Understanding the Election's Impact

Podcast: What the election means for housing, economy, investing

Estimated read time: 1:20

Summary

In this podcast episode hosted by Leithvo, the focus is on understanding how the upcoming election could influence the housing market, the economy, and investment strategies. With a humorous yet insightful approach, the discussion covers the inadequacies of current housing policies, the ramifications of potential policy changes by both major parties, and the broader economic impacts such as immigration and energy policy. Key highlights include the debate over first homebuyer schemes, the effect of high immigration rates on housing, and the importance of energy policies in shaping the economic landscape.

Highlights

Both political parties' housing policies may contribute to further inflation of house prices 📈.
Labor's subprime mortgage-like policy could increase housing demand dramatically 🏡.
The Coalition's superannuation housing deposit scheme may boost new home prices 🏠.
Australia's high immigration rates exacerbate housing affordability issues 🇦🇺.
Energy policy, such as gas reserve strategies, plays a key role in economic and manufacturing health ⚡.

Key Takeaways

Both major political parties have proposed housing policies that may inflate house prices even further 📈.
Labor's scheme involves offering state-backed subprime mortgages, which could lead to higher housing demand and prices 🏡.
The Coalition's idea of allowing access to superannuation for deposits may also inflate prices, particularly for new homes 🏠.
High immigration rates and energy costs are contributing to housing affordability issues in Australia 🇦🇺.
Energy policies, especially regarding gas reserves, are critical for economic stability and manufacturing competitiveness ⚡.

Overview

The podcast delves into the proposed housing policies by Labor and the Coalition, highlighting how both could potentially exacerbate the already inflated housing market. Labor's plan for low-deposit state-backed mortgages raises concerns about increased demand and higher prices, while the Coalition's proposal of allowing early access to superannuation could similarly inflate new home costs.

Discussion extends to the broader economic context, focusing on how elevated immigration and governmental energy policies affect housing and overall economic stability. With Australia's high immigration rates continually stressing housing supply, this becomes a critical issue tied to broader economic health.

Furthermore, the dialogue touches on the importance of energy policies, especially regarding gas reserves, as crucial factors in determining the overall economic and manufacturing landscape. The necessity of addressing these areas to balance economic growth against housing inflation is underscored, presenting an intricate picture of political, economic, and societal interplay.

Chapters

00:30 - 01:00: Introduction and Disclaimer The chapter opens with welcoming music, setting an inviting tone for the audience. It begins with a friendly greeting "Hey, hey, hey," indicating a casual and approachable atmosphere.
01:00 - 01:30: Welcome and Guest Introduction The chapter opens with music, setting the tone for the podcast titled 'Nucleus Investment Insights.' The host welcomes listeners and introduces the main topic of the day: 'election proofing your investment portfolio.' The introduction highlights the presence of Leaf, a guest or possibly a subject-matter expert, who is ready to contribute to the discussion. A disclaimer is given, stressing that the content is general in nature and not intended as personal financial advice.
01:30 - 03:30: Housing Policies and Their Impacts The chapter titled 'Housing Policies and Their Impacts' starts with an introduction inviting listeners to connect for personal financial advice and encourages interaction through likes, subscribes, and comments. The podcast then welcomes a guest named Le, indicating a casual and friendly atmosphere. The beginning of the conversation suggests a discussion or interview setup, though detailed insights into housing policies and their impacts are not covered within the provided transcript.
03:30 - 04:30: Labor's Housing Policies The chapter discusses housing policies in the context of an election. The speaker defers from giving his opinion initially and invites another party to share their views on housing policies and any major differences between the policies proposed by the involved parties. The conversation sets a platform for analyzing and comparing various housing policy announcements.
04:30 - 07:00: Coalition's Housing Policies This chapter discusses the Coalition's housing policies in Australia, critiquing both major political parties. The commentary suggests that the policies of both parties are expected to exacerbate the already inflated housing prices in the country, describing this as a retrograde step. The focus mainly shifts to Labour, which is likely to win the upcoming election, and therefore the quick review homed in on the potential impacts of Labour's significant policies.
07:00 - 08:30: Comparison with International Markets The chapter discusses the proposal allowing first home buyers to purchase a house with a 5% deposit, with the federal government guaranteeing 15% of the mortgage, essentially creating a government-backed subprime mortgage scheme. The proposal, though not named as such, is critically assessed as a state-sponsored initiative aiming to aid new home buyers.
08:30 - 11:30: Gas Policy Proposals This chapter discusses recent gas policy proposals, focusing on a notable policy introduced approximately a month ago. The proposal instructs financial regulators to guide banks and lenders to exclude hex debts from mortgage serviceability assessments. This action aims to increase borrowing capacity. Additionally, the chapter highlights a 5% deposit scheme that is expected to boost housing market activity.
11:30 - 15:00: Immigration Policies The chapter discusses the impact of immigration policies on the housing market in Australia. It highlights concerns over marginal borrowers entering the market and the resulting increase in household debt among first home buyers due to lower equity. This is expected to lead to higher demand and inflated property prices. Australia already faces one of the highest levels of household debt globally, coupled with extremely expensive property markets, valuing Australian housing at 11.3 trillion across 11.3 million homes.
15:00 - 18:00: Healthcare Sector and Policy Impacts The chapter titled 'Healthcare Sector and Policy Impacts' begins with a focus on the Australian housing market, noting that the average home value is currently $1 million. This high valuation significantly contributes to Australian households being some of the wealthiest globally. However, the narrator challenges the notion that high property prices equate to true wealth, as housing is a necessity for everyone. The transcript then criticizes certain policies by the Labor party, suggesting that they will exacerbate the situation by inflating housing prices further.
18:00 - 21:30: Productivity and Economic Discussions The chapter discusses the implications of housing prices on the Australian economy. It highlights the disproportionate value of housing in Australia, noting that it is valued at four and a half times Australia's GDP compared to 1.7 times in the US. The chapter critiques the large amount of financial capital invested in what is considered a non-productive asset, reflecting on the changes in bank lending patterns since the 1990s.
21:30 - 25:30: Superannuation and Tax Discussions The chapter discusses the shift in lending habits of businesses, noting that a significant portion of loans were previously allocated towards business and housing sectors. Presently, nearly two-thirds of loans are directed towards housing, with less being provided to businesses. This ties into a broader discussion on productivity and economic changes, illustrated by the hypothetical scenario of house prices doubling overnight, which would impose increased financial burdens on businesses and consumers alike.
25:30 - 30:30: Q&A Session The chapter titled 'Q&A Session' discusses the economic implications of rent and property ownership. It highlights the issue of extra costs in rent not translating into additional services for tenants, leading to reduced productivity. The banking system becomes skewed as more funds are directed towards residential loans rather than productive business investments. The discussion also critiques the policies of both Labour and the coalition, noting their shortcomings. Labour's policies inadvertently exacerbate the issue, while the coalition's approach of aiding first home buyers is also seen as problematic.
30:30 - 31:30: Conclusion and Closing Remarks The chapter discusses new financial incentives introduced for first home buyers. It explains that first home buyers can rate their super for a deposit. Additionally, a negative gearing scheme has been established specifically for first home buyers purchasing new properties. This allows them to negatively gear up to $650,000 of their mortgage for five years, thereby enabling them to claim a tax deduction on their mortgage.

Podcast: What the election means for housing, economy, investing Transcription

00:00 - 00:30 [Music] Hey, hey, hey.
00:30 - 01:00 [Music] Hello, welcome to another edition of Nucleus Investment Insights. Uh today we want to have a look at in uh election proofing your port in investment portfolio. So I have Leaf all fired up ready to come in. Um, just a quick reminder, what you hear today, it's going to be general in nature. It's not personal financial advice. Uh, if you do
01:00 - 01:30 want personal financial advice, uh, feel free to book in for a call with us or, um, drop us a line. Uh, also a reminder to, uh, hit that like and subscribe button if you like uh, what you see and you can post in any questions or comments um, into the uh, chat and we'll try and answer some of your questions as we go. All right. Uh, with no further ado, uh, welcome Le. Good day, mate. How are you? Not too bad. Not too bad. Good to see you again. It's been a little while actually since we've had you on the podcast. Oh, no worries, mate.
01:30 - 02:00 Anytime. Yes. So, um uh the election. So, we're I sort of figured we'd start with the um uh I guess the your your favorite topic, uh uh housing and then I guess the uh the thing for for everyone. So, there's a there's a a raft of different housing policies that uh have been announced. Um, I'll uh I won't I won't put my two cents in yet. I'll I'll let you take over and uh tell us what tell us what you think of the housing policies, whether there's any major differences between the two uh between
02:00 - 02:30 the two parties and your expectations for where we're headed. Yeah, look, so look to to cut a long story short, both policies are garbage and they're um and they're going to basically inflate Australia's housing house prices even more than they already are inflated, which is a retrograde step. Um so so just to run through them I'll go through Labour's first just just very quickly um their their key policies just because they're the most likely obviously win on Saturday. Um so so Labour's got two two big policies which are incredibly
02:30 - 03:00 stupid. Well well one one in particular and and that that's to effectively allow all first home buyers um to purchase a home with only a 5% deposit and the federal government i.e. taxpayers would guarantee 15% of first home buyer mortgages. So effectively, it's a state sponsored subprime mortgage scheme that Labour's proposed. And they haven't named it that though, have they? No. No, they haven't. But that that look, let's be honest, that that's effectively what it is. Um and and and this couples with another
03:00 - 03:30 policy that they introduced about a month or so ago. Um whereby basically they've instructed the financial regulators who then obviously instruct the banks and the lenders etc. to exclude hex debts from uh from assessments for mortgage serviceability which is which obviously increases their capacity to borrow. So you know that that's a secondary issue. The the main ones is this 5% deposit scheme and what effectively that's going to do. It's going to obviously uh bring more, you
03:30 - 04:00 know, marginal borrowers into the market and it's going to lead to first home buyers taking on more household debt because obviously going to have less equity and it's going to obviously push up demand and inflate property prices. So, you know, do we really want Australia's already got some of the highest household debt in the world. We've got extraordinarily expensive property. that the Australian housing market is currently valued at 11.3 trillion and that's across 11.3 million homes. So the the average home in
04:00 - 04:30 Australia, not not the median, talking the average, the mean is valued at $1 million currently according to call logic. So you know we have a that that is the fundamental reason why Australian households are always ranked as being amongst the wealthiest in the world is because we've got expensive houses. Now that's not true wealth in my view. um because everyone needs somewhere to live and and and these and this policy by Labor is just going to push poor more petrol on the housing bonfire and push
04:30 - 05:00 up prices even further and make housing even more expensive and it's going to tilt the economy even more towards housing. Uh Australian housing is currently valued around four and a half times Australia's GDP. That compares about 1.7 times in the US and it's much higher than other Anglo countries. So we we already have far too much capital uh financial capital invested in our housing in Australia for what is effectively non non-productive asset. Uh 1990 Australia's banks lent twothirds to
05:00 - 05:30 businesses and about one quarter to housing. The and the rest was personal loans. Nowadays they lend nearly twothirds to housing and don't lend much to business. So we come back to what you talking about. Um I mean you you put a post up uh just recently on uh productivity um big one on productivity and that's that whole part isn't it like we if we we doubled our house prices overnight we just suddenly decided you know what everyone's house is now worth double what it was all you've done is mean that businesses and you know consumer and consumers all need to pay
05:30 - 06:00 extra for rents and and all that sort of stuff like that effectively all paying it to people who have already built the houses. It's not like they're it's not going to anyone to for any extra service. Um and you're just reducing productivity. Yeah, that's it. And and and obviously the banking system then gets tilted towards because people got to pay more for their homes. So the banks then have to lend more for property rather than doing it for productive businesses. So you know and unfortunately Labour's policy is going to do that. But now the coalitions is equally stupid. So so the coalition wants to allow first home buyers to be
06:00 - 06:30 able to rate their super for a deposit. That's number one. And number two, uh they've also um you know set up a negative negative gearing scheme effectively to allow first home buyers who buy uh new properties to uh negatively gear $650,000 of their mortgage for you know it is for I think five years. Um so effectively that you know first home buyers will be able to claim the tax deduction their mortgage
06:30 - 07:00 payments on a new home. Now look, it does have the advantage there in that at least it's only applying to new homes. So it'll just push up the price of those a lot because you know as we saw the home the home builder stimulus just got added to the price of new homes we you know yeah so so yeah I've got a lot more sympathy for that as saying how do we expand supply and all that type of stuff but as you said um it's good to have plans to expand supply and get more building but if if you know that most of the uh gain is going to go straight into the pocket of the developers who prices
07:00 - 07:30 up by that by that price builds less uh it's yeah less That's exciting. Yeah. And and and obviously, you know, when when when we have a supply constrained market, not enough builders, you know, etc., not enough trades, not enough anything. Uh if you're just going to add um a whole bunch of taxpayer stimulus to that, well, it's just going to push up the price. And unfortunately, it's also going to going to um the coalition's policy would also cost the budget a hell of a lot of money. So, so Labour's 5% deposit is a contingent liability on the budget, whereas the coalitions is actual
07:30 - 08:00 will actually drain the budget because um the the coalition used an example of someone on $120,000 income uh who negatively gears a $650,000 mortgage. The coalition boasted that they'll save 12,000 a year. Well, that's 12,000 a year that the ATO is not going to get in personal income tax receipts. So, you're actually going to narrow the tax base as well. Uh so, that's, you know, stupid policy. Dumb Dumbo on the left. Dumbo on the right. But it's also it's also this part, isn't it, where you where we've got a policy effectively now which says
08:00 - 08:30 to retirees um if you want to rent a place rather than buy a place, we're going to penalize you every year financially. And effectively, it's almost turning that around to first home buyers and saying the same thing. You know, if you if you want to want to keep renting, you're gonna have to pay all this extra. You have to pay $12,000 in extra tax. But if you go gear gear yourself up to the eyeballs and and buy a property, we'll give you a tax break for it. and sort of like that um forcing people um once again to uh to into the housing market on both at retirey levels
08:30 - 09:00 and at first home buyer levels. Yeah. And I'll get back to my first uh you know what I said before. So Australia's housing stocks 11.3 trillion. Well the these sorts of policies what are you going to push it up to? You know 12 13 14 15 whatever. Um obviously it grows over time but all it means is that that uh if we keep funneling more and more you know mortgage debt everything into the property market it's size relative to the economy is going to keep growing and it's just going to become a bigger
09:00 - 09:30 millstone on you know on on everyone's necks and ultimately these sorts of policies as we found with every first home buyer grant the last 25 years and all these other sorts of demand side stimulus it doesn't make housing more affordable in the end what it ends up doing is ends up getting capitalizing the home prices and then you know if if obviously you're a first mover and you're one of the first to get in on that on these policies well then you know you're okay because prices will go up afterwards. But you know if you're a first home buyer in say 10 years time and with 10 years these policies well
09:30 - 10:00 you going to be entering the market and it's going to be a lot more expensive than it would have been otherwise and in the end you're just facing the worst affordability equation. uh and all we've end up doing is just sucking more taxpayer funding uh and you know the nation's capital into the into a non-productive asset which is really just everyone trying to put a roof over their head. It's just pointless. Well, and and it's it's generational generally. because it's basically saying let's let's just transfer more money to
10:00 - 10:30 people who are selling and um you know and given Australia doesn't have a um uh you know doesn't have you know any meaningful inheritance taxes um outside of you know a relatively small amount super it sort of turns it into saying you know uh you just the natural extrapolation goes well we're trying to build a galitarian society where it doesn't really matter who your parents are you know you can still go ahead whereas we're getting to the stage where No, it really matters. Like, and if you're an only child and you inherited a
10:30 - 11:00 full house from your parents, that's great. If if you happen to be one or three or four and you only get a third of a house or a quarter of a house, you know, it's really where did your parents buy 20 years ago or 30 years ago or 40 years ago? That's um that will be the key determinant of of how wealthy people are. Yeah. And and in fact, I did some just just before I came on the podcast, Damian, and I was um I was looking up the 1991 census just for, you know, fun to look at the situation then versus now. Yeah. as as you do when you're a nerd. Um I I uh I've written an article which is going up tomorrow which actually
11:00 - 11:30 mentions this stuff. But so the 1991 census the the home ownership rate was five points higher uh 5% higher than it is than than it was in the 2021 census which is the latest data we've got. So we had a 5% higher home ownership rate. The price to income ratio was three times incomes for a house uh for a home I should say a dwelling versus eight times currently. Right. So way better there. We household debt to disposable income was 70%. versus 180% now. And I'd
11:30 - 12:00 argue that we Australia was a much more balanced economy then. Again, banks linked 2/3 to businesses and only 25% to housing. We had a much bigger manufacturing share. Um the the economy in general was way more diversified and less de-industrialized and financialized than it is now. And you know so but according to the global wealth statistics so so if you go say the UBS uh global wealth report which they you
12:00 - 12:30 know or or the credit Swiss wealth report there's a whole bunch of you know reports that are that are released by separate international banks every year and they always have Australian households right near the top but and that that's because they're expensive housing but in 1991 with the price of housing we had back then Australian households would have been far down the list but I'd argue that they're actually wealthier in the true sense of the word back in 1991 because, you know, I'd argue that a society is wealthier if young people can afford to buy a home. They don't have to uh, you know, be born
12:30 - 13:00 into rich family. They don't need the bank of mom and dad. Yeah. Uh, all that sort of stuff. So, you know, unfortunately, for 30 years of mismanagement, we've created this problem that we're in. We've created our own millstone for our own bat. Yeah. and very hard to get out of. And and because uh as soon as you say to anyone, I've got a policy that might um push house prices down a little bit and make things more affordable, um you know, a large portion of the population is is is not interested. Yeah. Well, I mean that
13:00 - 13:30 that's the thing. Still twothirds of Australians either own the home outright. Well, that that that outright figure is shrinking obviously um or they're paying off a mortgage. So unfortunately the political math is always in favor of higher house price because if you just bought a house recently got a big mortgage you don't want to see it fall and if you you know um someone like me I personally don't care because I'm sort of at the stage where I paid off this house you know got bugger all left and I'm more worried about my teenage kids um and and their future. So, you know, for me, the fact
13:30 - 14:00 that Victorian Melbourne house prices have stagnated for eight years, uh, it's kind of good because I know my daughter is, you know, 14, my son's 17, at some point they're going to need a house and then they're going to need the bank of m and dad. Well, if prices don't rise, they won't need as much bank of mom and dad. So, for me, I actually see that as a win. Yeah. Now, um, I should actually just highlight as well. So just from a big picture investment point of view. Um so I picked housing just because that's that's probably a productivity this is
14:00 - 14:30 this productivity thought around um investment for Australia and how we how we're thinking about that. I think the other thing um though I do want to highlight is for me there's not a lot of difference between the parties in terms of policy. So in terms of economic outcomes um there's really not we'll pick on a few of them in a minute but um but really there's not not a lot that we can sort of say that's that's that's um going to be wildly different. Um the other thing uh and and I guess probably just as importantly for the Aussie market is most of the big Aussie stocks are are international stocks. So if you
14:30 - 15:00 talk about BHP, if you talk about CSL, um you know uh Sonic, uh you know, Brambles, any of these sort of large uh not any stocks, but most of our large stocks within Australia, they're they're actually international stocks. And so if their if their Australian revenue falls by 20% um it's it's actually not that much not not that big of a deal. It's a small very small part of their overall um portfolio. And what really matters is is you know global growth. Um, so it
15:00 - 15:30 sort of mean it sort of it's a little bit um there's studies out there sort of showing oh who does better do better better under coalition or better under labor and all these things from from stock market perspective but for me that those are pretty much useless in terms of saying well if there's a global financial crisis in the middle of yours or if there's a you know or if there's some sort of economic boom in the US or bust in the US that's what drives the performance of the Australian stock market largely um you know the local conditions is is sort of um you know a a
15:30 - 16:00 the icing on the cake as opposed to um as opposed to the the sort of the guts of it. So um uh and then sort of around outcomes I think that so the betting markets basically have um uh labor at sorry liberals at not not great hopes of of of getting through quite low odds and then basically split between whether it's a um a labor minority or a labor majority. I think there's not a lot of outcomes um you'd get to where you saw a liberal minority government I don't
16:00 - 16:30 think leaf it's sort of the maybe there's one or two independents who might back them but yeah it's a it's a it's a sort of that that's a relatively unlikely outcome um and so uh yeah so um the other thing though I guess that pops up is if it is a Labor minority government are there any policies you can sort of think of which is Labor might secretly want to do but but doesn't want to bring it to the election and then if they have to under the you know under the under the guise of oh
16:30 - 17:00 okay we needed to negotiate with whatever the teals we needed to negotiate with um with uh the Greens to get another policy across the line. Are there any of those you can sort of see in terms of uh I don't know housing market I guess Greens have got a number of housing market things they'd like to do. Um teals have got a I guess maybe climate change type things they'd like to do. Um and and again I think the Teals are probably less homogeneous when it comes to um uh things they want to do on the economic side. Yeah. So so um the
17:00 - 17:30 Greens maybe uh you know given that Labour took negative gear and reform to the 2019 and the 2016 election. There's a chance that that they could you know go oh you know we got to bend the knee to the to to the Greens and do a negative gearing policy. And I'm hoping if they do do that, they at least do their policy from the 2019 election, not the Greens one. Um, so the 2019 election policy was basically to grandfather negative gearing for existing inspec
17:30 - 18:00 investors, ban it for um, investors going forward except for new housing. So at least it would have had a supply component that the Greens policy is basically to allow if you got one um investment property you can keep negative gear in it like to so to grandfather if you got one um but going forward and if you have more than one you can't negative gear it at all and the the ridiculous thing about the Greens one which I think is kind of stupid is when it comes to capital gains tax tax concession they want to go back
18:00 - 18:30 to the pre999 CGT which is a good move And what that was was basically um you only tax uh real gains. So basically, you know, if you pro if your investment goes up 50%, inflation was 20%, you only tax 30%. Um but the problem with the Greens policy is they want to do that for shares or sorry for non-ousing assets to only tax real gains, but for property assets, they want to tax nominal gains for capital, which I think is absolutely
18:30 - 19:00 absurd. um you know, you shouldn't treat them differently and it should you should only ever tax real gains when it comes to capital gains tax. So, I'm hoping if if Labour does bend the knee and have to capitulate and do negative gearing, they at least go they at least say, "Yeah, okay, we'll do it, but we're doing our policy that we had in 2019. We're not doing yours because yours is unworkable or it's inconsistent." and and it probably just pro probably preface that whole speculation as well with uh uh Albanese doesn't hasn't been a courageous politician in his uh in his past and didn't want to take too many
19:00 - 19:30 risks. So it seems a but but but but I guess it is a way for them to do what they proposed in those two elections but but to say oh you know we've been forced into it. We we didn't take this to the election but you know had no choice but couldn't Yeah. Exactly. blah blah blah. Um yeah, the the the only other policy I hope they do which is isn't housing is and I don't know why they've announced it anyway uh is gas reservation. So obviously the coalition let's do that whole um the whole energy let's move on that whole energy part. So yeah so and
19:30 - 20:00 and this does make a difference for some companies out there. Obviously there's um the local sort of uh companies that are involved in that uh particularly the gas producers and um glass and gas producers that that does make a difference to to those in terms of origin and Santos and and Woodside to a certain extent. Yeah. Yeah. So we've got so the coalition uh this is actually the single best policy of the entire election campaign in my in my opinion. It's the only policy that I can actually say yeah that that's a that's a beauty. Uh the rest of them are, you know,
20:00 - 20:30 pretty basically dud policies from both sides. Um so in in in the budget reply speech, um opposition leader Peter Dutton promised that if the coalition were elected, they they'd implement an East Coast gas reservation policy. So effectively they they'd force um the east coast gas companies which export roughly nearly three quarters of east coast gas and um they've actually doubled their gas production in the last decade but they've actually supplied the domestic market with 25% less gas which
20:30 - 21:00 is absurd and we're facing east coast gas shortages and the prospect of importing liqufied natural gas at the end of this year or early next which is going to send the gas price rocketing and also electricity price. So Peter Dutton said he's going to force the gas producers to um divert their not their uncontracted spot gas. So this is gas that's not contracted to sell into the international spot market. He's going to force them to supply that domestically. And the way he'd force it is he'd
21:00 - 21:30 actually put an export levy on it. So if you want to export it, you get taxed to buggery on that spot gas, which is good. um and to basically make it so that so it's far more profitable to supply it domestically and that and doing so would negate the need to have to import gas which is terrible from an environmental perspective because you got to liquefy it first and then ship it and then de convert it back into gas etc. Use a lot of energy that sort of stuff. It's also kind of stupid when we export three
21:30 - 22:00 nearly 3/4 of our gas in the east coast. Why the hell would you import it? Um and also Dutton's gas policy is also excellent because um we have an issue whereby Victorian gas so bast uh which started about the 1960s is now coming towards the end of its life. So we're now getting less flows out of that and it can't supply Victoria with enough gas over winter which is when Victorian gas use spikes for heating that sort of stuff. So we've got a north south pipeline from Queensland down to
22:00 - 22:30 Victoria which for 9 months of the year is doesn't operate at capacity. Problem is in winter time when Victoria becomes an importer of gas from Queensland um the the pipeline hits capacity so it can't push more gas through without expansions. So what so what Peter Dutton has said he'd do is they invest I think it's one billion or2 billion dollars into expanding the north south pipeline and or building it a storage terminal in
22:30 - 23:00 down south uh to store gas so that effectively like your barbecue at home you fill up your gas bottle in winter to use it in summer um we could effectively use fill it up using the excess um capacity in the north south pipeline during the offse fill up the storage for winter and then used in winter. This it's what they do in Europe and US and that sort of thing. Excellent policy. Unfortunately, Labor has not um they they've been me too in a lot of policies and so have the coalition, but on this particular policy, Lab Labour's candid,
23:00 - 23:30 which is absurd and and and and the problem with it is we pay about $12 per gig for East Coast gas, which is extraordinarily high anyway. Um, but if we start importing gas, we're going to be paying import parity prices, which is going to be about $20 or above per gigjoule. So, we need to avoid that at all costs. And if we start importing the gas, uh, which is predicted by end of this year or early next, they sort of got an import terminal, Twiggy Forest,
23:30 - 24:00 um, got got one open up in Port Kembla, New South Wales. There's another one planned Victoria and South Australia. we don't fix this supply issue. Um what it means is that obviously the gas price goes up. It also means that the electricity prices will go up because gas is a is is a you know marginal price setter for electricity in the wholesale market. So we'll we'll pay pay more energy higher energy costs, gas and electricity on the east coast and that is bad obviously for inflation reason cost of living but also it's going to shrink our manufacturing sector even
24:00 - 24:30 more which is already the lowest the smallest share of the economy in the OECD. So we're going to de-industrialize the nation even more. So I'm hoping that that I'm hoping that Labor um you know even if they're not a minority government sees sense and actually does this policy. Yeah. So, so, so I guess just to in terms of an investment point of view from so you go lab gets through and doesn't need to put this on just leaves everything as it is you're like okay that's bad for inflation uh looking at higher interest
24:30 - 25:00 rates you're looking at more pain for um anyone in the manufacturing sector in Australia say building materials and and stuff like that whatever whatever poor whatever manufacturers we we do have left are are uh going to find it problematic the flip side is and and good for the um the exporters uh the gas companies. So, Origin and Yep. uh at Hall. Um the flip side is if they do have to if they do form a minority government um or they they either see reason or they form a minority
25:00 - 25:30 government um and and required this then it's reverse bad for those uh energy exporters good for uh Aussie manufacturers building materials good for inflation. Um, yeah, good good in the short term. Well, yeah, it is. Don't get me wrong, it's net net good, but the greens also have a zero. You can't have any hydrocarbon. Yeah. Yeah. But they can negotiate with with the liberals on this one. Yeah. Yeah.
25:30 - 26:00 True. And and the other thing is um uh it is worth noting that just from a big picture point of view, you've effectively got um you know a gas cartel overcharging and the Australian government at the moment the labor policy is oh I will just pay them extra. So we'll just pay the bully off so that so that so that you know consumers don't get it. Whereas the labor one the liberal one is actually no we'll we'll charge them on the on the stuff they're trying to the excess stuff. So yeah. Yes. Anyway, we could we could complain about that all day long. Um what else have we got? uh immigration. Yes.
26:00 - 26:30 Another big sort of inflationary uh guide and we've seen so Canada make some I guess do you want to compare first with Canada and what they what they've been doing on the immigration front? Yeah. So so so Canada like us um completely dropped dropped the ball in immigration and Canada had the biggest surge in migration in their history. Uh it actually was you know dwarfed ours. So so so so we've beaten Canada in immigration over 20 years but over the last five years Canada's beaten us. uh and they um up to last financial year so
26:30 - 27:00 2023 24 Canada had net overseas migration of 1.2 2 million which is just for a country of 60 uh sorry 40 million is off the charts and created a massive house housing crisis you know etc blah blah blah they've had zero per capita GDP growth for a decade um just a you know absolute shamzle over there but the um the the Liberal government which just got reelected under the former prime
27:00 - 27:30 minister um after they had a massive backlash in the polls last year he announced that they're going to freeze Canada's population growth for three years. And uh the latest immigration data for Canada, which was the fourth quarter of last year, because it's always lagged, showed that Canada actually had negative um temporary migration. So, so yeah, negative overseas migration led by temporaries. So, they actually lost temporary migrants. Um their overall population still grew, you know, marginally. It's
27:30 - 28:00 basically flat. So they've basically stalled their population growth and as a result they've had six consecutive months of uh falling asking rents. So their rent the rental prices are falling. U it's been pretty successful. They're now slowly housing construction in Canada's now catching up because they're not having this you know massive over supply uh massive demand spike through population growth and it's been good. Um Australia should basically do the same really. We should cut right back in overseas migration. let let the
28:00 - 28:30 supply side of the economy catch up. Uh the coalition has um promised to cut the permanent migrant intake by about 25%. Um they've given vague promises that they do it on that they cut net overseas migration as well which is which includes temporaries. Uh but they've been very koi on how they do it. So they've been very non-committal. It's all you know few motherhood statements etc. Labor on the other hand have basically haven't committed to much. So, um, well, I think they did commit last
28:30 - 29:00 time, didn't they? And then reversed all those commitments. So, yeah. I mean, look, honestly, probably stay quiet on it so people don't remember what they said last time on it. That that that's right. So, so what what Damian's alluding to here, just before the last federal election in late December 2021 and January 2022, they they said they they'd run a lower immigration program. So, actually lower immigration than what we'd had. and instead they you know as we know they they they use the jobs and skills summit has covered to ramp it to levels we've never seen before. So um I
29:00 - 29:30 don't trust either side on immigration. I guess if you had to weigh them up both side by side the coalition you know would probably deliver slightly less immigration but it still be very high and still too high for the level of housing supply and everything else we've got. Yeah. So the hope the hope is that um uh yeah is that Canada keeps kicking some goals and somebody in Australia says hey maybe we should do that too. Yeah but there is a risk though if um if the if if Labor has to somehow form a
29:30 - 30:00 minority government the Greens which I don't think it's going to happen but you know that that that's a very outside possibility um that we could actually get more immigration because the Greens are are complete open borders nuts. So they if you actually read the immigration policy, their policy is explicitly for more immigration. So and the other risk they make cut backs hard. Yeah. The other risk is that Trump's um uh Trump's tariffs and everything turns into a reasonable size recession in Canada. They've frozen their their
30:00 - 30:30 population growth and you get a bit of a housing crash over there and all of a sudden people say, "Hey, that was the worst thing ever, freezing freezing immigration. If you don't want if you don't want a housing crash, don't do that." And and and there's also the thing here. So, so Canada's immigration boom was driven by overseas students to a large degree like their permanent migrant intake's high but um the absolute spike was mostly students etc. a bit like it and there is a risk that now that Canada's frozen its migrant intake and it's you know been it's clamped down on the student colleges and
30:30 - 31:00 all the other stuff over there that they'll come here instead because we're the path of least resistance. Yeah. So there's one risk there. The other risk though, the other positive risk is that Trump did speak about saying basically selling uh green cards to to to students. That's right. He did too. Yeah, I forgot about that. So that's that's your um Yeah, that's your your positive side is that you know you you lose a lot out of Australia because they all start going to the US instead. Yeah, I forgot about that. Yeah. So, so Damian, basically Donald Trump said before the election that anyone who has
31:00 - 31:30 a who studies over in the US will automatically get a green card, which is bonkers. But anyway, that's but good good for us. Yeah. Yeah. It's a, as we said, we relied on Joe Joe Biden to to give us some industrial policy that actually government get manufacturing and stuff going in Australia and now we're relying on Donald Trump to to to do the worst, you know, to to to to um get rid of the excesses that we we've got in terms of our own education policy. Um, right. Uh, what else?
31:30 - 32:00 Immigration. Uh, health. So, health. The only one I want to say on that one is is more that um uh it's a it's it's more of a motherhood statement I think is that uh that the libs would probably have more private and and labor's probably looking at you know while it's not concrete is is covering more in terms of Medicare and and things like that. And so what that means for me as as a big picture is um
32:00 - 32:30 uh from a stock perspective is at the margin it's it's worse for health insurers because the better the public option um you know the less likely people are to take up health insurance. Uh it's a little bit worse for the um private health uh hospitals so Ramsey and primary and and things like that. Uh and but but for bigger stocks like your um uh Sonic, your CSL, Cockia, they're international stocks, you know, it's yeah, Australia makes a little bit of a difference, but just not not nothing nothing meaningful in terms of that. So,
32:30 - 33:00 it's actually more about like the whole healthcare sector because those those big stocks are so big, that's what's going to move the market, not but not the um not Australian policy, but you know, at the margin within those you probably might see a bit. And it's probably just worth highlighting as well. This is a comment that um actually I haven't really spoken to you about this one, but I think a um someone was making the comment to me that when you look at the Australian health care system, we actually rank really really well in terms of how we um uh how we've
33:00 - 33:30 managed the public versus private part of like you know you you you the public needs to be a serious negotiator of bringing down prices and all that type of stuff like that. um and was public, but we've completely stuffed up the NDIS in the same way. Like it's just like we we we have this model that like this is a health system that that manages public versus private, whereas um NDIS has basically just gone, yeah, let's let's just let the private run run a muck and charge whatever whatever they want and without any, you know, group buyers or
33:30 - 34:00 anything like that to drive that down. And so I guess that's one area where we've seen stacks of growth in terms of um uh you know, runaway runaway spending in terms of the budget. I don't know whether you you think that there's a they'll make a serious attempt at that in this next um three years or whether it's more just going to be sort of bit of lip service and you know string a few people up who are doing making the worst offenders but but sort of letting largely the system keep on going. Well, I I I think they'll they'll
34:00 - 34:30 to a degree they'll be forced into it because the spending on the NDIS is approaching 50 billion and the parliamentary budget office predicted it to double to about 100 billion in a dec decade. So obviously that's not in real terms it's not double but to to to keep growing at a you know extraordinary rates and the parliamentary budget office tip that by uh in in a decade's time it's going to be bigger than the age pension and all these other programs have got. M so it's, you know, we're talking a ginormous amount of money
34:30 - 35:00 here. So I think they're going to have to they're going to be forced into doing some sorts of actions. Um what that is, I don't know, but but to your point, you're 100% right in the way this thing's been set up. It's been set up very poorly. It kind of kind of reminds me of uh about a decade ago, we had that um vocational education or training uh privatization bit. remember that when when anyone could sign up to a to a dodgy ghost college and you know the the ghost college would get a bag full of
35:00 - 35:30 money and they didn't even end up doing the course. It was all done on faith and all this sort of stuff. And so the ghost colleges then would hand out free iPads if you sign up to this course because they pay 300 bucks for an iPad but then get paid a $5,000 kickback and blah and just a lot of rotting. It's kind of it does remind me of that sort of scheme. Yes. Yes. But no. Yeah. Regardless of who wins, I haven't seen any sort of major um uh sort of imminent types of things on that. Um made in Australia, which is a a
35:30 - 36:00 this feels a lot like picking winners. And so, you know, from an investment perspective, yeah, you know, if you happen to luck into somebody who's good mates with um somebody on the the labor side and and manages to get a fistful of money, that's great, but it doesn't seem to be sort of well thought out and terrible. Um, yeah. So, I'll tell you why it's terrible because it doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is the underlying problem is that we can't have a manufacturing sector that's competitive with expensive energy and labor has no policy to bring down power
36:00 - 36:30 prices, especially with the gas issue. There's other stuff I could go on about which we won't even get into. But the um you know the fact of the matter is if energy prices keep going up, which they will under current policy, we aren't going to have we're not going to have the only manufacturers are going to be left are going to be ones that cannot do stuff overseas, you know, whether it's like, you know, some sort of fresh food thing where but or or alternatively um the the only sort of proper manufacturer we'll have left is going to be stuff that's that's subsidized,
36:30 - 37:00 right? So, it's going to be government subsidized manufacturing when really what we should be doing is not subsidizing manufacturing and fixing the root cause, which is expensive energy prices, giving ourselves cheap energy. There's no reason why Australia shouldn't have some of the cheapest energy in the world. We're a wash with everything. Um, but we've decided not to. And that that is my issue with it. And this whole notion that Australia should be building bloody solar panels and all this other stuff that we're never going to be competitive in is just is nuts. And I could go into a whole bunch of stuff, mate. The amount of billions of dollars spent on
37:00 - 37:30 green hydrogen and all these other boondoggles which has never been proven anywhere to actually be economic is just throwing throwing money down the drain. Yeah. Well, I think uh for me for me the uh the hydrogen one as well is um it would seem to me and I won't name any names but there's some companies out there with some high-profile leaders. I know who you're talking about. I know I'm not going to mention and but their goal isn't to produce green hydrogen. The goal is to produce
37:30 - 38:00 the machines that you can sell to people who want to produce green hydrogen. And they're asking for effectively they're effectively saying, "Hey, there's a gold rush going on. There's gold rush. Hey, Leaf, let me sell you a pick and shovel." Oh, actually, can I get a government subsidy so I can make some picks and shovels and sell them to Leaf? And it's like, just a minute. Why are we subsidizing the pick and shovel makers? It's not even their technology. It's not even I've bought the picks and shovels from a techn from a pick and shovel maker in China. So, yes. Uh, anyway, we won't go. We'll stay away from it. Yeah, but but I guess yeah, the made in the
38:00 - 38:30 made in Australia. Yeah, I guess the the net effect on that is um great if you happen to be the the mate who or you know somebody and you've paid your paid your your uh liberal donations, sorry, labor donations to to to get that. But um yeah, unlikely to be that good. Uh unrealized gains is another big one out there. Now that was notionally slowed slaughtered for this time but just disappeared into um into I guess they had lots of plans to do very little and and that that included anything that might upset
38:30 - 39:00 anyone. So um yeah your thoughts around the uh so so just to just to get this right this is basically that uh on superanuation balances over 3 million um there would be a uh you would start to get um taxed on that uh some capital gains tax on that and sorry unrealized capital gains taxes on that. I'm not a fan I'm not a fan on the principle of taxing unrealized gains. Uh it's a slippery slope as well. From from the
39:00 - 39:30 policy, from the way I understand it, it's not going to be indexed as well. So $3 million sounds like a lot. In 10 years, it's going to be less. 20 years it's going to be less again. Um obviously we'll go through multiple election cycles, so that policy can change, etc. But I don't like the whole thing of, oh, you know, the market went up this much, you get taxed. Well, what happens when it goes back down? Do you get a rebate? um you know uh I if you know if if you're one of these people with $3.5 million or so or something you know good luck to you if you are um and
39:30 - 40:00 we have a GFC style event and stock market crashes well then you get you get a check from the government after you if you've paid tax earlier like how does it work I just make it much simpler we've already got this taxation system where if you earn 20 grand you don't get taxed if you earn 50 grand you get taxed a little bit if you earn 500,000 you get taxed He's just saying, "Well, why don't we just put a sliding scale on super?" Like, it's not it's not a major it's not it's not a big step. And there's also um the part about saying, "Well, you know,
40:00 - 40:30 once you get over a certain amount, you know, maybe 3 million is the right number. Once you get over 3 million, then you're, you know, any you got to take all the money back into your own name and get taxed at whatever's in your own name or I don't know, whatever it is." So like there's there's plenty of other ways you could say to people like because there is a genuine there's a genuine concern that um and if you're thinking about you know your own tax situation and and particularly people within who have super is basically you you want to try and pour as much money into super as you can um to get that if
40:30 - 41:00 if you're making a decent amount of money. If you're making sort of you know 100,000 plus you want to pour as much money as you can into super and get that lower tax rate. And then you want to have as much money in super as you can um when you're retired because you're at zero. You get taxed at zero. So if I've got um a million bucks sitting in super um in my own a million bucks in sitting in super or at getting taxed at zero on whatever I earn on it or a million dollars in my own name and I'm getting taxed at at my marginal tax rate for whatever I earn in that. So once you're
41:00 - 41:30 in retirement. So yeah. So you want to try and pour as much into super as you can. And there's lots of different strategies. We can help people with those if you've got them. But um you know the I there's there's one thing about us saying to people you know you want to do this because so so Le comes to me and says you know he wants he doesn't want to pay more tax than he has to and it's like saying great I'll give you a strategy to do it and there's plenty of them out there that that get that money in there but then to say well is that a fair outcome that we have you know 70 year olds with you know millions of
41:30 - 42:00 dollars worth of housing uh and you know 2 million bucks in super all earning money at taxfree and and meanwhile um you know everyone else is paying high higher rates of tax. That doesn't sound right to me. So I do think there's a you should there's a step you can take in that direction but but there's so many other things you can do before you start taking taxing unrealized gains. Um having said that you know do I think that's going to cause the death of the super industry or anything like that? No. No, there's not. It's still incredibly um uh incred incredibly
42:00 - 42:30 beneficial to um to use that money through through super. Actually, that does don't remind me. You know, I probably let me just uh probably should go with a quick sales message. We'll be back with the investment insights very shortly. Nuclearus Wealth is an active and passive investment manager. If you like what you're hearing and want some help with your investing, we can do it for you via our active portfolios. Our tactical and core portfolios use the insights shared in this podcast to construct and manage
42:30 - 43:00 your investment. We blend tactical portfolios to offer our combinations of international shares, Australian shares, government bonds, and cash. We vary the asset allocation with the goal of protecting your capital in times of market uncertainty. We also have active international and Australian share portfolios. These are chosen using our quality and value investment philosophy. You can find out more at nuculuswealth.com. Now, back to the show. So, um, before we get on to the next
43:00 - 43:30 couple of things to wrap it up, I just want we should actually touch on some of the questions we've had. Um, one of them is, uh, I'm going to extend this question is from Ethan Parker. Which scenario is the best for housing prices? Um, so I guess I'd probably well let's I probably might extend this to go I can think of a couple of pretty good ones for it, but you know what are the the three or four things that would uh that could sort of come together all at the same time to give us uh you know the best outcome for houses and then what are the three or four things that could come together to give us um uh uh a poor
43:30 - 44:00 outcome for for housing prices. up. So, um you know, poor outcome for housing prices would be the stuff we just mentioned. Uh so, so I'm assuming poor means prices going up and Oh, sorry. Sorry. Actually, yeah, let's talk sorry. Let's let's talk about it. Think about it as as a housing in if you if you own a house or you're thinking about investing in housing. What's what's you know house prices going down and then watch house prices going up? we won't use poor and everything because I guess
44:00 - 44:30 yeah obviously if you own something it's good if it goes up but uh it's it's a bad thing for society in Australia's productivity as we said okay so so if you so so you own invest in property now now I think you be feeling pretty good about yourself because um obviously well most economist markets etc expect the the Reserve Bank of Australia to cut interest rates I think the financial markets are you know four to five cuts this year which I think's I don't necessarily agree with you know, we're going to get some decent interest rate cuts if you believe those
44:30 - 45:00 forecasts. And then you obviously you've got, assuming Labour wins, we got Labour's policy coming in January 1 next year, which is going to put a rocket well should put a rocket under prices to 5% deposits and etc. Uh so I think you know that that could usher in a decent house price boom. Well, and and I'll add into that immigration. So if immigration stays high, how you get a rush suddenly for these new houses? um we haven't got much building going on because um they don't do anything on energy prices and
45:00 - 45:30 so uh all the costs are costs stay high and and and the thing about that is like so so we had a 40% increase in costs since the pandemic roughly and generally when you get a rise in cost they don't come back down so even if we had zero inflation for in building costs for five years they're still going to be structurally higher than they were before the pandemic which just makes it harder to build stuff and a lot of that's energy like is energy intensive you know cement and bricks and all that type of stuff is energy intensive. A lot of that sort of within that. Uh and then I guess what we're talking globally is
45:30 - 46:00 you're getting a a a bit of an accident happening in China and RBA doing some some uh preemptive cuts, but Australian economy not sort of falling into any sort of deep recession. The RBA is getting in front of it. I guess it's the RBA is in front of it. So, we're not really seeing the the um uh not really seeing as much as in terms of economic downside, but yeah. So, so that that that's sort of like what happened during COVID when they had the emergency cash rate of 0.1%, you know, expecting the worst case scenario and then ended up
46:00 - 46:30 just hushing in a massive price boom. So, yeah. And negative and effectively negative interest rates for banks. Yeah. Yeah. And you know, that that that's that's entirely possible something like that could happen again. Don't not saying it's pro probably an outside chance, but it could. Yeah. So, that's your perfect scenario. And yeah, you can slice those up and then your negative your house price falling scenario is is almost the same. So, say the RBA was was was, you know, slack at reacting and then you did get a China shock, whatever. We had a, you
46:30 - 47:00 know, massive terms of trade crash. Um, we suddenly, you know, people losing their jobs. Yeah. That's it. That's it. So, so, so suddenly it ends up uh we get a spike in unemployment for whatever reason. Yeah. A and inflation stays high. So, the RBA's sort of kept Yeah. So, sort of like a stagflation. Stagflation, low growth, high unemployment. Um, and they happened to decide to get rid of immigration at the time. So yeah, that's you add in all those and you end up with a really negative outcome. You you flip them all around, you get a really positive and
47:00 - 47:30 and who knows which ones are on and which ones aren't. Yeah, I I I I tend to generally back the bullish side just because that's the way our political systems geared. Um so I I'd probably be more uh more against a crash. Um I mean it's always possible but just because we know the way Australia works they'll um you know we've seen enough times the policy will come in the RBA will will react etc to try and just damn damn it.
47:30 - 48:00 Yeah. And as we said like the immigration stuff they're not talking about doing that in any major sense. And yeah and and same with the energy like we're not yeah we're not going to have fall big fall in energy prices because they're putting on reservation and so yes sorry can I just say D that being said um you know New Zealand has just had a massive like a pretty big house price crash at least you know nominal terms it's come off a lot and in and in real terms it's come off heaps so so so numbers around that just uh so so basically New Zealand had the biggest
48:00 - 48:30 boom after the pandemic bigger than us and their house prices have retraced back to their pre-cov level uh in real terms. I think in nominal they probably went down 15 or maybe 15 or so uh percent but in real terms down about a quarter and so so you know that um pretty similar economy same banking system etc but their government has let uh seems to have just let the p let let the the housing you know bubble if you want to call it that just deflate on its own. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it helps that all
48:30 - 49:00 the banks over there are Aussie banks anyway. So, big saying, well, if anything goes wrong, it's not like we need to worry about bailing out our banking sector because we've all got profits from Australia to keep them alive. So, yes. Yes. Excellent. You got one more message. Um, we'll be back again shortly. If you like what you're hearing, but want a lowcost passive option, UCLA Wealth is the first to offer passive direct indexing in Australia. The first generation of passive investing was index funds. The next gen was ETFs. Now
49:00 - 49:30 direct indexing is here with significantly more customization and control. The benefit of direct indexing is you can add or subtract investment themes and we have almost 100 different options to choose from. For example, you could buy an international share direct index portfolio that excludes fossil fuels and arms manufacturers and has a tilt towards cyber security and cloud computing. Alternatively, you could buy a portfolio with no screens and an extra
49:30 - 50:00 exposure to nuclear power and defense contractors. You can find out more at nuclearwealth.com. Now, back to the show. Right. So I guess from an investment perspective I guess summing up what I'm hearing is um probably going to be good for housing market. Um if you own a house probably going to good for the house. House is probably if you if you're worried about Australia's productivity it's probably a bad thing with exactly that. That's the other side of that same coin. Um uh doesn't seem a
50:00 - 50:30 lot difference between the two. Maybe there's an argument around um uh health. you could sort of argue on those. Uh I think around some of the gas suppliers, you can have a bit of an argument around whether that's positive or negative for it, but you know, ex that not a lot of um that investors really need to think about. Uh le any any last words or any last thoughts from you on on that? Uh no, just just that I'll be happy when the election's over. It's been pretty tedious watching this one. Uh and and and I've almost become a
50:30 - 51:00 advocate for four year terms because uh just so we have less less election cycles, you know, less election campaigns where we can get stupid policy. Yeah. But much more exciting in the US, isn't it? Much which is why we want uh Yeah. Sometimes you don't want the excitement though. Yes. That's um we we would just like some better policies I think is uh is probably the uh the guts of it. Anyway, thanks everyone for listening in. Uh just a reminder, you can get us uh every Thursday 12:30. Uh
51:00 - 51:30 if you thanks everyone for asking. I think we we seem to have a lot of uh comments in the in in the chat as opposed to questions. So if I did miss any though, feel free to send them in. Uh if there's anything you want wanted us in particular to have a chat about um and I will actually highlight as well I I did mean to talk at that the start. you know that first home we we spoke about the coalition um policy that that helps in terms of the um uh that will help first home buyers in terms of rating your super. But regardless of
51:30 - 52:00 which part is in, you still have this first home buyer super scheme. And so that's effectively using your tax rate from your super. So it's not using your super, it's using your advantage tax rate. And so, uh, yeah, I'd encourage people if you haven't looked at that, um, certainly drop us a line, book it for a meeting, and we, uh, we can talk you through how we can, um, you know, how you can use super to get there effectively save 20% faster through your super if you're not already. Thanks everyone, and we'll see everyone next week. Thanks, Lee. No worries, mate.