November 24, 2025 • 15 mins
The Bureau of Meteorology has been plagued with public stuff-ups, including, just a few years ago, a false tsunami alert sent to half of the country.
This is a problem because farmers use the site to plan harvests, fisherman use it navigate the seas, and the rest of us rely on it to decide if we need to bring an umbrella, or can safely travel from one suburb to the next.
Today, climate and energy correspondent Mike Foley on the bureau’s latest disaster: a problematic website revamp that went tens of millions of dollars over budget, proved difficult to use, and, in one case, made severe storms over Brisbane seem less threatening than they actually were.
Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:01):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Sellinger Morris. It's Tuesday,
November 25th. The Bureau of Meteorology has long been plagued
with diabolical public stuff ups, including, just a few years ago,
(00:22):
a false tsunami alert sent to half of the country.
This is a problem. Farmers use it to plan harvests,
and the rest of us rely on it to decide
if we need to bring an umbrella or can safely
travel from one suburb to the next. Today, climate and
energy correspondent Mike Foley on the bureau's latest disaster, a
(00:43):
problematic website revamp that went tens of millions of dollars
over budget proved difficult to use and in one case,
made severe storms over Brisbane seem less threatening than they
actually were. Welcome back to the pod, Mike.
S2 (01:04):
Thanks, Sam. Good to be here.
S1 (01:06):
So, Mike, this all started when the Bureau of Meteorology
launched its first major website design in over a decade.
And to say that it ignited a fury online is
an understatement, right? One of the bureau's own staffers called it.
I'm going to quote here an absolute shit show. So
how bad was it?
S2 (01:26):
Well, many people, Sam, were asking the question why, when
they logged on the first morning that the website ticked
over because there was widespread dissatisfaction with the new layout
and the features. But the issue was it was unexpected.
It was different. And to be perfectly frank, my opinion
(01:48):
and the opinion of most of the population was it
was harder to use, not just different.
S3 (01:53):
The Australian government is demanding the Bureau of Meteorology fix
its website after the new redesign left website is being
blamed for confusing people, right? As storms hit.
S4 (02:05):
The rain, radar crashed while storms lashed south east Queensland.
For more, let's bring in.
S2 (02:10):
One of the things that people love to use is
the rain radar for their region, and it didn't always
come up with a logical list of place names to
choose from. It wasn't as easy to navigate to your
part of the country. I had a mate in Townsville,
for example, who was sending me live updates with screenshots
of how annoyed he was at trying to find the
(02:31):
city centre when a vast array of other locations kept
popping up.
S5 (02:36):
Last week they've changed the Bom website. It's really hard
to find rain radars now. It used to look like this.
S6 (02:41):
Something that's useful. It's something that's life or death. You know,
you've got people who are.
S5 (02:46):
Like, why would they do that? Did anyone ask for that? No. Regardless.
Everyone's pissed. Everyone I've spoken to.
S2 (02:51):
The other one was the rain. Radar changed colors to indicate,
you know, the heaviness of the downpour that was coming
through with the rains and the clouds moving across the screen.
And that's pretty confusing just overnight, getting used to something
different for let's not beat around the bush. That is
an essential service. It might not always be essential to
preserving life and limb, but it's a big part of
(03:12):
your day. And when it is essential for predicting big storms,
that's risky as well. So that's the reaction in a nutshell.
There was a big online outpouring of grief on social media,
bled into radio, and then it hits politics. And that's
a that's a bit of a tinderbox.
S1 (03:33):
So why did the website need a redesign in the
first place?
S2 (03:36):
Why it needed to happen is in 2015, uh, there
was a security hack that many observers at the time, uh,
blamed on China, but there was malware installed on the
bureau's website. It was very unsecure. The experts say, you know,
given the The essential data that the bureau provides. If
(03:58):
there's a hack on Essential Services website, like whether, you know,
in in the case of a conflict, military could be
given the wrong forecast. They could be, you know, told
to head into a flood as an extreme example. But
also you could hold the country to ransom a bit
by Australia has some pretty extreme weather events, as we
know you might, you know, mess around with the forecast
(04:20):
of a heatwave or a cyclone. You can draw your
own catastrophe out of all of those scenarios. But that
kicked off a program called, uh, robust, uh, that there
was Commonwealth funding directed into the Bom to upgrade its
whole system and the website upgrade to make it more
secure and prevent against those hacks and malware installation. Everything
(04:42):
was part of that.
S1 (04:43):
Okay. And it was first reported that this redesign cost
$4.1 million. Then other reports said no, no, no, it
was $78 million. But now the new chief executive has
told you the full cost. Mike, how much is it?
S2 (04:58):
Uh, 96 million is where we're at at the moment.
S1 (05:02):
That's 24 times the amount previously stated, right?
S2 (05:05):
Yeah. I think tracking back, Sam, that $4.1 million figure
that you mentioned, that's a bit of a whoops moment,
I think, from the bureau in its public relations. So
the $4.1 million figure let's you know, cue howls of outrage.
But it is accurate. That's how much the minister now
(05:29):
the environment minister Murray what he's responsible for the bureau, he's,
you know, essentially the head of the agency. And he
probably wishes he isn't at the moment, given how controversial
it is. He tells us that. That's right. Like the
design that's that's the word. The design of the website
cost 4.1 million. But there's a hell of a lot
(05:50):
of other money that is being spent on a lot
of other tricky stuff that is technical and well above
my pay grade to know what's going on, but it's
the security element of it. Uh, I think I don't
know what you think, but the bomb, if it had
its time again, probably wouldn't use that $4.1 million figure
(06:12):
to answer how much its website cost. Maybe they would
have offered up a bit more, let's say, transparency, and
said the design cost 4.1, but there was 90 odd
million spent on security upgrades and on the cost of
integrating the millions of data points that they collect from
across the country. Turn it into measurements, turn that into forecasts,
and model it into what's going to happen in coming days. Um,
(06:35):
that might have been a bit more of a comprehensive
answer that could have circumvented a fair bit of this controversy, perhaps.
S1 (06:42):
Okay, so $96 million. Obviously, it is a whack of money.
Is that taxpayer dollars? Like, is that our money?
S2 (06:49):
Yeah. Short answer. Yes. It's a federal agency. It's a
it's a service provided at public benefit at public cost.
S1 (06:57):
Okay. So tell us what the bomb has actually said,
because I know that one of our colleagues, he thought
it was digital gaslighting what they said in response, essentially
that it's not us, it's you. As in, if we're
finding it a bit tricky to familiarize ourselves with the
new website that's on us. What do you think, Mike?
S2 (07:14):
Yeah, that's a good question. And I think that goes
to the heart of the public relations problems that the
the Bureau has got itself into in the past as well.
This digital, this gaslighting, this gaslighting. So the bureau's acting
chief executive, Peter Stone, said some weeks ago that a
(07:37):
mistake has been made.
S7 (07:38):
I'd like to offer my sincere apologies for the challenges
the change has caused. It's clear that we need to
do more to help people navigate the change, both by
making but.
S2 (07:49):
At the same time. In the same statement, he said
it would take some time for some to adjust to
the changes and the bureau was going to help people adjust.
S7 (08:00):
I appreciate that it'll take some time for the community
to adjust to them.
S2 (08:06):
And that that's a bit of a red rag to
a bull, in my opinion, where it's a bit of
a talking down to the serfs, I think is one
interpretation of that anyway, and not useful when people are
raising actual real world problems that, hey, my town doesn't
appear on the radar map anymore, but it used to.
(08:27):
Why they're talking down to people doesn't help. Gaslighting is
a great word that our colleague David Swan used, and
there are some previous examples of some pretty wacky decisions
that the Bom has made that go to that. It's 2022.
I was sitting at my desk, working diligently, as always. Um.
(08:51):
And the message pinged. And the bureau had sent an
email requesting media outlets to stop referring to it as
the bomb. And please switch to using the phrase the Bureau.
S8 (09:04):
Bureau have said the abbreviation bomb takes away from the
seriousness of the work that they do have thus spent.
S9 (09:09):
Don't say it, don't say it. Bomb.
S2 (09:12):
That was a bit weird. I think, like if there's
a term used in common parlance and you're popular, well
known and some I mean, there's, you know, people get
cranky about, you know, rain forecasts not always being perfect,
but it's a bit of a public institution and well known.
And I think, you know, fairly well liked that. We've
got a National Weather Service. Why do you need to
(09:34):
dictate what the nickname is? That was an odd one.
S1 (09:36):
At a cost, I believe, of $220,000.
S2 (09:39):
And that cost to that does create the impression that
the bureau is a bit big for its boots, or
it's a law unto itself. Going off and creating initiatives
that do not need to be undertaken.
S10 (09:54):
Imagine your rebrand going so badly that the government pulls
you aside and says not great.
S11 (09:59):
Yeah, you can call yourself whatever you want if you
start doing your job properly. The bomb? More like the wrong.
S2 (10:10):
That is the impression that the Bureau has left with.
People are on this website upgrade. It did not do
a good job in informing the public that there were
big security issues that needed to be dealt with, and
at the same time as they dealt with those security issues,
they were going to change the layout of the website
for X, Y, and Z reason. Um, that never occurred
(10:32):
for most people. It just switched over one night. And look,
let me not forget my favorite in 2024, there was, uh,
an alert sent in error. If you could see the video,
you'd see my, um, air quotes. going where tsunami warning
went out to many people across the country. It was
marked test to be fair, but it was still a
(10:54):
tsunami warning warning that pinged on people's phones, and that
was a bit of a slip up as part of
the website upgrade. So yeah, you're not standing on very
solid ground talking down to people when you've made a
few moments in the past.
S1 (11:10):
We'll be right back. We know that former environment minister
Tanya Plibersek, she once said that, you know, perhaps, perhaps
the bureau has focused too much on branding and not
enough on weather. So do you think she's right?
S2 (11:30):
I have a public relations problem now where there's a
bit of scepticism, and it's not a great place to
be if you provide an essential service where you need
the general public should trust the information coming out of
this apolitical, uh, system that is essential in a country
(11:52):
like Australia. Even in our major cities, that high winds
or heavy downpours can cause risk to to human life,
let's be honest. Or flash flooding, you know, in Sydney
and Melbourne is an issue. You need that trust, let
alone in in other places that are cyclone prone. You know, really,
to be fair, the new CEO has started in the
(12:15):
last couple of weeks and in his first public comments,
he is, uh, making all the right noises and he'd
be making the the current environment Minister. Murray. What very
happy by openly admitting mistakes were made and he's going
to a look into them. He's b going to report
back and see he's going to be transparent in the
(12:37):
future and admit when stakes are made and quickly work
to address it. It sounds a bit odd to say,
but that was a problem. In the past, there was
a perception that the former CEO, Andrew Johnson, was very defensive. Um,
I know there's not a whole lot of people listening
to this podcast that watch the live broadcast of Senate
(12:59):
estimates hearings that come out of Canberra, where bureaucrats are
grilled by senators. But are Andrew Johnson cut a pretty
surly figure? It's fair to say in some of those hearings,
when he was asked about the cost of that, that
robust program, the security upgrade across the entire system that
cost over 850 million. So there's a reset that needs
(13:20):
to be done.
S1 (13:23):
Okay. So, Mike, where do we go to from here?
Because the news out on Monday is that Environment Minister
Murray Watt didn't actually know about the scale of the
expense of the website revamp when he was first briefed
about it. So has the environment minister lost control of
the bureau? Does blame lie elsewhere? Where and how soon
till it's fixed. I mean, we're on the cusp of
(13:44):
bushfire season.
S2 (13:45):
Yeah, that's that's the what is it, $866 million question. Sam.
The answers to that are has the minister lost control
of the bureau? You'll be very safe in making a
bet that he won't let that happen. Uh, at least
in the public perception. Murray, what is going to broadcast
(14:07):
far and wide that he is hauling the new CEO in?
He's already said this this morning. Um. For answers. Get
to the bottom of exactly how much the website upgrade
is going to cost, and exactly when all the security
upgrades will be finished. Um, he's got, um, the new CEO,
Stuart Minchin, is on his side, as we said. He's he's, um,
(14:28):
you know, not just complying with that. He's saying I'm
willing participant in that in that initiative. Where to from
here is, uh, it's an ugly word, but we've got
a political football. Unfortunately, now that there's this public loss
of trust in the bureau over the cost of that,
the hiding, the cost of its website redesign. And the
(14:52):
federal opposition are blaming Murray Watt. Um, as you say,
there's that question over. Has he lost? Lost control? Make
no mistake, they'll want to create the impression that the
opposition that Murray what has lost control. So we're going
to see a lot more communication in the in the
next few months and over summer. And we'll be finding
out a lot more on the, you know, TV and
(15:14):
radio waves and, you know, through our newspaper. Let me
encourage you to subscribe for all the updates, because there's
going to be a lot more news soon.
S1 (15:21):
I mean, there really is. This has got to be
sort of an easy win for the opposition, I guess,
this week. So thank you so much, Mike, for your time.
S2 (15:29):
Thanks, Sam. Good to be here.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Sellinger Morris. It's Tuesday,
November 25th. The Bureau of Meteorology has long been plagued
with diabolical public stuff ups, including, just a few years ago,
(00:22):
a false tsunami alert sent to half of the country.
This is a problem. Farmers use it to plan harvests,
and the rest of us rely on it to decide
if we need to bring an umbrella or can safely
travel from one suburb to the next. Today, climate and
energy correspondent Mike Foley on the bureau's latest disaster, a
(00:43):
problematic website revamp that went tens of millions of dollars
over budget proved difficult to use and in one case,
made severe storms over Brisbane seem less threatening than they
actually were. Welcome back to the pod, Mike.
S2 (01:04):
Thanks, Sam. Good to be here.
S1 (01:06):
So, Mike, this all started when the Bureau of Meteorology
launched its first major website design in over a decade.
And to say that it ignited a fury online is
an understatement, right? One of the bureau's own staffers called it.
I'm going to quote here an absolute shit show. So
how bad was it?
S2 (01:26):
Well, many people, Sam, were asking the question why, when
they logged on the first morning that the website ticked
over because there was widespread dissatisfaction with the new layout
and the features. But the issue was it was unexpected.
It was different. And to be perfectly frank, my opinion
(01:48):
and the opinion of most of the population was it
was harder to use, not just different.
S3 (01:53):
The Australian government is demanding the Bureau of Meteorology fix
its website after the new redesign left website is being
blamed for confusing people, right? As storms hit.
S4 (02:05):
The rain, radar crashed while storms lashed south east Queensland.
For more, let's bring in.
S2 (02:10):
One of the things that people love to use is
the rain radar for their region, and it didn't always
come up with a logical list of place names to
choose from. It wasn't as easy to navigate to your
part of the country. I had a mate in Townsville,
for example, who was sending me live updates with screenshots
of how annoyed he was at trying to find the
(02:31):
city centre when a vast array of other locations kept
popping up.
S5 (02:36):
Last week they've changed the Bom website. It's really hard
to find rain radars now. It used to look like this.
S6 (02:41):
Something that's useful. It's something that's life or death. You know,
you've got people who are.
S5 (02:46):
Like, why would they do that? Did anyone ask for that? No. Regardless.
Everyone's pissed. Everyone I've spoken to.
S2 (02:51):
The other one was the rain. Radar changed colors to indicate,
you know, the heaviness of the downpour that was coming
through with the rains and the clouds moving across the screen.
And that's pretty confusing just overnight, getting used to something
different for let's not beat around the bush. That is
an essential service. It might not always be essential to
preserving life and limb, but it's a big part of
(03:12):
your day. And when it is essential for predicting big storms,
that's risky as well. So that's the reaction in a nutshell.
There was a big online outpouring of grief on social media,
bled into radio, and then it hits politics. And that's
a that's a bit of a tinderbox.
S1 (03:33):
So why did the website need a redesign in the
first place?
S2 (03:36):
Why it needed to happen is in 2015, uh, there
was a security hack that many observers at the time, uh,
blamed on China, but there was malware installed on the
bureau's website. It was very unsecure. The experts say, you know,
given the The essential data that the bureau provides. If
(03:58):
there's a hack on Essential Services website, like whether, you know,
in in the case of a conflict, military could be
given the wrong forecast. They could be, you know, told
to head into a flood as an extreme example. But
also you could hold the country to ransom a bit
by Australia has some pretty extreme weather events, as we
know you might, you know, mess around with the forecast
(04:20):
of a heatwave or a cyclone. You can draw your
own catastrophe out of all of those scenarios. But that
kicked off a program called, uh, robust, uh, that there
was Commonwealth funding directed into the Bom to upgrade its
whole system and the website upgrade to make it more
secure and prevent against those hacks and malware installation. Everything
(04:42):
was part of that.
S1 (04:43):
Okay. And it was first reported that this redesign cost
$4.1 million. Then other reports said no, no, no, it
was $78 million. But now the new chief executive has
told you the full cost. Mike, how much is it?
S2 (04:58):
Uh, 96 million is where we're at at the moment.
S1 (05:02):
That's 24 times the amount previously stated, right?
S2 (05:05):
Yeah. I think tracking back, Sam, that $4.1 million figure
that you mentioned, that's a bit of a whoops moment,
I think, from the bureau in its public relations. So
the $4.1 million figure let's you know, cue howls of outrage.
But it is accurate. That's how much the minister now
(05:29):
the environment minister Murray what he's responsible for the bureau, he's,
you know, essentially the head of the agency. And he
probably wishes he isn't at the moment, given how controversial
it is. He tells us that. That's right. Like the
design that's that's the word. The design of the website
cost 4.1 million. But there's a hell of a lot
(05:50):
of other money that is being spent on a lot
of other tricky stuff that is technical and well above
my pay grade to know what's going on, but it's
the security element of it. Uh, I think I don't
know what you think, but the bomb, if it had
its time again, probably wouldn't use that $4.1 million figure
(06:12):
to answer how much its website cost. Maybe they would
have offered up a bit more, let's say, transparency, and
said the design cost 4.1, but there was 90 odd
million spent on security upgrades and on the cost of
integrating the millions of data points that they collect from
across the country. Turn it into measurements, turn that into forecasts,
and model it into what's going to happen in coming days. Um,
(06:35):
that might have been a bit more of a comprehensive
answer that could have circumvented a fair bit of this controversy, perhaps.
S1 (06:42):
Okay, so $96 million. Obviously, it is a whack of money.
Is that taxpayer dollars? Like, is that our money?
S2 (06:49):
Yeah. Short answer. Yes. It's a federal agency. It's a
it's a service provided at public benefit at public cost.
S1 (06:57):
Okay. So tell us what the bomb has actually said,
because I know that one of our colleagues, he thought
it was digital gaslighting what they said in response, essentially
that it's not us, it's you. As in, if we're
finding it a bit tricky to familiarize ourselves with the
new website that's on us. What do you think, Mike?
S2 (07:14):
Yeah, that's a good question. And I think that goes
to the heart of the public relations problems that the
the Bureau has got itself into in the past as well.
This digital, this gaslighting, this gaslighting. So the bureau's acting
chief executive, Peter Stone, said some weeks ago that a
(07:37):
mistake has been made.
S7 (07:38):
I'd like to offer my sincere apologies for the challenges
the change has caused. It's clear that we need to
do more to help people navigate the change, both by
making but.
S2 (07:49):
At the same time. In the same statement, he said
it would take some time for some to adjust to
the changes and the bureau was going to help people adjust.
S7 (08:00):
I appreciate that it'll take some time for the community
to adjust to them.
S2 (08:06):
And that that's a bit of a red rag to
a bull, in my opinion, where it's a bit of
a talking down to the serfs, I think is one
interpretation of that anyway, and not useful when people are
raising actual real world problems that, hey, my town doesn't
appear on the radar map anymore, but it used to.
(08:27):
Why they're talking down to people doesn't help. Gaslighting is
a great word that our colleague David Swan used, and
there are some previous examples of some pretty wacky decisions
that the Bom has made that go to that. It's 2022.
I was sitting at my desk, working diligently, as always. Um.
(08:51):
And the message pinged. And the bureau had sent an
email requesting media outlets to stop referring to it as
the bomb. And please switch to using the phrase the Bureau.
S8 (09:04):
Bureau have said the abbreviation bomb takes away from the
seriousness of the work that they do have thus spent.
S9 (09:09):
Don't say it, don't say it. Bomb.
S2 (09:12):
That was a bit weird. I think, like if there's
a term used in common parlance and you're popular, well
known and some I mean, there's, you know, people get
cranky about, you know, rain forecasts not always being perfect,
but it's a bit of a public institution and well known.
And I think, you know, fairly well liked that. We've
got a National Weather Service. Why do you need to
(09:34):
dictate what the nickname is? That was an odd one.
S1 (09:36):
At a cost, I believe, of $220,000.
S2 (09:39):
And that cost to that does create the impression that
the bureau is a bit big for its boots, or
it's a law unto itself. Going off and creating initiatives
that do not need to be undertaken.
S10 (09:54):
Imagine your rebrand going so badly that the government pulls
you aside and says not great.
S11 (09:59):
Yeah, you can call yourself whatever you want if you
start doing your job properly. The bomb? More like the wrong.
S2 (10:10):
That is the impression that the Bureau has left with.
People are on this website upgrade. It did not do
a good job in informing the public that there were
big security issues that needed to be dealt with, and
at the same time as they dealt with those security issues,
they were going to change the layout of the website
for X, Y, and Z reason. Um, that never occurred
(10:32):
for most people. It just switched over one night. And look,
let me not forget my favorite in 2024, there was, uh,
an alert sent in error. If you could see the video,
you'd see my, um, air quotes. going where tsunami warning
went out to many people across the country. It was
marked test to be fair, but it was still a
(10:54):
tsunami warning warning that pinged on people's phones, and that
was a bit of a slip up as part of
the website upgrade. So yeah, you're not standing on very
solid ground talking down to people when you've made a
few moments in the past.
S1 (11:10):
We'll be right back. We know that former environment minister
Tanya Plibersek, she once said that, you know, perhaps, perhaps
the bureau has focused too much on branding and not
enough on weather. So do you think she's right?
S2 (11:30):
I have a public relations problem now where there's a
bit of scepticism, and it's not a great place to
be if you provide an essential service where you need
the general public should trust the information coming out of
this apolitical, uh, system that is essential in a country
(11:52):
like Australia. Even in our major cities, that high winds
or heavy downpours can cause risk to to human life,
let's be honest. Or flash flooding, you know, in Sydney
and Melbourne is an issue. You need that trust, let
alone in in other places that are cyclone prone. You know, really,
to be fair, the new CEO has started in the
(12:15):
last couple of weeks and in his first public comments,
he is, uh, making all the right noises and he'd
be making the the current environment Minister. Murray. What very
happy by openly admitting mistakes were made and he's going
to a look into them. He's b going to report
back and see he's going to be transparent in the
(12:37):
future and admit when stakes are made and quickly work
to address it. It sounds a bit odd to say,
but that was a problem. In the past, there was
a perception that the former CEO, Andrew Johnson, was very defensive. Um,
I know there's not a whole lot of people listening
to this podcast that watch the live broadcast of Senate
(12:59):
estimates hearings that come out of Canberra, where bureaucrats are
grilled by senators. But are Andrew Johnson cut a pretty
surly figure? It's fair to say in some of those hearings,
when he was asked about the cost of that, that
robust program, the security upgrade across the entire system that
cost over 850 million. So there's a reset that needs
(13:20):
to be done.
S1 (13:23):
Okay. So, Mike, where do we go to from here?
Because the news out on Monday is that Environment Minister
Murray Watt didn't actually know about the scale of the
expense of the website revamp when he was first briefed
about it. So has the environment minister lost control of
the bureau? Does blame lie elsewhere? Where and how soon
till it's fixed. I mean, we're on the cusp of
(13:44):
bushfire season.
S2 (13:45):
Yeah, that's that's the what is it, $866 million question. Sam.
The answers to that are has the minister lost control
of the bureau? You'll be very safe in making a
bet that he won't let that happen. Uh, at least
in the public perception. Murray, what is going to broadcast
(14:07):
far and wide that he is hauling the new CEO in?
He's already said this this morning. Um. For answers. Get
to the bottom of exactly how much the website upgrade
is going to cost, and exactly when all the security
upgrades will be finished. Um, he's got, um, the new CEO,
Stuart Minchin, is on his side, as we said. He's he's, um,
(14:28):
you know, not just complying with that. He's saying I'm
willing participant in that in that initiative. Where to from
here is, uh, it's an ugly word, but we've got
a political football. Unfortunately, now that there's this public loss
of trust in the bureau over the cost of that,
the hiding, the cost of its website redesign. And the
(14:52):
federal opposition are blaming Murray Watt. Um, as you say,
there's that question over. Has he lost? Lost control? Make
no mistake, they'll want to create the impression that the
opposition that Murray what has lost control. So we're going
to see a lot more communication in the in the
next few months and over summer. And we'll be finding
out a lot more on the, you know, TV and
(15:14):
radio waves and, you know, through our newspaper. Let me
encourage you to subscribe for all the updates, because there's
going to be a lot more news soon.
S1 (15:21):
I mean, there really is. This has got to be
sort of an easy win for the opposition, I guess,
this week. So thank you so much, Mike, for your time.
S2 (15:29):
Thanks, Sam. Good to be here.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.