Is there an argument that the taxpayers of Sydney and Melbourne and Adelaide shouldn't have to look after us just because we're prone to things like cyclones?

Well you mentioned Sydney and I would say that New South Wales are just around the corner from us in terms of being the second most disaster prone in the state and let's not forget the series of cyclones that WA encounters.

All parts of Australia have their time in the disaster spotlight and it's not our choice that Queensland tends to have more time in that spotlight.

When you talk about funding, however, every time we pay tax, every dollar of tax that we pay, $0.03 goes to local governments across the country and $0.80 of that dollar goes to the federal government.

So for Canberra to consider when it's getting the lion's share of taxation revenue, But Canberra to consider cutting that means that I don't know how councils with $0.03 in every dollar of tax would be able to fund it.

But you do make a really important point, Shane, about why should others be putting their tax dollars towards disaster spend.

Disasters, I look at it like having an insurance policy.

It's purely something that's coming from the federal government themselves.

Is there an argument that the taxpayers of Sydney and Melbourne and Adelaide shouldn't have to look after us just because we're prone to things like cyclones?

Well you mentioned Sydney and I would say that New South Wales are just around the corner from us in terms of being the second most disaster prone in the state and let's not forget the series of cyclones that WA encounters.

All parts of Australia have their time in the disaster spotlight and it's not our choice that Queensland tends to have more time in that spotlight.

When you talk about funding, however, every time we pay tax, every dollar of tax that we pay, $0.03 goes to local governments across the country and $0.80 of that dollar goes to the federal government.

So for Canberra to consider when it's getting the lion's share of taxation revenue, But Canberra to consider cutting that means that I don't know how councils with three cents in every dollar of tax would be able to fund it.

But you do make a really important point, Shane, about why should others be putting their tax dollars towards disaster spend.

Disasters, I look at it like having an insurance policy.

It's purely something that's coming from the federal government themselves.

Thank you.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Recognizing that I am the last thing standing behind between a number of folks and their lunch, I'll endeavor to be as brief as possible.

The final item on today's agenda is the 2019 motion seeking approval of the omnibus agreement between the global debtors and GGP.

That document was filed on an emergency basis under seal on June 3rd at docket 2579.

We did file the final exhibit to that agreement also under seal last night.

at docket number 2653.

All right, does anyone object to the admission of the declaration of Mr. Weinstein found at Docket 25, Exhibit Z to Docket 2579 as his direct testimony in connection with the settlement agreement with GTP? All right, hearing no objections, that will be admitted, subject to cross-examination if anybody wishes to cross-examine.

When you are assessing and going through that judging period with the chefs that you are that are put in front of you, what nutritional elements do you tend to assess the most during that during that judging?

We basically, and one thing I can just tell you is the other judge is a nutritionist rather than a dietitian.

And they are two different roles.

So it's something just to, yeah, basically just to sort of point out.

So we really like the fact that we're both there judging because we bring different elements to the judging, which is really great because it means that it sort of balances.

We've worked together for a number of years on doing the judging.

So it works really, really well having two different skill sets together.

Are you seeing over the years in each year improvements in nutritional awareness among the competitors?

Alison, tell us a little bit about why this was a four-day sales event this year, and, and, and how sellers were kind of responding to that being the first time Amazon tried this.

Well, ostensibly, uh, Amazon has publicly said that they made this a four-day event, up from two years last year, to give shoppers more time to shop.

And it makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

Um, since Prime Day started in 2015, we've seen big box retailers like Walmart and even more specialty retailers or online e-commerce upstarts like TikTok Shop launch their own competing parallel sales this time of year.

So, and many of those are week-long events.

So it makes sense that, you know, Amazon wants to claw back some of those dollars and make this a longer affair.

But yeah, I, I, I think we, we'll probably have to wait to see what the categories, uh, how they shake out.

out.Well, in terms of units sold, I think consumer packaged goods are definitely having a strong showing, and that was true last year as well.