South32 Limited (S32) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us for South32's 2021 Annual General Meeting. We're disappointed that, once again, we're holding this meeting fully virtually. I know I'm not alone when I say how hopeful I am that we'll be able to resume interstate and international travel in 2022 so that your Board and management team members can gather with you in person. My name is Karen Wood, and it's my great pleasure to chair today's meeting. I'm speaking to you today from the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation, not far from the Barak Bridge, which is named after William Barak, the last recognized leader of the Wurundjeri people. His work as a translator of their culture through visual documents housed here in the National Gallery in Victoria is so important to understanding our nation's history. I acknowledge the elders past, present and emerging of the lands on which you are located today and the lands on which South32 conducts its business around the world. In the spirit of respect and reconciliation, we'll continue to support initiatives that strengthen the unique cultural and spiritual relationships that indigenous and tribal peoples have to the land, waters and seas and their rich contribution to society to ensure their legacy continues and extends for future generations. I'm joining you today from Melbourne. While our Chief Executive Officer, Graham Kerr; Non-Executive Director, Frank Cooper; and Company Secretary, Kelly O'Rourke, are joining us from South32's office in Perth. In the event of any technical difficulty that prevents me from chairing the meeting, Frank will take over. All members of our Board are with us in person or virtually. Wayne Osborn is based in Perth; Xiaoling Liu here in Melbourne; Futhi Mtoba and Keith Rumble are based in South Africa; and Guy Lansdown is coming in from Mexico. Also in attendance today is Graham Hogg, representing the company's auditor, KPMG, and Graham is in Perth. Tim Heughan from Computershare Investor Services has been appointed returning officer for the meeting and scrutineer of the vote on resolutions 2 through 6. Now I formally declare the meeting open. Before we get the meeting proper underway, I do need to run through a few operational matters. We are again using the Lumi platform that allows shareholders, proxyholders and guests to attend virtually. In addition to all attendees being able to watch a live webcast of the meeting, shareholders and proxy holders have the added ability to ask questions and to vote. Shareholders and proxyholders can begin submitting questions now. We will ensure that there is a reasonable opportunity for shareholders as a whole to ask questions or, of course, to make comments. You don't need to wait until we get to the relevant item of business to submit your written question. To ask a written question, you can type in the box and press the arrow symbol to send the message to our question moderator, Hayley Cardy. If we receive multiple written questions on the same topic, we may group them together when we answer. [Operator Instructions] As stated in the Notice of Meeting, voting today will be conducted by way of a poll in all resolutions, and I will shortly open the voting. The polling icon, which looks like a little bar chart, will soon appear. Shareholders and proxyholders will be able to see the list of resolutions, the voting options and the Board's recommendations. You can cast your vote and make changes on each resolution at any time until the time I declare the voting closed. If you have difficulties with the platform, please refer to the Computershare and Lumi online meeting guides available on our website, or you can call Computershare on the number set out in the How to Vote section of the Notice of Meeting. And in the unlikely event that we do experience major technical difficulties, we will provide you with updates through our website and, of course, the stock exchanges. Finally, we remind all attendees that a recording of the meeting will be available on South32's website a few hours after the meeting has concluded. I now declare voting on all resolutions open. The voting tab will soon appear, so you can submit your votes at any time. When we met virtually at our annual general meeting last year, I didn't expect to again be reporting on the impact of the pandemic on our people and on our communities around the world. That impact has been immense. We've lost colleagues, some of our people have lost family members and for many, life will not be the same again. Your Board pays tribute to the many who have stepped up to keep our operations running and running safely despite the enormity of the challenge. We are indebted to you and also to your families for their support of your very important work. Sadly, I must again report a fatality during the year with the death of Mr. Petros Sibeko in May. Mr. Sibeko was working as a contractor at the Klipspruit Extension Project at South Africa Energy Coal and was fatally injured while operating a mobile elevated platform. The investigation into the cause of the accident and the learnings we can use to improve our use of these platforms has been reviewed by the Board and shared across the company, along with the new owners of South Africa Energy Coal. We express our deepest sympathies to Mr. Sibeko's widow and his 4 children. This year has been a transformative one for South32. We've made substantial progress in reshaping our portfolio. We've set ourselves a new carbon emission reduction target and further defined the way in which we intend to achieve our emission reduction plans. Our operations have also performed well, achieving a number of production records, which combined with improving commodity prices, has enabled Graham and his team to maintain South32's strong financial position and deliver consistent returns to our shareholders. As outlined in our full year results, the company delivered underlying earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization of $1.56 billion and free cash flow of $825 million. During the year, we recognized an impairment charge of $728 million or $510 million after tax in relation to Illawarra Metallurgical Coal. We also recognized a loss on the sale of South Africa Energy Coal of $159 million. As a result, the group's statutory profit after tax declined by USD 130 million to a loss of USD 195 million. Reflecting our financial performance and disciplined approach to capital management, we ended the year with a net cash balance of $406 million and returned $670 million to our shareholders during the year. This included $439 million as part of our ongoing capital management program with $346 million allocated to our on-market share buyback and $93 million returned in the form of a special dividend. We'll continue to take a flexible approach to the remainder of our capital management program. Since the formation of South32, we've been committed to the reshaping of our portfolio with a bias to base metals. These are the materials that will be increasingly in demand in a low-carbon world, including for the development of renewable energy infrastructure, generation and storage. During the year, we completed the divestment of South Africa Energy Coal, a pivotal step in that reshaping. We are pleased to have delivered this outcome, not only for our business but for the people whose livelihoods depend on that business. We also divested the TEMCO manganese alloy smelter in Tasmania here in Australia and put the Metalloys manganese alloy smelter in South Africa on care and maintenance. Consistent with our strategy, we've taken 2 recent and significant steps to increase our exposure to the commodities required in a low-carbon world. Last month, we exercised our preemptive rights to acquire an additional interest in Mozal Aluminium, our hydro-powered smelter in Mozambique. And just this month, we announced that we've entered into conditional agreements with Sumitomo to acquire its 45% interest in Sierra Gorda, a long life, open pit copper mine in the Antofagasta copper region in Chile. This acquisition provides immediate exposure to copper, a critical metal in the decarbonization of the world's energy networks and one that has strong long-term market fundamentals. It is expected the transaction will immediately lift group margins and earnings, supporting future shareholder returns while retaining strength and flexibility in our balance sheet. Our approach to climate change has been an area of focus for the Board as part of its oversight of material sustainability issues. It is also an area of significant interest to many of our stakeholders and, of course, the broader community. I'm pleased to say that we achieved our first short-term Scope 1 carbon emissions reduction target, keeping our FY '21 emissions below our 2015 baseline. In May, we set a new medium-term target to halve our Scope 1 and Scope 2 carbon emissions by 2035 compared to our FY '21 baseline. We maintain our longer-term target to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, in line with the Paris Agreement. Our plans to decarbonize our business includes securing renewable energy, designing our growth projects to be carbon neutral and supporting and investing in the development of low carbon technology. This is both ambitious, which, of course, is necessary to achieve our net zero goal and realistic, recognizing that there is no definitive best pathway to net zero, and some of the innovations we will need are not yet fully developed. We will continue to work with others, including other organizations across our industry, to develop solutions that enable us to achieve our goals. I'm encouraged by the leadership position taken by many in our industry and the demonstrable cooperation that will continue to be necessary for us all to play our part in this critical work. The Board views our commitment to decarbonization is fundamental to the future of South32, as do so many of our owners. To reflect its importance, we've modified the executive long-term incentive plan to include performance against our climate change targets with 10% of the awards to be linked to our progress. We've reassessed our portfolio's resilience to climate change this year using a scenario in which temperature increases are assumed to be limited to 1.5 degrees. In this scenario, most of our commodities show growth. As we deliver on our commitments to meet our emission reduction targets, we acknowledge that the industry associations to which we belong play an important role in advocacy in respect of climate change. In our view, participation in industry associations is an important avenue to engage and influence matters affecting the company. Membership offers opportunities to understand, to learn and contribute to industry best practice. Industry associations are, by nature, representative of similar member interests, but often from varied backgrounds and perspectives. So consensus on all issues is often not possible. We believe healthy debate and discussion can lead to better outcomes. But we do acknowledge that at times, industry associations advocate on specific issues not aligned with our position. Where a material misalignment exists, we follow a process with the aim of seeking alignment. If that misalignment is material and we believe it outweighs the benefits of belonging, we will terminate our membership. In line with our purpose, we work to develop natural resources in a way that benefits our stakeholders. Trust and transparency are essential to the way we operate and we work closely with all our stakeholders considering different perspectives and working together to create shared value. In FY '21, we invested $22.2 million in our communities on projects in education and leadership, good health and social well-being, economic participation and natural resource resilience. And we made solid progress in several areas of our Innovate Reconciliation Action Plan, including procurement engagement and training. During the year, we completed a review of our work on cultural heritage in Australia. The review has informed our approach to cultural heritage of aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and led to the development of a set of principles to guide our engagements. Some areas were identified as requiring improvement, and we'll continue to focus on those. Similar reviews are planned this year for other jurisdictions where we operate. As you would expect, the COVID-19 pandemic is continuing to disrupt the Board's practice of regularly visiting our operations and offices around the world. We see these visits as vital to gaining insights into the daily experiences of our people and local communities. They give us the opportunity to test our workplace culture and to better understand the challenges our teams face. We've worked hard during the year to stay connected by using virtual sessions, but they can't replace the on-ground exposure that's so important to our work. We're committed to providing a safe and inclusive workplace at South32, one that does not tolerate harassment of any kind and one that is founded on the value of diversity. While our gender diversity targets at a senior level have been met, we still have work to do on the representation of women in our operations. We know that a workplace where difference is valued and celebrated, where the countries and communities where we operate are fully represented and where our people feel engaged and empowered is a workplace of which we can all be proud. The Board is actively engaged in how Graham and his team are striving to meet those aspirations. In conclusion, let me say that we are well positioned to continue delivering on our strategy, focused on optimizing the performance of our operations unlocking their potential and identifying new opportunities to create value for our stakeholders. Graham and his team will continue to focus on running our business well, creating sustainable long-term value while prioritizing the safety and well-being of our people, our operations and our communities. Our capital allocation priorities remain unchanged, and we will continue to pursue growth opportunities that can compete for excess capital. The world in which we operate is ever-changing and requires us all to effectively respond as challenges arise. We do so at South32 with our work guided by our purpose: to make a difference by developing natural resources; improving people's lives now and for generations to come; to be trusted by you, our owners and by our partners to realize the potential of your resources. We thank you for your support in this endeavor. Before I pass to Graham, I want to recognize his superb leadership through this difficult year and to again call out the remarkable achievement of our teams around the world to keep our operations running with the safety of our people and communities at the forefront. On behalf of the Board, I thank them, one and all. I'll now hand you over to Graham. Graham?

Thank you, Karen. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us for South32's 2021 Annual General Meeting. It's great to speak with you today, albeit virtually, to reflect on a strong year for South32, discuss the challenges we have overcome and our plans for the future. As Karen mentioned, we were deeply saddened by the death of our colleague, Petros Sibeko, following an incident involving the use of an elevated work platform in May this year. Nothing is more important to us than safety, and it's devastating that Mr. Sibeko did not return home to his family at the end of his shift. Our thoughts remain with his family, friends and colleagues. The investigation into Mr. Sibeko's death has been completed and the outcomes shared across our business and with the new owners of our South Africa Energy Coal business, so that a similar event does not happen again. In FY '20, we changed our reporting practices to disclose fatalities for contractor activities associated with our operations that take place in locations where we do not have control. Sadly, one person from a contracting company appointed by Cerro Matoso was fatally injured while carrying out work to pave the public road between the municipality of Planeta Rica and our Q&P project. We offered our support to the contractor company following the incident. We will never be truly successful until we eliminate fatalities and significant incidents. Our teams have been working hard to improve our safety performance with 4 of our operations recording their lowest total recordable injury frequency to date during FY '21. We also had a reduction in total recordable injuries for the period, but our TRIF increased by 2%, and we did not meet our target. We are focused on improving our safety systems as well as influencing the organizations we work with to improve safety outcomes, so that everyone goes home safe and well at the end of their shift. Our people and communities continue to face the many challenges brought about by COVID-19. We are deeply saddened by the number of colleagues we have lost, and I would like to express my sympathies to all those who have lost loved ones to COVID-19. Our response to the pandemic is focused on 3 areas: keeping our people safe and well; maintaining safe and reliable operations; and supporting our communities. We continue to uphold the necessary controls to protect our people, our operations and communities. We have supported government vaccination programs by procuring vaccines for our people, our contractors and our communities in Colombia and Mozambique and at our GEMCO operations in the Northern Territory of Australia. We invested an additional USD 2.5 million in our COVID-19 Community Investment Fund during the 2021 financial year, taking the total investment since the start of the pandemic to USD 7.6 million. Our contributions have supported local health clinics with medical equipment and improved water supply, mobile classrooms for schools, relief for small businesses, essential supplies and improved access to water for families. The value of industry association memberships was never more apparent than during the emergence of COVID-19. Industry associations in our respective jurisdictions acted as the interface between government and industry to assist in developing response plans, sharing timely information and facilitating agreements to allow operations to continue under agreed protocols. Our operations continue to perform well, and we had several production highlights in FY '21, including records at Brazil Alumina, Australian Manganese and Worsley Alumina, where the refinery finished the year above nameplate capacity. Volumes improved by 21% at South Africa Manganese following its recovery from COVID-19-related disruptions in the prior year. Our production performance, coupled with the continued improvement in commodity prices, has enabled us to maintain our strong balance sheet and continue to deliver consistent returns to our shareholders through our dividend payments and a further extension of our capital management program. As Karen has outlined, during the year, we made substantial progress reshaping our portfolio, completing the divestments of South Africa Energy Coal, the TEMCO manganese alloy smelter and a portfolio of noncore precious metals royalties. The divestments of South Africa Energy Coal and TEMCO has simplified our business, reduced capital intensity and lowered our cost base by approximately 20%, positioning us to improve margins through the cycle. We were pleased to announce our plans to acquire a 45% interest in the Sierra Gorda copper mine in Chile recently and to exercise our preemptive rights to increase our existing shareholding in Mozal Aluminium. These are significant milestones as we actively reshape our portfolio for a low-carbon world. The Sierra Gorda transaction expands our presence in the Americas and provides exposure to our long-life copper asset with a large resource base. Operating performance has progressively improved since production began in 2015, and the operation is expected to exceed 200,000 tonnes of copper equivalent production in 2021. We also have a number of high-quality growth options and exploration partnerships designed to enhance our commodity exposure for a low-carbon future. At Hermosa, following work on the pre-feasibility study through the year, we released an updated mineral resource estimate for Taylor, which confirms the potential for a long-life zinc-lead-silver project with study work confirming a preference for a dual shaft development that prioritizes early access to higher grade ore. We expect to report the outcomes of the Taylor pre-feasibility study around the end of the calendar year. We are making good progress with our scoping study for the Clark Deposit at Hermosa, where preliminary outcomes indicate a technically viable flow sheet to produce a battery-grade manganese. The Ambler Metals Joint Venture in Alaska, where we have a 50% shareholding, is progressing a pre-feasibility study for the high-grade Arctic copper and zinc deposit. In addition, we are building a pipeline of opportunities by investing through the drill bit. We have more than 20 greenfield exploration partnerships and projects targeting base metals in the Americas, Australia and Europe. Following the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission refusal of our application for the Dendrobium Next Domain project at Illawarra Metallurgical Coal in February, we continue to assess our options for the project, including a revised mine plan. We expect to be able to provide a further update around the end of the 2021 calendar year. As Karen mentioned, we have set a medium-term target to halve our operational carbon emissions by 2035 against our FY '21 baseline. Our decarbonization plans are focused on the operations, which accounted for approximately 90% of our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions in FY '21, Worsley Alumina, Illawarra Metallurgical Coal and our aluminum smelters. At these operations, we are undertaking short-term emissions reduction activities focused on process and energy efficiency projects as well as studying the transition to lower carbon energy sources over the medium term. At Worsley Alumina, our efficiency projects to reduce energy and water consumption are progressing through study phases. Mud-washing, the most advanced of our projects, is in a pre-feasibility study which is on track for completion in FY '22. We have successfully used biomass in place of energy coal in the multifuel cogeneration facility since 2018 and further studies of low-carbon energy sources are underway. We are deploying AP3XLE energy efficiency technology at Mozal Aluminium, and we are conducting a trial for its use at Hillside Aluminium. Our pre-feasibility study for the Taylor deposit at Hermosa incorporates low-carbon design initiatives. Wherever we operate, we proudly support our local communities and during the 2021 financial year, we invested USD 22.2 million in community initiatives and activities. We partner with local organizations and governments to invest where it is needed most, and our community investment focus on initiatives that enhance education and community leadership, good health and social well-being, economic participation and natural resource resilience. We also increased our procurement from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses by 18% in FY '21, exceeding the target that we set out in our Reconciliation Action Plan launched in September 2020. In May 2021, we partnered with the Australian Indigenous Leadership Centre and the Anindilyakwa Land Council to establish a program designed to enable and empower young people on Groote Eylandt, where GEMCO is located. The Anindilyakwa Future Leaders Program was developed in collaboration with traditional owners and is focused on developing leadership capability and governance skills, two areas that will enable this community to thrive long into the future. To conclude, it has been a challenging year for South32 for many of our people and our communities. I'm proud of the way our people have responded, demonstrated great resilience and innovated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. I'm also grateful for the way our people and communities around the world have united and worked through this difficult period. We have a strong foundation to continue to build our business. Our operations are performing well. We have a strong balance sheet, high-quality growth options in attractive commodities and a plan to decarbonize our business. Once again, thank you for joining us today and for your ongoing support. I'll now hand back to our Chair.

Thanks, Graham. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll now move to the formal items of business. Each resolution and the explanatory notes are outlined in the Notice of Meeting dated 17 September this year. As well as consideration of the financial statements, the business before us today includes 6 ordinary resolutions and 1 special resolution. Two resolutions have been requisitioned: resolution 6a that proposes an amendment to South32's constitution; and resolution 6b relating to how we approach industry associations of which we are members. Resolution 6b is a nonbinding advisory resolution and will only be valid if resolution 6a is passed. As you will have seen from the Notice of Meeting, the Board recommends shareholders vote in favor of all resolutions, except resolution 6a, which the Board recommends a vote against. I intend to vote all undirected proxies that I hold as Chair in the same manner. While resolution 6b was not proposed by the Board, we nevertheless recommend a vote in favor as it substantively aligns with our practice. We'll work through each resolution in order, and I'll provide you with a summary of proxies received as we progress. I'll also invite questions on each resolution. The first item of business is to receive the financial report, directors' report and auditor's report as set out in the company's annual report for the financial year ended 30 June 2021. There is no requirement to approve these reports, and we are simply tabling them for discussion. As I mentioned earlier, we have Graham Hogg from KPMG with us, and Graham is available to answer questions relating to the audit. Hayley, could you please read the questions that have been received in advance of the meeting, and I'll respond to these for the benefit of all shareholders. Are there any questions?

Thank you, Chair. The first question comes from [ Mr. Matthew Trainer ]. And the question is, "Will we be able to reinvest our dividends in the near future?"

Thanks, Hayley, and thanks, [ Mr. Trainer ], for your question. While we don't have a dividend reinvestment plan, shareholders are, of course, able to reinvest their dividends in South32. Our view is that the complexity of running a dividend reinvestment program is really considered too great and outweighs the benefits that we see at this time, but it is something we look at from time to time. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. The next question comes from [ Mrs. Phyllis Kendall ]. And the question is, "Why do you persist with incentive payments and obscene salary levels when they are proven by research to be ineffective?"

Thanks, [ Mrs. Kendall ], for your question, and I certainly appreciate your perspective. I'm sorry that you have concerns about our remuneration levels. I'm not sure if the research to which you refer, but it might help if I just briefly set out how we go about fixing remuneration for our executives. When we settle on salary amounts, we have regard to 3 things. Firstly, the need to attract and retain talented people in a competitive environment. Secondly, we want to set our salary levels at the midpoint of whatever it is that the market is offering. And thirdly, we want to set it at a level that reflects the role, the accountabilities of the individual and of course, the skills that are required to do the job. But I guess, importantly, we put a very significant amount of remuneration at risk. In Graham's case, 71% of his at-target remuneration is at risk, which means it will only be paid if performance hurdles that we believe are demanding are met. And we think that's the best way to achieve alignment between executive pay and the shareholder experience. If I just use the last year as an example, the total shareholder return that shareholders enjoyed over the last year was 42%. If I take the last 4 years, it's 31%, which is obviously a significant uplift and benefit for our shareholders. And as a Board, we are satisfied that the executive pay is aligned to that shareholder outcome. I guess, finally, I just hope I can give you some comfort when I say that the Board retains overall discretion in the way in which it approaches executive pay. And you might remember that just a couple of years ago, Graham willingly gave up around $5 million of his remuneration when we collectively, Board and Graham, agreed that the outcome, frankly, would have been just too high. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. The next question comes from [ Mrs. Lynette Labecq ]. And the question is, "The UN Paris Agreement has been heavily influenced by China, substantially benefits China and is detrimentally impacting Australia's economy, energy independence and national security. Vast tracts of our irreplaceable agricultural land, such as landscapes, are being ruined by fake green, inferior, unreliable toxic class, large-scale solar and wind turbine monstrosities, harming Australia's essential, uncontaminated food staple supply." "Given the extreme hostilities of China and Australia's massive debt burden, everyday Australians need our most secure, sensible reliable, economical and plentiful natural energy resources to be used for the welfare of everyday Australians, our own sovereign advantage, our future strength, economic benefit and national security. Why then does South32 even reference and persist in caving into this unproven, exaggerated climate alarmist modeling propaganda, influencing its direction when it has consistently been proven incorrect for decades?"

Thanks, Hayley, and thanks, [ Mrs. Labecq ] for your question. I do appreciate that there are many and varied views on this subject. In our case, at South32, we made our position very clear on the matter when we demerged. We are persuaded by the science of man-made global warming and it's for this reason that we've committed to a net zero target by 2050, and of course, just this year, setting a medium-term target for 2035. As I said in my earlier remarks, as we go about this work, we want to be motivated by 2 things. One is to be ambitious, and we think we need to be in response to the challenge that we feel very strongly about, but we also need to be realistic. We do need to recognize that there is no single solution and that the considerations of the kind that you mentioned, including land use, do need to be taken into account as we not only fix our targets, but also our projects to take us there. I would say that I don't think there is another industry that understands the impact on communities better than the resources industry. I mean it is, after all, where we live and where we work. And so we do need plans that not only allow us to meet our goals. But plans to make sure that as we go about that work, we do it in a just way, a way that's fair, that's equitable and that's inclusive. And then finally, I'd just say that the cost of doing nothing, in our view, is significant. It's significant for South32, and it's significant for the nation. Demand for Australia's exports could very well be in parallel, if you think that more than 80% of our exports go to trading partners who have all committed to net zero. So for this reason, we believe our response is the appropriate one. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. The next question comes from [ Ms. Rebecca Clemenc ] and the question is, "The pressures placed on companies from other countries in terms of the climate change issues, for example, Paris, how do we look at these as being fair and reasonable as some countries are perhaps, say, [ let off ] doing their fair share of reducing climate change? All investors and companies do look at the profit building growth. How as a company can we look at these measures that are placed on a more economical system to improve the company rather than a burden to decrease productivity? It is always hard to balance this. What can the company do to get this balanced?"

Thanks, [ Ms. Clemenc ], and I certainly agree with you. It is a balance. We do, however, think that as a company, we're very well positioned to address the challenges. As I said in my earlier remarks, we have worked actively to reshape our portfolio to increase exposure to metals that we believe will be in demand in a low-carbon world. And copper is a very good example of that. And Graham and I spoke about the plan we have to acquire 45% of the Sierra Gorda copper mine in Chile. If you think about the work that the International Energy Agency has done as we focus on the transition to clean energy, they say, for example, that a typical electric car requires 6x the mineral inputs of a conventional car. They say that an onshore wind plant requires 9x more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. And of course, copper is the cornerstone of all electricity-related technologies. So we think the future is bright. We think we have a portfolio that is resilient to changing commodity demands and climate policies and, of course, the development of technology as we work our way toward the Paris Agreement and the aspiration that we share for net zero by 2050. Thanks, Hayley.

Thank you, Chair. The next presubmitted question comes from [ Mr. Anthony Kennedy ]. The question is, "Could you please elaborate on the steps that South32 is taking to minimize emissions and the potential adding to climate change?"

Thanks, Hayley. And I'll ask Graham just to comment on some of the specific projects. But in general terms, we're doing a number of things. We're investing in efficiency projects. We are shifting to low-carbon energy where we're able. We're applying low-carbon design principles, and we're certainly doing that with our Hermosa project. And of course, we're evaluating new technologies. In South32's case, our Scopes 1 and 2 emissions, or at least 90% of them, come from 4 sites. And so as you can imagine, they are the areas on which we're focused. We do set out some detail in the Sustainable Development Report that you'll be able to access on the website about the specific projects. But Graham, would you like to comment on some of the projects that we have underway?

Yes, absolutely, Karen. And I guess I'd go back to your point. I'd always start with this. Four of our operations roughly account for 90% of our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. So to sort of put that in perspective, Worsley Alumina is about 17%; Illawarra Metallurgical Coal is 11%; Hillside Aluminum is 56%; and Mozal Aluminium, the smelter in Mozambique, is about 7%. Mozal, for us, the long-term future is also always about securing the next block of green power. So that relies on a hydro power source. So that is a green power source which is uniquely positioned and, if you like, the world's demand for increased aluminum. Hillside is the biggest emission profile for Hillside, which is 56% of our emissions, comes from the electricity we take off the grid, which is coming from the state-owned enterprise of Eskom in South Africa. We're working closely there with the government, interested third parties in terms of green financing to ultimately reset their network up as renewables. And that would be for the next power block. We just recently signed a current 10-year power block. Beyond that, we're looking for a green power contract. And that is certainly technically feasible through wind, solar and the use of batteries. It's just about now working with the government around policy. At Worsley, for us, it's probably 2 components we're concentrating on. One is energy efficiency. And we spoke about the mud-washing project, which actually reduced energy intensity as well as actually water consumption. That's due to be finishing the pre-feasibility by end of this financial year. And then the next piece is to actually convert the coal-powered steam generation to gas and then from gas to another source like hydrogen. And Illawarra, it's all about gas drainage and increasing efficiencies. So when we talk about that plan to reduce our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 2035, we think we've got good plans in place to actually achieve that. The teams are actively working on now. And certainly, it's reflected all through the scorecards of our business. Thanks, Karen.

Thank you, Chair. The next presubmitted question comes from [ Ms. Karen Kitting ], and the question is, "Like the directors, we, the shareholders, need higher dividends."

Thanks, [ Ms. Kitting ]. Look, as the Board thinks about allocating capital, it always thinks about the balance between the capital that's required to reinvest in the business and, of course, what returns we can deliver to our shareholders. We do that under the capital management framework that we've had in place since the beginning of South32's life, and we'll continue to do it that way. You may recall that our dividend policy is that we will return a minimum of 40% of underlying earnings in the form of ordinary dividends. And in fact, if I go back to the formation of South32 since that time, we've delivered more than half of underlying earnings in the form of either ordinary or special dividends, about 53%. We have, of course, had a buyback. and through that buyback process, reduced the shares on issue by around 12%, which obviously means we're able to concentrate that impact of dividend flow. So I would just leave you with what I hope is some confidence that as we think about this issue, the Board is always balancing those competing requirements. Thanks, Hayley.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. The next question comes from [ Mr. Phil Clarke ]. The question is, "Given the number of British shareholders you have, can you please broadcast your AGM over Lumi as a hybrid meeting in future years?"

Thanks, Hayley, and thanks, [ Mr. Clarke ], for your question. I suspect that's exactly what we'll do. We've certainly had feedback that while people are frustrated not being able to get together in person for a meeting, a lot of people are able to access the meeting remotely, and that's, of course, made it available to a lot more. So my expectation is that we will continue to do it through broadcast, but in a hybrid format, so people can get together as well.

Thank you, Chair. The next 2 questions come from [ Mr. Phil Clarke ] also. And the first is, "Can you please set time the start time of the AGM in future years to allow both Australian and U.K. shareholders to attend? And I'll add his second question to this. It's will a recording of this year's AGM be available on your website so that U.K. shareholders can see the presentations and the Q&A session, albeit retrospectively?"

Thanks, Hayley. The answer to the second question is yes, absolutely. There will be a recording available on the website. As for the start time, this is the tyranny of time zones, isn't it? We've all experienced that, I can tell you, during the last 18 months as we've had to bring people in from around the world to conduct meetings. So I'm very sensitive to that. I'm sorry it's a terrible time of the day. If you have dialed in, thank you. It's very good of you to get up that early. But rest assured that you will be able to access the meeting on the website after its conclusion. Hayley?

Thank you, Chair. The next question is also from [ Mr. Phil Clarke ] and his question was, "Like many shareholders, I believe that safety is an essential part of an employer's responsibilities. I'm concerned about the South32 accident rate discussed on Page 14 of the annual report. The reason for the increase seems to be the sale of SAEC and TEMCO. If these had been excluded from both 2020 and 2021 accident statistics, would the TRIF have increased or decreased? Would the 20% reduction target have been achieved?"

Thanks, Hayley. I will ask Graham just to talk to the rebasing and the numbers that you're referring to, [ Mr. Clarke ]. But let me just say at the outset, these are matters that have taken a very considerable amount of time and focus for the Board always. And we do remain committed to getting this right. It distresses each one of us that we've had another fatality with a contractor this year and a very significant amount of work has commenced as a result of our dealings with contractors to see if we can improve the way in which we are managing those people who come on to our site to work. But Graham, would you like just to comment on the numbers and the rebasing?

Yes. Look, absolutely, Karen. I mean, to your point, there's nothing more important that our people go home safe and well at the end of their shift. And clearly, we're not in that position today when we talk about it. TRIF is one of a number of, if you like, safety metrics. We look at near misses. We look at serious incidents. We also look at other lead indicators, such as follow-up investigations. Our TRIF performance this year, if you sort of take a step back, if you count the actual number of injuries we've had, there's actually been a 7% decrease. If you talk about the number of injuries that had a potential that could have led to a more serious accident, there's actually been about an 18% reduction. The largest majority of our injuries are around things like sprains, strains and finger injuries, which we still need to eliminate out of the business. To answer your question directly. If SAEC and TEMCO were not backed out of our numbers, our TRIF would have slightly risen from [ work back out ], say, had a like-for-like comparison, our TRIF would have gone from 5.9% to about 6%, so slightly moved. The big driver, if you like, in our TRIF number performance this year was South Africa Energy Coal probably accounts for roughly 39% of our exposure hours. So as we talk about the target moving to 6% next year, by backing out South Africa Energy Coal, which probably has an average TRIF rate across its sites of about 2%, we make somewhere like Illawarra proportionately more of the numbers and their TRIF number's closer to 19%, which unfortunately is an opportunity for us to improve. It's an underground longwall mine, which across the industry has higher TRIF rates. As Karen spoke about, we've got a lot of focus about how we improve our safety performance. There's a large piece of work currently underway, and our aim is to improve that next during the years after.

Thank you, Chair. The next question also from [ Mr. Phil Clarke ] is, "If I have interpreted Page 14 correctly, then I assume the accident rates in SAEC and TEMCO are lower than the retained operations evidenced by the new baseline being 6%. Why are the accident rates so much higher in the retained operations than those sold?"

Graham, you might just want to add to your last set of comments to address that question.

Yes. Thanks, Karen. Just to focus on that, [ Mr. Clarke ]. Again, I would say that if you look at total exposure hours the previous year, South Africa Energy Coal was probably about 39% of our total hours. So we've brought a big weighting actually into the calculation. And they had a really low TRIF ' number of 2%. TEMCO is less than 1% of our exposure hour, so that's probably not worth spending time on. By taking South Africa Energy Coal out with a low TRIF rate of 2%, it proportionately rerate something like Illawarra that has a higher rate. So that's why we're sort of seeing that movement. But here is where the, I guess, the catch is around some of those TRIF numbers. They are one metric around safety. But a low TRIF doesn't always guarantee no fatality. So some of our operations have the lowest TRIF rate have actually been the areas where we've actually had fatality, such as South Africa Energy Coal. So again, for me, it's about a balance of looking at the range of safety metrics and continually improving on all of them.

Thanks, Hayley. Do we have any more questions?

Thank you, Chair. We have 1 final pre-submitted question. And the question is, "Why does the CFO not have a seat on the Board as would be normal in most companies?" And that question also comes from [ Mr. Phil Clarke ].

Well, thanks, [ Mr. Clarke ], for your question. I'm conscious that practices around CFO sitting on boards does vary, particularly jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It's certainly a more common feature in U.K.-listed companies than it necessarily is in Australia. Our CFO doesn't sit on the Board, but she does attend all Board meetings. So Graham's leadership team does participate through all of our Board meetings and indeed relevant committee meetings. So we feel we get the benefit of her input and insights in that forum. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I'll move now to the questions coming through on the platform. The first question is a tax question from [ Mr. Anatoli Seminek ] and [ Mrs. Jennifer Ann Seminek ]. And the question is, "At what stage is the South32 Board at in its consideration in the future development of lithium resources to replace the decline in demand for its coal over coming years?"

Thanks, [ Mr. and Mrs. Seminek ], for the question. And I'll ask Graham just to comment on how we think about lithium in a moment. But I can tell you that we don't have any immediate plans to pursue lithium assets. We've talked about our focus on our orientation to base metals, but of course, our focus on copper. And we've seen the -- some recent announcement about the acquisition of the stake in the copper mine in Chile and also, of course, green aluminum through the exercise of our preemptive right in Mozambique. So we think we have a number of commodities in our portfolio that position us very well for a low-carbon future. But Graham, you might make some comments on how we see lithium specifically.

Thanks, Karen. And we do an annual exercise of looking at all the commodities and how they sort of fit, a, in the supply/demand world and, obviously, how decarbonization plays a role in that space. To be honest, lithium, we've looked at a couple of times and we'll continue to look at. We do have a view that on the supply side, there is a real risk that the world sees an overabundance of lithium because it's a very common mineral, and it's very easy to actually extract. But to your point, we are looking at other battery, if you like, commodity-driven technologies. For example, the Clark deposit at Hermosa is really around developing a battery, if you like, grade material that would be used by someone like Tesla. Likewise, we continue to invest in various nickel projects, both in Colombia and Cerro Matoso, but also the exploration projects because we do believe nickel is going to play an important part in battery technology as well.

Thank you, Chair. We have received an audio question from [ Mr. Laurence Crep ]. [ Mr. Crep ], please go ahead.

South32 is a target company of the Climate Action 100+ investor initiative, which ask companies to reduce emissions across their value chains in line with the Paris climate goals. In particular, the CA 100's net zero benchmark sets 1.5 Celsius aligned emissions targets for Scope 3 emissions, which South32 has so far failed to set. Given South32's financial year '21 Scope 3 emissions were 5x higher than Scope 1 and 2 combined, why has the company failed to set short-, medium- and long-term targets for these emissions? And what action will CA 100+ investors and lead investor, HESTA, take against the company if we continue to fall short of the initiatives benchmark?

Thanks, [ Mr. Crep ]. We appreciate your question. Climate Action 100+ is an organization that we've had really positive and constructive dialogue with for a long time. We actually think the initiative of investors coming together in that sort of forum is tremendously helpful in terms of working together to address these issues. And as you say, HESTA is our lead investor. I've had a number of meetings with our representatives at HESTA, as have other members of the Board and of course, members of management. Insofar as Scope 3 emissions are concerned, you are right, we have not set a target for Scope 3 emissions. Nevertheless, we certainly understand the necessity to reduce emissions across the value chain, and we will continue to look at that. But I think we need to recognize here that second principle I spoke about before. And that is we need to be realistic as we're thinking about how we approach these critically important issues. We are a small player in this space. Our metallurgical coal sales probably account for, what, Graham, about 2% of global demand?

Correct.

So our ability to influence our customers on that front is not nearly as great as some others. And I guess the last thing I'd say about this is our Scope 3 emissions have reduced very significantly by about 50% following the sale of our South Africa Energy Coal business and our TEMCO asset. I mean down from 106 million tonnes to around 62 million. So we've made a very considerable dent in that number. And I think, finally, I'd just say to you that we will continue to look at this. We do know that there is an expectation on this front, and we'll continue to work hard to try and influence those with whom we deal to address this issue. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. The next question is a text question from [ Dr. Lindsay Colin Campbell ]. And the question is, "What is the future of manganese as a commodity?"

Thanks, [ Dr. Campbell ]. Appreciate the question. We think the future for manganese is actually very positive. Certainly, the International Energy Agency recognizes that it's one of the commodities that's going to be critical in a low-carbon world. It's important in the infrastructure sector. As you probably know, it goes to the quality and strength of steel and it doesn't lend itself well to being recycled. So we're very positive about the outlook. But Graham, anything you'd like to add on that?

Yes, just maybe building on your last point there, Karen. It is certainly designed to strengthen and extend the life of steel. And as you recycle steel, so you'd have to go back to using met coal and iron ore, but you do need to add back in manganese to sort of give that recycled steel the longer life as well. So it actually extends the life. So I think it's a critical part of how the world decarbonizes.

Thank you, Chair. The next question is also a question -- sorry, a written question, and it's a 2-part question, including a question for the auditor. So I'll read this out. It comes from the [ Wabush ] family. "While the February '21 IPC refusal appears to have been a trigger for the $772 million impairment loss, the factors contributing to this were not new. At previous AGMs, shareholders have repeatedly warned of the potential loss of value for coal-related assets. The write-off is a material 7.5% of the plant and equipment asset balance. It would appear that the assumptions behind the FY '20 impairment tests were wrong or overly optimistic. The first question is, were the FY '20 valuations of these assets accurate? And the second part, has the FY '21 impairment assessment adopted appropriate assumptions such that shareholders will not experience a significant write-down in the future on existing assets?" And the question for the auditor, "How did the auditors satisfy themselves that the impairment write-off related to FY '21 and not to a prior period? Did the auditors adopt a more skeptical approach to management assumptions when undertaking impairment testing in FY '21?"

Thanks, Hayley, and thank you for your question. The auditors or Graham Hogg from KPMG will obviously talk to the process that they went through as they considered the impairment for Illawarra. You are right, the impairment was triggered by the decision of the Independent Planning Commission, which was released in February of this year. That decision was unexpected. All of the indications that we had, had up until that point, including support from the regulators, including the representatives of the state government and local regulators, was that, that project development would be approved. So it was a surprise to us. And I think as you would expect, when the decision was handed down, the Board was very keen to understand the process that led to the IPC's decision, including asking some of the questions that you've asked today. But through that review, we satisfied ourselves that these were not issues on which management could have formed a view ahead of the IPC decision. Let me cross to Graham, who'll be able to address the auditor point.

Thank you, Karen. And thank you for the question. Look, I can address the first point first in terms of satisfying ourselves, '21 versus '20 impairments. Management undertake a rigorous process, whereby they do test for impairment triggers at each period end. Part of our role as auditors is to assess that trigger process to make sure that is appropriate and to make sure that the underlying assumptions using that trigger process are appropriate as well. We have undertaken that at both the FY '20 and FY '21 year ends. We are satisfied that after our work at FY '20, that there were no impairment triggers associated with the Illawarra coal assets. However, in FY '21, a trigger was noted by management and that triggers were culminated from the IPC decision, at which stage management undertake a fair value test, which is then subject to our review and our audit, which has been undertaken. You will notice in the accounts as well that there is disclosure around those risks and uncertainties. So whilst we are satisfied with the number which has been articulated in the FY '21 report, there is no guarantee that, that number won't change in the future. But those risks and uncertainties are set out, and we have satisfied ourselves as of FY '21 that it was appropriately reflected. Thank you, Karen. I hope that's addressed the question.

Thanks, Graham. And Graham Kerr, anything you'd like to add?

There may be a couple of things which I think are worth touching on, Karen. When you think about Illawarra Metallurgical Coal, the DND project, or the Dendrobium Next Domain project, is actually the extension of an existing operation. That's not an expansion. It's not an increase in throughput. And it's also been the normal course of business that has occurred regularly at Illawarra over many years since it started. And that project would extend the life of Dendrobium from FY '24 to FY '36. And the move into Area 5, it's all metallurgical coal. So none of this is going into energy generation. It's actually going into steelmaking. And while people are talking a lot about green steel and we follow green steel closely, we do believe that commercialization and viability of green steel is probably 20 to 30 years away. And as a consequence, the hard coking coal that comes out of the East Coast of Australia is critically important in countries that are developing such as China, Southeast Asia and also India. And the other piece for us is, as Karen mentioned earlier, we're 2% of the global export market. We do sell roughly 30% of our product to Illawarra -- in the Illawarra region, to the BlueScope Steel works, who produces steel for Australia. From our perspective, it is a met coal asset, not a thermal coal asset. And met coal, as a consequence, does have a role to play for a couple of decades at least yet. And the other thing worth noting is International Energy Agency, that is a scenario they're talking about. It's one of many possible pathways. It's certainly one of the scenarios that we test when we look at our commodity attractiveness. And over time, it will have an impact on met coal. It won't grow as other commodities do. But for the next couple of decades, met coal is going to play an important part of how the world develops.

Thank you, Chair. The next question is a text question and comes from [ Ms. Deborah Ann String Sykes ]. The question is, "Given South32 support for net zero emissions by 2050 and the International Energy Agency's finding that there is no room for new or expanded coal mines in a net zero by 2050 scenario, will the company walk away from it's Dendrobium Next Domain expansion project at Illawarra Metallurgical Coal?"

Thanks, Hayley. Some of the response to this, I think Graham just made in his last set of remarks. But the Illawarra coal asset is a very important one for us. As Graham said, it's a metallurgical coal asset. It extracts very high-value coal. It has a very low gas content, and it does supply BlueScope Steel, which is obviously a very important business in Australia. We have not yet decided the way forward following the IPC decision in February. We are working on a revised plan for the Dendrobium Next Domain expansion project that takes into account the IPC's findings. And I expect we're going to see some recommendations towards the end of this calendar year. But Graham, anything you want to add?

I'd just add, Karen, as you mentioned earlier, the refusal by the IPC was probably a surprise to ourselves and the government compared to prior years. They did raise a number of issues, it wasn't all around Scope 3. It was around biodiversity. It was around water impact. It was around, if you like, cultural heritage issues. So one of the things the team has been working on is a revised mine plan that we think will address the majority of the IPC issues. That's what the team is working through at the moment to understand the economic impact of that. And I think in the end, that also flows into our Scope 3 emissions targets because the majority of our Scope 3 target emissions will come from Illawarra. And as a consequence, until we understand the way forward around Dendrobium Next Domain, it's very hard to put out there a Scope 3 target.

Thanks, Graham.

The next question also comes from [ Ms. Deborah Ann String Sykes ] and is a text question. And the question is, "I also note the company's divestment of South Africa Energy Coal and plans to divest its Eagle Downs stake. Is South32 looking to exit coal altogether? And is this consistent with the company's climate commitments?"

Thanks, [ Ms. Sykes ], for your question. We have said for a very long time that we won't make any further investments into energy coal assets. And so you can be confident that we have no intention of doing that. The Illawarra asset we spoke about and Eagle Downs are metallurgical coal assets, and we've spoken about the role that they have to play. So it depends what sort of coal we're talking about, but we certainly don't have an exit plan for metallurgical coal, but won't invest any further capital into any energy coal asset. In fact, the only energy coal we produce now is from Illawarra, and that's declining. It will be negligible in a relatively short time. Graham, anything you want to add?

Maybe just to add that point again around green steel. Green steel is coming, so that's still developed through the use of hydrogen instead of met coal by the coking process. We think that will come, but it's probably 20 to 30 years away. So again, the world is going to need met coal for the next 20, 30 years to lift people out of poverty.

Thank you, Chair. The next question is a text question and comes from the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility. And the question is, "In his address, Graham said he'd provide an update on the Dendrobium mine around the end of this year. Can the Board speak to the likelihood of the New South Wales government overturning the decision of the Independent Planning Commission?"

Thanks for the question. It's not something we have any insight into at the moment. As Graham said, we are going to look at the way forward for this around the end of the calendar year once the revised plan that the team are working on is complete. As you probably know, the New South Wales Legislative Council did support a private Members' bill requesting the minister to declare this project state significant infrastructure, which does enable the minister to determine the project on an alternative plan. But we don't have any insight into how that might be exercised and wouldn't expect to do so until we complete our work on the revised plan. Thank you.

Maybe the only thing worth adding there, Karen, is it's not really an overturning of the decision we're looking for. So the revised mine plan is based on the premise that we will address the issues raised by the IPC. So working with some of their concerns to address them, and that includes changing the size of the offsets or length of the longwall, some of the areas we mine in. So it's certainly not about overturning a decision, it's actually adjusting a mine plan that we think will address the majority of the IPC concerns.

Thank you, Chair. We have received an audio question from John Campbell of the Australian Shareholders' Association. John, please go ahead.

Yes, look, I'm representing Australian Shareholders' Association with about 6.75 million proxies from 800 shareholders, and I'm just outside your top 20 shareholders in terms of voting. It was very disappointing to see the 2021 results hit by the double whammy of the loss on disposal of South African coal and also the Dendrobium write-downs. My first question was about Dendrobium, but I think probably the previous question has extracted the information that I wanted to do, and I'm looking forward to hearing the release of the plan in December '21. My next question was on Hermosa. Arizona is known for its sort of value right-wing support for former President Donald Trump and his sort of views about nationalism. And I see also that Hermosa is close to the -- and I'm not sure if I can pronounce this correctly, Tohono O'odham Native American reserve. And I'd imagine that the repercussions from the [indiscernible] caves there has been sort of considered in Arizona in respect to Australian investment. And I'm just wondering if anti-Australian investment sentiments are evident in there and that's part of the delays that you've been experiencing. And just precisely when will we get the feasibility study results? And will that be a definitive answer on developments in Hermosa?

Thanks, John, for your question. We're certainly not seeing any anti-Australian sentiment with our work at the Hermosa project. We had hoped to be further progressed with the pre-feasibility study at this stage. But we have been impacted by COVID-19. I'm sure you're aware that Arizona had for a very long time a very high rate of COVID positive cases, which did impact the ability of people to get on to the site to collaborate and frankly, finish the work on the pre-feasibility study. But we do expect finish that work towards the end of the calendar year and will be in a position to talk about what that looks like, I imagine early next year. Graham, anything you want to add?

Yes. Maybe just a couple of points worth touching on there, Karen, is one, there were certainly impacts from COVID on probably the 2 critical tasks would have been around hydrology where we had to drill to understand the aquifer. And the second piece was around resource because when we made the acquisition of Arizona Minerals (sic) [ Arizona Mining ], it was a foreign estimate. So one of the things we've been going through is each year, we're progressively doing more drilling to convert it to a [indiscernible] source, which is why you will see the resource continue to change. Important to note that the zinc equivalent units have gone up between the last 2 years and the resource is still open at depth and also open laterally. I think the other critical piece is that the Clark deposit sits above Taylor. So once we finish the Taylor deposit, one of the things we'll kick into the value engineering phase is to work out to actually put Clark and Taylor together and jointly develop them. And that's the more work that the team is currently working on at this space. Your comment around First Nations People, we're very conscious. There's roughly 9 tribes in the area. And Pat Risner, who's our lead on the ground there, from day 1 has been very passionate about early engagement. We do expect that we'll get the typical kind of reception that you see in the U.S. where there's lots of questioning around permitting and there's quite a judicial process that will run its course no matter what happens. But we've been very active in the engagement, both with the NGOs and the First Nations people, and that is progressing well.

Thank you, Chair.

Can I get to my second question on Sierra Gorda? You've chosen to acquire a minority interest in the project at the cost of USD 1.6 billion upfront and a further $0.5 billion if it works out well. according to the newspaper, it's had a history of problems. Can you please comment on how they were overcome and how you can be certain of being avoided in the future? And did you consider looking at an Australian company with what looks to be a very good copper project in Chile, on paper anyway, and is currently looking to raise AUD 750,000 to complete PFS on that?

Thanks, John, for your second question. I'm going to get Graham just to comment on how we went about looking at the Sierra Gorda asset. But the sorts of considerations that you've raised are obviously the things that we thought about as a Board. This hasn't been an easy process because, of course, we've had limited ability to actually travel to the site. But having said that, we do, as a Board, feel satisfied that the due diligence that was executed in relation to Sumitomo's stake was thorough and conducted by not only very competent people, but deeply experienced people in that region in Chile. But Graham, you might like to comment.

Thanks, Karen. Thanks, Mr. Campbell, for the question. Certainly, like everyone else, probably in the mining industry, we like copper. And we've been looking for copper assets since day 1, and that's reflective of our exploration projects, but also various M&A opportunities we've had to look at. We've always said from day 1 that M&A for us is driven by value. It's not driven by ego. And I'll be the first one to tell you that when the team started looking at Sierra Gorda 12 months ago, I was quite a skeptic because of the checkered history it had, had during the ramp-up. So they started ramping up in 2015. And over '16 and '17, they had a number of challenges, and they certainly didn't meet their own threshold levels are looking to actually achieve. So when we actually thought about acquiring the asset, we do believe it's an asset that was not that well understood by the market because of the history. And the way I'd describe the due diligence is the team took the time of taking -- layering the onion off piece by piece. So we had 3 large DD visits to the site. We drew down on some of our people from the Americas, particularly out of Cerro Matoso and also some people that we have very close connection with and history with in Chile over the years. And if you look over the last 3 or 4 years, you'll actually see that Sierra Gorda have been running, if you like, a debottlenecking project that has physically changed parts of the plant which has allowed them to lift throughput, stabilize the operation and continually increase their production every year on a very sustainable basis. So we're very confident, and they're sort of past those early commissioning challenges. And while it is a 45% interest, it is important to understand that it's actually a joint control. So when I say joint control, it's made up of an owner's committee, it's made up a sustainability committee, a financial committee, a tailings committee. All of those communities are 50-50 between ourselves and the partner, KGHM. And on that, we have equal voting rights and also the chair rotates every 2 years, plus we're entitled to put secondees into the business as well. So it's certainly a joint venture where we're comfortable around the joint control provisions. On top of the current operation where they're mining from, there is potentially another deposit and a much broader land exploration, if you like, package. So we thought that was actually very attractive. With regards to other copper assets, we continue to look at options. And if we believe we can generate good returns for our shareholders, we will look at both exploration projects, development opportunities, but it's always through the lens of creating value for our shareholders, not just about growing the size of the company.

Thank you, Chair. I wanted to check if John was still on the line and had any further questions before I move on.

Yes, I'm still on the line. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Thank you, John. Go ahead.

Yes. Well, the final question is just on management resources. Are you going to have to be stretched too thin looking after both 2 new major projects with Hermosa and Sierra Gorda? Is it too much of a stretch.

Look, again -- sorry, Karen. Did you want to go first?

No, go ahead, Graham.

I was just going to say, John, we sort of -- this thought process didn't happen overnight. So even pre-COVID, we started to move some of our executive team around. So for example, we've got a strong presence, obviously, with one of my lead team members in Southern Africa. We moved the person in charge of the Australian operations to the East Coast. So we sort of had access to the majority of the operations during COVID. We also moved Simon, who's our Chief Development Officer, to North America probably about 18 months ago, and we started to build out a team both at Hermosa to support that project and hired a number of people. But also at the Colombian business where the team led by Ricardo has had a very strong track record of building projects in terms of La Esmeralda, Q&P and the OSMOC project and started to put more people into those locations. So we're very confident around the capability we've put on the ground. And we'll continue, obviously, add that capability, particularly as Taylor and Clark progress. But there's been some conscious thought around how we position ourselves for that future.

Thank you, John. Did you want to add anything to that, Karen? Are you happy for me to move on to the next one?

No, thanks, Hayley. Very happy for you to move on.

Okay. We've received a text question from the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility. And the question is, "It was reported last month that South32 is preparing to sell its stake in the Eagle Downs mine in Queensland. Can the Board confirm this is the case? Is selling an undeveloped coal mine in the best interest of climate change if a less scrupulous actor goes on to develop the mine?"

Thanks, Hayley, and thank you for the question. Yes, the company is engaged in a process to sell our stake in Eagle Downs. So the report that you saw is accurate. I think your second question is a very fair question. Selling assets and moving the responsibility for a whole lot of issues, not just climate change, to a new owner. That, of course, covers issues like safety, broader sustainability issues, the way in which employees are treated, the way in which communities are engaged and, of course, issues related to emissions. And they are all the sorts of questions that we grapple with as we're thinking about disposal of assets. It's certainly one of the sets of questions that we spend a lot of time thinking about in the sale of South Africa Energy Coal. So we need to balance that with our obligation to shareholders not to destroy value. But Graham, anything you'd like to add?

The only comment I'd make, Karen, is we're actually jointly looking at a process with our joint venture partner, Aquila. And again, I'd stress that it's metallurgical coal. And it's high-quality metallurgical coal, it's not thermal coal.

Thanks, Graham. Hayley, do we have any further questions?

We have no further questions at this time, Chair.

Thank you. Well, then I'll go back to the next item of business. That's resolutions 2a and 2b that seek the approval for the reelection of Wayne Osborn and Keith Rumble as Directors of the company. Wayne and Keith were appointed in 2015 and were reelected at the 2019 Annual General Meeting. In accordance with our usual practice, all directors participated in a review of the effectiveness of the Board and each individual member during the year. The Board wholeheartedly supports the reelection of Wayne and of Keith, recognizing the considerable expertise that each of them bring to the work of the Board. First, resolution 2a is the reelection of Wayne Osborn as a Director. Wayne has been a Non-Executive Director since the formation of South32. His contribution as Chair of the Remuneration Committee is highly regarded, as is his extensive experience in the mining, smelting and processing sectors. The Board has reviewed Wayne's performance and we recommend that shareholders vote in favor of his reelection. Let me cross to Wayne to address the meeting.

Thank you, Karen, and good afternoon, everyone. It has been a privilege to serve on the Board of South32 since it became a listed entity and to help shape the company's early development. I'm seeking your support for reelection, so I continue serving in the interest of South32 shareholders. During my career, I have accumulated substantial experience in the mining, resources and manufacturing industries, which I bring to the South32 Board. I also offer valuable skills in business strategy, capital projects, remuneration, health and safety and risk management. I'm also currently serving as the Chair of our Remuneration Committee and believe I am making a valuable contribution in this role. Earlier this month, I retired as a Non-Executive Director of Wesfarmers. Previously, I was also a Director of Alinta Energy Limited until April 2017 and Managing Director of Alcoa Australia until 2008. My achievements were also recognized by the Australian Institute of Company Directors in 2018, who presented me with an excellence award. It's been an honor to serve on the Board of South32 since 2015, and I hope to continue that work with your support today. I will now hand back to our Chair.

Many thanks, Wayne. We don't have any questions that were lodged in advance on this item. But Hayley, do you have any questions?

Thank you, Chair. We have no questions at this time.

Thank you. I'll ask you now to enter your vote for resolution 2a, and we will put the summary of proxies received on the screen. [Voting]

Thank you. I'll now move to resolution 2b, which is the reelection of Keith Rumble. Like Wayne, Keith has been a Non-Executive Director since the formation of South32. His contribution as Chair of the Sustainability Committee is highly regarded by the Board, and he contributes a valuable combination of skills and knowledge of the mining industry. Following the review of Keith's performance, the Board recommends that shareholders vote in favor of his reelection. While Keith is seeking reelection at today's meeting, he has indicated that, if elected, he does not intend to seek reelection at the expiration of his term. Let me now ask Keith to address the meeting. Keith?

Thank you, Karen, and good afternoon, everyone. I'm seeking your support for reelection, so I can continue serving the interest of South32 shareholders. It has been an honor to serve on the Board of South32 since it became a listed entity in 2015. I have a Master of Science degree in Geology from Rhodes University and have completed an executive development program at Stanford University in California. My experience in the mining industry spans more than 40 years and comprises 3 distinct chapters. The first chapter in the career, which lasted 22 years, was in the iron and titanium business unit of Rio Tinto, where the main challenges were the development and operation of complex metallurgical smelting processes. I commenced work as a young metallurgical engineer eventually reaching the position of President and Chief Executive of Rio Tinto Iron & Titanium. Whereas the titanium industry was less about mining and more about complex extractive metallurgy, my second chapter was in the platinum industry as Chief Executive of Impala Platinum. This assignment was more about the mining challenges in deep level narrow reef hard rock mining during an era of immense political change in the country. My biggest success during this period was inculcating a safe work culture in an industry that had previously taken workplace injuries and fatalities for granted. We achieved a step-change reduction in workplace injuries as well as impressive production growth during my tenure. My last full-time assignment in the mining industry was as Chief Executive of SUN Mining, which included representing a high net worth family as principal investor in mining assets and private equity funds in jurisdictions such as Russia, Kazakhstan, India and other emerging markets. During my career, I have acquired substantial experience in the resources industry. In addition to bringing this mining and leadership experience to the South32 Board, I also offer valuable skills in business strategy, marketing, capital projects, health and safety, the environment and climate change. I currently serve as Chair of our Sustainability Committee, where I contribute my knowledge of workplace health and safety, environment and climate change matters. I am currently a trustee of the World Wildlife Fund in South Africa and an Honorary Life Governer of the Rhodes University Board of Governors. I and my fellow directors are satisfied that these appointments do not impact on my ability to meet my commitments to the South32 Board. As Karen mentioned, whilst I'm seeking reelection at today's meeting, I do not intend to seek reelection at the end of my next 3-year term. It has been an honor to serve on the South32 Board over the past 6 years, and I hope to continue to work with your support today. I will now hand back to our Chair.

Many thanks, Keith. We don't have any questions that have been received in advance for this item of business. But Hayley, do you have any questions?

Thank you, Chair. We have received no questions on this item.

Thank you. Then I will ask you if you would please to enter your vote for resolution 2b. And again, we'll put the summary of proxies received on the screen. [Voting]

Thank you. And congratulations, Wayne and Keith. We're delighted to have your service for a further period. I'll now move to item 3 of the agenda, which refers to the adoption of the remuneration report for the year ended 30 June. That report can be found on Pages 68 to 93 of the annual report. Under the Corporations Act, listed companies are required to provide a remuneration report. And while the vote for the report is advisory only, the Board does value the input from shareholders and will take the outcome of this vote into account when determining the company's approach. The Board is committed to a remuneration philosophy and framework that supports the implementation and achievement of our strategy and business objectives. Our approach to remuneration is designed to incentivize and reward our executives while ensuring that reward outcomes reflect overall business performance and the shareholder experience. We believe that actual pay outcomes for the Chief Executive since demerger are testament to this alignment. Our business scorecard guides short-term incentives for executives. Last year, we delivered a strong operational result, including record production at 3 operations. Our teams showed incredible resilience to the impact of COVID-19 that I've referred to earlier. We also significantly reshaped our portfolio with the divestments of South Africa Energy Coal and the TEMCO manganese alloy smelter. The strength of our performance has been recognized in our business scorecard outcome for the 2021 financial year of 101%. Notwithstanding that strong business result, the Board exercised its discretion to apply a negative business modifier to reduce outcomes by 20% for the Chief Executive and for the Chief Operating Officer of the African operations as a result of the fatality that both Graham and I spoke about earlier at the South Africa Energy Coal business. As a result, Graham received a short-term incentive outcome of 81% of target or 54% of the maximum available under the plan. The long-term incentive is the component of executive remuneration most closely linked to the shareholder experience. It rewards executives for delivering shareholder returns that exceed peer benchmarks. Although our total shareholder return over the 4-year performance period was 31%, this fell short of the threshold required for vesting and all of the 2018 financial year long-term incentive awards lapsed. We're satisfied that our remuneration framework has enabled us to find the right balance between appropriate remuneration outcomes and incentivizing our executives, while also reflecting overall business performance and shareholder experience. However, we also believe that we need to continuously review that framework to ensure it remains fit for purpose. As a result of our recent review overseen by Wayne as Chair of the Remuneration Committee and the input we sought from shareholders, we've made 3 changes to the long-term incentive plan. First, we've reduced by 33% the face value of awards for all executive key management personnel. Second, we've introduced 2 strategic measures of 10% each, one on performance of our climate change commitments, as I mentioned earlier, and the other on the composition of our portfolio. As a result, we've increased the weighting of the financial measures in the short-term incentive to achieve an appropriate balance of measures across both elements of variable pay. And finally, we've moved to an index -- from an index, I'm sorry, to a constituent group of companies for the global mining comparator group. This better aligns to market practice. No adjustments have been made to fixed remuneration or target short-term incentives. We have not received any questions in advance of the meeting on this item. But Hayley, do you have any questions?

Thank you, Chair. We have received a text question from the Australian Shareholders' Association who asks, on remuneration, the ASA is very pleased to see the multiple of Graham's curves LTI maximum reduced to 2x fixed pay although sad for Graham after what we acknowledged to have been very tough circumstances for management. But we would like to see the directors' travel allowance eliminated during 2022 to reflect our concerns about its nature.

Thanks, John, and of course, the association for the question, but thank you particularly for the comments about the performance of the company and particularly Graham's leadership through this very difficult period. I'm afraid travel allowances for nonexecutive directors is one of those subjects we need to agree to disagree on. I know we've had a number of discussions about this over the years. And you will know, of course, that we have recently reduced the amount of money played for travel allowances, and in fact, limited the occasions on which travel allowances are payable. But as a Board, we do feel very strongly that we need to impose on our directors a significant amount of time to attend our operations beyond attending Board meetings, but operations that really are the heart and soul of what we do. And we don't believe we can do our jobs effectively without spending a considerable amount of time with our people on the ground to better understand, as I said in my opening remarks, the challenges they're confronting, but also to understand some of the challenges that face the communities in which we are operating. And so for that reason, we do think this is a very important part of our remuneration structure. I should, of course, say it's all moat, isn't it, at the moment because nobody has done any traveling for the last 18 months, but we do appreciate your point of view. Thank you. Hayley, any other questions?

Thank you, Chair. There are no further questions on this item.

Thank you. So let's move if we can, please, to entering your vote on resolution 3. We do have some voting restrictions that apply to this resolution. And of course, they're set out in the notice of meeting. And again, we'll put the summary of proxies for the resolution on the screen. [Voting]

Thank you. I'll now move to item 4 of the agenda, which is the grant of awards to the Executive Director or our Chief Executive, Graham. While we intend to source the shares that will be allocated to Graham if his award vests from the market, the Board is seeking shareholder approval in the interest of transparency and good corporate governance, and to preserve flexibility to issue shares if that is considered more appropriate at the time of vesting. The rights we're talking about relate to Graham's long-term incentive for the 2022 financial year and the deferred equity component of his short-term incentive award for the 2021 financial year. As I mentioned earlier, we have made changes to the long-term incentive for the 2022 financial year. We've reduced the quantum of the award for Graham from 300% of his fixed remuneration to 200%, as I said earlier, a reduction of 33%. We've also adjusted the vesting conditions with the addition of the 2 strategic measures on climate change and portfolio that I've spoken about. Performance on each will be assessed by the Board at the end of the full year performance period in June 2025. We believe that decarbonizing our operations and reshaping our portfolio are imperative to our long-term sustainability and to our success. For this reason, we feel strongly that they should be reflected in our reward framework. The remaining 80% of the long-term incentive will continue to be assessed using relative total shareholder return over a 4-year performance period. These changes mean that 53.3% of the long-term incentive outcome will be determined by how our total shareholder return compares against the constituents of the IHS Markit Global Mining Index as at 1 July 2021. 26.7% of the long-term incentive outcome will be determined by how our total shareholder return compares against the Morgan Stanley Capital International World Index. These are the same comparator groups against which we've measured our performance for our long-term plan since it was introduced. We don't have any questions lodged in advance of the meeting on this item. But Hayley, do you have any questions?

Thank you, Chair. We have received no questions on this item.

Thank you. I'll then ask you to enter your vote on resolution 4. Again, there are voting restrictions that apply to this resolution, and they're set out in the notice of meeting. And once again, we'll put the summary of proxies on the screen. [Voting]

Thank you. I'll now move to resolution 5, which is the approval of leaving entitlements. The Corporations Act restricts leaving benefits that can be given without shareholder approval. The Board is again seeking approval of the existing obligations to our relevant executives to which they are contractually entitled. This includes the executive key management personnel and directors of subsidiaries of South32. If shareholders approve this resolution, the Board will have the flexibility to tailor the termination arrangements for relevant executives within certain parameters, having regard to the circumstances for cessation of employment. It will also allow the company to be competitive in its remuneration practices and to attract and retain the best people from around the world. Approval is being sought to pay additional termination benefits to relevant executives up to a maximum of 12 months' salary. To pay any death and disablement benefits under contractual obligations; to pay other amounts due under the laws, regulations and practice of the jurisdiction in which the relevant executive is employed; and finally, to accommodate the full range of lever treatments provided for under the terms of the incentive awards. Shareholders are not being asked to approve an increase or changes to existing remuneration arrangements for relevant executives. If granted, the approval will be effective for a 3-year period or until the 2024 Annual General Meeting. We haven't received any questions on this item. But Hayley, do you have any questions?

Chair, we have received an audio question from John Campbell at the Australian Shareholders' Association. John, please go ahead.

Chair, our objection to this resolution is based on the fact that we think that the statutory maximum should be adhered to except in limited circumstances where we would be very happy to support, I'm sure, a situation where an executive was entitled to awarded greater than the statutory maximum. But there would be a -- would be otherwise pare from having it. So we'd be happy to support resolutions to approve termination payments in excess of the statutory maximum in the event that they were justified. We don't want to give the Board a blanket approval to pay in excess of what the law believes to be enough just on whatever terms you believe fit. We think that the discipline of having to get shareholders should be adhered to. That is why we object to the resolution or vote proxies against.

Thanks, John. Appreciate your question and we certainly understand that the association does have concerns with resolutions of this kind, of course, not just with South32, but others. I think it's important to make the point that what the Board decides in these circumstances is transparent and will be the subject of review and perhaps critical review if shareholders felt that was necessary. And the Board would clearly be held to account if it were to exceed what you would expect to be a reasonable approach in these circumstances. I think our record on these things is very strong. And so I don't have any concerns that we would in any way act outside the boundaries of what your association, or other shareholders for that matter, felt would be reasonable. In this particular case, we are, of course, seeking approval to pay for the awards under the short- and long-term incentive plans that have vested. And that's an important qualification. But there are 2 other matters that we think are very important. We do operate in multiple jurisdictions around the world. And in some of those places, regulation on termination might differ from the rules that guide us in Australia, and we need to have the capacity to apply those different regulatory obligations. Secondly, we do think it's very important that we offer our executives a policy that covers them for death and disablement. Now in Australia, we are able to ensure for that. But in some parts of the world, we need to self-insure and that then flows through as part of a termination benefit. And we feel we need the flexibility to meet our contractual obligations on that front. So while I say, I do appreciate your concern and your question. I hope you'll have some confidence that this matter is dealt with very prudently, as you would expect from the Board. Thank you, Hayley. Any other questions?

Thank you, Chair. There are no further questions on this item.

Thank you. Then I'll ask you, shareholders and proxy holders, to enter your vote on resolution 5. And once again, we'll put the summary of proxies on the screen. [Voting]

I'll now move to the 2 final resolutions under Item 6. These are the 2 resolutions requisitioned by a group of our shareholders. That group represents a holding of approximately 0.007% of shares on issue and has been sponsored by the Australasian Center for Corporate Responsibility. Resolution 6A proposes an amendment to the South32 Constitution to enable shareholders to put advisory resolutions at general meetings. Advisory resolutions are not binding, but instead express an opinion or request information. Resolution 6B is an advisory resolution that will only be valid if Resolution 6A is passed by shareholders. Members of the management team have had a number of very constructive discussions with the Australasian Center for Corporate Responsibility. What we both share is a commitment to address the causes of climate change. In South32's case, we have committed to net zero target by 2050, and we've set a medium-term target that I spoke about earlier. As you would expect, the Board gave these resolutions very careful consideration, before deciding whether to support them. As Resolution 6A proposes an amendment to South32's constitution, it is a special resolution. That means it must be passed by at least 75% of votes cast by shareholders entitled to vote on the resolution. As owners of our company, shareholders are, of course, entitled to seek changes to the constitution. In this case, your Board doesn't consider those changes that allow advisory resolutions to be in the best interests of shareholders as a whole. And it's for that reason that we've recommended shareholders vote against Resolution 6A. You can find our detailed reasons in the Notice of Meeting on Pages 16 and 17. Resolution 6B proposes an advisory resolution. And as I said, will only be valid if the constitutional amendment in Resolution 6 is passed. Under Resolution 6B, shareholders request that South32 strengthen its review of industry associations to ensure it identifies areas of consistency with the Paris Agreement and to suspend its membership of industry associations with advocacy that is inconsistent with the goals of that agreement for a period determined by the Board. While the Board doesn't support amending our constitution as proposed in Resolution 6A, we do believe that the substance of Resolution 6B is aligned with our existing practice. For this reason, we recommend the shareholders vote in favor of Resolution 6B. And again, we have provided detailed reasons that are set out on Pages 17 and 18 of the notice. I'll shortly ask Dan Gocher from the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility to address the meeting. But before doing so, I should report that your Board has announced that we will include a say on climate in the form of a nonbinding resolution at our Annual General Meeting next year. We think this will be an important opportunity for our shareholders to consider how we are approaching this critical issue. Let me now cross to Dan.

Good afternoon. My name is Dan Gocher, and I'm the Director of Climate and Environment at the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility or ACCR. Thank you for opportunity to speak today, and I'd like to commend the Board for endorsing our shareholder resolution. ACCR has engaged with South32 for several years on issues of decarbonization and the influence of its industry associations on climate and energy policy. Earlier in his tenure, our CEO, Graham Kerr, spoke publicly on the need for the mining industry to take the lead on climate change. South32 has recently updated its medium-term target to reduce its operational emissions by 50% by 2035, which is relatively ambitious compared to its peers. However, South32's relative progress on climate is tarnished by the advocacy of its industry associations on climate and energy policy, particularly the New South Wales Minerals Council and the Queensland Resources Council. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, both the New South Wales Minerals Council and the Queensland Resources Council have sought to exploit the economic recovery by advocating for multiple new and expanded coal and gas projects. This is despite both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency concluding that we simply do not have the carbon budget left for any new or expanded fossil fuel projects if we are to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. The New South Wales Minerals Council and the Queensland Resources Council have also previously advocated for extending the life of coal-fired power stations and oppose policies that promote renewable energy. South32's position on climate change is increasingly at odds with those of its industry associations. If South32 elects to remain a member of these groups, it must make clear when it disagrees with their advocacy. It must also disclose how it intends to improve the efficacy of those groups and if that includes seeking Board or committee representation. If those groups fail to improve, our company must consider suspending its membership. South32 is widely seen as an industry leader on a broad range of issues. ACCR encourages South32 to lead on climate change by calling on the federal government to adopt more ambitious emissions reduction targets to 2030 and calling on its industry associations to do the same.

Many thanks, Dan. We do appreciate your comments and your participation. Let me now invite questions on Resolution 6A and 6B. I will conduct the vote on those resolutions separately, but if you would, I'm happy to take questions on both now. Hayley?

Thank you, Chair. We have received a text question from the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility. And the question is, throughout 2020, both the New South Wales Minerals Council and the Queensland Resources Council advocated for multiple new thermal coal mines and coal seam gas basins in order to aid the economic recovery from the pandemic. Did South32 object to this advocacy?

Thanks, Hayley. I will ask Graham just to comment in relation to both of those specific organizations. But before I do that, I just want to make a couple of remarks about this, although I did cover this in my opening remarks at the meeting. We have published an approach to industry associations, which sets out how we go about thinking about membership [indiscernible] what we would do if an industry association took a position that was at odds with ours. And we do conduct a review on an annual basis and then report the outcome of that review. I think it's also important to say that not only do we look at the published policy positions of these organizations, but we also look at what they do and how they go about their work. But Graham, over to you for a comment on the New South Wales Minerals Council and the Queensland Resources Council, if I can.

Yes. Maybe the only 2 comments I would make, Karen, is you talked a lot about the process about how we assess, which I think is right, and we did make a couple of comments earlier, how they've been incredibly useful during COVID-19 to protect our people and our communities. The other comment I would make is that we're very clear from day 1, where we said we would not buy, build or expand the thermal coal business. We did talk earlier about Dendrobium Next Domain. We're not looking to add additional tonnes to the market life -- where -- the mine, we're just looking to extend the life of the mine. So that's not new tonnes out to the marketplace. But obviously, we'll always voice our opinions in those associations about that position and that stance. We have obviously worked with the Queensland Resource Committee around some positions that were taken around politics a couple of years ago, and we're a strong advocate against that. And internally, we work with them to sort of change that position. So at the moment, we still think inside the temp we can make change.

Thank you, Chair. We have an additional question from the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility. And the question is, ahead of COP26 commencing in Glasgow this weekend, does South32 support a more ambitious nationally determined commitment for Australia to 2030? If so, how has it advocated for that position?

Thanks, Hayley, and we certainly appreciate that question. I should say at the outset that South32 welcomes the decision by the federal government to commit to net zero by 2050, ahead of COP26. We think that is a very important signal about the role that Australia has to play. I spoke earlier about the cost of doing nothing, which is clearly immense. South32 works with a number of organizations in relation to government policy on climate. I mean I think as is well known, all of the states and territories have committed to net zero. And when we are working through organizations like the Business Council, for example, what we are looking to try and achieve is collaboration, collaboration, cooperation, bipartisan support right across the stakeholder community with an interest in addressing this critical issue. The Business Council recently published its report that we thoroughly endorsed. We had input into the work that they conducted, and we think that the approach that they have taken is the right approach. But Graham, you might like to add some comments?

Probably not too much to add on that one, Karen. I mean I think the Business Council of Australia, we have worked closely with in terms of being engaged around their publishing of the policy on their position. And we've also -- while we're not a member, we've worked with the Minerals Council of Australia also as they have changed their policy to be more aligned with what the expectation is. I think from our perspective, we're being very clear that there's a long-term target, but we also believe in a midterm target to actually make demonstratable change, which is why we have committed to halving our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 2035.

Thanks, Graham. Hayley, do we have any other questions on Resolution 6A and B?

Thank you, Chair. There are no further questions on this item.

Thank you. As I mentioned earlier, Resolution 6A is not supported or endorsed by the Board and as Chair of the meeting and for the reasons I covered earlier, I will vote all available proxies against Resolution 6A. The summary of proxies received for this resolution is now on the screen. You'll see from the proxies that we've received just over 93% of votes against Resolution 6A. So taking that into account, that resolution won't pass. And as a result, Resolution 6B is not required to be put to the meeting because as I outlined earlier, it is dependent on Resolution 6A being passed. However, as I also mentioned, the Board does support the request contained in Resolution 6B I mentioned just as I was answering one of those earlier questions that we have published our approach to industry associations that you'll find on the website. So if you'd like to better understand how we go about this work, I invite you to take a look. While Resolution 6A was not passed, you might nevertheless like to see the proxy votes for Resolution 6B, which we'll put on the screen. And as you'll see, shareholders do strongly support the content of Resolution 6B as, of course, does the Board and your company. We've now considered all of the items of business. But before I move to close the meeting, I just wanted to give shareholders an opportunity to ask any other questions that they might have. Hayley, do you have any other questions?

Thank you, Chair. We have no more questions.

Thanks, Hayley. If you've not already done so, could I ask you to enter your votes using the Lumi platform? We will leave the poll open for a further 10 minutes to give you plenty of time to do that. And in accordance with our usual practice, the results of the poll will be released to the stock exchanges and published on the company's website as soon as possible. It just leaves me then to thank shareholders and guests for your attendance and your participation today. That brings us to the end of our 2021 AGM, and we do appreciate you joining us. We look forward to your continued support in the coming year and sincerely hope that we can be together in person next year. Subject to the finalization of the poll, I now declare the meeting closed. Good afternoon.