From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is the morning edition. I'm Chris Paine, filling in for Samantha Salinger. Morris. It's Thursday, April 25th. After more than a decade of weakening strategic resolve under the Obama and Trump administrations, the United States is showing signs of re-emerging as an indispensable power to the world. The US helped to curtail broader conflict in the Middle East by rallying a coordinated response to Iran's attack on Israel, then passed a $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. This willingness to again embrace its role as the gamekeeper and gardener of the international order comes after years of miscalculations that served only to embolden the world's autocrats and their ambitions. Today, international editor Peter Harsha on three key positions taken by the United States and what this may mean for its allies and the world order. So, Peter, you write that America has reasserted itself as the indispensable power of the world. So let's start with its recent involvement in the Middle East. What has it done and what has that achieved?

From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is the morning edition. I'm Chris Paine, filling in for Samantha Salinger. Morris. It's Thursday, April 25th. After more than a decade of weakening strategic resolve under the Obama and Trump administrations, the United States is showing signs of re-emerging as an indispensable power to the world. The US helped to curtail broader conflict in the Middle East by rallying a coordinated response to Iran's attack on Israel, then passed a $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. This willingness to again embrace its role as the gamekeeper and gardener of the international order comes after years of miscalculations that served only to embolden the world's autocrats and their ambitions. Today, international editor Peter Harsha on three key positions taken by the United States and what this may mean for its allies and the world order. So, Peter, you write that America has reasserted itself as the indispensable power of the world. So let's start with its recent involvement in the Middle East. What has it done and what has that achieved?

Yeah. Well, the the term indispensable power has a certain resonance in American modern history. It was the term used by Madeleine Albright, the then secretary of State, in 1996, and it looked pretty cocky, pretty arrogant at the time. But then it looked a bit redundant because the US seemed to slip into this whole series of malfunctions. Mismanaged wars, completely made up wars in the case of the Iraq War, and it just seemed out of date. But now I think we can say the US is at the moment in the world. It changes, of course. So year to year, almost week to week, certainly presidency to presidency, the indispensable power. What we've just seen in the Middle East, you know, quite apart from the Gaza war. Let's look at the prospect of state on state war, which was it was actually underway between Israel and Iran and threatened to become a full scale war, perhaps, as well, certainly engulfing more countries. A major state on state war in the Middle East, which would have been beyond ugly when Israel was about to be attacked by Iran. What the Americans did secretly, but we now know, is that they brought together a new group of countries in the Middle East to discuss creating a mutual air defense network, a new alliance of countries to defend effectively brought together by a mutual fear of Iran. So the US convened this meeting of the military chiefs of there was Israel. There was the Saudis, which is interesting for a start, because Israel and the Saudis don't recognize each other diplomatically, but the Americans were able to convene them together with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, all in the room. And what emerged from that was that when the Iranians did fire their enormous salvo of 350 missiles and armed drones at Israel, two of those countries, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, actively got involved in the air defense of Israel, which is pretty remarkable. And they were joined, as we know, this was more public. But the US, Britain and France all engage in intercepting and shooting down the missiles from Iran to protect Israel. But it also brought in those two Arab countries and the Saudis, again, a country that doesn't even recognize Israel diplomatically but was prepared to defend it militarily. And what we saw there was it may be the beginning of a new air defense structure in the Middle East to protect it, to protect its nations against Iran. After that Iranian attack on Israel, the US persuaded the persuaded Netanyahu, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to give just an absolute bare minimum response to the Iranian attack. So what could have flared up into a major war? The Americans persuaded Israel just to, you know, as Joe Biden put it to Netanyahu, take the win. You've got you know, you've gotten away with this pretty well. Just take the win and don't inflame it. And that's what happened.

Yeah. Well, the the term indispensable power has a certain resonance in American modern history. It was the term used by Madeleine Albright, the then secretary of State, in 1996, and it looked pretty cocky, pretty arrogant at the time. But then it looked a bit redundant because the US seemed to slip into this whole series of malfunctions. Mismanaged wars, completely made up wars in the case of the Iraq War, and it just seemed out of date. But now I think we can say the US is at the moment in the world. It changes, of course. So year to year, almost week to week, certainly presidency to presidency, the indispensable power. What we've just seen in the Middle East, you know, quite apart from the Gaza war. Let's look at the prospect of state on state war, which was it was actually underway between Israel and Iran and threatened to become a full scale war, perhaps, as well, certainly engulfing more countries. A major state on state war in the Middle East, which would have been beyond ugly when Israel was about to be attacked by Iran. What the Americans did secretly, but we now know, is that they brought together a new group of countries in the Middle East to discuss creating a mutual air defense network, a new alliance of countries to defend effectively brought together by a mutual fear of Iran. So the US convened this meeting of the military chiefs of there was Israel. There was the Saudis, which is interesting for a start, because Israel and the Saudis don't recognize each other diplomatically, but the Americans were able to convene them together with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, all in the room. And what emerged from that was that when the Iranians did fire their enormous salvo of 350 missiles and armed drones at Israel, two of those countries, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, actively got involved in the air defense of Israel, which is pretty remarkable. And they were joined, as we know, this was more public. But the US, Britain and France all engage in intercepting and shooting down the missiles from Iran to protect Israel. But it also brought in those two Arab countries and the Saudis, again, a country that doesn't even recognize Israel diplomatically but was prepared to defend it militarily. And what we saw there was it may be the beginning of a new air defense structure in the Middle East to protect it, to protect its nations against Iran. After that Iranian attack on Israel, the US persuaded the persuaded Netanyahu, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to give just an absolute bare minimum response to the Iranian attack. So what could have flared up into a major war? The Americans persuaded Israel just to, you know, as Joe Biden put it to Netanyahu, take the win. You've got you know, you've gotten away with this pretty well. Just take the win and don't inflame it. And that's what happened.

And significantly over the weekend, a long anticipated house aid package for Ukraine passed. Now, can you tell me why this funding was held up for so long?

And significantly over the weekend, a long anticipated house aid package for Ukraine passed. Now, can you tell me why this funding was held up for so long?

Yeah. So it was held out for half a year. Short answer is by Donald Trump. And this shows, first of all, that the US. While it's while I'm arguing that it is the indispensable nation when it pulls out of participation, you just you can see its absence pretty glaringly in this case because Donald Trump was telling I mean, this is pretty telling that he has this influence already, and he's not even president. He doesn't have any office. He's just, you know, Republican candidate for the presidency. But he prevailed on the Republican senators, Republican members of the House not to support any more aid for Ukraine. Now, he has a number of stated reasons for that. But the essential one is he's always been close to Putin, favored Russia over Ukraine. And remember when Russia sent its first cruise missile slamming into Kyiv in its full on attack? Donald Trump betrayed his underlying position with his first response on Twitter x, he wrote genius. He thought Putin's attack on Ukraine, the capital city of Ukraine, a civilian area, unprovoked attack, was genius. So because Trump favors Putin and Russia, and perhaps because he wants to come into to office one day and see himself as the dealmaker who can end the war, he told his followers in the Congress not to support any more aid for Ukraine. And they went with it for six months, until finally, on the weekend, the speaker of the House agreed to bring on a vote for this package. So after six months of delay, where Ukraine was suffering badly on the battlefield, running out of air defense, running out of munitions, being pushed back on several fronts in eastern Ukraine. Finally, the US Congress acted on Joe Biden's request and passed the funding package that you mentioned an enormous volume of money, but not just for Ukraine, for three separate theaters, three separate continents around the world.

Yeah. So it was held out for half a year. Short answer is by Donald Trump. And this shows, first of all, that the US. While it's while I'm arguing that it is the indispensable nation when it pulls out of participation, you just you can see its absence pretty glaringly in this case because Donald Trump was telling I mean, this is pretty telling that he has this influence already, and he's not even president. He doesn't have any office. He's just, you know, Republican candidate for the presidency. But he prevailed on the Republican senators, Republican members of the House not to support any more aid for Ukraine. Now, he has a number of stated reasons for that. But the essential one is he's always been close to Putin, favored Russia over Ukraine. And remember when Russia sent its first cruise missile slamming into Kyiv in its full on attack? Donald Trump betrayed his underlying position with his first response on Twitter x, he wrote genius. He thought Putin's attack on Ukraine, the capital city of Ukraine, a civilian area, unprovoked attack, was genius. So because Trump favors Putin and Russia, and perhaps because he wants to come into to office one day and see himself as the dealmaker who can end the war, he told his followers in the Congress not to support any more aid for Ukraine. And they went with it for six months, until finally, on the weekend, the speaker of the House agreed to bring on a vote for this package. So after six months of delay, where Ukraine was suffering badly on the battlefield, running out of air defense, running out of munitions, being pushed back on several fronts in eastern Ukraine. Finally, the US Congress acted on Joe Biden's request and passed the funding package that you mentioned an enormous volume of money, but not just for Ukraine, for three separate theaters, three separate continents around the world.

Tell me a bit more about that. What impact may they have in those three separate theaters, as you put it? And is there a risk of them spreading themselves too thin, fighting too many fronts?

Tell me a bit more about that. What impact may they have in those three separate theaters, as you put it? And is there a risk of them spreading themselves too thin, fighting too many fronts?

Well, there is a risk of that. Yes, there always is, no matter how big a power. It's resources are finite, its political attention is finite. And the criticism of the US over many years, it's too easily distracted, usually by something in the Middle East from more consequential developments elsewhere. So it's always a danger. And the US doesn't have infinite quantities of money either. It's running a massive budget deficit, which is often overlooked in current affairs analysis for some reason, but it's running a budget deficit currently 7% of GDP. But the essence of what happened is that the US has given the Ukrainians the ability to stay in the fight, not to be defeated. If this bill hadn't gone through, Zelensky of Ukraine would today be sitting down with his top officials, figuring out what negotiating package to take to Putin? He would be thinking about capitulation and negotiation. It's that it was getting that serious, this aid package, 60 billion USD from the US in military and financial aid, allows them to stay in the fight and gives them a chance of ultimate victory. So it was absolutely critical for Ukraine.

Well, there is a risk of that. Yes, there always is, no matter how big a power. It's resources are finite, its political attention is finite. And the criticism of the US over many years, it's too easily distracted, usually by something in the Middle East from more consequential developments elsewhere. So it's always a danger. And the US doesn't have infinite quantities of money either. It's running a massive budget deficit, which is often overlooked in current affairs analysis for some reason, but it's running a budget deficit currently 7% of GDP. But the essence of what happened is that the US has given the Ukrainians the ability to stay in the fight, not to be defeated. If this bill hadn't gone through, Zelensky of Ukraine would today be sitting down with his top officials, figuring out what negotiating package to take to Putin? He would be thinking about capitulation and negotiation. It's that it was getting that serious, this aid package, 60 billion USD from the US in military and financial aid, allows them to stay in the fight and gives them a chance of ultimate victory. So it was absolutely critical for Ukraine.

Lawmakers have just passed a crucial $61 billion aid package for Ukraine.

Lawmakers have just passed a crucial $61 billion aid package for Ukraine.

On this vote. The Asia 311 and the nays are 112. The bill is passed.

On this vote. The Asia 311 and the nays are 112. The bill is passed.

President Zelensky said thousands of lives would be saved and that both the Ukraine and the US would emerge stronger. The Kremlin said.

President Zelensky said thousands of lives would be saved and that both the Ukraine and the US would emerge stronger. The Kremlin said.

The bill would cost and then next 26 billion for Israel to support in its in its continuing first defending against Iran, but secondly, helping it to deplete. It's the munitions it's been using to wreak havoc in Gaza. And third, another 8 billion USD for Taiwan and other theaters in the Indo-Pacific, including the Philippines, which all of which need help. Now they are three US allies. They're all vulnerable to dictators who are, you know, coveting their territory. Three or planning hostile actions against them. This is particularly interesting, and it's particularly reassuring, at least at this moment. Who knows what the future will bring, especially if the future's name is Donald Trump. At this moment, at least, the US is stepping up to defend its allies against hostile autocrats. It hasn't always been the case, but this week it is. And you have to note that. Celebrate that and encourage it.

The bill would cost and then next 26 billion for Israel to support in its in its continuing first defending against Iran, but secondly, helping it to deplete. It's the munitions it's been using to wreak havoc in Gaza. And third, another 8 billion USD for Taiwan and other theaters in the Indo-Pacific, including the Philippines, which all of which need help. Now they are three US allies. They're all vulnerable to dictators who are, you know, coveting their territory. Three or planning hostile actions against them. This is particularly interesting, and it's particularly reassuring, at least at this moment. Who knows what the future will bring, especially if the future's name is Donald Trump. At this moment, at least, the US is stepping up to defend its allies against hostile autocrats. It hasn't always been the case, but this week it is. And you have to note that. Celebrate that and encourage it.

We'll be right back.

We'll be right back.

Now the US is joining the Philippines in its annual military drills. Now, that may not seem significant. That's what annual means. But what about this time is significant.

Now the US is joining the Philippines in its annual military drills. Now, that may not seem significant. That's what annual means. But what about this time is significant.

Yes, it's extra significant. They're always significant, Chris, because they show that your country is ready and prepared for for war if necessary, and it keeps your troops and your systems match fit. And it helps you prepare your your maneuvers, your tactics and coordination, especially between countries, which is quite difficult. Um, but the Balochistan exercises that the Philippines have been doing for the last 39 years, as you say, they're annual and they bring in the US every year. This year, the US and the Philippines are joined by Australia and France and Japan. That's a fairly formidable coalition. And they're exercising not just within the Philippines territorial waters, which is what they've customarily done. They venture beyond that into international waters, which are claimed by China as part of China's territorial so-called nine dash line, which, by the way, the International Court in The Hague has ruled to be illegal. Yet China is pursuing it avidly, unrelentingly so by doing these exercises, you have to see that as a fairly pointed warning to China that if you press your case, we are prepared to stand up to you.

Yes, it's extra significant. They're always significant, Chris, because they show that your country is ready and prepared for for war if necessary, and it keeps your troops and your systems match fit. And it helps you prepare your your maneuvers, your tactics and coordination, especially between countries, which is quite difficult. Um, but the Balochistan exercises that the Philippines have been doing for the last 39 years, as you say, they're annual and they bring in the US every year. This year, the US and the Philippines are joined by Australia and France and Japan. That's a fairly formidable coalition. And they're exercising not just within the Philippines territorial waters, which is what they've customarily done. They venture beyond that into international waters, which are claimed by China as part of China's territorial so-called nine dash line, which, by the way, the International Court in The Hague has ruled to be illegal. Yet China is pursuing it avidly, unrelentingly so by doing these exercises, you have to see that as a fairly pointed warning to China that if you press your case, we are prepared to stand up to you.

Peter, let's come back to this indispensable power. This comes after what you describe in your piece as a decade of decay and America's strategic resolve. Now, that's, of course, under both Obama and Trump's presidencies. What do you mean when you say decay?

Peter, let's come back to this indispensable power. This comes after what you describe in your piece as a decade of decay and America's strategic resolve. Now, that's, of course, under both Obama and Trump's presidencies. What do you mean when you say decay?

What I mean is that after a long period of American gung ho adventurism, avoidable wars and bungled wars the US went into, it's not a partisan thing. Hence, as you say, Obama is responsible for what happened next. And Trump is equally responsible for what happened next. The US public and the whole system went into a mood for retrenchment. Let's pull back. Let's not have any more of these pointless wars. It's killing all our young people. Uh, it's costing us a fortune. We're destabilising the planet. What are we getting from this answer? Not much. So the difficulty is for any country, especially the Americans have trouble with this. Trying to find a moderate, prudent middle ground in the use of force abroad when you go to war, and how they veer from being too adventurous and excitable and aggressive to being too passive. And we saw that moment come under Obama 2012, which had its consequences in 2013, where he said, in response to the use of chemical weapons by the dictator of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, he mustn't do that. That is a red line for the United States. If Syria keeps using chemical weapons against its own people. Okay, red line, strong words, but then Bashar al-Assad in 2013 went ahead and did it anyway, not just once, but repeatedly flouting Barack Obama's warning. What did the US do? Absolutely nothing. So around the world, dictators looked at that and said, look, the Americans have lost their resolve. We can do what we want. They make these threats. They're empty. We have nothing to fear. It's a paper tiger. So the very next month, XI Jinping began China's the Chinese forces began their island building and reclamation on disputed maritime territories from the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, territories also claimed by those countries. Seven months later, Vladimir Putin made his first attack on Ukraine by annexing Crimea, occupying the Donbass. Also, you saw North Korea get more bolshy with its nuclear and ballistic missile development programs. Obama gets credit for a successful negotiation with one of the dictators. With the Iranians, negotiated a successful deal to get them to suspend their nuclear weapon development program. Full marks for that. But with the rest, he just showed the world that America was no longer to be taken seriously when it gives warnings and those other dictators took full advantage. And then, you know, that rolled on. I mean, there's lots of examples. But then Trump continued in the same vein, Trump tore up the one thing that Obama had done, which was, you know, genuinely an achievement and tore up the accord with Iran, which only then liberated the Iranians to return to full development of the nuclear weapon program and their ballistic missile program, which is exactly what they've been doing, um, and coddled Vladimir Putin, um, did nothing to discourage China from its military, from its territorial expansionism. So this has just rolled on. And then early Biden we seem to see more of the same when he pulled out of Afghanistan in a in a chaotic way that exposed his allies in Afghanistan. The Afghans who worked with the Americans to a horrible death at the hands of the Taliban. So it looked like this was all rolling on. But more recently, Biden has found backbone and American resolve and a prudent in a prudent way, which is, as I said, the sweet spot. The Americans have had a lot of trouble identifying they're now in that sweet spot. They're not getting carried away. They're not engaged in a direct war with Putin, but they are helping defend Ukraine. They are helping to defend Israel. They are helping to defend Taiwan. And in that the case of the Balochistan naval maneuvers this week, again, they're showing that they are the indispensable power, because who else could bring together the Philippines, the Japanese, the French, the Australians to defend the Philippines against China? No other country has the confidence, the power or the convening power. This is really important American convening power to bring others together to do that.

What I mean is that after a long period of American gung ho adventurism, avoidable wars and bungled wars the US went into, it's not a partisan thing. Hence, as you say, Obama is responsible for what happened next. And Trump is equally responsible for what happened next. The US public and the whole system went into a mood for retrenchment. Let's pull back. Let's not have any more of these pointless wars. It's killing all our young people. Uh, it's costing us a fortune. We're destabilising the planet. What are we getting from this answer? Not much. So the difficulty is for any country, especially the Americans have trouble with this. Trying to find a moderate, prudent middle ground in the use of force abroad when you go to war, and how they veer from being too adventurous and excitable and aggressive to being too passive. And we saw that moment come under Obama 2012, which had its consequences in 2013, where he said, in response to the use of chemical weapons by the dictator of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, he mustn't do that. That is a red line for the United States. If Syria keeps using chemical weapons against its own people. Okay, red line, strong words, but then Bashar al-Assad in 2013 went ahead and did it anyway, not just once, but repeatedly flouting Barack Obama's warning. What did the US do? Absolutely nothing. So around the world, dictators looked at that and said, look, the Americans have lost their resolve. We can do what we want. They make these threats. They're empty. We have nothing to fear. It's a paper tiger. So the very next month, XI Jinping began China's the Chinese forces began their island building and reclamation on disputed maritime territories from the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, territories also claimed by those countries. Seven months later, Vladimir Putin made his first attack on Ukraine by annexing Crimea, occupying the Donbass. Also, you saw North Korea get more bolshy with its nuclear and ballistic missile development programs. Obama gets credit for a successful negotiation with one of the dictators. With the Iranians, negotiated a successful deal to get them to suspend their nuclear weapon development program. Full marks for that. But with the rest, he just showed the world that America was no longer to be taken seriously when it gives warnings and those other dictators took full advantage. And then, you know, that rolled on. I mean, there's lots of examples. But then Trump continued in the same vein, Trump tore up the one thing that Obama had done, which was, you know, genuinely an achievement and tore up the accord with Iran, which only then liberated the Iranians to return to full development of the nuclear weapon program and their ballistic missile program, which is exactly what they've been doing, um, and coddled Vladimir Putin, um, did nothing to discourage China from its military, from its territorial expansionism. So this has just rolled on. And then early Biden we seem to see more of the same when he pulled out of Afghanistan in a in a chaotic way that exposed his allies in Afghanistan. The Afghans who worked with the Americans to a horrible death at the hands of the Taliban. So it looked like this was all rolling on. But more recently, Biden has found backbone and American resolve and a prudent in a prudent way, which is, as I said, the sweet spot. The Americans have had a lot of trouble identifying they're now in that sweet spot. They're not getting carried away. They're not engaged in a direct war with Putin, but they are helping defend Ukraine. They are helping to defend Israel. They are helping to defend Taiwan. And in that the case of the Balochistan naval maneuvers this week, again, they're showing that they are the indispensable power, because who else could bring together the Philippines, the Japanese, the French, the Australians to defend the Philippines against China? No other country has the confidence, the power or the convening power. This is really important American convening power to bring others together to do that.

Peter, how might that resolve that you spoke about just now be further tested if things in the Middle East were to further escalate? Its obviously signaled its commitment to defending Israel. What would that mean for the United States allied nations, particularly Australia?

Peter, how might that resolve that you spoke about just now be further tested if things in the Middle East were to further escalate? Its obviously signaled its commitment to defending Israel. What would that mean for the United States allied nations, particularly Australia?

Well, it's.

Well, it's.

Reassuring to US allies everywhere that the Americans are prepared still to come up with money, military assistance, but also in the case of a treaty ally like the Philippines, that the Americans are standing up to China, but they will be tested. I mean, there's no question a change to a Trump administration would make American allies more uncertain, more vulnerable. It would increase and encourage the opportunity for the dictators. So we're talking about Vladimir Putin in Russia, XI Jinping in China, the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, and Kim Jong un, of course, in, let's not forget, Kim in North Korea to be more aggressive, more territorially ambitious, to seize more land, to see seize more maritime territories and shipping lanes from the rest of the world. XI Jinping is not going to relent. This is a historic mission that he sees himself on. He sees himself winning. Among his pet phrases is one where he says the East is rising, the West is declining. So he thinks there's a historical inevitability to his victory over the US pushing the US out of the Indo-Pacific altogether. So he will continue. That American resolve will be tested. It'll be tested in other parts of the world as well. But that's the primary one, certainly for Australia. And without active participation and active game keeping and gardening by the civilized powers that say, or certainly the democratic powers, those predatory nations will continue with their aggressive territorial ambitions and revisionism.

Reassuring to US allies everywhere that the Americans are prepared still to come up with money, military assistance, but also in the case of a treaty ally like the Philippines, that the Americans are standing up to China, but they will be tested. I mean, there's no question a change to a Trump administration would make American allies more uncertain, more vulnerable. It would increase and encourage the opportunity for the dictators. So we're talking about Vladimir Putin in Russia, XI Jinping in China, the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, and Kim Jong un, of course, in, let's not forget, Kim in North Korea to be more aggressive, more territorially ambitious, to seize more land, to see seize more maritime territories and shipping lanes from the rest of the world. XI Jinping is not going to relent. This is a historic mission that he sees himself on. He sees himself winning. Among his pet phrases is one where he says the East is rising, the West is declining. So he thinks there's a historical inevitability to his victory over the US pushing the US out of the Indo-Pacific altogether. So he will continue. That American resolve will be tested. It'll be tested in other parts of the world as well. But that's the primary one, certainly for Australia. And without active participation and active game keeping and gardening by the civilized powers that say, or certainly the democratic powers, those predatory nations will continue with their aggressive territorial ambitions and revisionism.

Peter, thank you so much for joining us.

Peter, thank you so much for joining us.

Absolute pleasure, Chris.

Absolute pleasure, Chris.

Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Julia Caswell with technical assistance from David Macmillan. The Morning Edition is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do. Search the age or smash Cosmo forward slash. Subscribe and sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Chris Paine. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.

Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Julia Caswell with technical assistance from David Macmillan. The Morning Edition is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do. Search the age or smash Cosmo forward slash. Subscribe and sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Chris Paine. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.