Can Labor fix home support for older Australians?

ABC Listen.

Podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

Hi, it's Sam Hawley from ABC News Daily, the podcast that brings you one big story affecting your world each weekday in just 15 minutes.

Trump creates his own reality.

When reality collides with his promises, he says that the reality is fake.

The numbers are fake.

The news is fake.

Everything is rigged.

And there's a real danger here.

Join me for ABC News Daily.

Find it on the ABC Listen app.

The government is facing scrutiny over the four-month delay to its introduction of new aged care reforms, as Department of Health data reveals that 5,000 Australians have died in the last financial year waiting for a home care package.

This as the fallout from the weekend's anti-immigration protests continue.

The Prime Minister has told his MPs that a neo-Nazi gate crashing of Victorian Premier Jacinda Allen's press conference is horrific.

Welcome to Politics Now.

Hi, I'm Patricia Carvellis.

And I'm Raph Epstein from ABC Radio Melbourne.

And RAF, there are around 200,000 older Australians currently waiting for home care packages.

The kind of background here is that the opposition and even the Greens and the crossbench have all almost teamed up to really put some pressure on Labor on the delay in these packages that were promised.

It was all going to start on July, but then it was delayed now till November for when these new packages will be available.

But just give us the background if you can.

Why has this become an issue now?

What's going on?

I would say it's an example of the Parliament working really well.

You've got non-government parties in the Senate pushing for an inquiry.

We'll get to the very human things and the policy in a moment.

And it's putting a blowtorch to the government on an issue that there was kind of some bipartisanship around.

And then every question yesterday went to the I hope it's okay to call in this, the junior aged care minister, Sam Ray.

And even though the government finds it finds it really unpleasant, even though there's lots of reasons, the demand's growing really fast, it's fantastic that the parliament is highlighting this and making the government wince under pressure.

You know, I've got, I had two callers this morning on the radio in Melbourne.

They're both women.

Of course they are.

They've both quit their jobs.

Of course they have.

Because they're trying to look after their elderly parents.

Their elderly parents just need the occupational therapist to come around and check on the house.

They've quit their jobs, these women, to look after their parents.

I can't do that work and care for my mum at the same time.

So

it's stressful and difficult.

A bit like Linda, was it before you?

I gave up my job and I went to Brisbane where he was for six months.

Gave up your work.

Yeah.

So the delays are real.

And I think it's an example of the parliament working well.

Do you think I'm wrong?

No, I don't think you're wrong at all.

But I think it's, I'll explain my hot take on this.

What it also was an example of is the opposition

really rejigging some of its tactics.

And, you know, it is on the label, politics now, so the politics matters.

The opposition has been scattergun, disorganised, lacklustre.

I haven't even got enough adjectives for how I view their lack of

performance in question time.

It was the first time I saw an actual proper strategy where they decided to zero in on a junior minister.

And there's history here.

You know, you

put all the emphasis on one person, Sam Ray, brand new, you know,

therefore on training wheels, this is a baptism of fire, hoping that you can smoke them out.

But what I can tell you is that it probably

helped him and his chances of elevation because he was seen as quite across his brief by his colleagues.

They were really talking him up last night to me like, well, that was a, you know, big, intense scrutiny on him and he managed it.

Now, why do they think he managed it?

Well, you know, they own that they've delayed it.

They're open about delaying it.

They're not like hiding that they're delaying the rollout of this thing.

And, you know, he kind of knew the facts and figures.

But it doesn't mean just because the opposition couldn't make him trip up on the Monday question time that this isn't an ongoing problem for the government.

It is.

But I think they think they can withstand the scrutiny on it because their story, and the Prime Minister said this to me yesterday as well, you know, it was a lot worse under the Morrison government.

They've taken on reforms.

They have actually, you know, delivered on some of their reforms on aged care RAF.

And

they, you know, outline their reasons for why they think they need to delay this.

I'm not justifying those reasons, but I'm saying that that's how they explain it.

Do you think the sort of young guy who made it onto the front bench, who can I say was the reason that Mark Dreyfus got pushed out, right?

Like in the rejigged

Victorian right put forward their numbers, their people, and it wasn't Mark Dreyfus.

Remember, he got, you know, this is for this young Turk.

What do you reckon?

Like,

did he stand up to the scrutiny or could he still get tripped up today?

Because I think they might go there again.

There's two different arenas, right?

I think he did okay.

I think he did reasonably well.

I can tell you that the listeners to my show in Melbourne were not happy with his answers.

The important background for Sam Ray is that he's part of an incredibly successful party machine in Victoria.

He did great things on the ground, organising tactics, that sort of stuff.

He's now got this seat in the western suburbs of Melbourne, fastest growing part of the country.

So he's got a lot of responsibility.

I think you're right in his assessment, you're assessing that he didn't, he wasn't tripped up yesterday in question time.

But I was just asking him some basic questions that were coming through from listeners.

How long do I need to wait for an assessment?

Took him three or four answers before before he said, oh, the median wait time is 25 days.

So there are two very different arenas.

They are both important, you know, the bare pit of question time and then, you know, actually answering the real human beings like my female listeners who are quitting work to look after their parents.

And I think there's important context as well.

This is growing super fast.

So there are 150,000 Australians getting aged care in the home at the start of the decade.

That has doubled to 300,000 in the middle of the decade.

Add on top of that, so that's people actually getting aged care in the home.

They assessed half a million people for aged care in the home last year.

So this thing is growing like topsy.

It's one of those government programs that got away from them.

They say we've got to bring in a new system.

That's led to some of the delays.

We've still got a funding problem.

If I can return to the policy side of this, the Royal Commission into Aged Care said, you know what?

You need a new levy for this, just like there's a Medicare levy for a lot of higher income earners.

You need an aged care levy.

They don't have that.

They've got to fund it.

It's supposed to be cheaper and more efficient and better for people's health in the home.

I don't think they have landed the plane.

This smells to me like something that can be an incredibly significant political problem simply because it reaches into so many people's lives.

And people, I've got, someone rang me up and said, quit the job in February.

Still doesn't know when her 80-year-old mum is going to get a visit from the occupational therapist.

Still doesn't know.

And if that's tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, that is the sort of thing that can become a political problem.

I agree with you.

No, I absolutely agree with you.

And that's why I go back.

The politics

is important here.

And that's kind of the hat I'm wearing more because.

So I've got a question for you, PK.

How come they got organised in question time?

And I think they did it in both houses, right?

Senate and Parliament.

What tripped them into that, do you think?

Well, a couple of reasons, because they're getting on, what I've been told, they're getting the feedback on the ground that this is a big frustration, same as your talk back line.

So, you know, this is what MPs are meant to do, pick up temperature.

So that's the first thing.

So, you know, job done, politician does job,

represents their constituents who are frustrated.

But secondly, I think some of them are very aware in that tactics group that, you know, they've kind of like not really, you know, landed any blows.

Government has big numbers.

They're quite outnumbered.

They've been lackluster.

There was an excellent column actually written by Paul Sakal about, you know, how they don't even listen to Susan Lee when she's talking.

After he wrote the column, they looked up again and stopped looking at their phones for at least one question time, see what they do today, because they, you know, they have been lackluster and the strategy's been all over the shop as they've been trying to land a blow.

And then they've, you know, thought, this is, by the way, can I say historically a very kind of obvious strategy what they're doing, which is go for the lowest hanging fruit, you know, the newest dude on the block or woman or whatever, and just go, go, go.

And aged care is a baptism of fire always, right?

Like if you're old enough to remember the kerosene baths kind of

scandal.

I'm glad you mentioned it.

Yes, yes.

See, this is the thing.

This is what we do.

We bring old ideas to our young listeners.

And for those Gen X and boomers who are listening, they would remember the scandal during the Howard government.

Bromwan Bishop was the minister around all of this.

Aged care is a sort of, it's, it's sort of, one person described me as it bloods new MPs.

You know, if you can survive aged care and do a reasonable job, then you can have a successful career.

And I'll tell you, you know, I know the Prime Minister said to people, for instance, he sees that Annika Wells, who now has been put in the communications portfolio, she did an excellent job of managing that portfolio.

And it really meant that, you you know, she was elevated to the cabinet.

Like she, you know, she did that.

So now it's Sam Ray's turn to do it.

And that's why the coalition, two points, you ask me why,

because aged care is a hot issue and you are correct.

But also, you know, it's not the only reason because they think that they can get some, they can get something, they can get some.

headlines and trouble for a minister and the minister not able to answer questions or some kind of traction that they've failed repeatedly to get, even though I think they have had other openings, they just haven't taken them in the parliament.

Now, the other thing happening today before we get into the fallout in relation to the neo-Nazis and immigration, which I think is huge and we need to get into, is

these rules, which I'm really disturbed by, the government wants to change the rules so that you have to basically pay money for freedom of information, right?

Including

journalists, right?

So new charges for FOI requests to government departments and ministers, as well as tougher rules related to cabinet confidentiality.

Now they have been under scrutiny for a while for

being too secretive, for not

allowing sunlight.

You know, sunlight is the best disinfectant government if you're listening.

And this kind of, I think, really plays into that reputation.

The opposition leader Susan Lee raised concerns with her party room about this.

This is fitting into a narrative that the coalition has been trying to build, that the Labor government has too much power, is drunk on power, doesn't want scrutiny.

And I've got to say,

they're making it easy for the coalition by doing things like this.

I think it is problematic.

They say that, you know, people are too,

they waste the department's time.

You know, they're vexatious in their requests.

So if you put a price on it, we all know this, you and I know this, you put a price on something, you know, people are a little more judicious about the choices they make.

That's what they say.

I would say a few things about this DK.

I agree with that.

I think journalists should be able to ask for information from the government.

That is how they use FOI as a weapon.

Firstly, I only trust politicians on this when they're in government, not when they're in opposition, because they all say in opposition, they're going to make it better.

And if you have a look at MediaWatch this week, Lynton Besser was bang on about whistleblower protections and new legislation and new rules that the current Labor government promised us would deliver and protect whistleblowers.

They haven't delivered that.

That's all about transparency and looking.

under the hood of government.

And what you say about the cost, I don't know how many FOIs you've done, Patricia, but the classic example, and I've done a lot of these FOI requests, you put in a request, and I remember doing one saying, I want any mention of special forces, Australians outside of Kabul, in Uruzgan province, communicating with the American embassy about such and such.

And you get a response back: oh, dear Raphael Epstein Investigative Journalist, very happy to comply with your request.

We assess that it will cost $750,000 for us to scour our records to deliver on your request.

As soon as, and the letter basically says, as soon as you deliver said sum of three-quarters of a million dollars, we'll be happy to comply with your freedom of information request.

So it is an extension of the way they use freedom of information as actually a barrier to transparency and not something that facilitates transparency.

There are fundamental problems with transparency in the federal system.

They are going backwards, not forwards.

That is the opposite.

of what Anthony Albanese and Mark Dreyfus said when they were in opposition before they defeated

before they defeated Scott Morrison.

It drives me to distraction.

And it doesn't matter until it affects your family.

And it doesn't matter until it affects your file, until it's something like Robo-Dead Robo-Dead or something like veterans and suicide.

And then all of a sudden you realize how the system, this is not a partisan criticism, the system hates transparency.

And until the default is openness, we are not going to get anywhere.

So I share your concern.

I feel that it's...

difficult to explain why transparency is good in the abstract.

It only lands when people see it in the specific, but it's crucial and charging people more for FOIs.

And I'm sure there's lots of vexatious people, but vexatious people have as much right to access to information as everybody else.

You've got to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff and not block access for everyone.

I don't love any restrictions on information and I do worry about it.

And I think it's right that the coalition puts some scrutiny on the government.

I mean, their whole line at the moment is, you know, this government

is less transparent than we were.

Oh, okay, yeah.

Because transparency really improved in that nine years.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, exactly.

My view is that there's been transparency issues with both colours of government and we must consistently

call it out.

Prime, a great example, even though I like

well, no, I was going to decide a different one.

It was a good example the PM gave when you interviewed him on TV.

This is a conversation between someone called Albanese and someone called Carvelis, and I give him a tick for that.

That's true.

However, you said to him, what about about this secret deal with Nauru?

And he's like, it's not secret.

But then as soon as you asked him about specifics about the payments, the shutters come down.

So let's test politicians on what they say in opposition.

Let's run the ruler over them when they are in government.

Sad to say, both major parties have a really poor.

track record on I'm glad you mentioned that because I thought the interview was really interesting and we'll get to one of the themes of it which is of course neo-Nazis you know whether there are good people with legitimate concerns about migration levels, access to services that are being, you know,

you know, motivated to turn up on the streets on these issues.

That I thought was all very interesting.

But yeah, he did shut down the Nauru stuff, didn't he?

And he kind of was like, well, it was out there.

And I'm like, well, not really.

It's out there.

I mean, you see a press release saying, hey,

no, I mean, like, and I was like,

yeah, like, why would you go look?

It's almost like, well, you should, you journalists.

It's like, no, no, no, no, no.

and they did but you you should be explaining yourself especially I mean with this one this is a lot of public money this is this is you and I and everyone listening they pay lots of tax unless you're a tax avoider in which case pay your tax but if you pay a lot of tax and I'm I'm loving I'm always paying my tax I'm mad about it right

I want I want

to know where my money is going.

Am I right or am I losing it?

So to zero, no, you're not losing it.

To zero in on something, this is why it is structural.

The essential question you had at the PM yesterday is how much you're paying Nauru each year to take the people that nobody else wants.

We don't want them.

Australians get out of jail.

They've got criminal records.

They'll reoffend.

We keep them.

When they're not Australian citizens, we don't want them.

We're going to dump them in Nauru and hugely inflate their national budget by giving them dozens of millions of dollars every year.

It's just a feature of the system that governments will never tell you how much they're they're giving another country.

So that's, on the one hand, that's standard practice, but it's standard practice to not tell us something really fundamental.

We are distorting Nauru's population and their economy as taxpayers by delivering truckloads, dozens of millions of dollars each year.

All you are asking is, well, 70 million a year for how many years?

When does it stop?

When does it begin?

When does it end?

And you won't get an answer

on that from anyone in a major party because that's just the way things are done and I don't think that is the way things should be done and that like that is the fundamental problem there are norms that prevent us knowing what's going on and they can both appeal both sides of politics both major parties of government can appeal to it's always been done this way that's the problem that it's always been done this way yeah and we're right to call it out and let's see if the coalition they've suggested they will oppose the FOI changes that will make it hard for the government because

I suspect, I don't know this, but that the Greens will be apprehensive about voting for it as well.

So, you know, watch this space.

They may not have.

Well, I can't claim that.

So I am suggesting, based on all information that I've previously obtained, that it's going to go in that direction.

Let's talk about something a whole lot more sinister and something that's starting to make me feel very, and I know many Australians, I speak, I think, for the majority actually,

very uncomfortable, and that is

a self-proclaimed neo-Nazi approaching our Victorian state premier.

And I am a Victorian on this one.

I'm coming to you from Parliament House in Canberra, but you know, I do live in Melbourne.

I just travelled to Canberra for work.

I'm kind of really disturbed that a neo-Nazi has disrupted a press conference of our elected Premier

to menace again.

And that's what it was.

Sort of, there's a menacing element of this overtness of this

extremist element that's making, flexing its muscle publicly at the moment and sort of like the brazenness of it all.

Anthony Albanese addressed it in the Labour caucus.

So it's been a big theme of the parliamentary day and I suspect will continue to be.

He branded the neo-Nazi gate crashing of Jacinta Allen's press conference as horrific.

He was asked the question, it accidentally let slip, actually, they don't usually tell you the names, but actually by Josh Burns, who raised it and the Prime Minister said he was just learning about it, but he's very concerned about it.

Then he generally addressed this issue of the right-wing

nationalism rising as saying not everyone that went to those rallies was a neo-Nazi, but some people are going down rabbit holes.

And there is a view in the government that's really gathering pace that while you have to call out the extremist Nazis, you also have to work out

how to get the people who are on the edge, who are just turning up to the rallies, who are sort of motivated by the maybe economic grievances and other issues, how to get them back.

That's the social cohesion piece, you know, so that's what he was referring to.

And I think that's interesting.

I thought it was an interesting part of the interview with me as well where he talked about that.

You know, they're not all bad people.

So this,

you know, does it, is it sort of, I don't think it's a sort of Trumpism of

good people on both sides.

I don't think that's what he's doing.

You've got to be careful you're not veering into that, though.

You've got to be careful.

You do, but you also have to be careful.

So let's get into a bit of Ajibaji here because I had this fight with my Gen Z daughter as well.

You need to, who, you know, was like, don't justify Nazis, mum.

I'm not, but you do, you do have to bring, like, if you've got a 16-year-old

who's being radicalized, right, who's turning up at rallies, you want, you want to bring them back.

You want to wrap your arms around them.

That is my point, right?

Because criminalising a growing movement isn't going to create a better society.

That's where I'm going.

Well, so you're right about criminalizing.

And I think the backdrop is important.

Already in Victoria, we've banned the swastika and that happened nationally.

We've banned the Zieghal, the Nazi salute.

That's already something that is illegal.

That has not stopped.

this movement from growing.

Now, the neo-Nazis, they're craving attention.

They would love us to talk about them.

Both ABC Verify and Victoria Police, and this is important backdrop, they say, especially in Victoria, that rally on the Sunday, the anti-mass immigration rally, was organised and instigated by the far right.

The neo-Nazis were a part of it.

It's important context in Melbourne.

They led this rally from the front.

They were marshalling the crowd.

The main speech.

on the steps of the Victorian Parliament, which is the biggest symbol we have of democracy in Victoria on Spring Street in Melbourne.

The main speech was delivered by this bloke who somehow turns up at Jacinta Allen, the Victoria Premier's press conference this morning, interjects, forces her.

I mean, you've got to leave in that situation if you're the Premier.

That's the only security response.

He accuses her of being a coward when he has led a march of men who are too scared.

to show their faces on the streets.

So we've got to that situation.

And I do think it's concerning that someone someone like that turns up at a press conference given that the same group of people are disturbing one of the significant Indigenous camps close to the centre of Melbourne in the gardens near the National Gallery.

So we've got to that point while we have been ramping up the laws.

We have been ramping up the laws saying you can't have hate speech.

Victoria Police have been trying on some novel uses of the offensive language law that's long been on the books.

It's been used to target some of the pro-Palestine protesters.

So it's an interesting tactic.

We are ramping up the laws.

It has not diminished what's happening for the neo-Nazis.

So to return to your point where the PM says, look, there are good people who go to the protest.

There are good people who go to every protest.

Of course.

I think something to underline about that rally, though, if you think all of the problems that we have in Australia, and there are many of them, housing, economy, infrastructure, jobs, but if your number one solution to that is the people who got here

on the last boat or on the last plane, if your target is the newest arrival, that's the oldest way to spread hatred.

So how do you, and I think that's really important, for thousands of years we've been saying the newest people, they are the problem.

So if that's your, if that's what's attracting you to the rally, you need to have a good, long, hard think about that.

But you're 100% right because the PM's finding himself in some ways, it's very different, but in some ways it's similar.

You'll remember this.

Let's take everything back to John Howard.

1998.

One nation do really, really well in the middle of the year in the lead up to a federal election.

One Nation do really well in the Queensland election.

How do you respond to that?

How do you condemn the policy, One Nation, a party that wanted to have a royal commission into a religion like Islam?

How do you condemn the party and the policies and not condemn the people who vote for them?

Because you're right, the 16-year-old, the 70-year-old who's attracted to this, who feels their interests are only being spoken about and amplified by these people.

How do you bring them back?

But the track record, like in 2025, we're not doing great, right?

My dad's family were wiped out in the Holocaust.

We're not doing great.

Like

they're the main speaking act at the rally on Sunday.

But I don't think there are any easy answers.

Do you think, PK, that the PM is

afraid of losing people with his rhetoric?

I think so far his approach has been good, actually.

I'll give him credit on on this.

No credit on Nauru, but definitely credit on this.

I think he's being

very, very strong in condemning the neo-Nazi racism, which I want to be very clear is outrageous and frightening, and no one can, you know, dissuade me of that.

I was followed as a teenage girl by neo-Nazis who harassed me in a train carriage, and I still carry that trauma.

Like, these are not good people.

These are people who menace and use standover tactics and violence and threats of violence.

These are not good people.

These are people who use

horrible tactics to intimidate, right?

So

he's absolutely being trying to do that, but at the same time address

more ordinary people who may be going down what he calls a rabbit hole.

That was the language he used in his own caucus.

Does it matter what they say?

The Prime Minister?

Yeah.

Serious question.

If you're attracted to the rally, does what the PM say matter?

Why?

Because the Prime Minister, if you believe in, you know, democracy and, you know, the concept of having a leader, sets the tone for the country, right?

And so what your Prime Minister says and the way the Prime Minister talks about these complex issues is really important.

It's setting kind of the parameters of the debate.

It doesn't mean everyone will follow it.

That's, you know, I'm not deluded.

But it sort of

puts some guardrails around what's acceptable and what's not.

And what he's saying is neo-Nazi extremism is not acceptable.

But if people are being radicalised or raising concerns, that they have the right to vent them.

Because I think in some ways, or we need to engage with that, that's essentially, well, definitely what Ann Arli said.

And the reason I think that's a

big deal and it's important is I really have a strong view that when you...

shut people down or mock them.

Yes.

And I'm talking about the mainstream people being interested here, just ordinary people, yeah, who say, I can't get a rental place and, you know, and I think it's wrong to blame migrants, don't get me wrong, like, hello, you know, I just, but equally, I think that grievance is a legitimate one, like to worry about not being able to get housing.

So engage with the actual thing and deal with the views rather than just...

I just think the biggest mistakes we've made historically is to just always kind of

treat something like it's stupid or minimize it.

And then I think it grows ahead of steam, doesn't it?

Because people think, you think I'm an idiot, you know, you're mocking my needs.

And when we go down that road, we get into, well, the polarization in the US, which you went and studied, which is not a place I ever want to be.

And when I've seen some signs that maybe we are going to some road towards there, I've got to be honest, it freaks me out.

Like, I don't want to go down that road.

Do you?

I mean, that's not a place we want to be.

You're right when you say the PM sets guardrails.

That's a great answer to my question.

What's going on does terrify me.

And maybe this is a bit of a post-script, but Maria Ressa, the fantastic Filipino journalist who won the Nobel Peace Prize, who was speaking here in Melbourne this week, it was really interesting to me.

She's really in favor of the social media ban.

that this government's bipartisan policy, right?

You know, the under-16 ban.

She sees it as a safety measure.

It's not a free speech measure, it's a safety measure.

And the reason I ask you that about the PM, does it matter what he says?

You can just sense, you can see from the language used at these rallies.

I can see it on my text screen.

I can hear it in the talk back calls.

They are being, people are being fed lines, they are being offered perspectives that never would have been given to them, would never have been available.

And it is coming to them through social media.

There are people in Melbourne making money by live streaming on YouTube from that rally.

They are not a positive contribution to society.

So what I guess I'm really pondering while I share your all of your fears about where we're going, when the PM says something, when this government does something with the coalition's backing to sort of, you know, ban teenagers who are too young from being on social media, does anything put the right frame around that rhetoric?

Like, do our institutions,

dare I say it, does our national broadcaster and our national parliament have as much power as this tsunami of bile that is coming through to us from the device that I'm holding in my hand right now.

You know, I find that a genuinely open question and a genuinely terrifying question.

Is that too down a place to leave it?

It's a realistic and truthful place to leave it.

We're trying.

We're trying.

Because you're right.

And

yes, so you want the Prime Minister setting the guardrails, and thank you for the compliment.

You want, you know, your media to be fair and scrutinize and call out, and

can we do a separate podcast on the media, the mainstream media's role in this?

We've got time for that.

We can, we can, but we also need to be a place where people feel like they can ventilate things.

Yes.

Because back to, you know, you know, back to the Gen Z child who says, Mom, you're so free speechy.

I love it.

It's a new saying in my family.

I'm a bit free speechy.

I think that you need engagement.

And if you don't allow engagement, then

perverse things can happen.

And so people think they hear that, and they're thinking that I'm trying to say, but I'm not, that it's some sort of permissiveness for extremism.

Absolutely not.

But if you're not engaging with the underlying issues,

it is going to, they will find their own channel, my friends.

They will find their own place to.

If you want to engage, PK, I've got a talk back phone number in Melbourne if you want to ring.

Hello, that's Patricia from Southbank.

What would you like to say?

Hi, Raph.

I'm loving your show today.

But, all right, Raph, loving this show.

Always love having you on this podcast.

I always feel like we kind of work some things out and then there's a whole lot of stuff we haven't worked out.

Question time is going to be pretty wild today.

It'll be interesting to see which rabbit hole everyone goes into.

Thank you very much.

That's it for politics now.

Tomorrow I've got David Spears with me.

We will analyse another big day.

Thursday is the party room with Mel Clark.

The party room at abc.net.au is where you send your questions.

Love you, Raph.

See ya.

See you later, PK.

Always a pleasure.