 Thank you, Lee, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm acutely conscious of the time constraint, so I'm going to whip through some of my slides extremely quickly, conscious that you probably won't grab everything that's in them, but my understanding is that they'll be available on the conference website later. So if you find any of these slides inaudently fascinating, hopefully there'll be more time to look at them than there will be in this very brief session. Let me make as a point of departure the observation that, with the possible exception of the Chinese themselves, there's been no other group of people who've derived as much benefit from the rapid growth and industrialization that China has experienced in the last 30 years than us here in Australia. You could say if you wanted to that the first decade of this century had never been a more exciting time to be an Australian than that particular period. And one way of illustrating that is by looking at what economists call the terms of trade, the ratio of the prices we've received for our exports to the prices that we pay for our imports. It's the equivalent, if you like, of what Abez calls in its publication, farmers terms of trade, which is the ratio of prices received for commodities you produce to the prices of inputs like fertilizer and tractors and so forth. Australia's terms of trade increased enormously between the early years of the 2000s and the peak that occurred in 2011. Glenn Stevens, the governor of the Reserve Bank, used to say on occasions that, whereas in the early 2000s, Australians could get about 2,000 flat screen TVs for every shipload of iron ore that we exported. In 2011, we were getting something like 34,000 flat screen TVs, which we import for every shipload of iron ore that we exported. And that was largely due to increases in the price of shiploads of iron ore, but also had a bit to do with falls in the prices of flat screen TVs. And China had a lot to do with both of those. Now we get about 7,000 flat screen TVs for every shipload of iron ore that we produce. And that's by way of stark contrast with the experience of most other industrialized economies, for many of whom, given that they are commodity importers, what worked positively for us, actually represented a loss of income for them. That was particularly true of Japan, but it was also treated a lesser extent for Europe and for the United States. Not only did we benefit far more than other so-called advanced economies from China's impact on the world, but in many respects we benefited more than other commodity exporting nations did. The second chart here shows Australia's terms of trade compared with those of other commodity exporting nations like Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand and Canada. We did better than them too. It's really only mono commodity exporters like Chile and Norway, which came anything close to benefiting from China's growth and industrialization to the same extent as we have done. And of course, China and Norway did a much better job of preserving for future generations some of the benefits that accrue to them at that time than we in Australia did. The resources boom is of course now largely over. As big projects come on stream, mining investment is falling away very sharply and we're now perhaps just more than halfway through that unwinding of the mining investment boom. Of course, as projects come on stream, resources exports are increasing and they will increase further over the years ahead as LNG shipments come on board. But those exports are at falling prices and moreover they employ far fewer people than the construction phase of those projects did. And in addition, since the resources sector is according to Reserve Bank estimates some 80% foreign owned. Much of the income which those resource projects are generating now that they are in their production and export phase is flowing to foreigners rather than to Australians. Which sounds like a bad thing from some perspectives although it's worth bearing in mind that it's those foreigners who are bearing the brunt of the falls in resources commodity prices that is now well underway. As a result, Australia's economy is now in transition from growth led by mining investment as it has been for much of the last five years towards growth led for the most part by other exports and various components of domestic demand. During that period, we're experiencing below trend growth in our real GDP, falling real per capita net national disposable income. And until the second half of last year, rising unemployment at a time when in most other Western economies the unemployment rate has been falling. Australia now has unusually a higher unemployment rate than any of the US, the UK and New Zealand countries which in most respects we think of as being more like us than any others. Policy makers are seeking to assist and smooth this transition away from growth led by resources investment by cutting interest rates to record lows and hoping as has been born out with a bit more of a lag than usual, he has been the case that the currency would also fall. So that as Dr. Schneider mentioned in her presentation the currency is now below the long-term average value it's held since it was first floated in December 1983. There's little doubt that the fall in interest rates to record lows has worked in the areas where you would most expected to work. There has been a huge increase in the demand for housing although until the middle of last year most of that increase in demand for housing had been from investors who disproportionately buy dwellings that already exist and it therefore served further to inflate the price of existing houses which in my view which I acknowledge is not shared by everyone actually doesn't do the country a whole lot of good. Nonetheless, and this owes more to foreign investors than it does to domestic investors, we are also now seeing a significant increase in the supply of housing which I regard as a good thing and although approvals by local governments appear to have peaked late last year and are now leveling off such as the backlog of work to be done on projects yet to be finished particularly apartments for which the lead times are much longer than traditional detached dwellings. There's no doubt that dwelling investment will contribute significantly to economic activity over at least the next couple of years. As I said, that boom in demand especially from investors has now given Australia amongst the world's highest prices for residential real estate and backed by what is by some measures Australia's highest level of household disposable income relative to household debt relative to household disposable income. That from time to time attracts attention especially from foreign investors who think that house prices must be subject to some equivalent of the law of gravity that what's gone up must by definition go down and they can refer to other countries where indeed house prices have actually fallen a lot such as the US, Ireland and Spain. One way that some people have found to make money is to establish a short position in Australian bank shares and then tell the media that Australia has the biggest housing bubble in the world. Someone did that fairly recently as some of you may have noticed. The lesson of those countries which have experienced significant falls in house prices is that for them to occur you need two conditions to be met. One, you need a large number of forced sellers that is people who are unable to maintain the financial commitments associated with continued ownership of their dwellings. For example, because interest rates have risen a lot or because a lot of people have lost their jobs. And secondly, they need to be selling into an oversupplied market one where the supply of housing significantly exceeds the demand for it usually because there has been a significant increase in the quantity of new housing built in preceding years. As there was in Ireland, Spain and the United States in particular but which has been conspicuously missing in Australia. I'd also argue that the chances of a large number of forced sellers pushing house prices down in Australia is fairly limited because although the level of household debt is very high unlike the United States 72% of household debt is owed by the richest 40% of households. There hasn't been unlike the United States a lot of lending to people with no income, no job or assets as was famously said in the years leading up to the subprime crisis. Instead, most Australian mortgage borrowers have been using the period of exceptionally low interest rates to pay down their outstanding principal more quickly than they have to. And as a result, in most cases have built up considerable buffers against the prospect of future increases in interest rates which have to happen at some point even if it's unlikely in the near term. So I'm not one who believes that although Australian house prices are undoubtedly high and there is a lot of household debt around that we are in any imminent danger of experiencing the same sort of housing bust that some other countries have done. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that that's obviously a risk that people are going to continue to worry about and reinforces my view that there's not much good to be done by having further cuts in interest rates if all that does is further to inflate the existing level of house prices. The fall in the currency has had a substantial positive impact on the tourist sector where we are getting more foreign visitors but we're also seeing fewer Australians than had been the case over the last 10 years holiday overseas. It's also helped to reverse what had been a slide in the number of foreign students studying in Australia when the currency was very strong so that education is now Australia's third biggest export after iron ore and coal. And that's also likely to continue to the benefit of our overall balance of payments at a time when falling prices for resources export commodities are pushing our goods trade balance into deficit once again. It is possible and I continue to hope that last year's political change will eventually do something to reverse what was an unusual disconnect between how businesses were reading their own economic environment which had gradually been improving in line with falls in interest rates and a decline in the value of the dollar and their confidence in the future. As shown in the gray circle in the left hand chart there the divergence between business confidence on the one hand and business conditions on the other is highly unusual for two series that move together. I think that divergence reflected growing frustration on the part of many business leaders and managers with the inability of the political system to come to grips with Australia's longer term problems. And it probably also reflected the increasingly negative tone of the political discourse that occurred in this city. Malcolm Turnbull when he assumed the Prime Minister ship promised a much more mature conversation with the Australian people and sought to do that from a more optimistic presentation of the opportunities that are ahead of Australia rather than purely focusing on all of the risks and challenges that undoubtedly do sit in front of us. It remains to be seen whether that change in political leadership will lead to significant improvements in policy making or outcomes but I remain hopeful that we will get there and that that will provide a more solid basis for both business and consumer confidence that in turn is an important ingredient for decisions to employ people and to undertake capital expenditure but we're clearly not there yet and that process especially in recent weeks hasn't turned out to proceed as smoothly as many had hoped last September. Improved confidence would certainly help to lift non-mining business investment which has failed to rise to offset the downturn in mining business investment as quickly as the Reserve Bank and others would have hoped. It would also be helpful in my view if there had been a higher level of public sector infrastructure investment, something which has been recommended by bodies such as the IMF and the OECD as well as by the Reserve Bank in language that's as clear as central banks ever really engage in and which should have been possible given the extremely low interest rates at which Australian governments have been able to borrow long-term funds in recent years. But despite pledges to be an infrastructure prime minister there wasn't too much of that happening at the federal level over the last couple of years and it's now really only in some states particularly New South Wales where we can see much of an upturn in the sort of infrastructure investment that would help to lay the foundations for stronger growth in productivity by for example tackling some of the long-standing difficulties we have in transport around our major cities. What is clear from both public and private sector statistics is the way in which the transition from goods and especially resources export production towards services is unfolding. It's the business and household sector services sectors of the economy that are now providing the major impetus to growth in both output and employment. And you can see that from private sector surveys such as the one run by the National Australia Bank as well as from official statistics produced by the ABS. Partly because the household and business services sectors are much more labor intensive than the mining sector it seems as though we are getting stronger growth in employment than one might have expected if you only looked at what's happening to growth in real GDP which as I showed before has been barely above 2%. Because of problems that the ABS has been having with its monthly employment survey there are good reasons to suspect that employment growth might not be quite as strong as recent ABS figures have suggested but nonetheless the figures are pointing in the same direction as other indicators compiled by different agencies of the demand for labor such as the measures of job vacancies compiled by the ANZ and by the federal government's Department of Employment are all pointing to increased demand for labor. So it does appear that even though growth in the economy as a whole is below trend growth is happening in sufficiently employment intensive sectors of the economy like tourism, education and dwelling construction for there to be enough employment growth to put a lid on unemployment and perhaps to bring that rate down a little which is of course a very good thing. As there's been a transition sectorally in the economy there's also been one regionally and growth leadership whether it's in business conditions property prices or employment and unemployment is passing from the resource intensive states of Australia particularly Western Australia to a lesser extent the Northern Territory in Queensland to the South East corner and particularly to New South Wales and Victoria. Household income continues to grow relatively slowly even though employment growth is picking up partly because wages growth is so low and partly because other forms of income such as interest and dividends have also been relatively soft. As you can see their growth in household income and consumer spending has on average since commodity prices peaked in 2011 been less than half the growth rate that we had on average prior to the onset of the financial crisis and that's of course magnified by the fact that households are wanting to save a lot more as a proportion of their incomes than they had been in the years prior to the onset of the financial crisis and I don't think that is going to change materially over the years ahead. Partly as a result of households wanting to rebuild savings depleted during the financial crisis partly because there is a greater awareness on the part of Australian households of some of the risks associated with low levels of saving and high levels of borrowing. I think it's unlikely that we will see the saving rate decline to pre-2008 levels anytime soon. The fact that inflation has been so low and given how slow wages growth has been the reasonable grounds that exist for expecting it to remain low does give the Reserve Bank room to cut interest rates further if that's needed in order to provide fresh stimulus to the Australian economy. But in my view the Reserve Bank is going to be very reluctant to use that scope even though it exists. As I said before the most likely impact of cutting interest rates any further would simply be further to inflate an already elevated level of house prices and I don't see much economic good coming from that. Rather I think the Reserve Bank is likely to want to retain the small amount of monetary ammunition it has left 200 basis points or there in total to deal with a real significant threat to the Australian economy should one eventuate for any of the reasons that Wim mentioned in his presentation or other possible risks beside. Instead the Reserve Bank would prefer that any additional spur to Australian economic growth come from the exchange rate rather than from interest rates. And it's my view that there is some further downside for the Australian dollar even though we've seen a significant decline over the last three years. My guess is that the US dollar will appreciate further over the course of this year and that even if nothing else happens would put further down the pressure on the Australian dollar against the US dollar even if it doesn't do anything against other currencies such as the yen and the euro. I think the spread between Australian and US interest rates will narrow further because the US will if not this month then certainly later this year and into 2017 continue the path it began last December of returning US interest rates gradually to normal and commodity prices almost certainly have a little further to fall which leads me to expect that the currency will probably get to the mid 60s over the course of this year before finding a floor and that will provide a little further stimulus to the export oriented sectors of the Australian economy including agriculture. There are of course risks some of which Wim has mentioned that are of a global nature from which Australia can't be immune some of the domestic ones. There could be another major global economic downturn emanating either from the advanced economies or from China. And in that context it's important to remember that Australia has far less policy ammunition to ward off those risks than we did in 2007-08. People talk about the risks of a hard landing in China. I put a relatively low probability on that myself but you can't ignore the fact that Australia is now more dependent on China than we have been on any other single economy since the mid 1950s when over half our exports went to the UK and they were much more narrowly based than our present export mixes. Again, if there is a hard landing in China we don't have as much ammunition to ward that off as we did six years ago. Another reason for thinking that the Reserve Bank is gonna hold on to the ammunition it has until and unless the time is reached when it actually needs it. The other thing that could prompt a further cut in interest rates would be if for some reason the US dollar were to fall sharply rather than rise gradually as I expect so that the Australian dollar rose against a weaker US dollar to say 80 US cents. In those circumstances I think the Reserve Bank would want to and would be justified in seeking to use monetary policy to push the currency lower. I mentioned before the risk of a housing bust which I think is exaggerated but if it were to occur there's no doubt it would have a significant impact negatively on the Australian economy. If contrary to my hopes business confidence were to continue to deteriorate. Again, perhaps most likely for political reasons then that would undermine the prospects for stronger growth in both employment and business investment. And over the longer term any failure to put the budget on a credible path back to surplus. Something which I emphasise doesn't have to be done in the next 12 or 24 months but does need to be done over the longer term if Australia's to avoid for example losing its triple A credit rating in the event of another downturn ought to be a priority for whoever's in government after the election that's obviously going to be held at some point around the middle or third quarter of this year. Let me conclude by saying making a few observations about the place of agriculture in the Australian economy. The history of the last 40 or so years makes it very easy for people to be pessimistic about the role of agriculture if that's your starting position in advance. Farming has fallen from 8% to about 2% of Australia's economy over that period and a similar decline in its share of total employment. Partly reflecting what people have said already about the level of investment in agriculture as a proportion of the nation's capital stock. It's frunk from almost a fifth to barely 5% of Australia's capital stock. Despite those longer term trends however I think there is evidence that that decline in relative terms has now passed its trough. Rural exports are starting to become more important as a share of Australia's export income and we've heard and you'll hear more during this conference about the prospects for further improvements in the contribution that rural exports will be making to Australia's export income. Farmers benefit from lower oil prices in most respects while as we've heard the price of many of Australia's key agricultural commodity exports are likely to rise so farmers terms of trade are improving and are at a more favorable position than at any time in the last 20 years. And farm cash incomes are also as Karen Schneider said in her presentation at record levels and expected to improve further. We've heard and we will hear more about the opportunities for Australia and agriculture presented by the rapid growth in the number of and incomes of middle class households in Asia that as their tastes for different types of foods and beverages increase and change will create enormous opportunities for Australia to export more food and fibre products. Our capacity to win market share in Asia will be enhanced by the free trade agreements that have been negotiated with three of our most important trading partners over the last 18 months or so. As that slide there says no free to trade agreement is ever about genuinely free trade in the literal sense of that term. But each of those three agreements does open doors to Australian agriculture that some of our most important competitors will not have for some considerable period of time. For Australia to take advantage of those opportunities we do have to recognise that we'll face far more competition meeting China's and other Asian economies demand for food and fibre products than we ever did in meeting China's demand for iron ore or coal. And to contend with that competition agriculture will have to continue to improve its productivity performance as it has been doing reasonably well compared with other industries in terms of labour and labour and capital productivity as these two charts show there but there's a long way to go in terms of improving that further. And those improvements in productivity and in production potential won't occur without attracting more capital investment into agriculture. This is the chart that the Deputy Prime Minister was referring to this morning in his address which suggests that by 2050 Australian agriculture will need about $400 billion more capital in order to facilitate the intergenerational transfer of farms from this generation to the next and another $600 billion or so in order to expand its productive potential. The capacity to meet those requirements for capital from traditional sources of debt and internally generated equity is significantly limited. Much of it is going to have to come from places where it hasn't traditionally come in the past. That could be and desirably would be from domestic institutional sources but Australia's history since 1788 says that a lot of it is also going to come if it comes at all from foreign investment. And the key thing that we need to understand and come to terms with in that context is that the pools of capital in the world that we can tap are very different from the ones that we've tapped for most of the period since European settlement. Europe and North America have significant financial problems of their own and demands for their own capital to finance budget deficits and their aging populations among other things. The pools of capital that are available for us to tap are in relatively less familiar places such as North East and Southeast Asia and the Middle East. They do things differently from the way our traditional investors have done. But the choice between those new sources of capital and the traditional ones is a false dichotomy when it's presented like that. We have to find ways of satisfactorily managing and regulating those flows of foreign investment. But if we reject it on the basis of it being unfamiliar, then the choice we're effectively making is to have less investment in total. And as a result, opportunities that could make a vast difference to agriculture and to the nation as a whole would be to go begging, which would be a very unfortunate result. As I say, I think the prospects for agriculture in the Australia to play an important role in the changing shape of the Australian economy are in fact much better than they've been at any stage in the last 25 years. But as the Prime Minister himself would say, we have to be nimble and agile and opportunistic in order to make sure that they work to our advantage. Thank you very much.