Speaker 1: Already and this this is the Daily.
Speaker 2: This is the Daly OS.
Speaker 3: Oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 4: Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Thursday,
Speaker 4: the twenty ninth of May. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 1: I'm Harry Seculch.
Speaker 4: This time a week ago on the podcast, we were
Speaker 4: discussing the future of the Liberal Party after the Nationals
Speaker 4: announced that it was splitting from its long term political partner,
Speaker 4: effectively ending the coalition. But eight days since news of
Speaker 4: that breakup emerged, we got another update yesterday which has
Speaker 4: thrown a curveball into this entire situation.
Speaker 2: Dave and I have reached agreement formally to reform the coalition.
Speaker 2: I'm want to thank you, David for the respectful and
Speaker 2: productive way that you and I have engaged throughout this process,
Speaker 2: and I know that we will be a great partnership
Speaker 2: going forward.
Speaker 4: The Liberal and National Party have reached a deal. The
Speaker 4: coalition is back together.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: This comes after the Nats said they wanted to cut
Speaker 4: ties after failing to secure some guarantees from the Liberals
Speaker 4: about the future direction of four key policies, which we'll
Speaker 4: touch on a bit later. But it left us with
Speaker 4: so many questions about what led to the decision, what
Speaker 4: it could mean for the future of each party, how
Speaker 4: the new opposition would function, and Australia's overall political landscape.
Speaker 4: But now that this separation has been abandoned and a
Speaker 4: coalition deal is back on, I needed to bring in
Speaker 4: the big guns to break this all down for us
Speaker 4: tda's political expert, our journalist Harry Seculitch, to take us
Speaker 4: through all that's been happening in one of the shortest
Speaker 4: breakups in history and why it all matters.
Speaker 3: Hurry, welcome back to the podcast.
Speaker 1: Great to be here, Emma.
Speaker 4: It has been an ongoing saga, this coalition, will they
Speaker 4: won't they?
Speaker 3: But it did make things really interesting after the election.
Speaker 1: Which feels weird because all the dramas usually during the election,
Speaker 1: during the campaign, which is a bit more of a
Speaker 1: pressure cooker environment because you're trying to get elected. But
Speaker 1: in this context we've had all the drama come after
Speaker 1: the election. It seems I can't even seem to remember
Speaker 1: what happened before the third day.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's been an election after math unlike any other
Speaker 4: in my memory, or at least my voting consciousness. With
Speaker 4: all these recounts, these tight races, and of course the
Speaker 4: Liberal National Parties drama. Let's just go back to last
Speaker 4: Tuesday when this separation was announced.
Speaker 3: What exactly happened.
Speaker 1: Well, I was on leave, Emma, which I just have
Speaker 1: to say, as a political nerd, that absolutely gutted me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I was watching closely. It was actually kind of
Speaker 1: nice to be at home and watch it all unfold
Speaker 1: on TV before me, so I can just kind of,
Speaker 1: you know, digest it myself, I guess.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But basically what happened was leading up to last Tuesday,
Speaker 1: there was no hint of a coalition agreement actually coming
Speaker 1: to bear, which is pretty typical after an election. It's
Speaker 1: just kind of like rubbersta that the Liberal and National
Speaker 1: Parties would agree to form an opposition together, they would
Speaker 1: have some leadership roles that would be divided up between
Speaker 1: the two parties, and it's just pretty standard fair But
Speaker 1: that hadn't happened. Then we see this press conference be
Speaker 1: called by David Little Proud after a bit of speculation.
Speaker 3: And he is the leader of the Nationals Party.
Speaker 1: Yes, and he said that there would be no coalition
Speaker 1: agreement based on a number of factors. But it basically
Speaker 1: confirmed what was in everyone's mind, which was what is
Speaker 1: actually going on with the Coalition? Why haven't they struck
Speaker 1: a deal yet?
Speaker 4: I think it would be helpful to maybe take it
Speaker 4: back a little bit into the history books to understand
Speaker 4: the role of the Coalition in Australian politics. I think
Speaker 4: when I was a high school kid, I thought the
Speaker 4: Coalition was the Liberal Party. Wasn't until I got a
Speaker 4: bit older that I worked out, No, we're talking about
Speaker 4: two separate entities.
Speaker 3: But how has that worked historically? That partnership, So it's
Speaker 3: an allie. Just think of it as two parties that
Speaker 3: are formally allied with each other. They both have conservative values,
Speaker 3: they have a lot of similar policy ambitions, and since
Speaker 3: World War Two they've basically operated as a singular unit
Speaker 3: in opposition to the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: So if you want to think of it as a marriage,
Speaker 1: you can, and it would be quite helpful to think
Speaker 1: of this marriage scenario when we're talking about a breakup
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 4: Lots of marriage metaphors over the last eight days. But
Speaker 4: we heard David little Proud, as you mentioned last week,
Speaker 4: call this press conference announce that for the first time
Speaker 4: in almost forty years, the Liberals and Nationals would not
Speaker 4: be agreeing to a formal alliance.
Speaker 3: Did he say why so?
Speaker 1: He pointed to four specific policy areas when it came
Speaker 1: to his decision and the National Party's decision to break
Speaker 1: up the coalition agreement or just not enter into one
Speaker 1: after this election. So the first one was this issue
Speaker 1: of divestiture powers, which is ba the power to break
Speaker 1: up a big company. They specifically spoke about supermarkets, so Colson, Woolworths,
Speaker 1: and hardware chains so Materi ten and Bunnings.
Speaker 4: There are a lot of headlines about these divestiture claims
Speaker 4: during the microscope that's been on the supermarket duopoly in
Speaker 4: the last couple of years.
Speaker 1: That's right, and the Nationals in particular have really been
Speaker 1: pushing to get these divestite powers up and they want
Speaker 1: it as part of a formal policy platform. The second
Speaker 1: thing that they wanted commitment to was guaranteed mobile phone
Speaker 1: coverage in rural and regional areas, which for the Nationals
Speaker 1: makes sense that they're putting that forward because that is
Speaker 1: their main constituency. They are a party of the regions.
Speaker 1: The third area was a twenty billion dollar regional fund
Speaker 1: that was announced in the lead up to the election
Speaker 1: by then Opposition leader Peter Dutton, this was basically an
Speaker 1: investment fund for regional projects, so think of roads, infrastructure,
Speaker 1: and also hiring and retaining healthcare workers out in the regions,
Speaker 1: which we though is a bit more of a challenge.
Speaker 1: And then the fourth area, which we're going to put
Speaker 1: a pin in, comes to nuclear power.
Speaker 3: Yeah, had a feeling that's what you were going.
Speaker 1: To say exactly, and it's one that a lot of
Speaker 1: people picked up on and spoke about afterwards, and that's
Speaker 1: because it sort of chopped and changed a little bit.
Speaker 1: But basically David little Proud, the Nationals leader, wanted to
Speaker 1: keep that nuclear policy that the coalition had taken to
Speaker 1: the election. He wanted that firmed up going forward as well.
Speaker 1: So it's also really important to note that coalition agreements
Speaker 1: in the past aren't necessarily tied to policy. It's usually
Speaker 1: just what we call like motherhood statements, which are these
Speaker 1: kind of loose commitments to work together. In opposition. It
Speaker 1: firms up some leadership roles, so if you have a
Speaker 1: deputy leader of the opposition, it's usually in the Liberal Party,
Speaker 1: but once you're in government, the deputy leader becomes the
Speaker 1: leader of the National Party. It's all very technical, but
Speaker 1: it just basically out in writing what has been formally
Speaker 1: agreed to over the last eighty years or so.
Speaker 4: So why in this instance was Little proud on behalf
Speaker 4: of the Nationals so determined to get these four policy
Speaker 4: areas written into an agreement. Does it have anything to
Speaker 4: do with the Liberal Party's outcome at the last election.
Speaker 1: He did argue that the Nationals didn't really go backwards.
Speaker 1: I mean, they did lose one Senate spot, which they
Speaker 1: also blame on a sunken coalition vote overall in New
Speaker 1: South Wales, and they also didn't pick up their seat
Speaker 1: of Claire, which was held by a former Nationals who's
Speaker 1: now turned into an independent in the last parliament, and
Speaker 1: he held on to that seat as an independent. So
Speaker 1: they did go backwards slightly, but not massively. The Liberal Party,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, lost quite a few seats. They
Speaker 1: didn't gain any ground against Labor. In fact, they went backwards.
Speaker 1: At least thirteen seats have been lost to the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: Now you just have to go back to our election
Speaker 1: night coverage and we had dozens of seats ready to go.
Speaker 1: Whether it was going to be Liberals gaining seats off Labor,
Speaker 1: which we didn't actually end up putting out into our
Speaker 1: feed because turns out the Swingers going in the other direction.
Speaker 1: The Labor Party gained quite a significant majority at the election,
Speaker 1: and so the Nationals saw the results bear out and
Speaker 1: they said, well, the Liberals have really lost quite a
Speaker 1: lot of skin. We haven't lost as much. So I
Speaker 1: guess they believed that they had some sort of residence
Speaker 1: in the electorate that the Liberal Party may not have.
Speaker 4: Okay, so we know though that those attempts to get
Speaker 4: those four policy areas written into a deal were unsuccessful
Speaker 4: at that point, and that's when we saw David little
Speaker 4: Prowd come out and say the Nationals we're going to
Speaker 4: break things off with the Libs. How did the Liberal
Speaker 4: Party react last week?
Speaker 1: Well, Susan Lee, who was by that time the very
Speaker 1: newly elected Liberal Party leader, she'd only been in the
Speaker 1: job for about a week, said that they hadn't made
Speaker 1: any commitment on any policy whatsoever. So her language was
Speaker 1: that no policy adopted, nothing abandoned either, that the party
Speaker 1: was going to go through a full scale review of
Speaker 1: all its policies that it took to the election, which
Speaker 1: she acknowledged they lost quite convincingly and that they were
Speaker 1: then going to look into what could be refined, what
Speaker 1: could be changed, But she didn't specifically isolate any policy
Speaker 1: in particular, she didn't isolate any area that she wanted
Speaker 1: to keep set in stone, but she also didn't indicate
Speaker 1: that she was going to get rid of anything either.
Speaker 1: So her position was it's just not time to talk
Speaker 1: about policy just yet, whereas the Nationals wanted that commitment
Speaker 1: firmed up straight away. But both leaders did strike this
Speaker 1: tone of saying that their door was going to be opened.
Speaker 1: So they did leave that possibility of a reunion out there,
Speaker 1: and they wanted to ensure that people understood that this
Speaker 1: was not going to be a flat rejection of any
Speaker 1: coalition into the future, and as we've seen play out
Speaker 1: over the week, they were right to sort of emphasize
Speaker 1: that tone, I think.
Speaker 4: So it was more that they were taking a break
Speaker 4: than splitting up for good.
Speaker 3: As we now know. Did this come out of nowhere?
Speaker 4: I mean, obviously we knew that there were those priority
Speaker 4: policy areas for the Nationals in the lead up to
Speaker 4: the election, but do you think the public had the
Speaker 4: sense of the disharmony that was kind of potentially brewing.
Speaker 1: So it's definitely really clear that this was a break
Speaker 1: from convention, and I think the public could bear that
Speaker 1: out because there was no coalition like we understood it
Speaker 1: to be for the last forty years since.
Speaker 3: In terms of numbers exactly.
Speaker 1: And it's been nearly forty years since the last coalition
Speaker 1: actually broke up. And then the Nationals and the Liberals
Speaker 1: also differed in their language over what they considered reasonable
Speaker 1: as an expectation of each other. So whether you put
Speaker 1: the policy into the coalition agreement, whether that was considered reasonable.
Speaker 1: The Liberals didn't think so, but the Nationals did, whereas
Speaker 1: the Liberals thought, let's agree to work together and then
Speaker 1: we'll work through those policies once we actually agree that
Speaker 1: we're going to be in this as a team. Over
Speaker 1: the week, you saw a few different versions of events
Speaker 1: play out as well, which is pretty natural in politics.
Speaker 1: It comes back to depends who you ask. And one
Speaker 1: version of event that stood out was really interesting because
Speaker 1: it came back to this idea of cabinet solidarity not
Speaker 1: being an agreement that both sides were comfortable with. Now,
Speaker 1: cabinet solidarity applies to both the government and the opposition,
Speaker 1: and that's basically an agreement not to speak out against
Speaker 1: the formal position of your party. It's basically being a
Speaker 1: good team player. So if you have a policy that
Speaker 1: you're putting forward as a coalition member, and if you're
Speaker 1: in the shadow cabinet, so one of the shadow senior
Speaker 1: figures in the shadow ministry, then you're not going to
Speaker 1: go out in public and start criticizing that policy and
Speaker 1: cutting it at the knees.
Speaker 4: So it's about putting up a united front, even if
Speaker 4: you might be disagreeing behind closed doors effectively.
Speaker 1: So so this is a pretty standard convention. And Susan Lee,
Speaker 1: the Liberal Party leader, had said that she wanted that
Speaker 1: as part of the coalition agreement, once again a pretty
Speaker 1: stand affair, and that the Nationals weren't prepared to agree
Speaker 1: to cabinet solidarity as a condition of their agreement. The
Speaker 1: Nationals came back and said, well, that wasn't exactly the case.
Speaker 1: That wasn't taken to our party room. We didn't discuss it.
Speaker 1: So it sort of came back to this back and
Speaker 1: forth of all right, cabinet solidarity became a sticking point,
Speaker 1: but we don't know who actually was vying against it.
Speaker 3: We'll be back with today's deep dive right after this.
Speaker 1: Another bone of contention that was out there in the public,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, Emma, could people see that there was
Speaker 1: something wrong? I think that also stretches back to just
Speaker 1: after the election, just into Namba. Jimper Price, who's a
Speaker 1: Northern Territory Coalitions senator, defected from the National Party room
Speaker 1: to the Liberal Party Room, which was met with white
Speaker 1: hot anger amongst some Nationals. They were coming out and
Speaker 1: saying that this is a betrayal, that this is a
Speaker 1: takeover by the Liberal Party. That they started throwing around
Speaker 1: some accusations saying that Just Enterprise was being courted by
Speaker 1: some senior Liberals during the campaign, that she was elected
Speaker 1: effectively as a National senator but now is sitting in
Speaker 1: the Liberal Parties room, which they just didn't consider to
Speaker 1: be very fair. And on a technical point, in the Senate,
Speaker 1: you need at least five members in order to gain
Speaker 1: what's known as party status, and that just gives you
Speaker 1: some resourcing and staffing. The Nationals without Just Enterprise have
Speaker 1: four members, so they wouldn't be considered a party in
Speaker 1: the upper house in the Senate. So whoever you ask
Speaker 1: will give you maybe a varied response in politics, but
Speaker 1: a lot of people saw that as quite unfair.
Speaker 4: A sign of potential disunity within the Coulish ranks. That's right, okay,
Speaker 4: So we understand that there were several aspects contributing potentially
Speaker 4: to this decision to announce a separation. But obviously there
Speaker 4: has been a walking back or a reunion over all
Speaker 4: of these issues. So how have the parties come together
Speaker 4: to overcome those points of contention?
Speaker 1: So if we work through those three areas, so we've
Speaker 1: got just enterprises defection, the four policies, and cabinet solidarity,
Speaker 1: I'll go through one by one. So cabinet solidarity straight away,
Speaker 1: the Nationals said we are fine with that. They got
Speaker 1: that in writing to the Liberal Party and they firmed
Speaker 1: up that commitment tick on the four policies. The Liberal
Speaker 1: Party convened last week late last week and they had
Speaker 1: a meeting of all the elected MPs and senators and
Speaker 1: some provisional MPs because some of the counts are still
Speaker 1: going on. That's another podcast for another day.
Speaker 4: I show still going still.
Speaker 1: Can you believe it, It's almost been a month. So
Speaker 1: this is where the Liberal Party got together and said,
Speaker 1: all right, we can agree in principle to some of
Speaker 1: these policy areas. So that's the divestige of powers, the
Speaker 1: Regional Fund, the telecommunications of all regional and rural areas.
Speaker 1: And then with nuclear power was a bit of a
Speaker 1: step change because the Nationals actually through the week watered
Speaker 1: down their commitment to the election policy, which was seven
Speaker 1: reactors being built around Australia. What they want now is
Speaker 1: just for the national band to be lifted and that
Speaker 1: opens up the possibility of putting forward a nuclear plan,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't necessarily commit to public funding or anything
Speaker 1: material in the nuclear space. And the Liberal Party have
Speaker 1: said that that's actually a more liberal approach. It means
Speaker 1: that we get rid of some of that red tape
Speaker 1: that's preventing nuclear power from being used in energy production
Speaker 1: in Australia. Okay, so they got through those four policies.
Speaker 1: That's another tick just enterprise. On the other hand, look,
Speaker 1: she's still in the Liberal party room, she's still considered
Speaker 1: a Liberal senator. She's going to be staying with the
Speaker 1: party for now. But you know, one Liberal put it
Speaker 1: to me that it's kind of the elephant in the
Speaker 1: room now if you like.
Speaker 4: Okay, so it feels like there's been a lot of
Speaker 4: self reflection on both sides over recent days, compromise, widespread
Speaker 4: discussions about how to resolve this issue. Clearly from both sides,
Speaker 4: we've seen a level of willingness to overcome some sticking points.
Speaker 4: So take me through what actually happened yesterday? What did
Speaker 4: we learn, What have the party said? How did the
Speaker 4: coalition get back together?
Speaker 1: So all the swords were dropped yesterday and we got
Speaker 1: a new sign sealed and secret coalition agreement. It's okay,
Speaker 1: standard convention. We never get to see it. We heard
Speaker 1: from former Prime Minister Malcolm Turbule last week he said
Speaker 1: it's actually a really boring piece of writing. It's just
Speaker 1: a commitment to work together. And as far as I
Speaker 1: understand from some Liberals that I spoke to, there's no
Speaker 1: necessary policy actions attached to the agreement itself. But it's
Speaker 1: pretty much a statement of assurances that we were expecting
Speaker 1: after the election.
Speaker 2: Our team is one of strivers and optimists, of leaders
Speaker 2: and listeners. We have voices from the city to the bush.
Speaker 2: Our parties are at their best when they work together
Speaker 2: to fight right now as a strong opposition.
Speaker 1: The two leaders also put forward their shadow Ministry, so
Speaker 1: their front bench. So that was confirmed yesterday as well,
Speaker 1: no massive surprises. The Deputy leader of the Liberal Party
Speaker 1: Ted O'Brien, he's going to become the Shadow Treasurer. We
Speaker 1: previously interviewed the shadow the former shadow Treasurer, I should
Speaker 1: say now Angus Taylor on this podcast.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: And he is now going to be the Shadow Defense Minister.
Speaker 1: And on top of that there are a few reshuffles.
Speaker 1: Liberal Senator Jane Hume's been demoted from the shadow cabinet,
Speaker 1: as has Sarah Henderson. Another Victorian Liberal Senator. Susan Lee
Speaker 1: also focused on some of the other women that she's
Speaker 1: promoted in her cabinet, and this includes Karen Little who
Speaker 1: will now take over as Shadow Indigenous Australians Minister, just
Speaker 1: Into Nemorship of Price will become Shadow Defense Industry Minister,
Speaker 1: and Giselle cap Terrian who's one of the MP's who's
Speaker 1: still waiting on that count a month on quite a
Speaker 1: grueling count that at last check was about eight votes
Speaker 1: separating her and.
Speaker 3: The city Bradfields in Sydney.
Speaker 1: In Bradfield, so the candidate trailing her, Nicolette Buller, is
Speaker 1: only behind by eight votes. So that's quite a tight
Speaker 1: margin by anyone's stretch of imagination. So she's been appointed
Speaker 1: as an assistant minister in the.
Speaker 4: Meantime, pending that confirmation that she has succeeded in Bradfield.
Speaker 1: That's right. And also the re elected MP Tim Wilson,
Speaker 1: who is all so subject to a recount in his
Speaker 1: seat of Goldstein, has also been promoted into the shadow
Speaker 1: cabinet should he hold onto his seat. But the projections
Speaker 1: in Goldstein look a bit more promising for Tim Wilson
Speaker 1: at this stage.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: And what about David Little, Proud National's leader. He's had
Speaker 4: quite the post election run himself, surviving a leadership challenge.
Speaker 4: He was the face of this breakup. I suppose he
Speaker 4: did the initial dumping. What has he had to say
Speaker 4: now that the coalition seems to have reached an agreement.
Speaker 1: So he has focused on wanting to oppose Labor as
Speaker 1: a strong opposition.
Speaker 5: This morning our party room made the decision to rejoin
Speaker 5: the coalition, and I think the Liberal Party and the
Speaker 5: leadership of Susan in getting that position to make sure
Speaker 5: there's understanding about the way forward. That's important for Australians
Speaker 5: that they know we've laid the foundation stones of a
Speaker 5: coalition that can move forward but also have an alternative
Speaker 5: government in three years.
Speaker 1: He has said in the past week as well that
Speaker 1: he wants to see Susan Lee as the next Prime
Speaker 1: Minister too, So he wants to focus on putting forward
Speaker 1: a unified front against an increased Labor majority. And let's
Speaker 1: not forget that Labor appears to be in a stronger
Speaker 1: position than it has been in a very long time.
Speaker 1: It has an increased majority in the lower House. In
Speaker 1: the Senate, it only needs to negotiate with either the
Speaker 1: Greens or the Coalition to get legislation through. It was
Speaker 1: a little bit more complicated in the last term of Parliament,
Speaker 1: but their representation has gone up across all boards. So
Speaker 1: having a unified opposition, according to David little Proud, is
Speaker 1: really important. If not to give Labor it's you know,
Speaker 1: blank check to do whatever it likes.
Speaker 4: I think that might tie into my next question Harry,
Speaker 4: before we wrap up. I know we've made a lot
Speaker 4: of jokes about this breakup. You know, it's been the
Speaker 4: subject of memes and internet speculation and we've all kind
Speaker 4: of rolled our eyes a little bit at those metaphors,
Speaker 4: But can you just remind us, you know, other than
Speaker 4: it being a big political story, and aside from the jokes,
Speaker 4: why should we care about a story like this, What
Speaker 4: is really the significance of this moment?
Speaker 1: In order to have a healthy democracy thrive, you need
Speaker 1: to have checks and balances in the actual parliament itself.
Speaker 1: We have what's known as question time. That's a chance
Speaker 1: for the opposition to hold the government to account and
Speaker 1: ask them very detailed questions, very specific questions about certain
Speaker 1: policy areas, about certain legislation that they might be putting forward.
Speaker 1: We also have an opposition with these kind of resources
Speaker 1: because they have the experience and the insight to actually
Speaker 1: know what to look for as well. I mean, journalists
Speaker 1: can only do so much. And we're not on the
Speaker 1: floor of Parliament either. We can't be asking the government
Speaker 1: questions when it's carrying out official business, but the opposition can.
Speaker 1: Another point I would make is that this also goes
Speaker 1: back to the purpose of having elected representatives. They represent
Speaker 1: their constituents, whether that's senator you represent a state or territory,
Speaker 1: or a Lower House MP you represent a certain area
Speaker 1: in Australia, and it's been set of previous governments, that
Speaker 1: they've been too inwardly focused, that they've only focused on
Speaker 1: each other and these internal battles. Think of the Rudd
Speaker 1: Gillard Rudd years. That was all that was really spoken
Speaker 1: of for years was just these internal leadership contests. So
Speaker 1: I think the public really do switch off, and the
Speaker 1: public really do want to know that their elected representatives
Speaker 1: are doing a job and being part of important decision
Speaker 1: making processes that ultimately affect all our lives. And I
Speaker 1: know that's a really lofty and grand statement, but without
Speaker 1: an effective opposition, you can't have an effective government.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's really important perspective for all of us
Speaker 4: who can get lost in these headlines. Harry, thank you
Speaker 4: so much for taking us through all of that. We
Speaker 4: are so lucky to have your political expertise.
Speaker 1: I personally have you Tom.
Speaker 4: I will be interested to see from here, you know,
Speaker 4: how public sentiment shifts towards or away from the coalition.
Speaker 4: I suppose voters will have their say in another three years.
Speaker 1: Time, well we even remember this happened. I suppose we will.
Speaker 1: But will voters remember That'll be a really interesting point.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Harry, and thank you for listening.
Speaker 4: To today's podcast. That's all we've got time for, but
Speaker 4: we will be back later on this afternoon with your
Speaker 4: evening headlines. Until then, have a great day.
Speaker 6: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 6: Bungelung Calcuttin woman from Gadighl country. The Daily oz acknowledges
Speaker 6: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Speaker 6: Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres
Speaker 6: Strait Island and nations. We pay our respects to the
Speaker 6: first peoples of these countries, both past and present.