the goals of the past agreement. The Board supports the continuation of the current approach that the company has adopted with respect to climate change action. Accordingly, the Board recommends that shareholders vote against the proposed resolution Item 6b. Having put forward the Board's position, I'll now invite Michelle Surek, a representative market forces to the microphone nearest to her to briefly address the meeting on these items. Is Michelle here?

Thank you, Chair. Greetings to the Board and fellow shareholders. The first step in solving a problem is admitting to it. Fortunately, NAB is clearly aware of the threat of runaway climate change. The second step is to prevent making the problem any worse than it already is. And it's here at only the second step, that NAB fails miserably. This resolution filed on behalf of hundreds of shareholders doesn't ask NAB to fix the climate crisis overnight or stop all financing to the fossil fuel industry immediately. It simply asks the bank through its financing to stop making the problem any worse. This would align not just with the science and economic analysis of climate change, but NAB's own pre-existing commitments. The International Energy Agency made clear in 2021 that there is no room to expand fossil fuels if we are to meet the goal of net 0 emissions by 2050. It reaffirmed these findings even during a global energy crisis just a few months ago. Yet NAB is actively involved in financing companies and projects that increase the scale of the fossil fuel industry. violating the International Energy Agency's conclusions as well as NAB's own commitments. Whether it's financing Global Infrastructure Partners investment in the Pluto LNG 2 project that effectively allowed that project to go ahead or refinancing a Santos loan for the Barossa gas field, a project that has been rejected in the federal court for failing to adequately obtain free prior and informed consent from traditional owners, or our ongoing exposure to Whitehaven Coal, a company whose business strategy is built on expanded -- expanding thermal coal mining. It seems that if there's a new fossil fuel project on the table or a company trying to make the problem worse you'll find NAB, ready to hand over its customers' money. This pattern of destructive behavior goes back even further. Over the 7 years since the Paris agreement was signed, this bank has loaned nearly $2 billion for new or expanded coal, oil and gas projects. Over their lifetime, these projects will enable 5 billion tons of CO2, equivalent to 9x Australia's 2020 greenhouse gas emissions. We have read your policy and know that it fails to rule out finance for coal expansion by providing corporate finance for companies building new coal projects. We have read your policies and seen how it gives companies planning to rush through new oil and gas projects another 3 years to produce transition plans without any clarity over what those plans need to contain to be considered satisfactory. We have read and seen the details of your lending, which paints a picture of a bank enthusiastically financing its way towards climate catastrophe. What's difficult to understand is how a bank that promotes itself so heavily as an agro-business lender is willing to exacerbate one of the biggest risks to the agricultural sector in the form of physical climate risk. Have you read the study published by your peer Commonwealth Bank? Which highlights that by 2060, grain-growing regions are at risk of productivity declines of up to 50% below the 2018 baseline due to changes in rainfall. In fact, the physical impacts of climate change that threaten NAB's balance sheet and the financial security of our clients stretches much further. The bank itself reported on Page 91 of the 2022 annual report that Australia's exposure to physical climate risks, including drought, bushfires and flooding will have a profound impact on NAB's own loan book, stating the impact of these extreme weather events can be widespread and ultimately may impact the group's ability to recover its funds when loans default. That doesn't sound good. Yet it seems like NAB hasn't even read the climate science or the IEA's net 0 by 2050 scenario. If we had, we wouldn't be continuing to bankroll companies like Whitehaven Coal, whose business strategy aligns with the world where global warming exceeds 4 degrees celsius. Surely, that is a scenario where those extreme weather events will impact default rates and put our own balance sheet in peril. Why would we want to do anything that incentivizes this outcome? I commend this proposal to my fellow shareholders as it merely encourages our company to take the most obvious of steps towards protecting our customers and own asset base from the physical impacts of climate change. I would like to just ask one question of view at this point, Whitehaven Coal's corporate facility is due to be refinanced in the next year, and currently, NAB is among the lenders. On behalf of shareholders, those experiencing extreme weather events. The farmers worried about groundwater impacts from mining projects and changing rainfall patterns and young people everywhere, your children and grandchildren. I ask you to commit here and now that NAB will no longer be exposed to Whitehaven Coal after this $1 billion loan matures next year. That perhaps may give some small hope that the bank is moving in the right direction. So what will it be?

Thank you. I'll reaffirm, we have made a commitment in our climate report to have taken our thermal coal exposure to 0 by 2030. Next question from microphone number 3.

Chair, I'd like to introduce Amanda Richmond.

Thanks, Philip. So Speaking on behalf of Australian Ethical Investment, Australian Ethical holds almost 3 million shares in NAB, and we were a co-filer of the climate resolution. Regulators are looking closely at greenwashing claims and have made it clear they are looking to set an example. NAB has committed publicly to act as a catalyst to climate action, as you said, support remissions reductions and aligning with pathways to net 0 by 2050. At the same time, as we've heard, NAB is prepared to renew financing and provide new financing to fossil fuel companies that are actively planning and developing new fossil fuel projects. This conflicts with the UN expert group on net 0 emission commitments by nonstate actors, which makes clear that finance is claiming net 0 alignment cannot lend to need fossil fuels irrespective of other positive lending activities. I understand the bank's exposure to the fossil fuel sector is relatively small. So my question is, what is the motivation or justification? Why is it good for the company to risk the bank's reputation, to risk regulators investigating the bank for greenwashing for potentially risking directors being held personally liable for being knowingly concerned in misleading interceptive conduct. What is the rationale for taking on these risks? And at the same time, foregoing the opportunity to be a leader simply to provide new or renewed finance to companies exposed to fossil fuels and that's such a small part of your overall lending.

Thank you. So I'll just reiterate, which I suspect I'll be doing a bitter half today. We have a plan to reduce our exposures to the fossil fuel sector, and we've made commitments about not financing greenfields developments or new major expansions, and that remains the case. So the premise for your question, unfortunately, is not sound.

So my question is why are you prepared to provide new financing, new lending to companies involved in expanding for offer.

So we are not finding new projects.

I understand you are not providing new projects.

In this area I'm not going to discuss individual customers.

And I'm not asking you to discuss -- I'm sorry I'm not asking you to discuss individual customers, I'm asking to discuss that look where you're prepared to provide financing to fossil fuel companies, not specific projects. And I'm asking why that is good for the company? I'm not asking for specific detail about the individual customers.

I'll just reiterate. We have published a report about what we are prepared, what we are planning on doing. It's comprehensive, and it deals with a wide range of situations. So I'm not going to walk down a word track with you. We have published our transition plans for how we are going to reduce our exposure to fossil fuels, how we're going to increase our lending for renewables. And importantly, how we're going to deal with other emissions intensive sectors and things like these concrete and cement industry, right? And we will, in due course, with heavy industry. Our plan is a comprehensive plan. And that's the approach we have taken.

But it leaves that loophole.

You call it a loophole. We have a plan.

Individual customers that are still expanding fossil fuels. And my question is not for you to comment on those individual companies, but to comment on the risk that, that poses to the company for misleading and deceptive conduct.

Question, microphone number two.

Chair, I'd like to reintroduce Rowan Bow.

Thank you, Chair. Just a quick follow-up from my comments about Narrow Bright. I can guarantee that you and the Board would be welcome. What I really see is that the -- one of the vital risks here is just a lack of knowledge within the organization about how to deal with it. I'll give you one example. In Tamworth, I've got a large project taking a Malthouse from coal-fired power to 100% renewable. I have not found anybody in NAB that really understands the importance of that because this is a global company, and they're looking for this solution that we have. That's one. We're looking at setting up a biofuels industry. There is no knowledge within the organization about that. So I can understand, you've got a policy you can understand, you've written it all up. I understand that you've said that $70 billion has to be disinvested by the Australian economy first or the banking system first. I can understand that they are the plans, the actions, I believe, begin at the top. And I really believe that unless the Board is totally familiar with the gravity of these situations just this week. The federal government announced -- made announcements that really put storage into the picture. Now storage is the big one. that's where the really big dollars are involved, billions. And last week, we revised our own groups requirement for funding to just under $3 billion. Newcastle to Narrow Bright. So these are real things. I just want to know where you can really commit your bank to really understanding the gravity of what you yourself say, great things you've done across the rest of the organization, but this is the step change. It's now -- 2023 is the next year, that's 7 left.

I absolutely endorse that. We are -- I can -- can I just reassure you? we are actively looking at upgrading the knowledge and skill set of both the Board and our bankers. We've done program in conjunction with Melbourne University to expose our business bankers to what understanding climate from a credit risk and lending viewpoint and some of the climate issues. And I'm sure any of the executives down in the front here who have got accountability for these areas we'd be very happy to have a conversation with you after the meeting. Thank you. Microphone 1.

Chair, I'd like to reintroduce Mr. Chris Schott.

Gentlemen, you don't have the resolution printed up on the screen. I -- while I have to stand up. I support Resolution 1 -- 6a, sorry, but not 6b. I'll explain why. I think it's irrespective of a climate change issue. I do not think it's unreasonable that in publicly listed companies that a group of shareholders, not a small number, you might say 2% or 3% of the total shares held or 1,000 signatures can put a resolution on for debate, which is not binding, it's an advisory to be debated at the Annual General Meeting. I think that is quite reasonable irrespective of the importance of the climate issue itself, which would be, I would imagine, have a fair number of resolutions coming. At the Westpac Bank meeting on Wednesday, when they had exactly the similar case put, I put to the Chairman that I support 1 and he -- was 1a, but now 6a. And he said, well, actually Mr. Schott, the Board, in the last few months, considered ourselves putting up a similar resolution to change the constitution, but he said we didn't have enough time, but he said, by the time we meet next year, there will be a resolution in similar words, and he said, it will of course, be my last meeting as Chairman of Westpac. And I said, well, that's -- I thought that was a very big step forward in the arguments going on. And I hope you are another one of the major four banks might look at doing because you've got 98% against it today. But that's a misleading vote, I must say about where opinion is moving in the community. I do think -- it goes down, but you ought to come back next year and be on the front foot of an appropriate resolution with the explanation of who can put it forward at what numbers blah, blah, blah. I also put it then or put it to you. This is such an important issue in governance on these sort of issues. I asked him, would the Board put it to the Australian government to amend the corporations law that a similar resolution is put in all public listed -- in the constitute of all companies that are publicly listed, so that there is not just on this issue. And again, Mr. McFarlane might tell he's leaving in a year, why he said, yes, the Board will consider it for it. So I'll leave those two points that I'll vote for it here. It's already going down. But I think the Board would be stupid if I may use that word, not to come back on the front foot at the next meet because this is moving at such a rate in the community, you don't want to get caught short and look like your last man jumping off the cliff or whatever want to call it. The second one, b, I oppose because it's dealing specifically with coal and gas, as I understand it. I think there's got to be some discretion. You can't close all and the lady who moved it said you can't stop tomorrow, every gas and coal, et cetera. I'm involved as a shareholder in a couple of -- one company and there's a couple in Australia who are developing using gas to make fertilizer called urea. Urea is important at the moment, made from gas in the Persian Gulf. I still use that name, and it's selling to farmers at $1,300 a tonne, $1,300 a tonne. Farmers across Australia, particularly in the cereal for, and as we're the biggest lenders to farmers, a lot of farmers who you support will use the money at $1,300 to buy urea because they can't afford not to because of the productivity improvement of their crop, et cetera. I think, therefore, there's got to be some discretion of your move is that if you say no more gas for urea in Australia, then we have to say, no more urea imported from the Gulf out of gas in the Persian Gulf, then you tell every farmer, which I wouldn't mind to be in the front of you doing this because you'll get bulldozed, no urea for any farm in Australia. You wouldn't want to say that around the place too strongly. Therefore, you've got to have some discretion in the plan that we take forward. I'm told by the two potential producers of urea that they could probably produce it at $200 or $300 a tonne to farmers. That's $1,000 a tonne improvement to their own -- and as you're a lender to them, why wouldn't you want to support it? So I think that's why one of the reasons I oppose a blanket number 6b because you just can't cut it, you've got to plan it and be careful you don't throw something out the old saying "baby with the bathwater". But more importantly, 6a, if you don't, it's not going to be carried a day. But if you don't come back in 12 months with a form of words that the bank board is leading, well, then you're going to be another way rolled over.

Thank you. Microphone 2.

Chair, I'd like to reintroduce Billy Greenham.

Good afternoon this time. My name is Billy. I'm a sixth generation B farmer in Southwest Victoria. Our property includes barley haze grazing with over 400 head of cattle as well as protected swamps and remnant bushland. My question relates to the impacts we are seeing on the agriculture sector from climate change. Research from the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics found in the last two decades, agricultural productivity in Australia has decreased by an annual average of 23% or almost $30,000 per farm due to climate change. The IPCC found that under a 1.5-degree scenario, the frequency of droughts in Australia will double from once every 10 years to once every 5. Under a 2-degree scenario, droughts will be 2.5x more likely. Despite this in your climate change report, NAB said that its risk analysis for agribusiness customers did not consider acute physical impacts such as extreme weather events, compounding climate events or physical tipping points. As a farmer, that seems like a significant oversight. Those particular risks posed the biggest threat to Australia's agricultural sector and the cost will ultimately be borne life by farmers like me who are already bearing the physical, psychological and economic burden of runaway climate change. I have two questions regarding this matter. Firstly, can you answer why NAB did not consider these acute physical impacts?

We're just -- the methodologies are evolving. So these -- when we're able to assess those impacts, we will no doubt do so.

And would you have a time frame for this?

Well no, because we need to understand how you would model the and they're not -- these methodologies are not stable enough that we're in that position yet, but we will look to do that.

My second question is, does NAB see an inherent contradiction in claiming to be meeting its net 0 trajectory whilst financing new and expanding fossil fuel projects that will lock in massive growth in CO2 emissions for multiple decades after the bank has assisted in getting these companies and projects up and running by financing them at the outset. Put simply, is there an inherent contradiction in NAB financing new and expanding fossil fuel projects while stating to be committed to Net Zero by 2050?

Great. Well, the answer to the second part is much more straightforward, which is we're not financing new and expanded projects. And some of the other questioners have already identified that. The criticism is that we are financing companies or have banking facilities, in some cases, with companies, not even financing them, who they -- those companies are looking at that expansion. We're not planning on expanding new projects other than as set out in our climate report, but thank you. We've had a question online for some time, Virginia, do you want to read it out?

Thank you, Chair. We have a question from Ms. Macros McCartha . My question is, is NAB aware that EU nations are withdrawing from the energy charter: France, Netherlands, Sweden and Germany? The recent floods are similar to those of us who are growing up in the late 1950s. My husband and myself attended a lecture in New Zealand in 2006 at the France Joseph Glacier, where we were told that although the Glacier was receding at that point, we were actually heading for another ice age. This has been supported by recent core samples on Greenland going back 10,000 years by scientists from Denmark. It included the ice age 500 years ago. Thank you.

Thank you. The reference to countries in the EU pulling out of the, I presume that in the Paris Accord certainly does not accord with my recent experience. We had a visit from a delegation from the European Parliament who were, in fact, quite the opposite, very focused on ensuring as part of the Australia European Union trade negotiations that we had credible climate commitments and biodiversity commitments, including deforestation. So my dealings with the Europeans don't support that. And the last time I was at the French Joseph Glacier, I was disappointed to see how far it had receded. And if anyone is unconvinced of human-induced climate change, I invite them to visit the glaciers closest to us, both Fox and Franz Josef, certainly since when I visited them as a school child until now, they've received quite markedly. Ross, you would have seen that as well? So I cannot support the contention that climate change is not real. Perhaps if we go to microphone number 3.

Chair, I would like to introduce Audrey Vann.

Thank you. I'd like to thank the board for taking questions on climate. I understand that there are many important items of business to be discussed today, and it's great that climate has been recognized as one of those. So my question is in regards to nature-related risks, which is inextricably linked to climate. So I'd like to understand whether the bank has conducted a sector or location-based materiality assessment of its exposures to nature-related risks through its lending and investments? And when does the bank plan to set and report on nature-related targets?

So we've been working with the Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. And hopefully those disclosures -- hopefully, those standards of disclosure will be coming in the not-too-distant future. I'm afraid I don't know what the time frame for that is. But we are absolutely interested in that because we are a large agri-business banker and therefore, the sustainability of agri-business through time as a function of the -- for example, the quality of soil. We don't receive the soil degradation. Biodiversity is important and forestation is important. So I just agree with the contention, and we are certainly working to improve our disclosures in that area as and when standards emerge.

If I may, I'd just like to ask a follow-up question. So I believe that one way the bank would be able to demonstrate it's commitment to protecting biodiversity would be adopting a policy that outlines a zero tolerance to deforestation through its lending portfolio. So I just wonder whether that would be something that the bank could commit to in the short term?

I always avoid the word zero because it just creates the potential for a compliance bridge. But certainly, deforestation is an issue, and we are absolutely concerned with it. I'm not going to declare here and now, a zero tolerance because you appreciate when we make those sorts of commitments, you have to have processes in place to be able to support them. But we absolutely share the concern. So thank you. Perhaps we go to microphone number 1.

Chair, I would like to introduce Ms. Milly Hasborough and Mr. Austin Catonic.

Thank you. This question is to the CEO and the Board. My name is Milly. I'm 17 years old, and I start from school for the climate because as a young person, I've grown up constantly in fear of climate change. And I'm terrified of what it's doing to the world and people around me. In March, as part of a group of school students who met with Rob McEwen, on behalf of Schools Strike for Climate, to discuss our concerns. Instead, you told us all about your sustainable office building and how you have choking yourself. So you very much understand how we feel. But whenever we ask for proof of real climate action, you'd only tell us to read the policy. From reading NAB's policy and climate report for 2022, it's clear that you have not yet ended your relationship with companies like Santos and Whitehaven, who are expanding their fossil fuel production. NAB's climate policy still enables you to fund these companies despite the warnings that we must stop all new fossil fuels to have a chance to deliverable future. Now every day longer that you wait to divest from these companies, every dollar more that he gives them is putting more lives at risk. You may be able to trick people with your fancy wording, but you can't trick the science. Your actions will still have the same impact, no matter how hard you try to hide them in your wording. They still impact as many lives. Your greenwashing is obvious and continuing as you are -- sends a clear message to young people across the country that you would rather prioritize your profits over our futures. My question is, we'll now live up to its rhetoric on climate policy and roll out further finance for companies expanding the fossil fuel industry? And if not, can you explain why your profits are more important than our futures?

I think I've answered that question about 7 times today. So you can take the answer as read. We are earnest in our desires to see emissions reduction, and we are operating comprehensively, but we are not making commitments in respect of individual companies. But we have said that we're not going to be financing major projects, of expansion or new projects other than to set out in the policy. Question -- sorry, microphone number 2.

Chair, I would like to introduce Helen Lesta.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. In September 2020, the science-based targets network issued interim science-based targets for nature, including zero deforestation and zero conversion of all natural habitats from 2020 as a first step towards nature-positive targets. Given the agricultural sector's contribution to NAB's Scope 3 emissions, under pressure that land clearing associated with pasture expansion, places on our environment. Has NAB implemented conditions within a loan agreement to prevent de-forestation or sustainability-linked loans to promote nature of positivity?

The answer is no for the first part of it, and I'm not quite sure I'm seeing a context of the sustainability linked loan one.

So loans on the base that -- loans towards projects that will promote reforestation.

Certainly, we are lending on reforestation projects, that's absolutely the case, yes. And we are encouraging companies to embark on sustainably related projects so that we can either lend or on sell as sustainability-linked bonds. So yes, we absolutely support that.

May I ask, why you haven't yet implemented conditions within a loan agreement to prevent deforestation?

No. It's not an appropriate question. It's a very detailed question about a loan agreement. It's not the sort of thing to deal with the Annual General Meeting. Microphone 1?

Chair, I'd like to introduce Austin Catonic .

This question is for the CEO and the board. My name is Austin Catonic, I'm 15 years old, and I struck from school for the climate. As young people, we are really aware already and are exposed to the harsh reality of the climate crisis, which bushfires, floods and droughts getting worse every year, we already have a taste of what the years ahead are going to look like. Earlier this year, I met with Ross McEwan with other students who are part of School Strike climate to discuss NAB's ongoing funding for companies like Whitehaven Coal and Santos that expanding their fossil fuel production. Mr. McEwan indicated that there would be lots of updates released in November as part of the climate report. I've read both the coal policy and the climate report, and it was clear that there are gaps in NAB's policies -- enable the gaps in NABs policies -- enable their relationship with companies like Whitehaven Coal and Santos that are expanding fossil fuel production to continue. NAB's climate policy still enables NAP to finance companies that are trying to lock in climb catastrophe. So my question is, will Ross McEwan meet with me and School Strikes for Climate, again, to discuss these ongoing relationships, loopholes and how NAB plans to and finance for destructive fossil fuel companies that are putting our future at risk.

Thank you very much. As I indicated, when we did have a meeting, I was happy to catch up again. I'm delighted that the team have read our policies because at the time, I think there was a gap between what you understood and what we've said. We have since then put out our climate report and I'm very happy to give you the update of where we are on four sectors that we've now disclosed and also give you an update on what we're doing with the next 5 to 6 sectors as well. So very happy to meet at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Now shareholders have been very patient. It's now 5 minutes to 2. I'm going to take two more questions, one from microphone 2 and one from microphone 1, and then I'm going to draw this meeting to a close. Thank you.

Chair, I'd like to introduce Morgan Pickett.

Let me start by just saying we've been very patient as well for -- so we really appreciate if you can answer all remaining questions.

Well, I can't do that because the questions are very repetitive.

Well, you don't know until they have been asked, respectfully. Let them be asked, they you can make that judgment.

Well they have been.

I want to open by stating that I have read NAB'S policy on climate change, and I'm very familiar with it. And I know it's about as watertight as a teabag. I noticed that 2 weeks ago, Ross McEwan, you were presented with an award for being a greenwasher. I had to look up the term myself, but discovered this. The Corporate Finance Institute defines the term green washing as when the management team within an organization makes false unsubstantiated or outright misleading statements or claims about the sustainability of a product or a service, even about the business' operations more broadly. I also noted that the day after you are running with activists, net published a news release titled "Facts in relation to NAB's lending to the thermal coal and oil and gas sectors". In this statement, you make the following claim that NAB is not financing any new thermal coal mining projects and has not done so since 2015. This claim is very misleading. And Ross, I assume that making such false, misleading and untrue claims such as this is one of the reasons you received your award for greenwashing. Now while NAB might not be directly financing new coal mines, the bank is directly financing at least 10 companies who are rapidly expanding the fossil fuel projects through corporate financing. For example, NAB is still financing Whitehaven Coal, the biggest undiversified coal mining company on the Australian share market. This is a company which does nothing other than mine coal and is using NAB's money that is hundreds of millions of our shareholder dollars right now to develop three new massive coal mines -- thermal coal mines: Vickery, Nairobi Stage 3 and Winchester South. These are projects that NAB is getting off the ground right now and would operate for many decades to come, even when they are no longer on NAB's books. I have two questions that I would like answered. As I've said, I've read your climate policy. Have you read the International Institute for Sustainable Developments report, which was a comprehensive review of pathways that limit warming to 1.5 degrees and stated that developing new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting temperature rises to 1.5 degrees. Or have you read the international energy agencies report that states that no new coal mines, oil or gas fields, can be developed under a 1.5-degree warming limit. And if you have read these, how do you justify financing companies with new and expanding coal projects?

Thank you. You failed your own test. So the question was substantially the same as the previous ones.

My second question, will you commit to stop corporate financing, two companies who are building new and expanding fossil fuel projects that will operate well beyond NAB's financial involvement. I appreciate it.

Again, you have failed your own test.

Can you point out how I failed my own test, please?

You've asked the same question that every other questioner has asked. Can we go to microphone 1, please?

Chair, I would like to introduce Mr. John Phillipson.

Thank you. Good afternoon, thank you for responding to questions. I'm talking here on behalf of the silent majority in this room. I have investments that pay for my life, I'm obviously retired. I'm getting on in years. And I come here to these meetings to check on how those investments are progressing. And so I can see you're doing a good job. However, when I come more and more, we getting all this stuff about climate change, and that is dominating clearly the AGM. Now I understand you have a policy. I obviously haven't read it. But it seems somewhat I'm hearing is that there are some holes in it that maybe the bank is doing the opposite of what it says. I can't verify that, but that's certainly the comments that are being made here. And I think it's really bad that, that sort of comment is being made and that the bank might be doing that because it gives the bank a very bad name to think that it's being inconsistent and saying one thing and doing another. Saying that it's not going to fund fossil fuel projects, but in fact, in just funding the company that's doing that. However, that doesn't really bother me. The fact that -- I am not worried about the climate aspect, I'm just worried about what appears to be an inconsistency. Now I think the best way to solve this problem is to just scrap the whole climate policy. Why do you have the climate policy? I agree with the science. I agree that burning fossil fuels is increasing the temperature of the earth and I agree that funding fossil fuel projects is going to exacerbate that process. And so I would see the funding any fossil fuels is a bad idea, but the thing is that these people who have been getting up and talking, all they want, all they want is a safe future and a safe future for their children. Now how selfish is that? That's absolutely selfish. I won't be around in 10 or 20 years' time, so my objective is to get as much money as I can. And I don't care about all this climate stuff. And I'm sure that most people in this room the older people, particularly my age, would have the same feeling. My children can look after themselves, the earth will, so what? I don't have to be around to see it. So who cares? So three things. First of all, three questions, will you ensure that any other policies that you make will be consistent and reflect the bank's actual position and don't just count how to internal pressure -- external pressure? Will you scrap the climate policy, so that then you can invest more heavily in coal and increase my income? And will you get rid of all these protestors that are around the front and everywhere else?

Thank you. Let me just say we're -- the point of having the fund policy is it says what we are going to do, and we will do that. The criticism for many protestors today or questioners today is that they want our policy to say something else, which we're not prepared to do. The -- I appreciate your comments about wanting as much as you can now. Unfortunately, our job is to be stewards of this company for the long run and some of us do look towards the future. So unfortunately, we are going to continue to have that policy. So I appreciate that point as well. But I do want to assure you that when we put something in a report, we're serious about it, and we will do what we've said. Thank you for that. Phone operator, are there any questions on the phone line?

There are no phone questions.

Correct. Virginia, do we have any further questions on Item 6a and b?

No further questions, Chair.

Thank you. Shareholders are now formally putting to your item of business 6a as set out in the notice of meeting. Please record your vote now if you have not already voted. Based on the results of the proxy and direct votes that we've already received, we're able to determine that Resolution 6a has failed. And therefore, as 6a who is not successful, 6b will not be put to the meeting. That now covers all the formal business of the AGM. Were there any questions on any other general related issue that anyone had?

Chair, I would like to introduce Rodney Hamilton.

Thank you for all your patience, Mr. Chairman. It's been a long day. My name is Rodney Hamilton. I was a farming -- I was farming in on the Western Downs in Queensland. My question is, NAB has been named in a federal court case or overcharging customers accounts. I went into negotiations in farm debt mediation where the bank stated my debt. And on the 20th of August 2014, closed my trading account, but in fact, kept it open until July 2015, charging further interest and fees to that account. One of these was an annual package fee of $500. And on the 27th of March 2015, the mediation was finalized on 16th of February 2015, where the properties were to be sold by the 20th of March 2015. The issue being, we could not have used the package because the bank had made us agree to sell that mediation. Where I had a heart condition and my wife was showing symptoms relating to her brain cancer, we had very capable children at home to carry on the farm. This was just one of the bank's practices we're involved in, involuntarily. Recently, NAB, again, has been involved in this problem with incorrect values of debt within ANZ judgment in 2020 in the federal court, the then ANZ claims to be paid back to 2004, which we paid. Does this mean closed NAB account mistakes will be corrected and refunds paid? Carrying on from the ANZ judgment, the BBSW or Bank Bill Rate Variations, which we were involved in because on the 30th of the 12th 2013, when your bank admitted to a possible ventilation on that date and charging on the account was over 1.1% in daily variations. Will all these problems be corrected and proper refunds paid or the bank have to resist further court actions and possibly one for contracts being buoyed of uncertainty.

To the best of our knowledge, we have remediation programs in place for every identified area of shortfall. But if there's anything specific you want to raise, I know that Justlin or any of the rest of the complaints team would be happy to go through it with you, but we are -- we have a number of remediation programs in place that deal with identified issues. And our expectation is that where there is evidence that incorrect charging has occurred. There are programs in place for that, but not many of them relate to the BBSW, I have to say, because there was no evidence of customer harm identified on that.

Well, I'd certainly appreciate the ability to have a meeting with that because our concerns are being put forward and ignored to the stage.

Thank you. Microphone number 2.

Chair, I'm reintroducing Cregg Corfield.

Thank you, Mr. Chronican. I withheld a question when you said you were closing the previous one. So this seems to be the opportunity. It's my last question.

It's probably the last question. But if you ask it quickly, we might have an opportunity to have a conversation with you outside.

Yes, it's regarding core banking. The reserve bank's 8 consecutive interest rate rises have not impacted NAB customers largely at this stage. Rising food, fuel and energy prices are likely to increase hardship. This wave of uprising cost eventually takes its toll. We're expecting after Christmas spending, there'll probably be a drop-off in retail spending. I would think confidence might drop off too. The Reserve Bank comped $200 billion at artificially low interest rates, and a lot of this was 2- and 3-year fixed loans that are starting to expire now. A cohort of NAB customers will be transitioning from 2% fixed rates to 6% variable rates, that's a 200% increase in net costs, very unprecedented in such a short time, all customers with loans are understandably anxious. Some customers might be able to draw on savings, lines of credit or tap into credit card debt all of a boat in the backyard, that type of thing to get their way through. This will simply delay the impact combined COVID uncertainty and geopolitical tensions and it's understandable that mental health consequences will arise. I provided evidence to the primary production lending inquiry in Roma, depression in suicide, especially in rural areas, or tragic consequence. NAB is the leading agricultural lender in Australia. These dramatic impacts go beyond financial hardship. This is psychological hardship. During on my own experiences of CBA's behavior, my request for financial hard check was refused. My offer to pay all arrears was refused. My request to farm debt mediation was refused. CBA launched court orders to repossess my farm. I've been fighting back a long time. I'm saying this because it relates to the psychological damage that occurs. I now have deep disguise. I and many others have found internal dispute resolution, external dispute resolution, AFCA are inconsistent. They're not fit for purpose and they're costly for banks and for the shareholders. My questions are, how does NAB systems policies and processes address the emotional and psychological hardships beyond the financial hardships?

So thank you very much for asking that question because for many of our customers, this is a big risk issue as we enter into the new year as you identify with cost-of-living pressures and interest rate rises. We encourage any customer who even thinks that they might be facing into some form of financial hardship to contact the NAB assist area. And I want to assure you that we do not just look at this as a financial issue, but we have a range of groups that work with NAB Assist, that are there very much to provide support to customers going through hardship, and that can include providing support on some of the psychological pressures that hardship does bring to bear. But I've been down spent some time with the teams and they really do. They draw on financial counselors, they draw on support people. They can draw on people who can help people to get into employment, they can draw on people -- some of the community groups, for example, that can provide emergency support and draw on people who can provide psychological support to customers under stress. And often, of course, we have customers under stress who are going through difficult marital situations. It's not always just financial. So we are acutely awareness the core field of those issues. And I think our approach to handling customers has matured a lot over the last decade.

Thank you for that awareness. And I look forward to meeting you in the -- outside.

Thank you. All right. Assuming no questions online. And phone operator, no further questions on the phone?

There are no further questions.

That's fantastic. Well, on behalf of the Board, I'd like to thank you all for coming along for shareholders for their continued support of the bank. And I'll now formally declare this AGM closed and confirm that voting will remain open for another 10 minutes to allow for ample time for shareholders and proxy holders to submit any final votes. Shareholders, the few of you left in the room, if you've written on your voting cards, please place them in the poll boxes that are being circulated around the auditorium. and the results will be released at the ASX and will be available on the AGM page of our website. And I'll now welcome shareholders who are here with us to share some refreshments in the foyer. And to visit some of the stalls we have set up outside for cyber and scam safety and digital banking. Thank you all certain my fellow directors, the executive team and all the NAB people, now that are here for your hard work and commitment in 2022. Thank you all.