Questions asked at 2021 PEXA AGM

January 25, 2022

Questions asked at 2021 PEXA AGM.

Did any of the 5 main proxy advisers in the Australian market - ACSI, ASA, Ownership Matters, Glass Lewis and ISS - recommend a vote against any of today's resolutions? Which of the proxy advisers are covering us and has their been a material proxy protest vote against any of today's resolutions? Will you disclose the proxy votes before the debate on today's resolutions so shareholders can ask questions if there have been any protest votes?

Treasury Wine Estates has voluntarily moved to annual elections for directors in line with best practice that occurs in both the US and the UK. Dual listed companies like News Corp, BHP and Rio Tinto all do this due to the laws in the US and UK. What does Vivek think about this idea, particularly considering that it could lead to more revenue for Link given there would be more resolutions to manage at each AGM, as well as PEXA director being more regularly accountable to shareholders.

When disclosing the outcome of all resolutions today, including this LTI grant, will the chair and CEO support the idea of publicly disclosing how many shareholders voted for and against each item, similar to what happens with a scheme of arrangement? This will provide a better gauge of retail shareholder sentiment on all resolutions and was a disclosure initiative recently adopted by Metcash and Southern Cross Media after their AGMs.

The AFR's Rear Window columnist Joe Aston wrote a story last year raising issues about whether Vivek ever held the title of "CEO Insurance" at Wesfarmers. Could he please clarify what roles he held during the 4 years he worked at Wesfarmers.

Given the interesting discussions across a range of topics today, including this LTI grant, could the chair undertake to make an archived copy of the webcast plus a full transcript of proceedings available on the company's website. Nine Entertainment chairman Peter Costello, who appreciates the benefit of a parliamentary hansard transcript where MPs don't have to scroll through old videos to find out what was said, made this change last week & had a full transcript of Nine's AGM online before the end of the day.

Why didn't we tap into the widely rorted $88 billion JobKeeper program like 474 other ASX listed companies, including REA Group, which later repaid the funds. All you had to do was forecast a drop in revenue, not actually suffer a drop. This was one of the world's most lax, open and abused corporate support schemes with $38 billion being paid to applicants which didn't suffer the required revenue drops. Did we consider applying to maximise returns to shareholders?