Sure, and thanks for joining us. Welcome to our 2023 annual results briefing. I'm Miles Hurrell, CEO of Fonterra, and I'm here with Neil Beaumont, our Chief Financial Officer. we’re going to kick things off with an overview of our performance before asking Neil to take us through the numbers, and then it'll be over to you to ask your questions. Before we get into it, I want to start by acknowledging and thanking our farmers and our people right across the co-operative. We know it's tough on farm right now, but it's great to be reporting such a strong set of results today. Looking at the core metrics, profit after tax is up NZD 994 million to NZD 1.6 billion, due to favorable margins in our ingredients channel and the gain on sale of Soprole. The significant lift in earnings has meant the co-op's return on capital has increased this year to 12.4%, up from 6.8% last year, and earnings per share increased from NZD 0.36 to NZD 0.95 per share. However, this has been against the backdrop of a Farmgate Milk Price that has dropped across the season, down from NZD 9.30 the prior year to NZD 8.22 per kilogram of milk solids in 2023. As I mentioned earlier, we know that our farmers are doing it tough, but a strong balance sheet has assisted us to pay a full-year dividend of NZD 0.50, which is slightly above our dividend policy range of 40%-60%. The NZD 0.50 per share dividend comprises of NZD 0.10 to be paid after the half-year results, and the final dividend of NZD 0.40 per share, which is to be paid in mid-October. As part of our strategy to focus on New Zealand milk, we completed the sale of Soprole on 31 March this year. In August, we used NZD 804 million of the sale proceeds to give to unitholders and shareholders a NZD 0.50 per share tax-free capital return. This meant fully backed shareholders received NZD 9.22 for the milk they supplied the co-operative. You'll also see we've introduced two new metrics. These are gross profit from core operations per kilogram of milk solids and cash operating expenses per kilogram of milk solids. Neil will touch on these in more detail shortly. Looking at the global dairy industry, on the milk supply side, we've seen growth in the E.U. and U.S., largely due to growing herd sizes. However, production is down in Australia and New Zealand, both impacted by challenging weather conditions. On the demand side, imports were down in China, Asia, and the Middle East and Africa, partially offset by a little bit of growth in Latin America. Reduced demand from these key importing regions impacted pricing of our reference products, particularly that of whole milk powder. As mentioned earlier, this has had a flow-on effect to the farm gate milk price. This graph illustrates how the price relativity is compared to previous years. These high margins, mainly in the ingredient channel, are the key contributor to the earnings we're reporting today. The reduction in the farmgate milk price this season was primarily driven by lower product prices, again, particularly whole milk powder. Around 60% of the farmgate milk price revenue was derived from whole milk powder sales, and the average whole milk powder price for the 2023 season was 16% lower than the prior. In response to this, we allocated more milk to skim milk powder and its byproducts, particularly butter. And while skim and butter prices were also down in the prior year, it was to a lesser extent, in this case, 14% and 10% respectively. Like most businesses, we've experienced inflationary pressures right across the board, which is part of the additional NZ$0.13 you'll see in our costs. This includes things like manufacturing, transport, packaging, and energy. This year, we had a lower FX conversion rate than the previous year, which partially offset the decrease in product prices. I'll now hand over to Neil to take us through the financial performance in a bit more detail. Thanks, Miles. I'm pleased to present to you our key financial outcomes for the year, as well as our new Resource Allocation Framework and efficiency metrics. We have introduced a new Resource Allocation Framework to increase our focus on the efficient allocation of our farmers' milk and cash. Our first priority is safe and efficient operations. We then allocate our farmers' milk toward either our Ingredients, Foodservice, or Consumer channels, and the brands and offerings within those, according to where we believe we will see the highest risk-adjusted returns. Following this, we allocate the cash generated from these channels to one of the six buckets. Each bucket needs to compete with the others, and we allocate based on which will generate the best outcome for our shareholders. The resource allocation framework is embedded across Fonterra and seeks to deliver enhanced value in the form of a strong balance sheet, total shareholder returns, and farm profitability. The co-op is focused on shifting our New Zealand milk into higher value products. This is a key driver of our strategy to deliver both a strong farmgate milk price and earnings growth. Looking at the graph on the left, you can see we continue to reduce allocation of milk solids to whole milk powder and increase allocation to skim milk powder, cream, and cheese, where returns are more favorable. Now, looking at the chart on the right, allocation to our ingredients channel increased in FY 2023. This reflects the sell-down of the additional 2022 financial year inventory. We also put more milk solids into our Foodservice Channel as demand increased as a result of the COVID-19-related restrictions lifting, particularly in our Greater China region. Our reportable segments show we are diversified across both channels and markets. Before we look at the numbers, it is worth noting that we have updated our segments to be reported down to a profit after tax level, and now fully allocate our corporate costs and interest and tax within the segments. Looking first at core operations, which represents the business activities that collect and process New Zealand milk through to selling the products to our customer-facing business units. Core operations is up NZD 532 million-NZD 572 million, reflecting the favorable price relativities. Global Markets' profit after tax was up NZD 77 million, reflecting improved pricing and higher sales volumes in the Ingredients Channel. This was partially offset by recognizing impairment of our New Zealand consumer business and Asia brands of NZD 121 million and NZD 55 million impairment, respectively. Looking at Greater China, profit after tax was relatively stable at NZD 284 million, where we saw higher pricing in the food service channel. This again, was partially offset by recognizing a NZD 46 million impairment of our Asian brands in the consumer channel. Our ingredients channel had solid results, given the price relativities already discussed. Our food service channel's profit after tax increased due to improved gross margins, combined with higher sales volumes. The consumer channel continues to be challenging and is down on last year, mainly due to impairments of our domestic New Zealand consumer brands and our Asian brands. This next slide is showing you the returns we generated across our three product channels relative to the capital they employ. As Miles and I have already said, the earnings performance for our ingredients and food service channels improved year-on-year, and so did their return on capital. This said, our consumer channel return on capital remains unacceptable, with a return on capital of -4.6%, down from 40 basis points in FY 2022. The consumer channel performance this year was impacted due to recognizing impairments of our New Zealand consumer business and our Asian brands of NZD 121 million and NZD 101 million, respectively. It's a key focus of ours to improve the value we extract from the capital employed in the consumer channel. I am very pleased to report that we have a strong balance sheet, and this remains a key priority for us. This has been achieved progressively over recent years through a combination of improved performance and increased financial discipline. Our net debt is down NZD 2.1 billion to NZD 3.2 billion, reflecting our lift in earnings, the reduction in working capital, and divestment proceeds. This number also includes provision at balance sheet date for the amount we paid out for in the capital return. The improvement in the gearing ratio reflects the lower level of debt, combined with higher equity from our increased earnings. By reducing our overall debt position, we have created optionality for our business to support farmers through increased dividends, the ability to pay the capital return, and changes to our advance rate schedule. Importantly, we continue to be committed to maintaining our credit rating. Both S&P and Fitch have Fonterra as A-rated, which allows our businesses to access capital with more favorable terms should the need arise in the future. We are very focused on further strengthening our business by safely and sustainably driving down costs by approximately NZD 1 billion by 2030. As Miles mentioned earlier, we have introduced two new core metrics, which will keep us focused on driving efficiencies for the co-op year on year. These metrics will help us be efficient by ensuring that our costs are managed relative to the value we can generate and the milk volumes that we collect. The two new core metrics are: cash operating expenses per kilogram of milk solids, where we will target a 4% improvement per year to assist long-term discipline in our global operating expenses, and gross profit from core operations per kilogram of milk solids, which will help ensure we stay focused on delivering value from our New Zealand operations, which is targeting a 2% improvement every year. Moving forward, we will advise progress against these metrics at our interim and full year updates. Miles will now comment on the outlook for FY 2024. Thanks, Neil. 2023-2024 season farmgate milk price is NZD 6.00-NZD 7.50 per kilogram of milk solids, with a midpoint of NZD 6.75. Demand for imported powders into China remains soft, but it's still early in the season. There are indications demand for New Zealand milk powder will start to return from early 2024. In the meantime, we'll continue to respond to market signals and adjust our forecast farmgate milk price to ensure that the impact of current prices and currency movements is transparent. Looking out to FY2024 earnings, our guidance range for continuing operations is NZD 0.45-NZD 0.60 per share. Earnings in discontinued operations will be affected by the timing of completion of the DPA Brazil sale. We anticipate that the favorable price relativity that we experienced in FY2023 will reduce over FY2024 and impact our ingredients channel earnings. Our Foodservice and Consumer business gross margins are expected to improve over the year as the lower cost of milk flows through. The co-op is in good shape, and we look forward to the year ahead. Thank you for your time. Thank you. We will now conduct the Q&A session. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please stand by as we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question is from Ari Dekker from Jarden. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, Miles and Neil. Just first question, just on the CapEx, which is stepping up in FY 2024. I mean, it looks like sort of circa NZD 550-600 million is sustaining NZ operations and those green investment requirements you've signaled. But just in terms of sort of the NZD 300-400 million of capital being targeted to sustaining capital for other operations and for growth CapEx, can you just give a little bit of color on what is planned in FY 2024 in each of those buckets? thanks, Ari, and thanks for the question and for joining the call. I mean, I would just give some context, which is, you are right, and it's part of the reason that we wanted to sort of provide that profile. There is a bit of a bow wave of CapEx that we're facing with respect to regulatory requirements around decarb the water, wastewater and decarbonization. What I think I would say in terms of additional cover on that sort of kind of core sustaining CapEx is the vast, vast, vast majority of that is for our New Zealand operations as opposed to global operations. And it's really, kind of part of our long-term asset health, kind of program. I'd say there's not, there's not a lot in that number, so I probably I'd limit my comments to that around the specific growth capital projects. I guess if I look at the chart, it's suggesting sort of NZD 150 million-NZD 200 million in each of sustaining capital for other operations and growth CapEx in 2024, and, which aren't small numbers.. What, what's sort of envisaged in 2024 in terms of investment in those two buckets? Great. Are you talking about the NZD 150 million? it's of sustaining capital for other operations and growth CapEx. . So you've correctly called that out. I don't have it in front of me right now, but that number, So those are for our operations outside of us. So that's mainly dominated by Australia CapEx. And again, as I was saying, we fold the growth CapEx in there as well, but it's a relatively small number. So the lion's share of that, in terms of other, would be based in Australia. Sure. And just in terms of the CapEx for FY 2024, look, this question, I guess, applies across the buckets: Is that pretty much committed or, is there still discretion, as you go through the year, in terms of whether you'll actually sort of invest that full bucket? I would say this: If you sort of look at the Resource Allocation Framework that we've gone public with this year, we will always sort of spend the money to sustain our operations so that we can produce safely and efficiently. And we will always spend our money for that, even in times where results kind of aren't so strong, because that's really, really important for the long-term core of the co-op. That said, through various procurement practices, et cetera, we're always trying to improve upon, kind of improve upon that number. The regulatory capital really is, pretty much fixed and required based on, sort of, based on regulation. You will see some movement in those numbers as we sort of, juggle the profile, hopefully get better pricing, et cetera. But, we wanted to provide you this profile for a reason, because we wanted to be able to help the market, sort of better model, model cash flows. . And then in terms of, and I guess growth CapEx, in particular, there wouldn't be any change to. I guess when you outlined in the LTA, I guess there was a bucket of, over NZD 1 billion, that would depend on the strength of the opportunities in that. And so certainly as we look at it over that more medium to long-term horizon, that would still be the case? Or have you got, when you share the update to the LTA in early 2024, are you sort of suggesting that you've got, a lot more color and visibility, or at least over the next few years, on where that CapEx is going, and we should actually be starting to factor it in? Well, I wouldn't want to preempt in terms of what specifically we might say when we update the LTA. I think what I can say on growth capital is, every project's got to provide the appropriate risk-adjusted return for it to sort of qualify. And so, we don't look at it in terms of sort of filling a bucket of spend. It either provides an economic rate of return for farmers or, if it doesn't. If opportunities did arise, well, obviously, when they arise, we will sort of modify this chart. But I'm not trying to signal any deviation from our previous, previous disclosures that we, that we've put out there. Sure. Okay, thank you. Just a couple of quicker ones. Just on the earnings guidance, and you have highlighted that it's based on continuing operations. Just in terms of the exit of DPA, which, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're sort of targeting for this calendar year still. Do you anticipate there to be any meaningful earnings benefit or cost associated with that exit that could impact the, I guess, the earnings for dividend purposes, or can we sort of size the dividend off that NZD 0.45-NZD 0.60 guidance, and the payout range that you have on that? I think it'd be quite sensible to size the dividend off the 45-60 cent guidance. Great. Last one, just in relation to impairments. Just on the amount you laid out in the accounts for NZ Consumer and food service, are you able to just clarify how much of that is NZ Consumer versus NZ Foodservice? Also, just any color on what the NZD 26 million of other impairments relates to. We're not, we're not providing any additional breakdown or detail on the, on the breakdown between consumer and, and food service on, on, on New Zealand. And, and on the other one, I said regrettably, no, I don't think we're providing any more particular details on that. It's, it's really, broadly a, a collection of, of a series of sort of smaller, of smaller items on which that we thought were particularly meaningful to, to, to call out. So, sorry about that. No, no, that's great. So thank you. Thank you. Just a moment for our next question, please. Next, we have Joshua Dale from Craigs Investment Partners. Please go ahead. Afternoon, Miles and Neil. Just three questions from me. First one, on your dividend payout. I appreciate there's lots of factors that go into that, but you paid above the top end of your dividend policy range this year and were at the top end last year. do you think you'll keep the 40%-60% range going forward? I think I can say that we remain comfortable with that range. As you said, we do apply judgment in terms of making a recommendation to our board. Obviously, the dividend actual dividend paid is a decision of the board. But I think given a number of, non-cash items that went through earnings, I think given the strength of the balance sheet, we, we thought it was quite prudent in terms of the level of dividend that was paid. Thanks. My last two questions are really around the earnings for the year ahead, and I appreciate the guidance you've provided. But, just firstly, on, your stream returns have obviously been very strong. Is there some sort of pressure in the market to eventually arbitrage that gap away, in terms of the differential between reference and non-reference products? And does that pressure come from yourselves or your competitors? What's the best way to think about this? I think what I would offer up is, we've looked. Obviously, the really strong earnings that we just, we just reported have been as a result of some, unprecedented stream returns, and so that delta between reference, non-reference and reference pricing is, has been quite large, and so that's, that's what driven earnings. when we sort of look at the market, we're not really identifying anything structural in the market that's changed, which would otherwise cause us to think that we wouldn't see mean reversion happen in terms of that, the relative gap between non-reference and reference products. I think, we would offer up- I think we'd offer up that. The other thing that I would certainly say, though, is obviously the teams in-market are working incredibly hard every day with customers in terms of, challenging pricing, where it's commercially viable, putting those price increases through. So regardless of what is being sold, that we're maximizing the return. Okay, thanks. And, second question on your earnings, for the year ahead. you increased pricing in your consumer and food service divisions to better reflect the high cost of milk, historically, but how sticky do those price increases tend to be as the cost of milk falls back down to lower levels, like it has recently? T hen there's clearly a competitive element to that. So we'll hold that, that price in the market as long as we can, but, but ultimately, competitive pressures will, will come to bear at some point, one suspects. But as we sit here today, we try and keep those high pricing up, irrespective of what's in the COGS. Got it. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just one moment for our next question, please. Next, we have Nick Maher from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Hi, guys, just one more on the CapEx. You looked at the CapEx from 2024 to 2030. It's about 9% higher than what it was in the LTA for the same period. Would you characterize the majority of it as just inflation adjusting, strong tick that has been in the last couple of years? Or is this sort of a step change and ultimately where is the step change between the sort of different buckets? Finally on that, is there sort of more incremental return that go on from the additional CapEx on the side of the sort of long-term earnings? I apologize. I didn't quite get the second part of your question, but your first part of your question, that, that, that's basically reflecting inflationary increases. Yes. My There shouldn't be particularly much incremental earnings from, on that CapEx. That's fair. Recognizing that in terms of what ultimately drives earnings, there's a number of very material moving pieces for us, including realized prices and FX, just to call out two. That's great. Then thinking about sort of using the balance sheet in times of tougher for farmers as we're seeing and we'll see how long this kind of goes on for relative breakeven. What other mechanisms would you consider outside of the Advance Rate changes that you've already made to support farmers, if there was sort of the same period of launching your prices? . I guess I'll answer it another way, Nick. If there's something in there around how we're looking at farmer support lines, that's not part of our agenda. I'll make that clear up front. You're looking through probably our retail network and what we can do to extend the little returns for on-farm inputs that they purchase through our Farm Source network, but also potential discounting, get costs down. That's sort of where we're looking to use the balance sheet as appropriate, but nothing significant beyond that. I think the question earlier around a dividend policy, there's no change to our policy. At this point, it's 40%-60%, so no change to that. nothing significant that we're looking at at the moment. That's great. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Our next question comes from Marcus Curley from UBS. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. I just wondered if you could provide a little bit more specific color around the quantum of stream returns in the results, and, what's assumed in the guidance for, FY 2024? I think, Marcus, Richard Wyllie here. There are a couple of observations around Stream Returns. We think this year, sort of an estimate of the quantum of Stream Returns in the NZD 0.95 is about NZD 0.40. And in the guidance for next year, the NZD 0.45-NZD 0.60, probably a number of around NZD 0.15, just sort of see from the price relative charts is coming forward. Sorry, that was NZD 0.40 contribution to earnings in FY 2023? Yes. And then you said NZD 0.15. Would that be. is that at the midpoint? Is that fair enough to describe? There's a wide range of possibilities there. I think I am always conscious when talking about sort of the impact of stream returns and price relativity. That's a, it's a difficult thing to quantify exactly, and I think that clearly there's a wide range of possibilities that can happen through 2024. Okay. But maybe a different way of asking the question. you noted that there has been a moderation, but it looks like Stream Returns still remain relative or very healthy. If we saw Stream Returns, or prices, relative prices remain at current levels for the rest of the year, do you have an estimate for what the Stream Return would be in FY 2023? Sorry, FY 2024. I think to your point, it's fair to say that the assumption of NZD 0.15 assumes that stream returns, obviously, that gap closes as the season goes on, in terms of the obviously the number, you saw what it was last season, it was NZD 0.40. It's clear a wide range of things are possible if the gap stays open for the whole season. Sorry, just finally, a full normalization of Stream Returns, what would you normally attribute, a contribution to profit on that basis? In terms of, of the NZD 0.40, how much is a normal BAU level? Is that, that your question, Mike? Yes. Somewhere between sort of zero and 5 cents at that level. Okay, perfect. And then, secondly, I just wondered if maybe, Miles, you could talk about the current demand dynamics, in food service in China, particularly, what, what you're seeing from a, volume perspective. Obviously mixed messages in terms of obviously reopening versus economic pressure, and also same in terms of, Asian consumer products. I'll answer that just because Miles had to step away. I think, there's obviously been a lot of press about some of the headwinds that are happening in China. I think, what we would say is, focusing more kind of on, on sort of maybe medium term is, we're pretty comfortable that demand will remain robust. I think one of the things that's, I think, quite critical besides, despite lower growth rates, they are growth rates, and incomes are rising. But I think quite critically, the government's from a policy perspective, has been quite clear that they think, dairy is a, is a core part of nutrition, and they're, they're being very, consistent and, and persistent around that message in terms of recommendations, to sort of to consumers. So that's certainly, quite helpful. So I think, on the ground, we're continuing to see, our China, our China food service business is, is one of our flagship operations for sure. And some of the price increases, specifically in consumer, are, so, so far, are seem to be, seem to be sticking. Southeast Asia is, is a little bit more of a, little bit more of a mixed bag, I would say. But still ultimately food service is strong. I think the market that is really worth calling out is Sri Lanka, which is, has had a fantastic year and, seems to be forming well. And even just, I know there's been challenges in years gone by around currency, et cetera, and that so far seems to be going, seems to be going well. Okay. And then, just, just finally, a couple on, on the capital structure. So, what, what's the plans on the, on the buyback, as, as the year progresses? So I think off the back of the capital, new capital structure going live, we were providing some liquidity support, as things sort of went live, it turned out that we really spent very little money on liquidity support. The market seems to be operating fairly well. We have earmarked a relatively small amount of funds as part of our capital allocation framework, that if we see value, that we, may choose to go back into the market to buy back shares, but our driver would be different. It wouldn't be to provide liquidity support. We think that's gonna no longer be required, but we would do it if we thought there was value. So you've got a valuation benchmark? Well, we have to obviously, if we have to, we have to have a view on value if we're gonna end up buying back shares for the purpose of value. So sure. Have you formed that view on dairy yet? We formed that view, but obviously we're not gonna provide that information externally. The second question, could you give an update in terms of the farmers' ownership levels of FSF? Do you want to give that one? . For FSF, if you take it on current supplying farmers, it's just under 10%. Did you record that on, I think that's well down. Do you have to hand what that was a year ago, or? So on, supplying farmers, it's always been, it has, it has been easing up, but it has been around, last year would've been around the same level. You might have been thinking just in terms of there was some work done, and it was released at the FSF AGM on just total. So even, farmers that have left the co-op, that had been much higher around the 50%-60%, and that number still, still remains about that. Okay. A-and then just, Sorry, one more on the CapEx. Just to be clear for me, when I look at the blue bars, does decarbonization and the other one, regulatory requirement for wastewater or including wastewater, do those, both of those go into the milk price calculation, or is it just sustaining capital for NZ operations? So the short answer is partially they do. To the extent that they would impact a reference, a reference producing company, they do. So obviously the decarb, mostly, yes, but the timing is a little bit different. And the wastewater, the non-reference products tend to be more wastewater intensive, so yes, sir. Okay. So, from a modeling perspective, we'll just put Is it fair enough to put all decarbonization in and leave wastewater or, or other regulatory out? As a combination of both buckets, I'd suggest that the milk price will provide a support for maybe 25% of that spend. 25 of the two? Of the two. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. I would now like to hand over to Neil for closing remarks. Thank you. Well, I just, on behalf of Miles and myself, I really wanted to, thank everyone for participating on today's call and, and, and your questions and your interest in the co-op. So, and we look forward to, we look forward to seeing you in the future. Bye for now.