Good morning, and welcome to the first half 2026 results. We are in Brisbane today, therefore, I acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Turrbal and Jagera people, and pay my respects to the elders past, present, and future, for they hold the memories, the traditions, the culture, and hopes of Aboriginal Australia. We must always remember that under the ballast, sleepers, rail systems, and office buildings where Aurizon does business, was and always will be traditional Aboriginal land. I'm joined on the call by Gareth Long, Acting CFO and Group Executive Strategy, and the rest of the management team. This morning, we announced the appointment of Ian Wells as CFO and Group Executive Strategy, commencing in April. Ian is an experienced global finance leader across the resources and infrastructure sectors, most recently at FMG, including five years as Group CFO. His expertise will be instrumental as we continue to optimize our portfolio, allocate capital with discipline, and invest in long-term growth. I look forward to welcoming Ian to Aurizon in April. Gareth Long, who has been Acting CFO and Group Executive Strategy, will transition to the role of Group Executive Enterprise Services, leading functions including asset management, procurement, technology, people and safety. Turning to safety, our focus at Aurizon is protecting our employees, customers, and the communities in which we operate. It was pleasing to see a step down, step down in the actual and potential serious injury and fatality frequency rate when compared to the second half last year. However, the total recordable injury frequency rate deteriorated slightly, driven by lower severity injuries. Efforts have been stepped up in response to this movement, with safety intervention activities enacted where required. Level crossings continue to be a safety issue for the rail industry. Just last week, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau published their investigation into a collision between a passenger train and a truck near Alice Springs. Despite advanced road warnings, a stop sign, and the sounding of the train's horn, the truck continued at the level crossing, resulting in a collision, with the truck driver sustaining serious injuries. We have updated our community engagement program, reframing the importance of waiting at a level crossing as an act of responsibility for the people that matter most. The billboards have been rolled out at target locations and will also be used across social media. Collectively, we must step up efforts and investment to improve safety at level crossings. This includes the rail and road industries, all levels of government enforcement and road safety agencies, and the general community. Turning to the results. Today, we present a strong set of results, and more importantly, represents the continued execution of strategy. That is, disciplined coal and network business units, specifically noting increased reliability in the Central Queensland Coal Network, bulk and containerized freight growth, including lower cancellation of services, and strong shareholder returns driven by capital efficiency. Underlying EBITDA increased by 9%, supported by solid contributions from network, bulk, and coal. Revenue growth was driven by regulatory revenue and higher volumes, while disciplined cost control, including the successful execution of last year's AUD 60 million cost-out program, further strengthened our position. This performance has flowed through to underlying NPAT, free cash flow, and importantly, to earnings per share, up 20% with the impact of the buyback program being seen. Reflecting the stability and resilience of the business, and with the expectation of lower capital growth, we increased the dividend payout ratio to 90%. Further increasing shareholder returns, today, we announced an extension of the buyback program by AUD 100 million. This follows the completion of around 85% of the original AUD 150 million-dollar buyback announced in August. Turning to the business units. Although volumes were flat, network earnings increased by 4%, driven by higher regulatory revenue. Importantly, a customer-supported submission on a new 10-year undertaking was lodged to the regulator in December. The agreement brings certainty to all network stakeholders, and from an Aurizon perspective, increases revenue across the undertaking period. Coal earnings benefited from a 1% volume uplift, improved yield and disciplined cost management, delivering a 6% reduction in unit costs. Two coal contracts have been extended to FY 2028 and FY 2034, respectively, pushing out the contract book as shown in the appendix. You may recall that we will have available capacity in the Hunter Valley once a contract comes to a close in June. As noted at August results, we have three options regarding the deployment of this capacity. They are pursuing tender opportunities, maintaining spot fleet capacity, and/or reappointing the assets to bulk. Each of these options remain available at this time. Bulk earnings increased to a record first half result of AUD 117 million, up 39% on the prior period. The uplift was driven by higher volumes and the non-recurrence of prior year impacts, particularly the provision for doubtful debts. Volume growth was supported by increased base metals haulage, including BHP, Copper South Australia, new iron ore customers, and additional grain haulage due to lower cancellations in the context of a record harvest in Western Australia. Earnings for the other segment, including containerized freight, declined by AUD 11 million, entirely due to the prior period, including legal settlement proceeds of AUD 18 million. National Interstate TEU volumes increased by almost 30%, with capacity utilization of 69% across the half. While near the 70% break-even utilization as published at establishment of containerized freight, EBITDA break-even has not been, yet been achieved due to additional costs due to increased freight frequencies and third-party network outages, most notably the Cross River Rail disruptions in Southeast Queensland and the mix of freight carried. To mitigate rail disruptions in Southeast Queensland, we entered a three-year agreement with SCT Logistics in November to haul Aurizon freight into and out of Brisbane from their Southern side terminal. This resolves local asset access challenges, improves customer frequency options, and frees Aurizon capacity for redeployment. In Western Australia, the Kewdale terminal is expected to become operational in the first half of FY 2027, improving efficiency and performance for our East West services. We continue working with NYK on supporting the import and distribution of motor vehicles through land bridging. These discussions are now at CEO level, and I was in Tokyo in January to progress. I look forward to updating the market in due course. Late last year, we submitted a draft ten-year undertaking to the Queensland Competition Authority to apply from July 2027 to 2037, known as UT5 Plus. The proposal was developed through months of constructive negotiation with the submissions supported by customers. Importantly, it was lodged some 18 months prior to the current undertaking expiring, which is an amazing feat. Those with a longer corporate memory will recall how different this outcome is compared to the submission of the original UT5 undertaking. In addition to providing all users and Aurizon network with long-term certainty, the agreement brings customer benefits such as a new throughput-linked incentive payment, 5-year rolling access agreements, a network-led continuous improvement group, retention of collaborative maintenance processes, and customer oversight of major procurement contracts. For Aurizon, UT5 Plus delivers an average annual revenue uplift of AUD 45 million, flowing entirely to EBIT. The uplift is driven by updated WACC parameters, the introduction of a throughput payment, and changes to depreciation that bring forward cash flows. The initial WACC will be set between January and April 2027, based on prevailing market parameters. The undertaking is subject to QCA's usual process, and we expect to see progress through this calendar year. Beyond securing long-term earnings certainty for network, it has been a year of delivery, driving value for shareholders. Following the June announcement and October commencement, we now provide integrated logistics, rail, road, and port for BHP's South Australia copper operations. This represents 1.3 million tons per annum and total revenue of AUD 1.5 billion in revenue over 10 years. This is the largest known road-to-rail conversion in Australia, and was made possible by our strategic investments in One Rail, Flinders Logistics, and the Gillman Terminal. South Australia is a growing copper province and presents a great opportunity for Aurizon. Moving to the cost side, we delivered the previously announced AUD 60 million in annualized cost savings, exceeding the original AUD 50 million target. These savings can be seen in today's results, with flat operating costs despite a 4% increase in revenue and against a high inflation environment. Having the right assets in the right regions is key for Aurizon's continued success. We've had a long presence in the Yilgarn region of Western Australia, hauling iron ore for export at Esperance. Although impacted by the decision by Mineral Resources to cease operations at the end of 2024, the very same fleet of locomotives and provisioning sheds are back in use in the haulage of iron ore for two new customers in that region. The historical iron ore volume hauled by MRL has now been fully replaced by our other customers. Finally, to capital management. We have completed AUD 425 million of on-market buyback in the past 18 months, at an average price of AUD 3.36, including AUD 125 million so far this financial year. The cancellation of 126 million shares has increased earnings per share by 7.4%. Today, we further increased shareholder returns with a step-up in the dividend payout ratio and a AUD 100 million extension of the buyback. These achievements reflect my priorities: delivering growth, maintaining a competitive cost base, and executing disciplined capital management. Finally, I want to address the network ownership structure review. The review has now concluded with a decision to retain Aurizon's existing integrated model in Central Queensland. The group's portfolio composition is reviewed regularly, including an assessment of the integrated above and below rail model in Central Queensland. The outcome of the review was last published externally in 2019, and found that the benefits of integration of above and below rail outweighed the benefits of separation at that time. I commissioned a new comprehensive review last year, considering the same assessment criteria as previous review, with a particular focus on shareholder value. The review assessed a broad range of whole of business and minority structure options for network, including monetization and demerger scenarios, noting that a transaction would be pursued if it delivered shareholder value. An investment bank was appointed to assist in running a comprehensive market sounding process for potential alternatives. Each alternative was evaluated across numerous valuation benchmarks, and discussions were held with more than 12 institutional investors. Retail brokers were also consulted to investigate investor appetite and valuation metrics. The review and recommendations were independently assessed by Flagstaff. The review confirmed Aurizon's view that the Central Queensland Coal Network is a highly attractive and unique set of assets, connecting the globally significant premium coking coal basin to export markets. Supported by regulatory certainties, network's value under Aurizon's integrated model is derived from several factors: stable earnings and cash flows via supportive regulatory frameworks, including revenue and inflation protection, accelerated depreciation, primarily returning invested capital across a rolling 20-year period, supporting our strong investment-grade credit rating, and has underpinned AUD 6 billion of shareholder returns over the past decade. We also see value in the operational alignment of the integrated model. The operational overperformance of network, which is monitored using a suite of interrelated measures, benefits throughput for all above rail operators. This is calculated to benefit Aurizon by up to AUD 75 million per annum. A standalone entity may not achieve this level of alignment with above rail operators. In addition to lost synergies, there is also the creation of dis-synergies, depending on the structure of the change in ownership. In a demerger, this is calculated at AUD 30 million-AUD 40 million per annum, primarily consisting of the duplication of corporate functions. Beyond any transaction costs, such as tax considerations, the loss of AUD 100 million per annum is significant and therefore was incorporated when assessing value to shareholders. This is particularly the case for ownership structures, where the value outcome is not certain. We received numerous expressions of interest from well-credentialed investors, which validated the quality of network. However, the proposed valuations did not meet the threshold required to create meaningful shareholder value compared to the tangible benefits being captured by Aurizon under the integrated model, while introducing significant additional uncertainties, complexities, and risk. Therefore, we have determined that retaining 100% of network remains the option that best delivers long-term value for Aurizon shareholders at the present time. The review is now concluded. Turning back to the results and to Gareth. Thank you, Andrew. Today, we present a strong set of results with coal, bulk, and network business units, each contributing to the uplift in earnings. Step up in shareholder returns has been delivered with an increase in the dividend payout ratio to 90% and AUD 100 million buyback extension. Turning to the table, revenue increased by 4%, driven by network regulatory revenue and stronger volumes from both coal and bulk. Coal also benefited from stronger yield, which I'll return to shortly. Despite an uplift in revenue and a higher inflationary environment, total operating costs were flat against the prior corresponding half. This was largely driven by the AUD 60 million cost out program undertaken last year. Net finance costs were broadly in line with the second half last year, but 10% higher when compared to the first half, due to the hybrid issuance undertaken in May 2025. Underlying free cash flow of AUD 335 million was 41% higher than the prior corresponding period. A higher cash tax rate was recorded for the half at 32%, largely driven by timing differences, including take or pay. We expect these timing differences to unwind in the second half, which will see our cash tax rate fall to below 30% at year end. A dividend of AUD 0.125 per share has been declared 90% franked, representing a higher payout ratio of 90% of underlying net profit after tax. This is in addition to the AUD 100 million extension of the current buyback, taking the total FY 2026 buyback to up to AUD 250 million. This follows the completion of the AUD 300 million buyback last year, demonstrating our strong cash flow generation and disciplined capital management. Statutory EBITDA is AUD 3 million lower than the underlying result due to the impact of the following. There was a AUD 4 million over-recovery in network track access revenue. As previously announced, this is the first year of recognizing the regulatory allowable revenue in underlying earnings, regardless of volumes. Although deducted from underlying earnings, a positive timing adjustment of AUD 4 million is captured in the statutory earnings. This was offset by 2 significant items: AUD 1 million of transformation costs, which represents the remaining redundancy cost from the cost out program undertaken last year, and AUD 6 million for technology upgrade costs. Aurizon has commenced an upgrade of its enterprise resource planning system. This is a migration from a legacy system, and we expect total implementation costs to be in the range of AUD 90 million-AUD 100 million, to be spent over the FY 2026 to FY 2028 financial years. This will be treated as a significant item. FY26 costs are expected to be approximately AUD 25 million, including AUD 6 million in the first half. The variance from these timing differences and significant items at the statutory NPAT line is -AUD 2 million. Moving now to network. Network EBITDA increased AUD 21 million or 4% to AUD 516 million. This was driven by higher access revenue. Volumes were flat compared to the prior corresponding period at 109.8 million tons. In the bridge on the right, you can see access revenue was AUD 26 million higher, driven by an uplift in allowable revenue due to high return on and of capital, and due to an increase in the maintenance allowance. Note, these figures are net of energy costs, which are passed through to network customers. Operating costs increased by AUD 2 million due to higher maintenance costs. As I noted earlier, an over-recovery of AUD 4 million in track access revenue was collected in the first half of FY 2026, with an equivalent timing adjustment reduction recognized in the underlying result. This year is the first of two transition years with the updated approach to underlying revenue recognition for network. That is, we recognize the full maximum allowable revenue or MAR, including the prior year's revenue cap. Next year, FY 2027, will be the last transition year and includes AUD 50 million of rev cap from an under recovery from FY 2025. From FY 2028, the MAR will be booked, less any revenue cap, given it will already have been recognized in the respective year. As usual, in the appendix, we include a full MAR table, including the revenue cap adjustment I just spoke of, in addition to the impact of the long-foreshadowed end of GAPE from FY 2028. The table also includes preliminary values for UT5 Plus from FY 2028. Moving to coal. Coal volume increased 1% to 101 million tons, with revenue increasing by 3%. We also saw a reduction of 4% in operating costs, which resulted in an uplift in earnings of 13%. In the EBITDA waterfall chart on the right, you can see the benefits of the additional tons hauled, equating to AUD 9 million, net of the costs of hauling the additional volume. Inside the dotted area, we show the yield increase of AUD 10 million. You may recall in August last year, we provided full year guidance for coal, including the expectation of lower yield. That is, the benefits of price indexation were expected to be negated by an unfavorable customer mix on a rate per ton basis. As can be seen in the chart, the customer mix impact on yield was limited, resulting in the overall positive yield. Operating costs decreased by AUD 15 million, supported by the rollout of Trainguard, in addition to benefiting from favorable maintenance scheduling. We do expect second half earnings to be lower. This is due to the anticipated customer mix having a negative impact on yield and higher operating costs, driven by both projected haulage and the reversal of the favorable maintenance scheduling mentioned earlier. Moving now on to bulk. Bulk earnings increased to AUD 117 million, an uplift of 39%. The result was driven by an increase in volume and the non-recurrence of prior year impacts, primarily the provision for doubtful debts booked during the period. Bulk revenue was up 6% at AUD 595 million, driven by base metals, grain, and new iron ore customers. Non-recurrence of the July 2024 derailment in WA, partly offset by lower iron ore volumes in South Australia and the Northern Territory. Operating costs were flat at AUD 478 million. However, when excluding fuel and access costs, which are largely a pass-through, operating costs were up AUD 21 million. This mainly reflects additional costs associated with volume growth. Excluding doubtful debt provisions, operating costs increased by 3%. Looking ahead, bulk earnings in the second half are expected to be broadly in line with the first half. Potential upside from the ramp-up of contracts that commenced in the first half, including BHP Copper and the new iron ore haulage, is expected to be largely offset by weather impacts and third-party track closures experienced in January, as well as further third-party track closures in Queensland, anticipated later in the year. Higher operating costs, driven by both. Sorry. While containerized freight doesn't have a dedicated slide in today's presentation, as it is not reported as a separate business unit, it's worth calling out the continued momentum we saw during the half. Volumes increased by 23% with the second half last year. However, despite this volume growth, higher operating costs were incurred primarily to mitigate the impacts of the Cross River Rail project in Southeast Queensland. With the previously announced SET contracted solution in place, we expect a stronger second half. Now moving to gearing and funding. As shown in the chart, the work undertaken during the half has further lengthened, smoothed, and diversified the funding profile. Aurizon's credit profile continues to remain attractive to bank and debt investors, with the network's recent refinancing and upsizing of its institutional loan facilities being just under two times oversubscribed, despite a reduction of the existing margins. As a result of this refinancing, Aurizon's bank group has expanded by three lenders to 26 banks across its facilities. Also, within the chart, you will note an upcoming maturity in FY 2026, being our EUR 778 million network euro medium-term note, which will be repaid using available, committed undrawn banking facilities. Now, we have a total of AUD 1.35 billion of undrawn facilities in network. Further detail on our funding activities can be found in the debt slide in the appendix of this presentation, as well as in the Appendix 4D. Looking at some of the other metrics on the page, I know the group gearing was 55.5%, compared to 56.2% in FY25. The funding strategy remains unchanged. That is to ensure we access multiple pools of capital and lengthen the debt maturity profile to align with Aurizon's long duration assets. Importantly, we maintain a commitment to strong investment-grade ratings with Aurizon Operations and Aurizon Networks credit ratings, both at BBB+ and Baa1. This commitment is supported by group net debt to EBITDA, which now stands at 3.1 times. Moving to capital allocation. Strong free cash flow generation and lower capital expenditure have underpinned higher shareholder returns through dividends and buybacks during the half. As shown in the chart on the left, total half-year CapEx was AUD 327 million, down 5% on the prior period. Non-growth CapEx was AUD 247 million, representing a 17% reduction, and reflects lower bulk transformation spend as terminals such as Gillman came online, and the timing of asset renewal expenditure within network compared to the prior period. As a reminder, around 70% of total non-growth capital is invested in the network business, which directly feeds into the regulated asset base. As reflected in the chart, total growth CapEx for the half was AUD 80 million, AUD 36 million higher than previous half, largely due to the capital requirements for bulk, for the new BHP contract, and containerized freight for the Kewdale Freight Terminal in Perth. As Andrew will discuss shortly, growth CapEx guidance is unchanged, while non-growth, including transformation CapEx guidance, has been reduced to AUD 500 million-AUD 600 million, which is broadly in line with last year and largely reflects timing differences. Long-term expectations for non-growth CapEx remain around AUD 550 million-AUD 600 million per year, although this is constantly reviewed in conjunction with our long-term volume outlook. Turning to the right-hand side of the slide, the proportion of forecast capital allocated to shareholders in FY 2026 is expected to be broadly in line with last year and consistent with levels seen between FY 2016 and FY 2021. Dividends have benefited from the increase in the payout ratio to 90% of underlying NPAT. In line with our capital management framework, we are able to maintain our strong investment-grade credit ratings and deliver capital back to shareholders, while at the same time focusing on earnings growth. In closing, it is encouraging to see revenue growth across our coal, bulk, and network business units, with all three contributing to the uplift in first half earnings. Looking ahead, Aurizon's strong cash flow generation, underpinned by regulatory revenue, contracted revenue, and CapEx profile, positions the company to enhance shareholder returns, while continuing to invest prudently in the long-term sustainability of the business. Thank you. I'll now hand back to Andrew. Thanks, Gareth. Turning to the outlook. Group underlying EBITDA has been maintained at AUD 1.68 billion-AUD 1.75 billion. Due to the uplift in the payout ratio, we have increased the expectations for the full-year dividends to AUD 0.22-AUD 0.23 per share, up from AUD 0.19-AUD 0.20 per share. Non-growth CapEx is now expected to be AUD 580 million-AUD 600 million, including AUD 30 million of transformation capital. This was previously AUD 610 million-AUD 660 million, including transformation capital. Growth CapEx has been maintained at AUD 100 million-AUD 150 million. Network earnings are expected to be higher than FY 2025, with an increase in the regulatory revenue, partly offset by increased direct costs. Coal earnings are expected to be higher than FY 2025, driven by volumes and flat unit costs, partly offset by lower yield due to customer corridor mix. Although a positive yield impact in the first half, the full-year yield is expected to be lower when compared with twenty, FY 2025. Bulk earnings are expected to be higher than FY 2025, driven by the non-recurrence of provisions and increased grain volumes. Other EBITDA is expected to be higher than FY 2025, with improved containerized freight contributing, contribution offsetting the non-recurrence of the settlement of legal matters in FY 2025. No significant disruptions to supply chains and customers, such as major derailments or extreme prolonged wet weather. Finally, this slide summarized progress against the strategic aims that we set at our most recent Investor Day. The strength of our network and coal businesses can be seen in today's results, and the submission of UT5 Plus provides commercial and operational certainty through to mid-2037. Today's bulk reset is a record first half. Having the right assets in the right regions sets the business unit up for growth, including the commencement of the BHP copper contract in South Australia, the largest known road-to-rail conversion in Australia. Containerized freight volume continues to grow, and with network stability after the SCT agreement, filling capacity to drive earnings is the priority. Land bridging is progressing, and I look forward to updating the market in due course. Today, I presented a strong set of results that demonstrates the continued execution of our strategy. Disciplined Coal and Network business units, specifically noticing increased reliability in the Central Queensland Coal Network, bulk and containerized freight growth, including lower cancellation of services, and strong shareholder returns driven by capital efficiency. I'm excited about the opportunity ahead of us, and most importantly, continuing to deliver against our strategy. Thank you, and I will hand over to the operator for questions. Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you would like to cancel your request, please press star two. If you are on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question today comes from Anthony Mulder from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Good morning, all. If I can start on coal, the contract loss in the Hunter Valley, that's for FY 27. Previously, I think you've said that, you know, there are contracts coming up for renewal through the Hunter that could be, you could win to effectively replace a large proportion of that volume. I'd appreciate, cascading some of the equipment to bulk was also an option, but can you just give us an update as to how you're thinking about, contract wins in the Hunter Valley for that replacement volume, please? Yeah, sure, Anthony. I might get, Ed to talk about that, 'cause he's obviously very focused on it. Yeah. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Anthony. Yes, very focused on it. I can't talk about specific customers or contracts, as you'd understand. What I can say is we're in discussions with several Hunter Valley customers regarding our available capacity. We're also progressing FY 2027 ramp-up nominations from other customers in the Hunter Valley, so we're still in the planning processes. As Andrew mentioned, we're actively pursuing some tender opportunities at the moment, and also weighing the option of whether we keep spot capacity installed to chase volumes that our customers can't deliver, or surge with our existing customers. Beyond those options, we've always got the potential to redeploy assets, people to bulk, which we've got a track record for doing so back and forth. So all I can say at this point in time is that these three options remain open to us, and we're as we work to finalize the fleet allocation for 27. So still a work in progress, effectively, but I guess, likelihood is that you keep that installed capacity on the expectation that you will either convert that to spot tons or win volumes over the next couple of years? Yeah- Sounds like nothing's imminent from a contract perspective. Anthony, I think you've monitored us long enough to appreciate that when you actually announce a contract win or a contract loss, it wasn't the result of a bunch of work that was done the day before you made the announcement. There's usually a good period of time leading up to such changes and such announcements. So we're in that process. There's opportunities and which have to be carefully outlined as for obvious reasons, as Ed has done. And I think your comment, a work in progress, it's still a work in progress, and we remain quietly confident of where we can get to. Can't really talk about it much more. ... If If I can move on to the sustainability of the lower maintenance CapEx, sounds like some of that's more a timing issue. Is that how we should think about the maintenance CapEx spend? And then, obviously, if you can comment more on are there further projects that were required, that sort of AUD 100 million-AUD 150 million of growth CapEx going forward? Seems like you're coming to the end of that investment phase for growth CapEx. Is that a fair expectation for beyond 2026, I guess? So I'll deal with the CapEx component, but I might just get Ed to talk a little bit about the maintenance changes. Was that in relation to the coal? Oh, sorry, I assumed it was coal you're asking about, Anthony. Did I miss you talking in general? Yeah, group. Group. Oh, I'll get Gareth to talk about group. Thanks, group. Hey, Anthony. Yeah, so in terms of that reduction in sustaining CapEx, so the bottom end reduction around AUD 30 million, it's predominantly driven by changes to scope, how we're thinking about better execution of some of that work, and some of it is timing-related. Remembering around 70% of that sustaining capital sits within the network business. So there are plenty of projects and pieces of work still to be done, and indeed, in Ed's business, around some of our traction engines. So, you know, as we said in the script, long-term sustaining CapEx still in that AUD 550 million-AUD 600 million. And just to go- Oh, sorry. Keep going. No, you go. I just had one final question that was around, sadly, containerized freight. It looks like it continues, obviously, to get tougher. I appreciate that a lot of that difference in this year's or this half's result is as a consequence of the Cross River Rail. But confidence in that business, obviously not only getting to break even, but to a point in which you are returning a return on the invested capital in that containerized freight business above the WACC. Yeah. Look, I don't know what... I'll get George to talk about that now that he's had more than six months' experience operating that part of the business. He can talk about it in some detail. Thanks, Andrew. Hi, Anthony. Yeah, there were three things that impacted containerized freight in the first half, Anthony. The first was Cross River Rail closures. That effectively meant we had extra cost in the business because we were paying for SCT to perform that hook and pool, and we were holding on to train crew on the East Coast. We now have certainty with SCT arrangement for three years, so we are not holding that same level of installed cost. The second one was track closures, which were high, in particular in September, that impacted the containerized freight business. And then, as Andrew said, a lower yield, particularly with us doing more East Coast services with SCT, and we also saw TGE's volumes increase. That's probably the encouraging part about the first six months, is the first six months of FY 2026, we did see volumes improve by 29%. Actually, TGE's volumes are up 16%, and then non-TGE volumes up fourfold from the prior corresponding period. So that's the positive. In terms of FY 2027 and the catalysts that get us to break even, the first one is having that certainty around how we mitigate Cross River Rail closures. Cross River Rail meant that we couldn't get our services into Brisbane 25% of the year. So you can imagine that was a significant impost when you're selling a service that's based on reliability to your customers. The second one is Kewdale coming online. You know, everyone sees the capital that we're spending on that, but that will be a step change for ourselves and our customers in terms of efficiency. We go from operating out of Forestfield, where we have three 300-meter tracks, to a terminal that'll have two 1,800-meter tracks. Improved freight availability for customers, better efficiency in terms of shunting for us. Those will be two step changes in FY 2027, and then we'll look to build from there. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Matt Ryan, from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Oh, thank you. I just had a question about the increased dividend payout ratio. I'm assuming the board doesn't wanna move the ratio around too much unless it has to, so just trying to get some color on, I guess, the sustainability of that number into the second half and beyond. And I think a little bit earlier, you mentioned that one of the drivers was lower capital costs moving forward. So maybe if you just talk a little bit more about that and whether that just relates to growth projects that may or may not happen. Yeah, Matt. So look, I mean, I can reflect the board's interest and desire not to change payout ratios on a regular basis. I can absolutely speak for myself that the pain associated, and rightly so, with lowering a payout ratio, is very notable. There's a little bit occasionally joy with increasing a payout ratio, but the pain is, it's asymmetric, I suppose. So it's Mm-hmm. - something indelibly printed on my mind. So when you, when we do look forward, and indeed, I can speak personally here, as well, is that when you are looking forward, you're looking forward to ratios that have a low risk of actually having to be changed down over time. So you're looking at all the things that could impact the business, and then actually, you're being cautious, as well, when you're thinking that because of the asymmetric experience when you actually take it down. And I understand that because it's money flowing to investors. So hopefully that gives you some sense of the approach that we do take to the adjustment to the payout ratio. And indeed, to the second part of your question around the lower CapEx, you've followed in the business for enough years now, when we talked about some of the CapEx that we were indeed spending in advance, and that did not have contractual backing, except sort of like immediately, which included such things as the building of the Kewdale terminal in Western Australia, and as George said, that's coming to completion in the not-too-distant future. So you're seeing those things finishing, and then you're seeing a, although more growth capital, being spent on things that have got a contractual backing, like the BHP, Copper South Australia, arrangement, which will, you know, is a 10-year deal, but it does include the building of the Pimba terminal. And so there's CapEx that's associated with the construction of that. It includes, some, other equipment that we assemble for taking containers on and off, the trains and such forth. So, you, you can expect us not, to still-- there's still growth, plenty of growth opportunities available, contract, contract back, opportunities, so you can expect us to spend capital, associated with that, going forward. Does that help add the color that you're after? Yeah, for sure, and just maybe one follow-up to do with that. So there obviously seems to be a lot of inflation in things like train kits and presumably a lot of the other things that you have to spend on. So just thinking about this guidance that Gareth just... or color, I should say, around the AUD 550-600 being the long-term target, what are the things that you guys are doing in order to offset those inflationary pressures through your CapEx line at the moment? Yeah. So look, there's, there's, I'd say, a, a bunch of different issues. So, I mean, if you think, if you go, and think actually non-financially, you're thinking operationally, we do spend on, after every one of our, CapEx or any CapEx expenditure of note, we go back through, and we look at what we could have learned from how we conducted that, both at an operational, construction level, and we take learnings forward. You've seen one of the responses that we're doing, for example, that we go through, the business is looking at multi-year arrangements, where that allows us to actually generate more buy- more certainty for a s- a supplier group, and they bid tighter, for that sort of potential work. And that's in areas like in the network, where you're seeing CapEx expenditure, which has got, which is the same type of expenditure, but it's executed over multiple years and those sort of things. So, putting pressure on scope, performance and actually the contractual bidding side of it, and then looking at the actual execution that we do. We've changed the way we do maintenance of the rolling stock fleet from a large scale taking out locomotives and they go out for a year, and we do a massive overhaul, and we do that every... Well, less frequently than a decade, but when you have a large fleet, you're doing quite a few in every year, and we've progressed over recent times, and still in the progression, actually, there's still one way to finalize this, where you're going to component level change-out. So we're actually reducing the impact of those larger-scale programs, and indeed, the component level change-out, we can fit more of that into the operational duty cycle at the depots. So we're actually seeing benefits and improvements at that level. But to your point, there are pressures, and there are pressures in things that are actually difficult to control, like the increase in IT equipment brought about by, you know, the rapid build-out in AI hardware, I suppose, and so that leads to escalation in prices, which are actually quite large. So you've got, you see those sort of things on the negative side of the ledger, but we are doing a lot on the positive side of the ledger as well. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Your next question comes from Jakob Cakarnis, from Jarden Australia. Please go ahead. Hi, Andrew. Hi, Gareth. I just wanted to focus on the other segment, just quickly, please. I know that you've said that you anticipate it would get better in the second half, but maybe George, could you just break down for me, year-on-year, relative to the first half of 2025, how much of what looks to be about AUD 11 million delta at the EBITDA line is from those disruptions versus the yield? I appreciate that you've stepped out that there's three sources of that change, but could you just give me a sense of how much was one-off versus, the pricing contribution, please? George, I'll do your best- Sure. to satisfy your question. Jacob, I mean, the first thing I'd say about the other segment is you've got to remember that there was AUD 18 million as a benefit that we booked in underlying earnings in the prior corresponding period to do with a legal settlement. So the first thing you've got to do is back that out of the prior corresponding period. Then you get to an understanding, hopefully, that you can see the CF business was broadly flat versus the PCP, in terms of EBITDA contribution. It was, though, still a negative contribution. In terms of the one-offs, both the costs on the East Coast and the track disruptions, they were probably two-thirds of the impact we saw from what we expected. The other was the yield. So certainly the bigger contributor was the track disruptions and the extra costs that we were carrying in the first half. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Thanks for breaking that down. And then just one for Ed, if I could, please. There's a big recontracting period, by the looks of slide 26 in FY 2028. Could you just let us know if there's any one particular customer that's sitting in there? And I guess more generally, some commentary, please, on competition in CQCN, and just what you're seeing there from other competitors in the space, and maybe how you're seeing their capacity settings, please. Yeah, thanks, Jake. Go for it. Thanks, Jake. There can be just, like, we don't like talking too much- Oh, of course. ... about our competitors. Of course. Yeah. So if you- I certainly- Play to the first part of that question. Yeah, certainly. Yeah, as Andrew has alluded to, you know, recontracting activity is commercially sensitive and always confidential. So I can't comment on individual customers or contracts. What I can say is very alert to managing the contract pipeline. And we are currently engaged in multiple tenders. It's been a very busy few months, and I can also say we've not lost any contracts this financial year. So I'm confident about our ability to manage the pipeline, and there are well, and we're still processing really the nominations going forward. In relation to the question more generally about competition, I mean, the coal market remains resilient. We, you know, compete aggressively, as I've said before, to retain business, protect earnings. It's difficult to predict what rates will do. I've not seen a material change in competition or structural capacity, so we're continuing to, you know, play to our strengths, which is focus on performance, and listening to our customers around their preferred risk positions. Sorry, sorry if I tripped on something there, guys, but I, I didn't ask for a specific comment on a customer. I was just asking on that slide 26 for FY28, is there a particular exposure that's in there that would be an outsized part of that contracting volume expiring? It, it's... Yeah, I'm just keen if there's one particular customer sitting there at size, please. There are multiple customers within there, Jake, so I really don't want to go into any more information on the public call. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Your next question comes from Andre Fromyhr, from UBS. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. Just staying in the coal business, I want to talk a bit about the momentum into second half. I know in the guidance commentary, you pointed to, sort of the positive yield effects, reversing and then the unit costs ending the year flat. So my interpretation of that is we're gonna get a, quite a different margin experience first half versus second half. So how should we think about which of those is more representative of normal conditions, or should we be sort of looking through the full year to think about what's normal as we look beyond FY 2026? Ed, do you want to take that? Yeah, certainly. I'll probably start by saying really, we're really pleased. I'm really pleased with the strong delivery for customers and shareholders in the first half, especially the Hunter Valley, Blackwater, and West Moreton systems, where we experienced demand stronger than planned. The way you should be thinking about it, earnings were strong. We had higher volumes. This is volume business. We had higher volumes, higher yield than anticipated, and lower unit costs, so higher NTKs and lower costs. And you'll remember at the August the full year results, I guided to or committed to keeping costs flat in nominal terms for FY26 compared to FY25. And so the first half cost favorability was a positive surprise, and on the back... It came on the back of three things: the Trainguard benefits flowing through, the coal's contribution and share of the aforementioned enterprise cost out program, and also some maintenance sequencing, which was driven by really the timing and, for example, you know, lower wheel exchanges in the first half, which we expect to flow into the second half. When you think about the second half, I'll just reiterate, we had the yield benefit that we saw in the first half, we had expected that, or the yield to be negative in the first half. It was accretive. You never know until the half runs exactly what customers are gonna rail, what volumes under what contract, so that was favorable. That said, we do expect that to unwind in the second half, and the second half yield to be negative, thinking through the full year, to be more reflective of our August guidance comments. So I'd reiterate, you know, we expect costs to be flat in nominal terms across the year. I'm still committed to that, noting there's some second half headwinds, some changes in customer mix and the expenditure on maintenance that we didn't see in the first half. Okay, and there's another part of the outlook commentary that just, as always, suggests that the guidance is based on no significant disruptions, including from extreme wet weather. What have we seen so far in the wet season? I understand that, you know, there's still plenty of time to go, but, are we tracking sort of above or below that sort of normal weather experience? So you had a cyclone, Koji, hit Queensland. It was a big cyclone in the scale of cyclones. They're all different. Mm-hmm. in the amount of water that falls and where the water falls, and those sort of things. But it was, you know, it was a reasonable experience, obviously impacting people's lives, but from a business point of view, it wasn't one that you'd go, "That was a that was an easy one, that hit." If I just stick to commentary about Queensland, to give you an idea, we did see, and I made comment, raised the comment, we did see resiliency in the network improve. We have been spending money on improving the resiliency in the network. You've probably heard me talk about simple to imagine or articulate issues like, better drainage to get the water to move faster, or, and indeed, not pool, near the track, which causes formation failures over time, which leads to, speed restrictions and/or higher maintenance and those sort of things. So we've actually seen, after working at that for a number of years now, we've actually seen it through one cyclone and been, positively impressed by what the work led to. I do go back to my opening statement is, I'm not gonna... I'm not trying to take nature on and say that we can resist all cyclones, but it's likely, based on the data, and the experience, that the network is more resilient than it has been. We will continue to spend that money with customer support, and indeed, they are supporting it 'cause the benefits are tangible. So that's the network business at a very high level. If you go to the bulk business, the Mount Isa to Townsville line was out for the month of January. And so, you know, that's not... It's been out for longer, and it's been out for shorter, but that's definitely not evidence of an improvement in resiliency that we're seeing in the CQCN. So that's a drag on George's business. It's a regular drag on the business through the wet season. If I was to stand back and look at how volumes impact on or are impacted by wet weather, you know, it's our experience through that, through the wet weather to this point in time, or the wet part of the year through to this point in time, despite fairly normal heavy weather, the business has performed better. But once you get into the individual componentry, it gets more complicated. Andre, hopefully that helps a bit. Sure, thanks. I've just got one more question relating to the Enterprise Resource Planning system investment. This is like AUD 90 million-AUD 100 million, pretty decent-sized investment over three years. I'm just curious, are we expecting any productivity gains or, I don't know, revenue opportunities off the back of this investment? And is there a reason that it's not, like, a capital project? I'll get Gareth to talk about the reason for it not being a capital project, but I volunteered myself to run the project as chair of the activity 'cause I do take it seriously and I don't need to tell you or anyone listening that these projects have some chance of going awry if you look at the number that work compared to the number that don't work, or at least meet budget, time, and cost and deliverables. So it's one that's got a lot of focus. The reason I go through all that palaver at the beginning of introducing the answer is that we've actually chosen an approach to the ERP, a replacement or upgrade, which is more akin to minimizing risk. That's the emphasis. So we're not changing it all. We're only changing a few of the, I'm gonna say, component modules to it. For example, payroll, procurement, and the base financial underpinning of the system. There's many more things we could have changed in the pursuit of what you said, increased productivity and the like, but I would rather break this into two components, which is to get the first part done, which keeps the business operating with the lowest risk to failing time, failing on costs. There is obviously, because you're moving to a cloud-based system, which has built-in AI functionality, there will be an upgrade. Well, there's an entire industry hoping there'll be an upgrade because of AI functionality. There will be an upgrade in productivity and the like. We aren't counting on it, and indeed, I'm only working at getting it through as the lowest risk that I can. After we do that, and we put those changes behind us, we will move through other parts of the functionality, and but we'll work, do it on the basis of a fair chunk of change management having been done, people familiar with the system, and then we'll add further components, as we go, over a longer timescale. Hopefully, that gives you an idea of what I'm trying to do. ... Thank you. Oh, sorry, sorry, Gareth, you needed to answer some question. Hey, Andre. That's the reason why it's expensed as opposed to capitalized is because it's software as a service. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Justin Barratt, from CLSA. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Thanks for the opportunity. I just wanted to ask about that sort of first half, second half split in terms of yield. I was just wondering if you could go into that a little bit more detail, please. But equally, in addition to that, I guess this is the second year in a row now where there's been, I guess, a bit of a disconnect between yields in the first half and the second half, with the first half being quite strong and the second half being a little bit weaker. I just wanted to see, is there anything structural there that we should be aware of that started driving that change? And so, or I guess, therefore, sort of expect that kind of differential to continue into FY27 and beyond. Yeah. So look, I might do it rather than getting into all the detail with Ed, which probably won't help anyway. The thing with yield is it reflects the fact that we have contracts with customers that have different fixed component charges versus variable tonnage movement charges. And depending on who rails. Well, the difference occurs between the planning and actual for us, depending on which customer says they're going to rail, what volume, in what period, and whether they do or not. So, in a sense, when you're seeing a repetition of some sort of biased outcome, it's the customer saying what they're gonna rail and then maybe not delivering exactly as they would. There's also, you know, customers really do, in the last couple of months of the year, you can see a general race in the financial, towards the end of the financial year, to get as much tons as they can when they take stock of where they got to, after the wet season starts to, wind down. That's part of the drivers for the, for the variability. It is very hard for us to take the customer's nominations and ignore them. Not very hard, it's we can't ignore their nominations, so we take them as for what they say they're going to do, and we budget accordingly. Yeah, fantastic. And then, look, I mean, I know you got this question a little bit back in August, but, you know, we've seen the benefits of the cost out program that you sort of ran, I guess, throughout FY25 and in this half. I just wanted to, I guess, double-check in again and just sort of say: Look, again, is there, I guess, more opportunity for cost out going forward? Yep. Well, let's get Gareth to talk. He's moving into a new role which will have a reasonable focus on improvement. So, Gareth, do you want to talk about some? Sure. So yeah, I mean, we're pleased that we've seen the delivery of that AUD 60 million continuing to flow through 2026, Justin. In terms of further programs, we haven't got any program in execution at the moment, but it won't surprise you to hear that we continue to focus not just on the cost, but also the productivity and the utilization of our assets, facilities, and how we do our business. So that will continue to be an enduring feature of how Aurizon conducts its business. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Cameron McDonald, from AMP. Please go ahead. Good morning. I just want to get some detail around the provision, reduction and the write back. You've said you've had some recoveries in bulk. Can we get some detail around that, please? Gareth, can you provide some detail on that, please? Yep. Hey, Cameron. So, yes, you'll note within the accounts, you'll have seen a half-on-half improvement in impairment for doubtful debts to the amount of AUD 7 million. That is, yeah, a good approximation for sums that we've managed to recover. Okay, so that... is there any expectation that you'll recover any more? Like, what's the outlook for some of those increased provisions from last year? Yeah, so listen, I mean, we continue to work and pursue all legal and commercial avenues, Cameron. I wouldn't expect there to be a material addition to that recovery, but as I say, we continue to work with all parties. Okay. Andrew, can I just sort of ask a more strategic question? If I look at the annual report from last year, the LTI for non-coal EBITDA growth is now 283%-326% growth. That's up from 131-157, minimum and maximum the year before. That seems like, you know, an extraordinary growth rate, but also, you know, just trying to get a sense of how achievable you actually think that is, given not only the current delivery to date, but secondly, the reduction in sort of what is being, you know, non-growth CapEx or, sorry, growth CapEx that-... So how, you know, can you achieve that without putting more capital in? Great question. And I'm gonna get George to talk about the deliverable of the future. The thing, the point that I would make is that from a strategic point of view, we've been assembling assets and business activity that allows us to get into new contracts that we were unable to get into before and access a broader profit pool. So an example of that, which I've used a lot, but I'll use it again, is the BHP Copper South Australia contract, where we assembled three businesses, which is not the sole purpose of buying the One Rail business by any means, but we had the One Rail business. We bought Flinders, the Flinders Logistics business to get the terminal access. And you put those together so that you actually can then provide the full service offering, which we knew the customer was chasing. So there's numerous opportunities that expand out of that particular... in that particular area or in that particular assemblage of businesses. And then you can-- We're doing similar things. I should say, the nature with bulk is it is similar in that there's rail activity and there's port activity, but they're all different as well. We're doing similar style of things across the country. So what I might do is just hand to George so he can build- He... And the only other point I'd make is we recently only achieved putting in that, for that particular case, we only just managed to put those assets together to enable that activity to take place, which is, to your point, some of the reason around the delay in delivery. George? Sure. Thanks, Andrew. Hi, Cameron. I'll start with containerized freight 'cause it's a similar theme. You know, you have to spend capital in advance of then getting the benefits from it. When we said we were gonna stand up containerized freight, we said it'd be about AUD 425 million of capital. Now, what we've spent to date, including the most recent half, is about AUD 300 million-AUD 320 million of capital. A lot of the balance is that Kewdale Terminal that we touched on before. That will unlock efficiency, but that's containerized freight. We don't have a lot more capital to spend. Now it is about getting the trains full, targeting the right service frequency, and getting the right yield and cost base around that business. When it comes to bulk, I think I said in August, the most important customer we have is our existing customer base. So what do I mean by that? As Andrew said, we've got a great footprint. We've got 5 port terminals, we've got 2,500 kilometers of track infrastructure. We've got over 200 locomotives that we can draw on across the business. And so when I look at growing the bulk business, there are 4 levers that I look at. The first is the customers that railed in the first half that haven't yet had a full year of rail links: AG River, Yilgarn, and BHP Copper. We started in the first half of FY 2026, but you're yet to see a full year of rail links for them. The second driver is cancellations and waste in the supply chain. We've reduced cancellations by 2% compared to the prior corresponding period, but they're still too high. And when you've got a business that doesn't have high take or pay, when you don't run a train, you're still maintaining it, you still got the crew, but you're not getting the revenue. So that is a big value lever for us. The third value lever is our existing customers and them growing. BHP Copper wanna grow their copper output. That'll see commensurate growth in their inputs as well, which we move for them. CBH over in WA have a 30 million tons by 2030 strategy. So they, those two customers, just those two, wanna grow significantly. And then you have to look at growth, Cameron, which will come from new projects coming online. So then you are talking about the Arafura in the central corridor, you're talking about the Ammaroos, the Verdants. Those will come with capital. But my point is, the first three levers that I mentioned are fairly capital light because we've already got the assets in place. The fourth lever, where we see new projects, is where there would be more capital, but that, as Andrew said, will be contract backed. Thank you. And then just finally, you know, any sort of commentary around what's happening around Phosphate Hill and Glencore around Mount Isa? Well, we won't specifically comment on those particular customers. We don't do that, and that wouldn't be appropriate. We do watch. We are involved, and we do watch it carefully. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Tom Peyton from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Pardon me, your next question is from Rob Koh from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Good morning. Congratulations on the result. May I just ask you a couple of questions about the network review, which you've given us the decision on, now? Thank you. Just wondering if you could share if there was anything material you learned in terms of potential tax consequences or financing synergies? ... I learned enough that I'm not gonna answer those questions on a public call, Rob. Okay. Oh, yeah, definitely not gonna answer those questions on a public call. Sorry. No, no, that's okay. Respect. Okay. My next question is on coal, maybe for Ed, but just wondering if you could give us any color on how EBAs are going? From memory, I think you have some Queensland train crew and maintenance EBAs up this year. Yes. Thank you for the question, Rob. You're correct. We are currently negotiating both enterprise agreements, actually, in New South Wales and Queensland. And the New South Wales one expired in November, and the Queensland one expired, expires in March. It's going well overall. We've been at the bargaining table in New South Wales for over 6 months and for a couple of months in relation to the Queensland agreement. This is the fourth time, in the last 16 years, that I've overseen the renewal of these agreements. I'm confident that we're gonna resolve negotiations in due course, and of course, we're keeping our customers well informed and remain committed to meeting their needs. There's... The tone of these negotiations is always different, and I'd characterize these ones as constructive. We're engaged with our employees, and their representatives, and as always, we're trying to strike the balance between claims that are commercially sustainable with productivity improvements necessary to preserve the viability and performance of the business over time. Good. Thank you. Sounds good, and wish you well with it. Maybe a final question. I note you've got an incoming new CFO and Group Executive Strategy with a bit of FMG experience, and I understand that FMG are taking delivery of some battery electric trains. Just wondering if you could give us any update on your own future fleet, and I think you're gonna be trialing some battery electric trains later this year, if that's right? Oh, I was wondering where you were going with that. We're not getting into- Rob, I thought you were... forgot to suggest we get in mining, and I was gonna have to leap on the denial of that. No, so battery, we have two battery electric activities going on in the very near term. A battery electric loco, which, to remind people, is a project where we're taking a diesel electric locomotive out of the field. In the normal course of business, we take, we've been taking them out to do, you know, maintenance activity to them. We're taking this one out, instead of replacing it with a diesel engine, we're replacing it essentially with a battery electric engine. It is far... Battery electric drive. It is far more complicated than what I just said, and engineers would be horrified with the simplicity of it. But that work has been progressing for some time. We will see that battery electric loco operating in Western Australia, actually. I think we've said publicly now, in the next financial year. I think is the timeframe for that. The second bit of battery electric work we're doing... Sorry, the reason we're trialing that as an approach is, it's damn expensive to buy brand-new electric locomotives when your diesel ones are perfectly good. So, that's very hard economics to leap over, if it's possible. So, we're looking at how we can actually manage the transition of a diesel fleet over a very long time, and that's a lead project in that activity. The second one we're doing is the battery electric tender, and that is a, the way to imagine it would be the first wagon behind the lead locomotives is actually, instead of being a wagon that carries a product like ore or grain or something, it's a wagon that's actually full of batteries. And it can act as either an extender to a battery electric loco, or it indeed converts a diesel locomotive into a hybrid system. And that is being done with it built in Queensland, and that will be about a year before it's in operation, and operating for one of our customers who's pretty excited to give it a trial. So those two things—those two activities, variations on the current, trying to, I'm gonna say repurpose, but move the current fleet in that, in an economic way from high fossil fuel load to a lower fossil fuel load in the future. And both of those are underway, and we'll start to see outcomes sort of like in the next 12-24 months. They'll be operating in real mining environments or real haulage for mine, sorry, environments. They'll be doing real, real tasks, and it'll be pretty interesting to see how they perform, and delighted to have the customer support we've got to actually execute against it. Great. Many, many thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from Tom Peyton from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Hi, team. Andrew, and note to Ian, congratulations on the appointment. Number of questions already today, so I'll keep it short. Firstly, on the timeline and pacing of the AUD 100 million buyback, if you can offer some color around that. And secondly, increased grain volumes for bulks. Just wondering if you can speak to the sort of regional splits around that at all. Thanks. George, what do you want to do the grain first, and then I'll do the buyback after?... Sure, yeah. Thanks, Andrew. Thanks for the question, Tom. If you look at our grain exposure, we're Western Australia, South Australia, which is good because they tend to be fairly stable grain markets, if you look historically. Western Australia, we haul for CBH. They've just closed a harvest at 24 million tons, which congratulations to them and their growers, that's a record. Most of that grain we will haul in the second half of FY 2026, and the reason for that is that the harvest really occurs from, call it October through to January. So a lot of that grain is still in front of us. We're busy moving it in WA. About 50%-55% of the total harvest tends to go on rail in WA, the balance on road. In terms of our other exposure, that's South Australia, where South Australia has just closed a harvest of about 8 million tons, so, closer to an average harvest compared to a weaker one the year before. The majority of grain tends to go on road in South Australia. We do the balance for Bunge, used to be Viterra, and similar to WA, the majority of that grain that we will move for Bunge will go via the second half of FY 2026 rather than the first half. To buyback and timing and a little bit more color on that, I just point to our history, pretty proud of the fact when we say we're gonna do a buyback, we actually do the buyback, and I wanna keep that tradition running for obvious reasons. We do have... I did announce this AUD 100 million as an extension to the current buyback, and we have yet to finish the current buyback. I believe it's about AUD 25 million remaining on the current buyback. Given that that's a buyback that was complete, that's to be completed by the end of the financial year, we'll be pushing pretty hard on that buyback to get it done in that period of time. It's not all obviously about the execution within the time. You've also got to pay attention to how you're executing it and make sure you stick within the rules, and not trying to be as predictable as you could be in your approach. So hopefully that gives you some color as to what we're trying to execute with that extension. Great. Thanks, Andrew. Thank you. Your next question comes from Ian Myles, from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. I'll try and be brief. If we go back to the dividend, can you maybe just give a bit color? You made the comment that your long-term CapEx spends for maintenance is not really changing. Your guidance for FY 2025, 2026 hasn't changed at the EBITDA level, but you have actually lifted the dividend. I'm just trying to understand what's changing there to then lift that payout ratio, 'cause as you say, you don't wanna take it back down again. Yeah, the confidence... Again, remember, Ian, what I said when I was talking about, I answered a question earlier on changing the payout ratio. One of the things you want to look at when you're looking at lifting it is if that's an easy experience, lowering it is the opposite. Mm. By times ten. So very cautious to make sure that we can do what we can do for the longer term. Obviously, it's never, there's always things that could change in the future, could change your mind, but you really wanna go into it with a view that it's something that you don't want to lower unnecessarily. So, we've had, we've got a lot more information. We're six months further on than the last time we talked. We've seen some improvements in the business. We've introduced a new operational contract with BHP. We've managed to make some changes, improvements to the containerized freight business. We're seeing an underlying improvement in other customers and indeed the main customer for containerized freight. So, when you... And there's many other things. So when you add all that together, it actually says that we can progress with a higher payout ratio with increased sort of reliability, so to speak. Okay. And on the, just on the bulk side, your statement at FY 25 had a view that iron ore was a detractor from potentially the growth. You sort of removed that part in your, your commentary, and I was just intrigued, have you replaced... is that suggesting that you've actually replaced the earnings side of it or just the volumes? Do you want to talk about that, George? I'll talk about it as best I can, Ian, without touching on individual customers and earnings contributions. You can talk in totality. Yeah, no, I will try. If you look at what happened when Cliff shut down, that mine got restarted by Mines. Mines shut down, which was going to be a drag, certainly on the first half of 2026. We've now fully replaced that volume. If you look at Yilgarn Iron, and you look at Gold Valley's volumes at full run rate, that replaces the Mines volume. We didn't have certainty on the Yilgarn volume when we made that statement, so that's one thing that's changed for the positive. Okay. And also, in the central corridor, we've had lower iron ore volumes from OneSteel, but we have had AG River start up near Tennant Creek and start railing at the back end of the first half of 2026. So yes, some declines, but also we've seen replacement, and it just reinforces what Andrew said, that if you have the right assets in terms of locomotives and hopper wagons for iron ore, as well as that track infrastructure in the central corridor, you, you can provide an avenue for iron ore mines to come back online quickly. ... Okay, and when you on, on the coal side, you've obviously got the Hunter Valley volumes potentially moving. When do you start thinking about changing maintenance schedules around that equipment if you can't recontract, or the timing of recontracting is different to the day you lose the other contract? Ed, do you want to take that one? Yeah, sure. Hi, Ian. Well, the way I was thinking about it is, first of all, we're, we are sold out for FY 26, so we're not changing the maintenance schedules ahead of finalizing this year. We're doing the planning processes now around our customer nominations for FY 27, tender outcomes, cost base assumptions this year, normal this time of the year. And so now we know on a consistent basis what periodicity we need to maintain them at and what capital we have to provide for, and so we're pretty adept at turning that off and on as we need to. Okay. Look, that's great. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Your next question comes from Scott Ryall, from Rimor Equity Research. Please go ahead. Hi there. Thank you very much. One question following up on Rob's question and your answer on the use of batteries in trains, Andrew. Most of your mining customers are struggling with this transition themselves, and a lot of them have talked about lower carbon liquid fuels. Do you... What are you doing in that sense? What's the latest in terms of what you're willing to look at? I know there's not much supply, but in terms of looking at the options. Yeah, well, look, we're involved in pretty much all the discussions that occur around the drop-in fuels. The same issue exists when you're doing the work for the battery technology is none of it's cheap. And the drop-in fuels are expensive, and to your point, can you get them? And if you, you know, and if there is volume, it's probably going to, at least as far as I can tell at the moment, more than likely be biased to the aviation industry in the early part of the take-up. So we are doing work. We've done. We understand the engineering. The new equipment we have can easily run the drop-in fuels and without any changes. So, we're in a position where we could make use of the idea or the opportunity if it comes along. It's a very big price difference, when you're just comparing it to straight diesel, and you've got to have a customer base that's motivated or willing to pay for it. Yep, understood. All right, my second question is just on the updated network undertaking. Congratulations! Your big legacy, I think, in terms of Aurizon is a move towards these long-term contracts with your customers. In terms of the comments, so I'm just trying to contextualize in terms of the comments that were made around CapEx going forward and the discussion pack that you put out just prior to Christmas when you announced it, which showed a flat RAB going forward or flat to ever so slightly down in nominal terms. Do you think there is a world in which, over the course of the next 10 years, that you would see any sharper declines in the RAB than what is forecast there? So look, I'd, I'd be reasonably confident that you won't... That you, that you'll see, flat, slightly down, and very unlikely that you'll see sharper declines. Part of the thing that people don't think about is you're managing, you're always trying to manage for the operational efficiency of the train sets on the network. And so you're dealing with managing against congestion, you're managing against the mining, the locus of intensity of mining in particular areas, moving to different corridors and in different parts or different corridors over... because you're talking over the long term. So, it's more than likely that you'll see flat than anything else as a result of those changes that occur over time to the network, as you're continually trying to keep it optimized. Because people don't want slower train trips even into the future as much as they don't want them now. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Your next question comes from Nathan Lead from Morgans. Please go ahead. G'day. G'day, gents. Thanks for your presentation today. Just one question on coal and just a couple on capital management, if you don't mind. So just on coal, just the guidance there that Ed was talking about, the cost being flat. Just confirm that's on a dollars per NTK basis or is it absolute dollars? No, it's the way... It's on a dollars per NTK basis. Yep. Okay, just wanted to confirm that. Thanks. Second, just on, just a couple in terms of capital management. So Andrew, very much heard your comments there about wanting to sustain that higher payout ratio. What's your thinking in terms of the sustainability of the franking rate going forward? It was always gonna be you, Nathan, that was gonna ask me that question, so thank you for not disappointing me. You're welcome. So look, from a... And I'll get Gareth to come in if there's anything that needs to be added to it. Look, if you looked at when we had 100% payout ratio, payout ratio, we had a franking at around 70%. We look—we've again, we've looked forward, and we don't want to make... You know, strong representations about the actual franking itself. But setting a 90% payout ratio, you're thinking about not lowering it in the future. Franking credit, again, depends on a number of moving pieces, particularly in a business like Aurizon's, which has got, you know, large infrastructure, and you've got those accelerated fixed assets versus your tax cash rate. So, it's not something that you'd see moving readily, and it's something that we're happy about. But I'm not gonna sit here and actually make too many bold statements about the future. I'll leave the bold statement to Gareth in his last minutes as a CFO. Yeah. Thank you, Andrew. Hey, Nathan. So, as Andrew said, we don't generally give franking credit guidance. However, what I would say is, second half, I would expect to maintain that 90% franking. And as you know, the nature of our business being heavy infrastructure, generally speaking, our cash tax rate will be less than 30%. So, you can infer that, from that, what that would mean for a franking position. So yeah, hopefully that answers your question, Nathan. You went right the time. Excellent. Just another one on capital management. I hear what you're saying, Andrew, about, you know, saying you're gonna do a buyback and actually completing it, but the share price is up a lot if we look back sort of, I suppose, to middle of last year. Where in your mind does a buyback become uneconomic? Right. I know you know I'm not gonna answer that question, Nathan. What I can tell you is when we look at extending the buyback, and we look at a tradition that I want to maintain, of completing buybacks, I did—I was working on being able to achieve both of those. Yep. Okay, thank you. There are no further questions at this time. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.