TRANSCRIPT - NATIONAL PRESS CLUB ADDRESS Q&A - 17 SEPTEMBER 2026
TOM CONNELL, HOST: Minister, I’d like to go to how you want voters to view your speech today. There’s the title, “Who arrives, who stays, who leaves”, and there’s the deportations that will be happening. Would you be comfortable if voters cast their minds back to John Howard saying, “We will decide who comes here and under what terms”? Not the same policy area, and I’m not saying you agree with John Howard, but that element of “taking sovereignty back”, is that something you would be comfortable with voters thinking back to?
MINISTER BURKE: I’m never afraid of the word “sovereignty”. Never afraid of it. When I went through the acknowledgements at the start, I acknowledged Brett Sonter as the Commander of Operation Sovereign Borders. Sovereignty of Australia matters, and people want to know there is a system. The fact that, in the life of this Government, for more than a decade now, nobody who has arrived without a visa has been able to stay in Australia is part of the integrity that people expect. People do want Australia to be able to have a visa system. And what we need to make sure of now as we go to the next layer, where people do come on a visa but try to effectively work around for the visa system to deliver outcomes that Australia would never intend. And that's what I want us to be able to do.
JOURNALIST: Hello, Minister. Thank you very much for your address today. I wanted to ask you about the part of your speech, the story that's - the bit that needs to be written, rather, about protection claims. It's obviously an issue that the Government is grappling with. There have been reports that the Government was considering removing the work rights of temporary visa holders whose claims had been rejected by Home Affairs. Are the reports about putting time frames on the application of a protection visa - are these measures still on the table? Are they being considered by the Government? If you were to pursue a legislative option down the track?
BURKE: A few things. A lot has been written over the last six weeks, and I can assure people that not one single media drop came from me. And so I take seriously the cabinet process. I've never leaked against the cabinet and I never will. Can I also say with respect to that, some of what's been written is right and some of what's been written is very wrong. In terms of the exact confidence right through to Insiders last week, but had been written in print as well, that the one thing people could be certain of was that I would not be standing at the Press Club to make the announcement. I offer myself as exhibit A of what some of that speculation has been about. The conversations with the Opposition, I view as constructive. I think the right way to deal with it is to simply say, this is the problem we want to solve. But we will insist on solving it in a way that doesn't undermine the decency of us as a country and doesn't undermine the fact that we do believe - and the Government does believe - for example, the classic one was those footballers, where they came to Australia, they were completely honest about the visa that they applied for, they intended to go back, circumstances changed when they were here, and we were a good and decent country. We should continue to be a good and decent country. I just don't think there's much public appetite for people who know they don't have a valid claim, being able to game the system. There are a few different ways of working through that. I'm not going to go any deeper than that.
JOURNALIST: Hi, Minister. Thank you for outlining what sounds like a devilish equation you’re dealing with. I wanted to ask about something more immediate. The last few days, I have been to a number of media conferences from your political opponents talking about the immediate problem of shortage of workers to do things like getting the harvest in, catching seafood for our Christmas dinner, pouring beers in pubs across Northern Australia. So, I understand we're talking about a policy framework, but out in the real world, people are unable to bring the crops in. What are you doing about it?
BURKE: OK. As I said, working holiday maker processing is now being restored and we'll be moving through those again. Effectively - and this is why I refer to legislation - the more tools and levers that are available, the more sharply I can target the system to be able to slow down to get housing in front, and to minimise the impact on the Australian economy. And so the working holiday maker change goes to exactly what you described. Similarly, the new Ministerial Direction, replacing Ministerial Direction 119 with the elevation of agriculture and fisheries for processing priority, goes to exactly what you've said as well.
JOURNALIST: Just quickly on the numbers on working holidays, so ballot systems, the number of visas goes down, but obviously you hope for oversupply of people doing the hours, hoping they win the ballot? What's the net impact? Is it hopefully we'll have the same number of workers but not staying as long? Would it be a net negative?
BURKE: Well ultimately, the section where you get the definite drop-off in significant numbers is actually year three. And year three is the year where there is no obligation to work in the regions at all.
JOURNALIST: Thank you for your speech. I'd like to ask you about people who stay, so you talk about people who come, people who stay, and people who leave. Are one of the large groups of people who stay are people on 485 visas, otherwise post-study work rights visas. These are people who have completed a degree usually and get to stay in Australia for longer. Under that program, the largest - by far the largest group that uses the 485 visa are Indians. I think just under 40% of all people who were granted visas in 2025-26 were from India. Under the free trade agreement with India, they get an extra year. Is this special carve-out for people from India going to stay or is that under question as well?
BURKE: We are working within all free trade agreements in everything that I've said. There are free trade agreements all over my portfolio. Almost the entirety of the working holiday maker system is dealt with through a series of free trade agreements. I referred to the UK, but it's not the only one. And, effectively, for these different parts of the system, these are always concessions that were offered by Australia, and in return for those concessions there are other benefits that have delivered Australian jobs. And so we're not about to undermine that.
JOURNALIST: Thanks, Minister. You're at 292 now on the NOM, as released today. You mentioned some numbers about the third year of the working holiday visa. Do you know to get down to 245 and 225, how many- what the visa cuts will be in each individual class? And just on you doing this speech, the Prime Minister has a stubborn streak, as of last week he was telling cabinet colleagues that he didn't want you to do this speech in this forum, so how did you change his mind?
BURKE: At the... you must be one of the ones who wrote it! When it was published that I was not going to be giving this speech in this forum, the first time that I saw it having been published was a day after the Prime Minister and I had had a conversation confirming that I would be speaking here. So, it was a bit hard for me to go back and say, "I'm upset that you're not agreeing to something," that he had agreed to yesterday that journalists were saying he hadn't. The fact... Look, can I just say, I'm the Minister for Home Affairs. If I were to spend my whole life dealing with stories that were written that were untrue, that's all I'd spend my time doing. It's the nature of the portfolio. But when it was published, I can only say the Prime Minister and I had already had a conversation confirming that it would be here.
JOURNALIST: Do you know how much each visa class comes down by to reach the targets, or just on working holiday visas, do you have a number?
BURKE: The numbers are in the materials that are being made available that go through it, but can I say all of it's a little bit deceptive. When you're dealing with something like visa hopping, it all deals with who is, in fact, on that pile at any point in time. And the nature of once you stop one form of visa hopping, you get movement in different directions. The advice that we have statistically at the moment is that the most likely outcome is we are tracking at the moment to the numbers that are in the Budget of 245. And as you'd see with today's net overseas migration, we've actually tracked below, below the most recent Budget forecasts. The nature of this portfolio has always been we are dealing with some aspects of net overseas migration over which the Government does not, and never should, have control. For example, part of net overseas migration is what happens with citizens going back and forth. Part of what happens with net overseas migration is effectively driven by the relative strength of the Australian economy compared to the other places expats would want to work, or the Australian economy compared to the New Zealand economy. These are all issues where, to have the tools to be able to manage net overseas migration, where there are some parts of that number that are not, and should not be, within the direct control of the minister, you need other levers to make sure that you can manage it and still deliver something close to the number. This is because there's been a change in public expectation. For most of my political life, net overseas migration has been viewed as a Budget forecast. Last couple of years, people have talked about it as a Budget target. That is a very different way of looking at it. But given that we have the challenges we have with housing in Australia at the moment, I do think we need to be able to have these additional tools to make sure that what is published and forecast is reached.
JOURNALIST: Mr Burke, you spoke about community unease on the high levels of migration, the net overseas migration rate. One Nation's target is 130,000. The Coalition's will be between 150,000 and 170,000. Yours is 225,000. So, despite what you've announced today, your political opponents will be able to frame you as having far higher migration ambitions than what they have. Given the public sentiment, how will you be able to argue and win the case to the public that higher levels of migration is the right thing to do?
BURKE: Because the lower levels will trash Australian services and trash the Australian economy. That's what they'll do. Let me give you a simple example. You referred to One Nation's papers that were put out the other day. In their documents, they dealt with the temporary work visas, and the temporary work visas, I think the figure they had was keeping it at 70,000, but effectively taking all the family members off. And that was their way of doing the reduction. Let's take four occupations that people would view as pretty important in terms of the Australian economy and Australian services. Doctors, construction workers, nurses, and aged care workers. Because can we presume that we'll get the same people, the same number that that 70,000 will still be there, if none of them are allowed to bring their family anymore? How many doctors at the moment, the proportion of doctors who come to Australia, come with family attached to their application? 50%. How many construction workers come with family attached to their application? 50%. How many nurses and aged care workers come with family attached to their application? Two-thirds. The impact of that policy, think of how often any of us know - and particularly in regional areas, but can I say not limited to regional areas - the way you're able to access a doctor, the doctor is someone who's here on a visa. Imagine half of them not coming. Imagine half of the construction workers who we have to build the houses that we need, not coming. Imagine two-thirds of the people who we rely on in aged care or nursing not coming. That's the impact of those policies. And so what Australians want - and they have a legitimate reason - they look at the nightclub-style queues on a Saturday morning that snake around the corner in a whole lot of parts of particularly our major cities, and it's not people queuing for a nightclub, it's people queuing for a home inspection for a rental property. We have a shortage of homes and people want to make sure that we guide the immigration system so that we soften our numbers to be able to allow housing to catch up. But it would be a complete own-goal to say the way we're going to do that is to trash our medical system, trash our aged care system, and not get the construction workers to build the homes that would actually help with the problem. That's what those lower numbers do. And if that's the debate I'm walking into, I am all in.
JOURNALIST: So, 225,000 is the lowest we can get without having a detrimental impact on the economy?
BURKE: Getting to 225, you look at some of the complaints that your paper's reported as well over the last few weeks, there's representatives here, at tables here, where their members in business have been really struggling and looking down the barrel of significant economic impact, even with us at the moment tracking to 245. Imagine what it does to the economy when you go that much harder. And I am all in for that debate, and I suspect anyone who cares at all for the economy of Australia will be very happy with the Government's approach compared to those alternatives.
JOURNALIST: Thanks. A bit of a preamble, but in the context of your speech, I heard today by objective assessment a rationale that we don't have a mass migration problem, that the situation is in hand with the changes you've made, maybe a few more. But when I look at the opinion polls, I see a completely different picture. I see 30% of people wanting to vote for One Nation, I see 40% of people think One Nation is the party best able to handle immigration, which is more than the Coalition and your vote combined on that matter. And when I hear your speech today, I also think this is the first time I've heard you say it, and I go back to Philip Ruddock, who's a big fan of immigration. He's got a book coming out. He said last year, "There's been a vacuum of leadership from the Government on this, and that has allowed these perceptions to grow." Do you accept you and your predecessor, and the Prime Minister, should have been more vocal in saying the things you're saying today, earlier?
BURKE: As I said, I have been wanting to make sure, and when I was last at the Press Club I was asked extensively about immigration. And when I was asked about, you know, I used the term, "there's not a magic number." Because what you need to be able to do in this portfolio is to pinpoint as precisely as possible across the different visas themselves and the different occupations that you need, and to have the tools to be able to do that with precision. What I have been doing since the election is to try to give the Government those tools. And I have been reluctant to stand up and explain until that cabinet process was concluded. I have been. And for the very simple reason that what people want is to know that we are taking control. What people want is to know that the Government will be using the system to be able to best benefit Australians. And also people want to know that the Government will be decent about it. All of those things, while I would obviously like some additional tools that are not in the tool kit at the moment, is why I'm standing up today.
JOURNALIST: Minister, tools in the toolkit. You’ve made a striking admission today that this announcement is not as comprehensive as you’d like it to be, nowhere near as comprehensive as the country needs it to be, from what I observe. And the reason for that is that the meetings you've had with the other political players in the Parliament have shown that you don't believe you'll be able to get legislation through the Parliament, that it will be blocked in the Senate. But, Minister, this is the defining issue of our current politics. It is changing the way people vote and it's changing their perceptions, their very perceptions of our country. Isn't this exactly the sort of issue that demands a full-scale debate? I know the Labor Party likes to know the answer before it brings things to a Parliament or to a national conference floor, for the elegance of it. But the Parliament is there for the voice of people. You've got - one of your opponents, One Nation, are saying they're acting on the will of the people. Why won't you test the will of the people? Have a comprehensive debate. The Coalition outlines its policy, One Nation outlines its policy, the Government puts its proposals, and we have Senate committees, we have the input of the voters themselves - a comprehensive examination of what the country needs. Not just, "I can't do it, so I won't." You will call it pragmatism, others will call it gutless.
BURKE: The nature of some of the issues that you would deal with here are issues where, immediately on introduction in black-and-white legislation, you would get a behavioural change. So, for example, if people see something you're doing that you're closing down a visa-hopping process, and the legislation is then before, you'll get a behavioural change completely against the national interest that would happen immediately. Immediately. With taxation law, there is a long-standing tradition that you can effectively have the legislation, have its effective start from the date of introduction. The history of courts with immigration law has not always been as government would hope. I am not going to, for the sake of no outcome, create a perverse, immediate behavioural change that is phenomenally against the national interests of Australia. Now, as I say, if I was trying to wedge the Opposition or playing a game in some way, or if I wasn't being completely up-front with you about the nature of the sorts of problems we're trying to fix, I think we'd be in a different situation. But it remains open for the Opposition to be able to step up. The tools that I've got will actually be able to deliver the numbers that we've always said. The issue of the additional tools is about trying to make sure we can work with as much precision as possible because there's economic benefit in being able to do that. And when I make decisions that, on every reason I've given you just now - like the questions, the previous question in terms of the political situation in Australia - everything I've just responded to is about the national interest. Everything I've just responded to is about the economic interests of Australia. And, you know, the times that we've had massive reductions too far in immigration have coincided with the worst economic times in Australia's history. We need to be careful with it, and I'm being careful with it.
JOURNALIST: So, you won't say, "We missed the number because we couldn't get legislation past"?
BURKE: No, absolutely not. And I won't say that because that won't happen.
JOURNALIST: Thank you for your address, Minister. Just following up actually from the last couple of questions, do you acknowledge that while you have been in Government there are points in this debate that have been extremely harmful to migrant communities, where Labor was either quiet or, according to those communities, felt like there was a silence? And is there a concession that you need to make that it's, as a result, migrant communities who have paid the price of demonisation in this process?
BURKE: Can you give me an example of when I have been silent on that?
JOURNALIST: This is what migrant community is feeling.
BURKE: I have spent my entire political life standing up against hate speech.
JOURNALIST: We've spoken here about mass migration. You today have declared that to be absurd. The feedback from migrant communities is they haven't felt the Government has their back to really loudly push back. It's not my view, it's the view I'm getting from the community groups who feel that demonisation.
BURKE: All I can say is I've given the speech I've given today, pretty emphatically. And the issues of making sure that people, no matter what their heritage is, that their citizenship is the same, that they are 100% part of the Australian community. We build this project together. It's something that I would be saying on a platform somewhere pretty much every day, and have devoted my political career as much more to that cause probably than you're hard to find any other.
JOURNALIST: Thank you, Tom. Thanks, Minister. Minister, you said that the housing shortage isn't caused by migration. Given the importance of construction workers in Australia's migrant intake, short-term and then long-term, because they may be different, what impact do your current migration targets have on rental prices around Australia?
BURKE: Well, effectively, the current migration, you're now calling them "targets". Can I put it in these terms, Charles? Effectively, the key to trying to get rents lower, housing affordability better, a whole lot of that relies on supply. You don't get supply without getting the skills that you need to be able to build the houses. What I've announced today is to make sure that we go harder than we ever have before on construction skills, about making sure that we prioritise more than we ever have on both the permanent program and the temporary program, in making sure that the skills we need to build the houses are built and come here to Australia. So, effectively, everything I've announced today, what impact, what sort of pressure does it put? It puts upward pressure on housing supply and downward pressure on the issues you've raised.
JOURNALIST: You think this will bring, eventually, the price of rents down?
BURKE: It's never going to be the only issue. But obviously anything you do that improves supply, you know, we're both here, we're both improving supply and reducing demand. We're doing the two things that should help with exactly what you've described.
JOURNALIST: Minister, thank you very much. Given what you announced today when it comes to international students, there might be some who decide they no longer want to come to Australia in the future. Do you have any projections on the number of students that will come, what the potential cost implications might be? And given how complex the migration question is when it comes to Australia's economy, are you and the Treasurer still on good terms, are you still mates after tackling this issue?
BURKE: Yeah, absolutely. Add that to the list of things I've read that have surprised me about myself! I've had all sorts of arguments that I wasn't aware of, as I've watched the news over the last six weeks. And, yeah, that is what it is. Sorry, I got distracted by the laughs.
JOURNALIST: Do you have projections on international student numbers and the kind of cost impact?
BURKE: Yes, thank you. So our planning levels are unchanged. OK, so the planning levels as to how many applications we expect to be able to process is unchanged. There is a change that's going on at the moment for particular cohorts, which is a bit more complex, which some people have represented as us dealing with net overseas migration, which isn't. And that is there are some applications from particular countries where the refusal rates start to go up, has started to go up. Effectively, what's happening there with student visas is we've had to look more carefully at how we check people's assets to make sure that they can actually afford the course. Because what was happening was there were some people coming, where, in fact, the only way they were going to be able to afford the course was if they also got a migration outcome and spent 10 years working in Australia. And so some of that means that there are some rejections happening at the moment. But that said, our planning level hasn't changed, and we are giving the scope for the universities and the educational institutions to be able to run their businesses, be able to do what they do best for the Australian economy, but to make sure that what they're selling is an education, not a migration outcome.
CONNELL: Just housekeeping, what time do you need to jump in the Batmobile and get up to the...?
BURKE: I reckon we have nine minutes and I am okay. More than that and I’m in deep trouble.
CONNELL: After how long this took to secure, let us not get you in trouble. Let us go to Tom McIlroy from The Guardian.
JOURNALIST: Thank you, Minister. Under the changes of who leaves, how many more departures do you expect based on the tougher compliance and enforcement that you've outlined, such as a hundred new staff and 250 new beds?
BURKE: Yeah, OK. So, the 250 beds, if you work on the basis that effectively it depends on how quickly the person then departs once they're in those beds. It's not 250 permanent places. So, you'd certainly turn over more than four in a year, and sometimes you'd only have people in there for a couple of weeks, sometimes even less than that. The behavioural change is actually the biggest outcome. So, we're dealing with something that Australia hasn't done for 11 years. But if you go back to how this used to work, effectively, you used to get 6-7 voluntary departures for every person who you'd actually brought in. And so that capacity is the real change here. The real change is effectively for people to be self-managing and working on the basis that, "this is a country where, if I've no longer got a visa, I should leave." And it's a behavioural change that's actually the really big shift.
JOURNALIST: Thank you, Minister. One of the policies you've touched on today is around reducing secondary visas for international students. Today is also the first time we've heard you speak about this policy. However, One Nation has been speaking about this in the last month, and, indeed, it featured in their policy on Monday. In the age of populist politics, how important - how much political capital has Labor lost in allowing One Nation to lead the debate? And is it incumbent on Government to be more reactive and responsive in speaking about these issues as they come up?
BURKE: Yeah, look, certainly, I made sure that until all of our processes internally had been completed that I wasn't going to announce things in a piecemeal fashion. But needless to say - and that's why, because of this sort of concern - just to make clear, each of these measures had been developed way back in February, and we've just worked things through in a logical, orderly way. In terms of the politics of all of it, can I just say the most important thing for a government in dealing with immigration policy is making sure that we get the policy right and we get the decency right, and that we then explain it. To be explaining things in a piecemeal way before we had actually landed things would have simply resulted in confusion. Has that meant there was something I'd been working on for months that someone else said first? Yeah. But I think in the long term, there's a bit of noise in that.
JOURNALIST: When it comes to voter confidence, though, how important is it that the Government is seen to be leading on these issues and not being sidelined by minor parties?
BURKE: The key issue for confidence is two-fold. People want to know that the migration system unfolds in the way that we say it will, and that's why, even though those net overseas migration forecasts have traditionally been forecast, there's now an expectation we can show we can deliver that, and we're making sure we do that. But the other part that's incumbent on any government is to make sure that we're looking after the economy. And we are, now that these lower numbers are out from our opponents, we are now walking straight into an argument where effectively we have people who will be going to the next election, effectively arguing that in regional areas you have large-scale hospital closures and doctors that you just can't find. That's what it means. It means a whole lot of aged care just won't be available for elderly relatives. If they were to implement the sorts of numbers they're talking about. And so I'm on for that conversation.
JOURNALIST: Thank you for your time, Minister. You spoke about making the immigration system more decent and work for Australians, but you also said Australian citizens are waiting years for spouse visas. In my case, it was more than three years before I could move back to Australia with my family. Is that a choice by the department to prolong the processing of visas, to slow down the net migration of Australians and their families back to the country? And do you propose any changes to that, either to speed that up or slow that down?
BURKE: Look, there's a planning level that's used by the department based on a planning level that's a Budget decision each year. Within that planning level, we do have a situation now where more Australians fall in love with people overseas than they used to, and the demand on spouse visas is higher than it used to be. We are always managing the different elements of family. The planning level, we have to cover the whole permanent program with that. So, we have to cover the skills program with that as well. But for family visas, we're always balancing because it's not just the partner visa, and obviously long waits can put tremendous pressure. Fortunately, now what I announced with respect to visitor visas, make it easier for partners to spend extended time in Australia together, even though the visa isn't there, because there's no longer an automatic switch to a bridging visa. Similarly, that's not the only part of family migration. I'm also concerned if you apply for a non-contributory parent visa, which you would apply for when your parent turns 65, at the moment that's a 30-year wait. You do the sums on different parts of the family system, this is why I'm astonished when some of my opponents I’ve seen say, "We need to be harder on family migration." We're pretty much at the limit, I've gotta say, on family migration at the moment, in terms of the delays. And, yeah, that is what it is. The challenge is one that we are always working through. It is difficult for waiting periods to get any longer than they now are. And people do go through hardship while they are waiting. The visitor visa change will make a real difference in people being able to spend time together.
CONNELL: Just popping your Home Affairs hat on, the ASIO boss spoke about, recently, a probable terror threat level, not really explaining how serious it is, but there's a limitation on lifting it to anything higher. And there's also this new category, so attacks that could be serious but were thwarted early in their preparation. 16 since Bondi, which sounds pretty high. Is it time for a "see something, say something" type campaign? Is that where you feel things could be in Australia? Or is it not...?
BURKE: Yeah, look, some of the campaigns that we're looking at include the issue of the publicising of the National Security Hotline as well. One of the things that people don't realise, every call that goes through to the hotline - and, yes, you get some pranks, you get some calls that don't lead anywhere - all of it's followed up. All of it makes a difference. Every extra piece of information that people can give us matters. And the other area of communications that we're working our way through at the moment is what advice we can give to friends and parents. If I were to go to the risk that a normal advertising campaign won't reach, but in terms of our national security, we really have to look at, is how do you deal with the young male playing games, chatting to people overseas, who thinks they're chatting to a friend their own age, may in fact soon be chatting to AI, unaware of it, and then if AI gets into a certain point of radicalisation, they get handed over to another handler? We've talked today about what comes over the border and who comes over the border. Can I also say we need to be really careful about what comes over the browser. We have real national security risks there, particularly for young people. So, one of the challenges in any advertising campaign there is, "What do we do for parents to notice what signals there might be?" Because the radicalisation online, what used to take years of people being recruited into terrorist cells can now happen within days, with low reference points to being able to cause real harm to people. So, across all the advertising campaigns, the one that I'm most concerned about - and I have been putting the most work into lately - is working out who these young people might interact with - be it their parents, be it a teacher, be it a coach - who might actually notice there's just been a sudden change in their language, in what they're saying, and it's OK to make the phone call. You don't need to be sure that you're reporting complete radicalisation. And we established a system to be able to do this in the Budget before last, I think it was. It might have been the last Budget. But the advertising campaign on that, I think, is the biggest risk that we need to get moving on because that's the bit that people are most likely to be unaware of. There's been - and we can always do more, and I do want to do more - but we can always do more in getting people to contact the National Security Hotline. But people are unlikely to call the National Security Hotline about their own child. Whereas a program like Step Together, which has been very successful in New South Wales, and we're now working out nationally, allows people to just report, "I'm just a bit worried about something," and gives a lower entry point. But we need to have an explainer for people in a simple advertising campaign of what are the signs to look out for. The national security environment has never been more complex. And what you said at the start is where, and I'm talking about this with the agencies, each of the Five Eyes has a slightly different security profile, but effectively for us, once you get to "probable", there's realistically no escalation, because "likely" is when you know something is about to occur, and "certain" is when it's occurring. So, from probable all the way up, there can be significant changes, and we don't have a simple way of expressing that under our current framework. So, that's something that we're talking about and need to do, and in terms of advertising campaign, how we work through communicating the Step Together campaign is really going to matter.
CONNELL: I have gone slightly over, but I did start my question before the deadline. That is my defence! Ladies and gentlemen, please thank the Minister, Tony Burke.