Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 3:32:56 to 4:14:02
The Future Fund reports a 14.8% investment return while facing questioning over high executive remuneration and gender pay gaps. The committee also scrutinizes the fund's ethical investment framework regarding defense contractors and fossil fuels.
Topics: Public service staffing, Human rights, International law, Fossil fuels
Speakers: Will Hetherton, Senator Barbara Pocock, Senator The Hon Katy Gallagher, Senator Karen Grogan, Speaker 21, Interjection, Senator The Hon Jane Hume
>> Thank you.
>> Um we will now release you. Um and we will ask for the future fund management agency to come to the table. So, welcome to the future fund management agency. I will just um enter an apology for Dr. Aunt who is unable to attend today but is ablely represented by Mr. Will Heatherton, the chief corporate affairs officer, and Mr. Richard Braner, the chief investment officer. Um, would either of you care to make an opening statement?
>> well, you could table it. time.
>> Very happy to table it. Perhaps I can make two comments.
>> Yes.
>> Um, uh, since we were last here in the, um, 12 months to June 2026, the fund delivered an investment return of 14.8%. Adding 37.4 $4 billion uh to the portfolio uh and it now sits at just short of $290 billion. Um and also since our last appearance, our chief executive Raph Ant announced his decision to leave the fund after almost two decades of service and six years as CEO and we wish him uh the very best uh with his uh with his move. Uh the recruitment process to appoint a new CEO is progressing well. Um this is a confidential process conducted in accordance with APS requirements. So there's uh little that we can add today, but we do look forward to announcing the outcome in due course and Dr. Art will stay in his role through to the end of 2026. Uh I'm joined by Richard uh Bran Viner, chief investment officer, who's been with the fund for 3 months. Um and we're happy to respond to your questions.
>> Excellent. Thank you. And all our very best to Dr. Art. We will miss him um on these late night escapades. Um so please pass on our very best and our thanks from the committee. Um, we'll go to Senator PCO.
>> Thank you, Chan. Thanks for being here Um, the response reported that there are 11 APS employees who received total
annual remuneration package of over 1 million and all of them were employed by the future fund management agency. Is this still correct or are there more or less employees with a total remuneration package of over a million?
>> Um I think uh Senator um that data related to the 2425 uh year. We have subsequently uh tabled um our annual report um and that in the statutory remuneration tables discloses I think 17 employees with um uh uh uh remuneration reported on that basis over a million
>> So it's gone from 11 to 17 in a year.
>> Uh that's correct. Senator,
>> can you provide on notice the levels of service uh years of service and the seniority of those 17 positions?
>> Uh yes, I can Senator Happily. [sighs]
what was the highest total remuneration of any uh employee in the future fund?
>> Um senator that will depend. Uh we've provided two tables in our annual report um this year. Uh uh one is the statutory uh uh remuneration tables uh on pages uh on pageund uh 16 of the 202526 annual report. >> Thank you. >> Um that reports a total remuneration uh for one employee of 2.2 uh uh million. However, that incorporates um acrruels of uh both deferred uh uh um short-term um uh uh performance bonuses as well as a long-term incentive that is not payable at this stage but is acred nonetheless. Um the cash basis uh is also reported and that's on page 115 of the annual report. Um and that discloses uh uh there that the total cash remuneration uh of 1.7 million was paid to uh Dr. AR. Uh thank you. Just going back to the
$2.2 million package, short-term bonus and long-term incentive uh for that package. Um can you tell us what proportion that is within the 2.2?
>> Uh let me just see if I have that, Senator. uh I can't disagregate that. There is a line around other long-term benefits and that picks up um uh both those shorter term um uh uh deferred uh uh performance related payments and um uh the acred value of long-term incentives that are not yet paid.
um no other APS employee earns such excessive remuneration for their work. Why is it that the work of the future fund is so different and special as to attract such very high pay?
>> Um Senator, the um the approach to remuneration set by the board um uh has been in place for uh uh I would say since the since the fund was established. There have been some tweaks along the way, but it is largely uh the same approach. Um the the future fund is really quite distinct from um other uh agencies and departments within the public uh service. Um our job is to maximize riskadjusted returns. Um we operate in um competitive global financial markets both for um uh investment opportunities and for uh uh talent. And so um the board's um uh remuneration strategy reflects uh that and is based on uh remuneration within the uh uh financial services sector. Um the other point I think that is really important to make is that uh short-term incentives um and long-term incentives are tied directly to investment performance. Um and so the uh remuneration a large part of the remuneration that is um uh paid and reported in in in quite a lot of detail in our annual report is at risk and reflects the very strong performance of the fund um not only this year over uh the 25 26 year as I mentioned in the opening comments but um over over three years and longer when the funds generated about $84 billion um for the
Commonwealth. How many of the 17 employees earning over a million dollars
>> Uh I don't know uh that number. Uh uh Senator um um the majority I think of the uh 17 will be um uh other highly paid staff who aren't called out individually within the uh within the reporting. Um if I look briefly at the uh KMP where um this is disclosed I'd say in the um in the table that you're referring to the statutory remuneration table um uh there is a uh one female member of staff is paid over 1 million. I would um I would also say though that the um um we can take it on notice, but I'd say that the gender balance within our senior investment team is um is good. Um and so um you know really what we're talking about here is u making sure that people who are performing strongly and contributing to the um uh performance of the fund are remunerated appropriately and I would fully expect that that includes uh senior females.
>> And what's the gender pay gap in the
future fund? Um the gender pay gap um uh for the future fund uh is um uh disclosed. Yeah, if you could get that >> It's disclosed in our gender pay gap statement which is on our um uh website. Um I would preface the comments by saying that um the gender pay gap has improved and it's needs to improve further and we're very committed to um So the the gender pay gap the median pay gap uh for 2025 is 18.3 and the average pay gap is 21.8. I believe that the latest data that's coming through from uh our submission to WIA um is a is a good improvement on that but I don't have the detail on that at this stage.
So you can understand I I imagine why members of the public and the rest of the APS uh are shocked or would be shocked uh that a public servant is earning such high annual remuneration and that there are such an increase and a sizable group of them entirely within the future fund. Minister, do you have any comments to make on that pay rate given that the person who's in charge of health and aging is earning half uh that 1.7 million that I think Dr. AR earned? Like we've got people who do very hard jobs who are paid m way way way less. What's your reflection on
>> Um so a couple of things. Um as Mr. Heatherington Heatherington said it is quite a unique job that the staff of the future fund do uh we have to pay competitive salaries uh for the pro for the industry that they are working in. I met with the chair recently of the future fund. Um uh he assured me that on coming into the role he has um essentially undertaken an assessment of uh remuneration across the fund to um ensure that it's appropriate. uh if you look at international comparisons, I mean the fund now, the future fund is now managing $356 billion in public assets uh for the public. Um if you look at comparable funds internationally, I was advised that this is in the middle to lower range of salaries for people undertaking this type of work for governments. It's it's if you can compare it to it's easy I think to say for people to see the numbers and be concerned but I think if you see it in the context of the financial services industry that we are having to attract talent from so it's it's generating a return of 14% I think in the last year alone uh which has seen people get those short-term bonuses um associated with those returns including over multi-year. Um it is explainable.
>> Minister, I wonder if then if you could provide on notice uh the uh international data which place and how uh the future fund uh has used such data to justify the rates of increase that it talks about benchmarking against. If you are benchmarking, could you provide that I've I'm reminded
>> I mean I I saw that the um the salaries in association with Canada um I think it was reported in the AFR recently that the chief executive of Canada's pension fund generally earns 5 million to 7 million a year. Um so the financial services industry for specialist investment skills like this um we are we do have to pay a remuneration that is going to attract talented people to come and work for the public in in the public interest. Now, I've met with staff of the future fund as well in my time in this role. Uh, and they are people that have made the choice to come and work for a public
>> I'm reminded of a of a chief of of a CEO of a very large company some not so long ago who I heard paid many millions but was delighted. He said he his child care his children were cared for in child care and he was delighted that their salary meant that they were doing it for love not for money. Clearly we've got people doing these positions where money really does matter and where the the the people people who do really tough caring roles are paid so much less. It is a real challenge in our wages.
>> I don't disagree. I don't disagree. But the industry, the market sets uh the wages, the remuneration packages for people with these types of specialist skills. It's a essentially a sovereign wealth fund. We ask it to generate returns. The fund has been incredibly successful exceeding those returns and we have to pay for talented staff to manage that. Um, you know, I I agree. I understand all the arguments around it, but I have looked at this closely. Um, we we have to pay rate and we're not paying rates comparable with commercial entities. I would say that's the point. There is a element um of the people I've met working at the future fund who accept that and do it because of the public purpose behind
that. So I want to go to the issue of >> Wind me up.
>> Thanks. I just want to ask about the recruitment process for um Mr. Ants replacement uh when there were ad when when the ads were first published.
>> Yes. Uh, Senator, so um, uh, the position was advertised publicly on the future funds career page uh, and the APS Gazette on the 27th of August.
>> And when and have applications closed?
>> Uh, I don't know when the applications closed, but I do know that um, No, that can't be right. I don't know. I can take that on notice.
>> Okay. Thanks. Can you tell me if there's been a recruitment firm that's been engaged to support the search?
>> Uh, yes. Spencer Stewart was engaged.
>> Spencer Stewart. Yep. And is it purely domestic or is it uh is it an international search?
>> It's a global search.
>> It's a global search. Okay. Thank you. Obviously, Mr. Ants Store of the institution, there's been a significant degree of turnover um in the rest of the executive two. So, I'm wondering whether there's been any consideration given to that um that there will be potentially more significant change or a loss of corporate knowledge at the fund. And I'm wondering if there's an appropriate transition uh transition plan in place for Mr. Astart.
>> Um yes s I I don't think that uh turnover has been um uh uh at particularly high levels. I think in the annual report this year we report turnover at 16.6 uh% which is well within the um bounds that we would ex expect um uh in the industry. um in terms of the uh handover uh you know Dr. Ant is um uh with us through until the end of December and ensuring that he's um transmitting his uh knowledge and experience through the organization. Um I would say that um there is a significant depth of uh corporate knowledge within the organization. Uh the chief operating officer has been with us for 20 years. Um I've been with the organization for 19 years. Um I believe I think that the average tenure of um uh uh of our um those on our investment committee um uh is around 10 years. So the significant depth of knowledge.
>> And uh you said that it's expected that uh Mr. Answer replacement will be announced in due course. Can you give us something a little bit more specific than that?
>> I'm afraid I can't. Senator,
>> is the reason why you can't because you know and you can't tell me because it is some way contro controversial or or um contravening some breach of privacy or is it that because nobody knows?
>> Uh the the process is ongoing. I'm not directly involved in the process but I understand it's progressing well but I I I can't go further than that.
>> Okay. Uh I just wanted to ask about some speculation on draw down of the fund. an article in October, I think it was, that suggested that the future fund may be called upon because of the growing trillion dollar in Commonwealth debt and rapidly rising bond yields. I suppose for the record, can I ask has the future fund been asked by government to prepare any materials in preparation for an earlier drawdown of the future fund than the deferral currently committed to out to um uh 20 32 33 33 the FY33. No,
Senator.
>> Thank you. Thanks, Chair.
>> Thank you very much. We'll go back to Senator PCO.
>> Thank you. I'm just looking at page 117 of your report and the four fees paid to board members. Um, uh, Mr. Comay as chair, $274,713. Um, was that for a full year? When was uh, Mr. Comay? He's been there for at least a year.
>> Yes, he has.
>> Yeah, full year. And how is that board fee set? Is that relative to similar organizations, Minister? How does how do board fees get fixed?
>> It's a remuneration tribunal would uh set those
>> and that and this rate would uh would be parallel comparable would it to similar
>> Um well, what do you want us to compare it to?
>> Well, I'm this is a a chair of a board.
>> yes but it's a the future fund's different to say the chair of a a board you know doing a particular piece of work say in the health >> department y >> yeah it's quite different to that or are you asking us to compare it to
billion similar bodies you refer to the remuneration tribunal perhaps on notice
>> it it would be at the higher end I would imagine of um government [clears throat] um government boards um but I know um the amount of work that is done for that and for um the experience and knowledge that um Mr. Comay and uh Mr. Castello before him um bought to the role. Uh in fact I met with um com last week um and he we were going through just how much is invol how much time he is spending on the future fund uh which would make the hourly rate I think associated with that remuneration pretty low.
>> So on notice could I have a comparison of this chair's uh payment relative to similar other boards in the public?
>> I don't think there is a similar board. I don't know how you would do that. I could I we could look at GBEs potentially. >> Okay, great.
>> Thank you.
>> Because there are hundreds of boards. I just don't want to do
>> Yeah, I'm just curious. You're saying it's the upper end. I'd like to see the comparison. Uh what spec I want to go to rates of return and the and the places of investment. Um what specific human rights and international humanitarian law due diligence has the future fund undertaken in relation to its investments in Palunteer and Elbert
Um Senator um we've we've covered um this in the past. The the individual decisions around particular um uh companies in which we invest are taken by our external investment managers. Um those managers um make the decisions. Um they also um uh uh research in line with their um uh screens and assessment if they have them. Um our role is to identify the overall risk settings for the portfolio and then implement strategies through external investment managers um uh to to deliver that. Um as as I think you know as you'll recall um we do comply with um uh uh uh appropriate uh sanctions um and we have a number of exclusions um from uh from the portfolio as well.
>> Do those sanctions go to um investments in companies that are dealing in the
West Bank? Um the approach we take on sanctions is that we consider um uh the conventions and treaties that Australia has signed in relation to economic activities. And so the um uh uh the sorry I've confused myself there. Um could you just repeat your question for
me? I'm wondering what controls you have in place for your external investment managers in relation to companies that are doing business in the West Bank.
>> So we we apply the sanctions, treaties and conventions.
>> Yeah. Um so Senator um we apply the um uh sanctions and uh sorry the treaties and conventions that Australia has ratified in relation to economic activities and we apply sanctions um clearly Australian sanctions but also US sanctions across the portfolio um uh uh and I think so I'll leave it there.
>> So could could you answer my question? Do they have any reach to companies trading in the or doing any business into the West Bank?
>> Um those aren't sanctioned and they're not excluded from the portfolio.
>> So you have no control over uh what your investment managers are doing in that zone.
>> Uh we look at the strategies that they will be um uh applying and satisfy ourselves that they're the strategies that we are comfortable with and fit
independent human rights assessments in relation to any of the investments in the future fund?
>> Um, we we do. And Richard, you might
want to talk to this. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> I'll hand to Richard.
>> So, I'm um uh I'm trying to get my head around this, Senator. I've only been there briefly, but um just to clarify what Mr. Heatherton was saying um the the whole exclusion process is based on the federal government sanctions and that applies across the whole portfolio. Um beyond that we use a lot of passive exposure. So we invest in um in uh in in passive equities around the world and a lot of the sort of exposures you're talking about exist because they're in the index. Um however we do have some managers that invest in some of the companies that you're talking about and they do do their own screening and their own engagement with those managers wi with those companies. So for example um Palunteer you were asking. >> Uh one of our underlying managers has uh been working with them for some time on human rights performance. Um they've supported two shareholder proposals asking for human rights due diligence and impact assessments. uh we don't do stewardship on global stocks but our underlying fund managers do and they've been engaging with the company on that basis.
>> So that's one manager out of how many managers?
>> No. Well, the the passive managers don't do that. So these are managers that do smart beta investing and the bulk of our exposure would be through that manager.
So you've increased uh holdings in both Palanteer and Elbert systems in the first half of 2026. Um and I'm I'm want to know whether those that growth those additional purchases were made through passive.
>> Yeah. So
>> index tracking arrangements or active investment decisions.
>> No, they weren't active investment decisions. So in both of those cases, they were a function of additional inclusions of those stocks in different indices. So the index providers, it's a it's a a dark art. Um and uh and it's it's hard to know. So I think I think for example, Palanteer went into the quality MSCI quality index.
>> Yeah. So the so the change there was that the allocation to Palunteer occurred because it was included in a MSCI index.
>> What does MSCI mean? That's
>> that's a global index provider.
>> Okay. Do you know you've given me a an anecdote or an example of one manager that does engage with looking at what Palanteer is uh doing in its in in their investment decisions? Do you have an overview about what engagement and uh analysis uh across your investors is underway both in relation to Palanteer and and Elbert systems?
>> So when we choose a a fund manager, we uh evaluate, this is my understanding, we evaluate their credentials in terms of engagement and stewardship. That's part of the way we would assess them. this particular manager is very strong in that respect. And to be clear, we don't have many global uh equity managers. So, this would be by and large the bulk of any sort of engagement.
But is it fair to say um and I appreciate that you and you and I appreciate you answering my questions, but it's fair to say you do not know how the majority of uh your fund managers are dealing with Elbert Systems and Palunteer. >> you've told me about one
>> s I I don't think that that would be correct. So as um Mr. Brown Viner points out as we appoint managers, we look at the strategies and arrangements and policies that they have in place. Um and then we have ongoing engagement with our managers whether they are um index tracking or more active managers to understand um how they are performing um how they're implementing any uh particular strategies or uh considerations within their portfolio.
>> So Elbert Systems was previously excluded from the future funds investment portfolio because of concerns related to prohibited weapons. When and why was that exclusion lifted? Uh so
Senator um um uh I I think uh perhaps a year or so ago we um we we discussed this um uh Elbert Systems was excluded originally on the basis of uh involvement in um uh the manufacturer of cluster munitions. Um, in 2023, uh, our external advisers, um, uh, based on their, uh, monitoring and research of the, uh, of the company identified that that was no longer, uh, the case, that the company was no longer involved in those, uh, particular munitions, which, um, are subject to an exclusion from the portfolio um, uh, under our policy, and that it therefore became investable again. um that meant that our external investment managers were able to invest into it and that's what they did and that's how it came back into the portfolio.
>> So what oversight and um transparency what view do you have uh into the range and nature of the weapons being invested in by Elbert Systems and Palunteer? What confidence do you have about what is in that uh basket of production by those two companies who are attracting considerable ent interests around the globe for their activities uh certainly in Gaza and the West Bank. I
>> I I think Senator that you know we we rely on two um external advisory services uh who are um expert in this uh space and that's Moody's and Sustainalytics. um they provide us uh they do the research um on uh in this space and other um areas match that against our uh portfolio on particular companies and we draw on their um on their advice.
>> So you um Moody's and sustain analytics
>> sustain analytics
>> uh are providing they have a service which examines the weapons uh elements within the portfolios and provide you with what sort of information? So with
an with an assessment as to whether um the companies that they're looking at are in are operating in areas that would contravene our policy.
>> How often do you receive those reports?
>> Every six months.
>> So um has the future fund sought legal advice on the implications of the International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion for Australian public investments in companies operating in or supporting illegal Israeli settlements.
Uh I think this came up in our last hearing. I think the answer was no.
>> Well, events have changed in the in these areas. Yes. Have you sought legal advice? >> So has any assessment been undertaken of the funds exposure to companies identified in the United Nations Human Rights Office database of businesses involved in settlement related activities?
>> Uh not that I'm aware of, Senator, but I'm happy to take that on notice.
>> Okay. Uh has the government considered um whether public investment in such companies raises issues under Australia's obligations to aid or assist in maintaining an unlawful situation? Minister, this may be one for you. What's your view about um public investment in companies that may be aiding or assisting in unlawful situations? Is this something that you would like the uh future fund, our sovereign funds to be in paying
Uh well the statement of expectations uh and uh relevant government decisions have to be taken into consideration by the future fund and the expectation is that the future fund would follow those.
>> So we're in a changing situation, aren't we? We've got 22,000 children who have been murdered in Gaza. We have a lot of Australians very concerned about that and they would be delighted to have a growing uh sovereign wealth fund, but many of them would be extremely uncomfortable with uh any engagement with firms that are profiting from the murder of children and adults, civilians. Have you had any advice from DEFAT or the Attorney General's Department on these matters?
>> Um I don't believe so. um but I don't know whether our depart shareholder you know essentially the treasurer and my departments have had any engagement but uh I can't recall any um that would have come uh we you know we don't micromanage the future fund we set the policies we set the statement of intent uh or statement of expectations um and then the fund has a job to do which is to uh provide a return uh on investments uh to build up the resources required to fund ongoing superanuation responsibilities across the
>> Minister. Are you comfortable though with the sense that our superanuation funds are in part built on very significant increases in the profitability in the share price of companies that are clearly engaged in circumstances where human rights are are definitely under attack where we're losing
>> that's the assertion from the Greens and we >> it's I know it's a it's a
>> 22,000 children lost I'm not making that up, Minister?
>> No, but we're talking about how the future fund invests. We're not talking um about broader matters. We're talking about the responsibilities the future fund has to provide a return on investment uh for the Australian community. We provide a statement of expectations uh uh if there are sanctions in place, governmentwide sanctions in place and the future fund um is required to follow those. Um and we expect that the future fund does what we ask of it and follows those uh government directions and in my experience uh that is exactly what the
to review uh that charter of investment to reflect the circumstances that are that the United Nations is drawing attention to?
>> Well, I think we always keep these matters under review and we are always in dialogue with the future fund itself, including in a meeting I had last week with the chair.
So can the future fund on notice please provide a list of its holdings in companies identified in the UN human rights office database of businesses as was recently updated involved in activities related to Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory including the value of each holding and whether any has been subject to a human rights risk assessment.
>> I will certainly take that on notice.
Thank you. I'm going to plow on until you pull me up. Um, you've >> got a couple of minutes. >> Thank you. Last estimates I raised with you the New Zealand's High Court decision uh where they declared New Zealand superanuation funds 86 billion investment framework unlawful. I asked you whether you had received legal advice about the legality of investments in settlement activity or military operations in Palestine. Your answer was that the government has not sought advice about whether its investments are consistent with international law and there'd be no analysis done of that court decision. I'm I'm asking you why not and are you concerned that you could also be in
>> Uh I don't think I have anything further to update the committee on.
So could you then seek on not provide on notice advice about whether your investments are consistent with international law?
>> I think that would be a matter I'm I'm happy to see what we can provide. I think it would be a matter for the attorney general's department, but I I will see uh what we can do.
I see in your investments a list and in in weapons um as of 30th of June 2026, 114 million in Palanteer, over a 100 million in General Dynamics, 51 million in Northruck Groomman, 22 million in the uh 21.7 in Boeing and 13.8 million in Loheed Martin. These are very sizable amounts of investment in uh in um in weapons production, are they not?
uh we're a very um large uh portfolio Senator, so the holdings we have in companies tend to be um uh uh significant. Um the companies that you uh listed through there aren't covered by any of our um exclusions or sanctions that are in place and so they're an investable part of the portfolio for us.
And I also note in your investment portfolio, this is my last question, chair, um a very sizable set of fossil fuel investments, uh 300 million in Santos, 672 million in Woodside. You talk in your uh publications about greater climate transparency and certainly in your media releases. Have you given any thought to the contribution that the f that our sovereign wealth fund should be making uh in the future fund to reducing harmful investment in fossil fuels which are warming our planet and threatening the a great risk to the children of the
>> Um Senator, we give a significant amount of thought to um uh managing risk within the investment portfolio and that includes climate risk. Absolutely it does. Um uh our task is set out uh by the legislation um the future fund act and other pieces of legislation and by the investment mandate which seeks to uh or charges us with maximizing returns with an acceptable but not excessive level of risk. That's why we do consider uh risks around climate um but it's not led us to a point where we believe that we should be excluding parts of the um energy sector in particular.
So >> thanks for your answer.
>> So um the minister makes a makes a good point and um we've talked about this in various um situations as well. Um we do invest extensively in for example tilt renewables and we've talked about that and that's I think makes us uh uh one of the largest if not the second largest investor in renewables in Australia.
>> Just thank you. Um, thank you so much for joining us. Um, I have no doubt there'll be more questions on notice. Um, at this point I would like to, um, thank the digital transformation agency for providing us with their opening statement. Um, and provide our congratulations from the committee to Mr. Fechner who's the new chief sorry that >> continuing well appointed
>> continuing. Yes.
Um, and I would also like to thank the ASC for waiting patiently. Um, uh, Mr. Alex Walsh, the acting chief executive officer, and other officers of the ASC. Um, I would like to say it is, um, the committee is, um, sorry for not having been able to get to those agencies today, but as different, uh, members of the committee have different competing priorities, um, uh, we will endeavor to, uh, change it up next time. So,
understanding is the committee resolving to spill over?
>> Uh, no one has asked for a spillover but um you can certainly um provide us with >> yeah there are many options. >> There are many options open to members of the committee. I've tried to negotiate throughout the day to get to all of the things. Unfortunately that has not been successful. I'm just I'm
conscious of the fact that senators obviously still have questions and if senators
>> well if senators have questions as you well know they are well within their rights to seek >> but we don't have anyone here asking for other no one has asked for a spillover so we haven't set one but you can you concern okay do you wish can we resolve into a committee then so that we're not wasting any more of these poor unfortunate people's time
>> yes
>> thank you uh good night I would like to um thank everybody witnesses handside broadcasting um and declare this meeting in the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee