Welcome to BHP's online information session for shareholders. I'm Gabrielle Notley, and I'm joined here today by Mike Henry, our Chief Executive Officer, Caroline Cox, who is our Chief Legal, Governance, and External Affairs Officer, and David Lamont, who is our Chief Financial Officer. The 2022 financial year was extremely busy for BHP. We've delivered on some big strategic priorities, the business has had to manage through the impacts of COVID, and commodity markets have been very volatile. I know shareholders are very keen to hear more from you about how you've been working through those challenges and get your insights on the results that were released just a couple of weeks ago, especially the dividend. I'll put some of their questions to you shortly. Mike, can I start with you and ask what was your take on the 2022 year? Well, look, thanks, Gab. It was obviously a strong year for the company. Performing well operationally, performing well financially and strategically. There were a number of big things we did on the strategic front over the course of the year. First and foremost, I want to call out what's the most important thing for us at the end of the day, and that is that everybody went home safely for the year. And that makes three and a half years now where nobody has lost their life while at work at BHP. And that's something that we're very proud of. Of course, safety is a day by day thing, so we can't be complacent. You know, we need to use this opportunity to double down on the safety front. To that end, we have made some changes to the leadership team to really kind of redouble our focus when it comes to safety in particular, but HSEC more broadly, as well as the deployment of the BHP operating system. If I come back to what we achieved during the course of the year, obviously, the numbers were strong and off the back of high commodity prices, but a pretty good operational performance as well. We managed to clock in record dividends to shareholders, and equally, or actually even a little bit more, record royalties and taxes. We were a big, an even bigger tax and royalty contributor to the States and to the federal government here in Australia, but also in Chile and elsewhere where we operate over the course of the year. On top of the strong underlying operational performance, we made a number of big steps forward in terms of the portfolio and making the changes that we've been seeking to make in line with trying to construct a portfolio that is more geared towards future-facing commodities. The changes included the divestment of our petroleum division and merger with Woodside to create a larger company that's going to be more resilient and better able to navigate the energy transition. We further concentrated our coal portfolio by hiving off or divesting a few of our smaller coal assets. We also made a pretty big decision to develop Jansen Stage One, and this opens up this new, fantastic growth front for BHP in what is a pretty exciting new commodity in potash, which helps with more sustainable farming. We unified the corporate structure, making us simpler and more agile. Finally, Caroline may want to talk a little bit more about this later, but we developed our Climate Transition Action Plan over the course of the year as well. Strong support from shareholders for that. In there, we set out how we're going to go about achieving a 30% further reduction in operational emissions by 2030 relative to our 2020 baseline, as well as what we're doing to work with others to reduce our Scope 3 emissions footprint as well. Long list, very big, big year, but very proud of what, you know, 80,000 people across BHP were able to achieve in coming together to overcome some of the external challenges we faced and, as I said, to achieve some pretty big outcomes for the year. It is a big list, a very big list. I will ask Caroline to talk about decarbonization later. We do have a couple of questions. Before I do, one of the questions that did come up a number of times was on the dividend, which you mentioned, Mike. Obviously very important for our shareholders. There's a question here from Philip and Sandra, who particularly are obviously Australian-based. They're keen to understand, with the $175 that was declared a couple of weeks ago, what is that in Australian dollars? And separately on a question from Wayne who said, "Now we have such low net debt, why didn't you choose to have a share buyback and accelerate the distribution of franking credits? Okay. These sound like great questions for David. Just before I turn to David, if I can just make a couple of comments specifically about the dividend. You know, as I said in my opening remarks, this is off the back of a great underlying operational performance, which allowed us to fully capitalize on the high commodity price environment that we found ourselves in. I would also add that in addition to the cash dividend that we declared of $1.75 final dividend back to shareholders, we also had an in-specie dividend associated with the merger of our petroleum business with Woodside. Together, the total dividend back to shareholders for the year was about $36 billion. This is, you know, a very large number. Even better, at least if you're an Australian shareholder, it was fully franked. It was certainly a big year in terms of shareholder returns. David, maybe if you can just comment on the specific questions that were asked around the, you know, equivalent Aussie dollar equivalent, and then buybacks versus cash returns. Yeah, certainly. Thanks, Mike. Thanks for everyone tuning in today. From the dividend side of things, we determined the Australian equivalent on the fifth of September, and that'll actually be AUD 2.55. As Mike referenced earlier, that will be a fully franked dividend that'll arrive into shareholders' bank accounts on the twenty-second of September. Not too long to wait as part of that process. Equally, back to the question around buybacks. That's something that we consider each six months when we determine ultimately the dividends that we're gonna pay out. As part of that, this time around, we felt that it was better to have a fully cash dividend being paid to shareholders. That's what we determined this time. We look at it under the Capital Allocation Framework, which does actually have the opportunity for buybacks within that to determine what's best for shareholders at that point in time. In relation to the franking credits, as Mike mentioned, also with the petroleum in-specie dividend, plus the interim and final dividend, we've actually pulled forward about $15 billion of franking credits that have actually come through to shareholders this year. You mentioned capital allocation, David. We've actually had a couple of questions, which I think are relevant flow-ons from what you said. Vishwa and Peter submitted questions on how you prioritize decisions between net debt and shareholder returns in general, and they're keen to understand your strategy for future dividends, and particularly how that compares with the payout ratios that you've been having over the past three to five years. Could I ask you to talk to that? Yes, certainly, Gab, and thanks for the question. Firstly, let me just say the payout ratio for this year was some 77%, so very healthy if you look at that across an industry-wide basis. Equally, what we do is use the Capital Allocation Framework to define where we'll actually spend the cash that we're actually generating. We finished the year with very low levels of debt, and that final dividend of $1.75 per share will actually see us pay out right about $9 billion. Now, our net debt range, we're looking to be between $5 billion and $15 billion. As a result of that $9 billion, we clearly will get back within the range that we'd like to run from a balance sheet perspective. Now, what we do under the Capital Allocation Framework is look at the cash that we're generating, firstly prioritize maintenance and our spend on our operation to continue to have them operate effectively. I think there's good demonstration in the performance just in the last year as to how that played out. We look at the strength of the balance sheet, and we look to commit to paying a 50% payout from a dividend perspective. Any excess cash over and above that, we balance that up with investment back into the business, into those future-facing commodities that we have and wanting to leverage ourselves into the mega trends that are playing out across the industry and also return to shareholders. In the last year, we determined that some of that excess cash was going back to shareholders, hence the 77% payout ratio. It's something that we'll look at every six months, looking at what the future holds and just where the strength of the balance sheet's at. Thank you, David, for stepping through that. Switching gears, Mike, the next question I think, I'll pass to you. It's from Mark, who has asked about the portfolio. He's asked, with the divestment of fossil fuel assets like petroleum, in the name of decarbonization, he says, "Does that leave BHP exposed in downtimes for minerals commodities? Sure. Let me start, Gab, just by clarifying that the divestment of the petroleum business and of some of our coal assets wasn't for the purposes of decarbonization. This was all about shareholder value and risk. We've been very clear that we're trying to construct a portfolio that is aligned to some of the big trends that we see playing out in the world around us. Electrification, decarbonization, and what that is going to demand by way of minerals for decarbonization infrastructure, for example, population growth and so on. We want a portfolio of commodities that is positively leveraged to those trends, so with more upside than downside. If we look over the very long term, we saw the assets we've divested as being attractive assets in the near to medium term. Over the longer term, we think there's more questions about where those assets trend. In the case of petroleum, we believe that you know that they would be better focused in a portfolio that was able to navigate the energy transition and where the right decisions and trade-offs could be made in a petroleum-focused portfolio as is the case with Woodside. That then frees the rest of BHP up to focus on developing and growing our exposure to these other commodities like copper, nickel and potash. Now, what does that mean for us in the very near term? Probably two cuts at that. One is what does it mean through a shareholder lens, and then what does it mean through kind of the BHP entity? From a shareholder perspective, I believe and hope that many shareholders retain their shares in the new Woodside, and so they'll see any benefit or different direction of commodity prices in oil and gas relative to minerals commodities through their shareholding in the two different entities. Within BHP proper, we continue to have a diversified portfolio of metals and minerals commodities in the near term. I also mentioned earlier that we've recently triggered the first phase of Jansen Stage One, first phase of the Jansen project, which is Stage One. We expect to have first production from that mine now in 2026. We've accelerated studies on Jansen Stage Two. We've accelerated studies around how we can go about unlocking more of our amazing copper and nickel resources more quickly. Within a, I don't know, 5-10-year period, we'll have a portfolio where we've grown a substantial potash business. We'll have more copper production, intend to have more nickel production as well, and that's going to give us plenty of diversification. In fact, potash as a commodity in technical terms gives us more diversification in cash flows than petroleum would have given us historically. There'll be a net benefit to the company in terms of that diversification of markets, commodity prices and so on going forward. Kind of on the broader theme of portfolio and how we see the world unfolding in decarbonization, Caroline, anything you wanted to add to this? Sure. Thanks, Mike. Probably going back a bit to the question as well, really our focus is on decarbonizing our operational emissions and very focused on that. Including, and I think importantly, we've set out through the Climate Transition Action Plan that Mike mentioned earlier, a really clear plan and costing around how we're going to get there. I think that's an important component of our approach. The second thing I'd say is we do take into account and adjust those goals that we've set out in the CTAP to allow for acquisitions and any asset sales. We're building that into how we approach this, and that will be clear when we go out to market in terms of how we're tracking against those goals. Thank you, Caroline. We've had a number of questions along similar lines in relation to coal and to what's been happening in the portfolio there. I might read them. We've had questions from Glenn, Mitchell, and Chris. Together, they basically want to know how BHP will replace the earnings from the coal assets that we've sold, and how you're thinking about that. Okay. Well, look, thanks, Gab. I think the answer is really kind of captured in what I said earlier. Well, actually, probably the first point to make is that what we've done effectively in selling these coal assets is we've monetized the future potential earnings in those businesses. We brought those earnings forward. They underpin some of the cash flows that we had this year and this kind of record dividend that we've paid out to shareholders. But, you know, as we've been clear, we are intending to grow our businesses in future-facing commodities, being potash, copper, and nickel. We have specific steps underway to do that, including the acceleration of both the Jansen Stage Two project, building upon Jansen Stage One, but also the acceleration of studies in copper and nickel. Mike, there's an additional question specifically about our investment in coal. It's around BHP's Blackwater mine in Queensland. The question is, how does extending that mine fit with your position on coal, but also on climate change? Sure. I know where the question will be coming from. There was a recent bit of press about a regulatory protest that we had underway around future, you know, a future ability to develop what's known as the South Blackwater mine. It's adjacent to the current Blackwater mine. There was, you know, part of the, what was reported was that the potential mine life for South Blackwater was up to 90 years. Now, just to, you know, for the viewers and the person who asked the question, I want to be clear that First of all, a regulatory process like this takes some time. This submission has been in the process for quite some time now. The process also drives you towards laying out what the potential is of the mine, and it's really based upon the resources and reserves. It's not taking a view now about how we would see that market evolving and when the use of coal for steel making may fall away. You know, we've said that we do believe that in due course, the world will shift to green steel. For some time yet, the next few decades, we believe that the coal will still be needed for the purposes of steel making. That's one thing. Very long process. It's been in train for some time, and the 90 years it gets referred to in there is kind of one bookend of the potential basis of reserves. It's not drawing a view as to the likely outcome. Second point I'd make is there's a difference between having the option to develop in future and actually triggering an investment. Any investment decision that we would take needs to compete with other opportunities in the BHP portfolio under the Capital Allocation Framework. David, I might just ask you to, if you have any comments on the Capital Allocation Framework, how it would apply in this case, and maybe include in that how we would look at an investment like this in light of the recent pretty substantial increase in royalties in Queensland. Thanks, Mike. Look, certainly the impact of the Queensland royalty will have an impact on our investment process. Everything needs to compete within our Capital Allocation Framework, as to where we will allocate capital. Now, what the Queensland government has done with the royalty is, it's capped the return at the high end of any commodity cycle. We need to be able to invest through cycles, which means that we need to, at the top, be able to get a return that actually compensates us also for when we're at the bottom of the cycle. Now, for us, as BHP, we actually make a contribution far wider than just the royalty stream in Queensland. To bring that back, you know, if you're an individual shareholder, you'll get the share price improvements that you see. You also get the dividend. Now, importantly, we also fund into a number of the superannuation funds that exist across Australia. 17 million Australians, two-thirds of the population, have investments in superannuation. That is an impact of where BHP has an investment as well. Equally, what we do is represent around about 10% of the corporate tax take in Australia. That's a substantial amount of money going into the Australian government as well, right across the board, both state and federally. The other thing that we do across the whole global operations that we operate within is we made a total economic contribution of some $78 billion this year. That's payments to our employees, our payments to suppliers, to governments, and the communities that we actually operate within. Now, of that $78 billion, $17 billion was taxes and royalties that we actually paid to governments globally around the board. We think that we've paid a fair amount into the value that we create in the communities and the areas that we actually operate within. Thank you, David. It's a topic of conversation generally around resources, industries, and their contributions to Australia, but also to other countries where we operate at the moment. I'm sure it's continuing to be of interest to not only viewers, but to shareholders in particular. Another topic that has been in the news a lot lately is electric vehicles, and there's been car manufacturers around the world that have been talking up their plans for production of electric vehicles. We've had a question from Morris, and Caroline, I might ask you this. He specifically asks, "Has BHP any agreements around our nickel production with any electric vehicle manufacturers? Thank you, Gab, and thank you, Morris, for the question. The short answer is yes, but let me sort of step back a little bit in relation to that. In terms of nickel, generally, the expectation is demand is going to increase fourfold in the next decade, and that is largely driven by that demand for electric vehicles. Then turning to us, in fact, even now, 85% of the nickel we produce is going into the electric vehicle industry. I think what's also interesting is that if you look at the electric vehicle customers, they're not just looking at the commodities they need for those electric vehicles. They are really focused on how the commodities are being produced. They're very concerned about the environmental footprint, the ethical footprint of the commodities, and how the supply chain, for example, is being managed. When we look at that, we think about clearly the nickel we produce is essential for those electric vehicles. Also, as we are doing, really focusing on our decarbonization efforts. At the moment, our nickel is among the lowest carbon intensity in the world. We're focused on doing that further and really working as we currently do with our communities and really managing that supply chain. Then in terms of the customers or contracts that we already have in place, over the last 18 months, we've had contracts with Tesla, Toyota Australia, Ford, and also a new electric vehicle manufacturer out of Canada called Miller Technology. Quite a number there that really go to the question that's been put. Are those agreements, in part including, commitments by BHP around those other factors that you mentioned? Absolutely. If I take, for example, Tesla and Toyota, they absolutely are looking at what is the ethical supply chain, what is the operational standards that we have, and we had to go through a process to really demonstrate that we met those conditions in order for us to get those contracts. Thank you. Besides nickel, shareholders are also keen to understand what other commodities BHP might be interested in, including lithium. Mike, I know you've had this question a lot over the past twelve months or so I might ask you to respond to Keith. He also asks, "Besides lithium, is BHP considering diversifying into PGEs? Yes. I have had the question about lithium a lot, Gab, and understandably, because there's a lot of activity out there around lithium, and it is a growing commodity. You know, as the world seeks to move to electric vehicles, there's a lot more lithium that's going to be needed. But we've been clear that it's not a commodity for BHP. The kind of the broad thinking there is, you know, in looking at the commodities that BHP wants to be involved in, they have to be big enough to make a difference to BHP. The market has to be of sufficient scale. We have to see the value opportunity for BHP shareholders in those commodities as being big enough, you know, to warrant our effort relative to alternatives. Finally, it has to be aligned with our capabilities. If we look at lithium, it's a pretty small market today, but it's growing, so you know, at some point, it'll probably have sufficient scale for BHP. But what has us hanging back from it is that we think that over time, the cost curve, so the margin opportunity in lithium, is probably not gonna be quite as good as it is for us in copper, potash, and nickel. In a world where we need to prioritize efforts, we've said we're gonna prioritize our efforts on those three commodities. couple of other factors to be aware of are one, the mines tend to be a little bit smaller. You see higher turnover of a greater number of smaller mines, which isn't really aligned with the way that BHP likes to operate generally. Finally, there's a lot more processing involved, and that's not a core competency of BHP, or hasn't been in the past. On the combination of lesser value opportunity from our perspective relative to some others, not quite the same scale, and not quite the same good alignment with BHP's preferred mode of operating and our capabilities, we've said better handled by somebody else. Same thing would apply to PGEs, probably an even greater deal given the lack of scale in some of those commodities. Just to pick up on the focus area that you mentioned, we have had quite a few questions on BHP's interest in copper. Maybe I'll read out a couple of them and maybe, Mike, ask you to start responding to them. The first is from Jim, who wants to know: To what extent are small caps in copper a consideration for BHP, especially if OZ Minerals is stalled? There is one here from Purshottam who asks. He would like to better understand new copper projects that BHP is interested in. Gerald asks for an update on Resolution Copper in Arizona in the United States. Okay, lots on copper and that's good because it's, you know, it's certainly a key area of focus for BHP. Gab, let me start by saying, you know, given that the question opened with something around, M&A and small caps, BHP's strategy is not dependent on mergers and acquisitions. We've got this, you know, very clear focus on growth in copper. There's a number of levers that we're pulling to unlock that growth. Starting with getting more out of the big resources that we have. BHP is the world's largest holder of copper resources. We hold the largest copper resources in the world, second-largest nickel sulfide resources as well. There's an accelerated effort underway right now to figure out how we can go about unlocking more of those copper units economically faster. That's going to be the lever that's most within our control. We've also accelerated our exploration effort for new copper globally, so we're in a number of different jurisdictions exploring for new copper deposits. We've increased our commercial activity in terms of getting in on the ground floor with big resources that have been discovered, but not yet developed. This is what we term early stage entry. We've done that in a few jurisdictions as well. We have all these levers that we're able to pull before we get to mergers and well, acquisitions. Now, any M&A that we would pursue would only be pursued if it's strategically a good fit with for us, and if there's value to be captured for BHP shareholders. We will be super disciplined about this, and we demonstrated that in it wasn't a copper opportunity, it was a nickel opportunity in Canada last year called Noront, where we, you know, pursued that opportunity. It was a small cap company, but value got to a point where it didn't meet our threshold of needing to create value for BHP shareholders, so we pulled away. Now, in the case of OZ Minerals, we approached them with a non-binding indicative offer that we thought was very compelling for OZ shareholders. Disappointingly, they chose not to engage with us. Like I said, we've got a number of levers that we're pulling on to unlock growth, all starting with these great resources that we already have inside the company. Mike, on Resolution? Oh, yes. Thanks for the reminder, Gab. Look, on Resolution, it's a key copper growth prospect in the US. BHP owns 45% of it. But it's still quite a, you know, fair ways away from a final decision. There's lots of ongoing work there on the technical front, but also engaging with the various stakeholders and interested parties, including, you know, importantly, the First Nations tribes there. Any decision from a BHP perspective ultimately on Resolution is gonna be dependent upon it standing the test of the Capital Allocation Framework, as well as being aligned with BHP's policies and values, of course. Thanks, Mike. Maybe if I could pivot now to the social value framework that you mentioned right at the start of the session. Caroline, I know that you presented to investors earlier in this year on the framework. I wondered whether it would be an opportunity just to explain why, what's the purpose of the framework and where are you at with it? Yeah, would love to, Gab. Probably where to start is almost going back to what we were talking about in relation to nickel and how customers are looking at not just the commodities we produce, but how we produce them. Because social value is really about the how. Fundamentally, when we think about social value, it's our positive contribution to society, whether that's communities and governments as David was laying out with the significant royalties and taxes we pay, as well as contribution to suppliers, clearly our employees. Then we want to ensure that that's a long-term enduring relationship with all of those stakeholders. The reason why that's so important is because we know that that makes business sense. We know that in order for us to succeed into the future, we need the, clearly customers. We also need the support of those stakeholders in the communities where we operate. Having those long-term positive relationships creates that environment really for long-term success, which is clearly in shareholders' interests. That's sort of the why the focus on this and what it encompasses. Then the framework really was about us being very deliberate about what are those very specific things that are going to drive that benefit that I set out. Much like we do with the Capital Allocation Framework and other parts of our business, we wanted to apply the same discipline and rigor to social value. We looked at what our customers are looking for, what communities members are looking for, and we defined six areas which are really going to be the ones that are going to drive ultimately shareholder value for all of our shareholders, as well as those mutually beneficial relationships. The six pillars that we focus on are decarbonization, healthy environment, indigenous relationships, thriving communities, very importantly, a safe and inclusive future-ready workforce, and ethical supply chains, which we talked about earlier. That's the framework. Then what we're doing with that is building it into our decision-making and our Capital Allocation Framework. Will you report to shareholders on how you're going with these different pillars? Absolutely. Really, again, bringing that discipline and transparency to our approach. We will report on an annual basis. Part of the investor presentation that you referred to, Gab, we did set out our goals in relation to each of those six pillars, along with metrics, and we will report annually on all of those so that we can continue to say how we're tracking in relation to these pillars. I'm sure it'll be of ongoing interest. It'll be good to get you to check in, as we go forward with that, Caroline. Thank you. Switching gears and coming back to the portfolio, there's a question. There's actually two questions here on our newest commodity, potash. Mike, maybe I could ask you to respond to Charles and Steven. Charles would like to see. He'd like to see the potash project brought fast-forwarded. Yeah wonders if that's possible. Steven is asking for a general update on Jansen, and specifically, when first production is likely. Okay. Well, kind of both are the same point, actually. I would love to be able to bring Jansen or first production from Jansen forward even further. As it stands, the original intent was for first production to be in 2027. It's looking like the teams have figured out how we might be able to do that by 2026, but that's really the limits at this point on our ability to extend, just given some of the complexities and sequential nature of the work required to develop the mine out and develop the surface infrastructure. The bigger point though is that we've triggered studies on Jansen Stage Two. The original intent was we would develop Jansen Stage One, leave that for a period of time after it was producing, and then look, you know, potentially at developing Jansen Stage Two. We want to have the option to be able to pull the trigger more quickly on Jansen Stage Two if market circumstances warrant. Right now, we have seen disruption in potash markets as a result of the tragic events that have unfolded in the Ukraine. The team there has got parallel studies kicked off on Jansen Stage Two. There's some potential that we could move Jansen Stage Two a lot further forward than we've been able to do with the one year or half a year in Jansen Stage One. Thanks, Mike. Just coming back to some of the numbers. Some questions around the economy, and David, I might ask you this. Cussy asks, "How well prepared is BHP for what is going to be an inflationary and rising interest rate environment? Yeah, thanks, Gab, for the question. Certainly it's a core focus of what we've been able to deliver in FY22 around our cost discipline. That same thing needs to apply in what will be an inflationary environment that we're stepping into. We certainly acknowledge that we're not immune from those impacts. We are expecting some inflationary lag effects to take effect into FY23, on the back of, you know, the Ukraine issues that we certainly see coming through, tightness that we see across the board in supply chains having an impact, and also a shortage of skilled labor. They're the things that are impacting us the most. Now, what we're doing about it, as I said, is that cost discipline that we've had. It's also a matter of learning from the past and what did we pick up through the super cycles in the past. It's about embedding our BHP Operating System and ensuring that we're maximizing the leverage that we have through that across the organization. It's looking at how do we actually continue to maintain very healthy relationships and long-term relationships with our suppliers and working things through from that side. So it's multifaceted as to what we're looking to do to address some of those inflationary pressures that are coming through. Now, importantly, we think we're better placed to address those than some of our competitors. If you look at our cost performance to date, we're certainly outperforming a number of our competitors in that area, and that's a focus for us as we move into FY23 as well. Thanks, David. Maybe a final question, obviously a question that's come through from Australia, it's on the Jobs Summit, Mike, and I know that you attended. The question is, can you give any insight about what the Jobs Summit and its outcomes might mean for BHP? Sure. The Jobs and Skills Summit that occurred last Thursday, Friday in Canberra was a good event. You know, some of my takeaways are that the agenda that's been set out by government, but which involves other, you know, all other stakeholders, be it business, representative bodies, unions, governments at all levels, are very aligned with what BHP has already been focused on. Strong focus on how we go about ensuring gender equity across Australia. Well, you know, one of the points that I made there was that BHP in the past five years has hired 13,000 more women into the company. We have more than double the number of women working in BHP now relative to what we had back in 2016 when we put our kind of bold ambition in place for a gender balanced workforce by 2025. We have 10,000 more well-paid, full-time, permanent BHP jobs that have been created over the past five years, and we've increased significantly the proportion of the BHP workforce that are permanent BHP employees rather than contractor employees. We're investing heavily in training. You know, we made a commitment early on in COVID to over $300 million in funding here in Australia for 2,500 apprenticeships and traineeships over five years. In fact, we established two specific training academies, one in the west and one in the east, to train these people up. That's providing the feeder pipeline that's allowing us to achieve many of our other ambitions. All of this done with the intent of making BHP a safer and more productive company. We believe that, you know, through this, we'll be able to compete more strongly, and we'll be able to outgrow our competitors. That was really the key thrust or the key aspiration, I guess, that we would have coming out of the Jobs and Skills Summit, is that the policies that are being enacted are going to allow Australia to become a more productive nation. At the end of the day, we're a heavily export dependent economy. We're competing with many other nations around the world for the same opportunities. It's so important that we've got the settings in place here in Australia that allow us to compete well at a global scale. That's going to require, you know, a different approach in some areas than what we've had there in the past. You know, the fact that you've got different stakeholders coming together with the intent of working in a collaborative fashion to unlock that outcome, I think is a positive. Now, of course, people will come at different issues with very different perspectives, and one has to trust that the process will see those perspectives put on the table and that they'll work together towards the right solutions. Thank you, David. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Caroline. We're just about out of time. Maybe, Mike, is there anything that you would like to close with? Look, what I think in this Q&A, we've covered such a wide range of important topics from portfolio to the Social Value Framework that Caroline spoke about and launched in the course of the past year. The Capital Allocation Framework. The broader contribution that we're making back, not just to shareholders, but to all of those others who have an interest in the success of BHP. I'm really proud of what we've achieved during the course of the year, and I do want to say a very big thank you to the 80,000 people that work across BHP, because in the environment that we found ourselves in with all of the challenges, be it COVID, high inflation, economic disruption. The fact that we've been able to operate so reliably, safely, as I mentioned, upfront, and turn in this stellar set of results and achieve so much on the strategic front over the course of the year. That was only possible with 80,000 people kind of locking arms and helping us to achieve those outcomes. Very, very big thanks to them. Of course, we're now into a new year and working very hard to, you know, to achieve big things this year as well. Thanks, Mike. Thank you to everyone who sent in questions and who tuned in to watch. We really do appreciate your interest and your support as always.