She's On The Money - BONUS: The 2026 Federal Budget Explained Without The Boring Bits

Episode Date: May 12, 2026

The federal budget officially dropped at 7:30pm tonight, but we recorded this episode from inside Budget Lock-Up BEFORE the rest of the country got their hands on it. At 6pm, while the internet was still speculating and journalists were speed-reading hundreds of pages of announcements and fine print, we sat down inside Parliament House to unpack the headlines we think actually matter to our community. Victoria is joined by Glen James from Money Money Money and Vince Scully from Retire Right, who also happens to own our financial services licence, which you’d think would mean we’d be on our best behaviour… but unfortunately that’s not what happened. Together, we break down:• the negative gearing and CGT changes everyone’s about to argue about• what the tax cuts actually mean for your wallet• housing affordability and first home buyers• women’s health funding• cost-of-living relief• and why the global oil crisis is suddenly impacting Australian households Plus, we had a cameo appearance from Katy Gallagher, Minister for Finance herself. This episode is landing slightly later than we planned because the audio quality wasn’t where we wanted it to be and after surviving Budget Lock-Up, the least we could do was make sure it didn’t sound like we recorded it through a microwave. CHECK OUT THE SOTM INVESTING HUB: Full of our best investing freebies, resources, courses and podcast episodes here. INVESTING FOR BEGINNERS: All our best beginner's investing podcast episodes in one place here. Join our Facebook Group AKA the ultimate support network for money advice and inspiration. Ask questions, share tips, and celebrate your wins with a like-minded crew of 300,000+.And follow us on Instagram for Q&As, bite-sized tips, daily money inspo... and relatable money memes that just get you.Acknowledgement of Country By Nartarsha Bamblett aka Queen Acknowledgements. The advice shared on She's On The Money is general in nature and does not consider your individual circumstances. She's On The Money exists purely for educational purposes and should not be relied upon to make an investment or financial decision. If you do choose to buy a financial product, read the PDS, TMD and obtain appropriate financial advice tailored towards your needs. Victoria Devine and She's On The Money are authorised representatives of Money Sherpa PTY LTD ABN - 321649 27708, AFSL - 451289.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hello my friends and welcome to She's On The Money. I am Victoria Devine and around here we are all about making money a little less overwhelming. We have a community of more than 300,000 people, we have podcasts and blogs, we also have freebies like budgeting tools and investing cheat sheets to help you feel more in control of your financial future. She's on the money. She's on the money. My name is Natasha Bamblett. I'm a proud First Nations woman and I'm here to acknowledge country. Hello, beautiful friends. We gather on the lands of the Aboriginal people. We thank,

acknowledge and respect the Aboriginal people's land that we're gathering on today. Take pleasure in all the land and respect all that you see. She's On The Money podcast acknowledges culture, country, community and connections, bringing you the tools, knowledge and resources for you to thrive. Hello and welcome to a very special bonus episode of She's On The Money, where today our good friend Glenn James from Money Money Money and Vince from Retire Right. And I got the privilege to dive headfirst into the federal budget ahead of the masses so that you absolutely do not have to read 400 pages of economic jargon and tiny little footnotes pretending to be as excited as we are. We are currently recording this from inside the budget lockup because the budget

hasn't been released to the public yet, which honestly feels like being maybe trapped in a very intense group assignment with Australia's political journalists, economists and people who say the word productivity recreationally. Now, if you've ever watched the budget coverage before and thought, beautiful, what does this actually mean for me? My friends, this is the episode for you. Because today we are just talking about what has been announced. We're going to break down everything in plain English. We're going to talk about who benefits, who doesn't and what maybe feels like has been forgotten. We're also going to talk about whether any of this is genuinely going to make life feel a little bit more affordable for Australians. So this evening

let's unpack what matters, what's political theatre, what's genuinely interesting and what our community actually needs to know. Let's keep this in mind as well Glenny James, we've only had an hour to unpack this before we jumped into a press conference, had a chat with the Treasurer and Katie Gallagher. So these are just our initial reactions and commentary. Rightio. So I don't know how we're going to do this VD, but we probably should say hi to Vince Scully from Retire Right. Yes, that's me, Vince Scully from Retire Right podcast. And this is an exciting day. Yeah. We are all really excited. We were saying, and I keep saying that, but genuinely,

this is kind of like our Superbowl. It is exciting because it's all the stuff that we talk about all the time. It is cost of living, it's childcare, it's women's financial security. And for me, all of this is just what's going to move the dial, hopefully in the right way for the next 12 months. And I think there's a lot weighing on it this year. Yeah. I mean, gosh. And I think VD, we've done a lot of joint episodes together. Vince Scully actually licenses us. So if we say anything wrong, you're going to the big house. I'm going to jail. But with calling Vince our real-time historian and fact-checker

and potentially having a look at what could matter to people who are a bit more senior. Mature, I think, is the term. B-Y-O-B, as we were saying earlier. B-Y-O-B. What's that mean, Glenn? I'm not going to say it. I'm used to being the token boomer.

Yeah. I think it's helpful. What's everyone's – honestly, guys, I don't know how we're going to do this chat. We know that Katie's going to be in here soon. we'll have a chat with her. So that's the Assistant Treasurer, Katie Galloway, who's joined us. No, she's the Minister of Finance, Minister of Women and Economic Security. Melina is the Assistant Treasurer. I don't know, I'll throw to VD. What are your takes,

high-level comments on the budget? So let's be honest, straight out the gates, I'm really disappointed. I think that we expected a lot when it came to first home buyer support. we expected a lot more when it came to CGT. And for me, I was hoping that there would be a bit more for the NDIS and I understand how the budget works, but I just expected there to be a bit more. I was also a bit disappointed that when we got given the budget. So for those of you who maybe aren't as excited about this, the budget is a physical document for us, but they also this year handed around a USB and we all uploaded it to our computers. And I did a little bit of a control F. to see if single households had been taken into consideration

and there's not one mention in the budget of single women, single people and how they're going to be supported. A lot, I suppose, around single parents and Centrelink and what is it? That's the word I'm looking for. Child support. Child support. Child support and making sure that that gets paid,

which is fantastic. But I think, you know, coming into a world where there are lots of single income households and there are lots of people in my community specifically who are actively choosing to remain single, how are we going to do it? I feel like there's not a lot in there. Yeah. My initial take coming in and what I do, I walk in, first thing I do, open up the speech, have a skim through just to see what they kind of wanting to sell. but probably more so was what we just experienced in Jim's press conference where he's like, this budget is about first home buyers. And one thing I noticed that we talked about in his speech

was talking about the 5% deposit scheme. That we already knew about. So I think there's a bit of politics and we won't say who it was but I was sitting next to a journo and introduced myself as one of those pesky influencers that he may have had a run at. And we had a good chat and he was actually saying to me, because this is a big deal budget, right? It is massive.

Literally broken promises, like 100%. We're not going to touch negative gearing or CGT. That's not saying whether we should or not. That's just saying in 12 months' time, we've got no real reason to touch this. It's what you call a courageous decision, Minister. Yes, but what the journo was saying, he goes, this is a very interesting press conference. They were 10 minutes late. They talked for over 25 minutes.

They did. Which just shared everything that we'd previously just read and only took five or six questions from journos. Yeah, they took six questions from journos and they didn't let them expand on it and then they marched straight out of there. And I leant over and I said to him, I'm like, is this like actually political calculated? Oh, speaking of, oh, Katie is in the house. And we'll get Vince's take after Katie. So do you want to jump up, Vince? Come in.

Hello. Hello. Oh, I'm so sorry, but I felt like that might be a little bit too much. Oh, okay. Yeah. So how... I don't even have my phone to show you a photo. I'm so sorry.

How long are you with us? 15 minutes? Yeah, about this thin, I think. Yeah, cool. We are rolling, by the way. Will you tell us when you – Okay, this has got to start a whirl with me going, oh, God. No, that's okay.

That's okay. We're just stoked that we've managed to – To grab you. To grab you, pull you into a studio on a day where you are arguably one of the most popular women in the building. I'll take that. I'm not sure it's true, but I'll take it. Oh, I know it's true.

We were just talking, Minister. Yes. I was sitting next to a stalwart journalist in the gallery or wherever the presser was. He's like, oh, they're 10 minutes late, talking for 25 minutes, no time for questions. Was that strategic because it was such a big, hard budget to sell this year?

I think it's very similar to what we did last year. We were a bit late, but we do a walkthrough up here. Maybe he was just grumpy. Can't comment. No comment on that. But we did a walk-up through the press gallery that took over an hour, maybe an hour and a half. Okay.

We headed up here at about 2.30, and so we were running a bit late for the presser. Well, there's always more to the story. And I think the other thing, it is changing a little. I think people like to keep their questions for their individual interviews. Sure. Because they don't want to sit it all off. Yeah.

All right. We'll call up the dogs then. Yeah, thanks. We'll try. We'll try. I'm going to dive straight in because I'm all about women's economic empowerment and so are you. And I just, I think that this is such a juicy budget and something that we disclaimed before was Glenn and I have had, what, an hour to pour over this and like pull everything out before we were like, no, we really want to go to this. They don't give us the full lock up.

Oh, no, no, we didn't get enough time, which is so fine. So fine. but what do you think outside of the budget while we've got you is the single greatest economic issue that is currently facing women today uh probably violence against women and children because we know that impacts on everything every aspect of their life their earnings their health um you know their housing everything um if we could solve that in you know like everyone would love to I think that would dramatically improve not only gender equality but economic empowerment of women and that's why we're trying to come at it you know we're trying to deal with

that obviously lots of funding going into women's safety but also come at it from the other way which is to make sure women are getting paid properly to look at how we're providing housing to the women's health initiatives that are rolling through we are really trying to come at driving economic independence through every lever available to us whether it's investments in early child care women's wages really important like in the women's budget statement it shows that we have invested about 21 billion dollars into aged care and early education care workers predominantly women workforce overwhelmingly that's making a huge difference and how do you think the budget is nailing that this year? So I guess partly you have to see the budget in a

series of investments. So some of the things that we did in women's health, for example, they've only been there short term. They will continue to build over the forward estimates. So it's incremental and it's staged. So the benefits continue to grow. And we know already how successful the menopause and contraceptive listing on the PBS has been. We know hundreds of thousands of women are using those, now the benefit of that. So I would say there's a bit of that in that we've made these investments in previous years, they continue to flow through. The big focus we've got in this budget, not only tax, I mean women will be the beneficiary of some of those changes we've made whether it be about in the low income super tax offset the medicare tax offset all of those

because women tend to be earning you know lower amounts and so they become the majority beneficiary there but that also the weighto and those will help um and then we've got our big focus on how we stop designing systems in government that hurt women um like there's quite a big investment in try to make the child support system work better. And there's about almost 500,000 women and over a million children who rely on that system and we need to make that better for them. Any other – and the reason I'll ask VD if there's any other questions of a similar nature.

It's because VD writes six million notes and Glenn goes broke. 70% of my audience are women. Yeah. So this is really important that, you know, Yeah, financial literacy and stuff is such a big thing. Yeah, it's just amazing. And I don't know what it is, whether guys are just like, tell me the next stock tip so I can just go and buy stocks, bro,

or are women more open to like, I don't know, just explain how it works and I'll make my own decision. Like, I don't know. It's so good. It's so good. I listen to both of you. That's so good. Yeah.

You know, it's just a great way to get information while you're walking, driving, doing your jobs. Filtrate people's lives with financial literacy. Yeah. And these sort of interviews, like, I really, I'm out of my depth. Like, I've got, because I'm thinking everyone, and we will go back to VD, but everyone I'm thinking that interviews you and Jim, right, it's almost like they're the expert and they're trying to got you

and all that. Yeah, there's a lot of that. I'm a guy who has a podcast in a shed in Newcastle, like, so all I can do is say, know my audience and know what, they want to know what my opinion is on stuff. So I think just for the PSA for my audience is just have grace. If you want a full analysis, go to ABC, The Guardian, the AFR, where this is broadly, when I ask questions, mainly an opinion piece of Glenn James, because our audience values our opinion, right? Yeah, and I guess slightly different to that.

Like I didn't come in here today to be like my audience values my opinion. I feel like I've got the privilege of being the voice of my audience and the privilege of sitting down with the Minister of Finance. But you're a trusted voice. Yeah, absolutely. And maybe I need to get out of my head a little bit. Maybe we need to be better journalists and get the training so we can do the gotchas.

It's a different kind of role you play though, as you say, your audience loyal trust and they're wanting what you think of things. so it's part information what you think and you know some of the older media have a different it's a different because I'm like infotainment mainly on the attainment like I'm like I'm on the info and finance but let's get back into it because I am conscious of time a few topics I've got one spicy question for you which I don't think is that spicy but another just on having a separate women's budget. When I took it to my community and I said, I'm going to get the opportunity to sit down with Katie, what would you ask? One of the questions that I got was,

we understand the logic of having a separate women's budget. We really do. But doesn't othering women from the general budget by not having, I guess, a men's budget risk us continuously being seen as, you know, just having issues that are women's business and making us look like still a segregated group that don't need to be considered in the wider budget when I think you and I can actually agree that's not the case. Well, I would love to not have a women's budget statement. I think part of the reason, the origins of it is that, you know, if you look across housing, healthcare, the care economy more broadly, leadership, representation, decision making violence against women and children there isn't equality in this country yet and so trying

to part of the focus of the women's budget statement is to highlight that and be mindful of government you know and government being accountable for the decisions we make to explain that I think you know we've got a special envoy for men's health now I you know playing a similar role because there's areas of men's health in particular and other areas but in this instance what Dan does is in men's health, where, you know, it's not equal for them either. And we're trying to kind of have responses to that. But the women's budget statement is partly because we've been trying to drive equality. It's actually equality across the economy. And at the moment, in those key areas that I outlined, we're not there yet. And if you take your, like, if you

take your foot off the accelerator, you know, if you're not dealing with some of these big structural barriers that prevent women from actually being, reaching equality. You know, government decision making isn't informed by that. So it's actually about keeping us accountable more than anything, the women's budget statement, to make, you know, to explain what we're doing and how we're tackling some of these big issues for women. Yeah. Yeah. Not a spicy question, but more a personal view question. Looking at the budget, what is something in there that you're disappointed with? Disappointed. Oh, look, I mean, a budget is thousands of, literally thousands of decisions. And we've had to say no to a lot of things in this budget, partly because of the role,

you know, how seriously we take some of the inflation challenge in the economy, partly because, you know, other things become more of a priority than others. So dealing with fuel, which sort of came out of left field and, you know, when we started the budget wasn't a thing and then has become one of the big things in the budget. So it's rather than something specifically, it's the amount, like as finance minister a lot of my job is saying no, like the budget can't hold it, we can't afford to do that,

not this time, not now, you know, come back and see me in a year, that type of thing. And there's no shortage of meritorious ideas. And as Labor people, we like to, you know, we like to do things. We like to change things. We like to make the life better for people. And so sort of being in a position where you have to, you know, you're limited.

100%. Yeah. And I feel like that was noted in the press conference a fair few times. There was a lot of we inherited a lot of issues and we're trying to fix these issues. Yeah, but every government says that. Of course, of course. But I guess worst case scenario for you guys is that Labor is wiped

out next election if you could only reform one social or economic issue between now and then what would it be? I think if we get housing right it would be pretty good pretty sweet you know and we're trying everything we can on that there's the tax changes obviously the supply dealing with you know particular groups like women and youth and things like that that's a big I mean it's it's a in my time in politics it's become huge in terms of you know how people experience it or particularly, you know, I've got a 28-year-old daughter. Her age group, like if you sit around talking with her friends,

unless they've, you know, been fortunate with their parents and being able to kind of help them, that generation kind of thinks, oh, that's not a thing. To own our home is not a thing for us. I'm kind of counted out. And so if we could get, if we actually deal with that, that will make a huge difference. I saw a theme from my audience asking, and I'm paraphrasing,

it's like the boomers got all this stuff, now they're pulling the ladder up behind them, so now the next generation can't ride that wave of free growth almost. Any response to pulling up the ladder? Well, I could start a thing here about Generation X and how we're like, you know. Yeah, the sandwich. You know, we're the sandwich.

Yeah. Poor Generation X. But something has like – Often not thought about. But, yeah, I mean, my view on that is that, you know, I don't want to see the boomers demonised. But it's not even – and sorry, it's really not the boomers per se. I own a handful of properties.

Must be nice. Yeah. Like I'm going to be affected by this, which I'll be fine. So it probably isn't just the boomers, it's everyone from now. Yeah, so you're talking about aspiration. Yes. So the first point I make is, and you're not making this point, but I think it's important to be made,

is that this is not generation versus generation. This is a government sitting down with all the information available to us right now saying what are the right decisions to take for right now to enable as many people, young people as we can, into housing, along with everything else we're doing on supply. The issue of aspiration though is important too, because you're right. I mean, people want to work hard. They want to purchase investments if they're able to do so. They want to provide for their children if they have them, all of that. And that's important. What we're doing in this budget is saying that's fine,

but you do that on new homes. We've got to decouple what's happening in the kind of established housing. But the other thing, just quickly, the other thing this budget does, and Jim touched on it before, is we're trying to rebalance, in a sense, the way we tax income with the way we tax assets to make it a little bit more equal. It's still advantageous in terms of taxing assets and investments, but we need to make sure that we're not disincentivising or, you know, having unfair arrangements in relation to income. On maybe the politics side of it, the Henry Review,

Allegra's recent paper, talking about, well, and I've done some analysis with my audience that maybe a discount of 30% or 35% probably would fix a lot of the problems for like the CGT. So the question is, why didn't you go, well, let's just do 30% or 35% because surely that would have been easier to sell to say, we're not removing the discount, guys. We're just – or every report for the last 20 years has said it needs to be reduced.

And basically now going back to the indexation method, which is a better method to actually cut the indexation. But why did we not? We looked at all of that. Yeah. And why did we land at such a hard line? Well, we looked at all of that. And part of our thinking too is what the changes did with the 50%

is when they were brought in in 1999. And Jim touched on this. It sort of decoupled housing from income for a start. and so we've seen very significant house particularly detached housing growth over that time and that's been beneficial for those under the CGT arrangements it hasn't been for other types of investments so units and shares have been under essentially and you know they underachieved and single dwellings have been the opposite so again trying to rebalance and put in place like a, you know, essentially this removes inflation and taxes real gains. In negative

gearing, if you're going to buy a new home, you'll have the choice of which way you go. Yeah, I did know. And that was probably the only thing that wasn't leaked. Yeah. Don't start on that. Yeah, that's right. And like reading this, like Bill Shorten is looking down from wherever he's at the moment going, I'm so proud that you guys got some of this across the line. Well, yeah, like we have in this, we've announced in this budget we've got to get the ledge through the parliament.

That's right. So that's going to be a potential challenge, not sure. Why not do the Holy Trinity and go franking credits and see what we can, if we were going to do the Holy Trinity. Well, this is still pretty substantial. Well, that's what I mean. Yeah, like it's a big, you know, I can't think, well, Jim thinks it's, you know, around the time of the GST being introduced in 2000.

This is a big, you know, reform that we are undertaking and, you know, in a sense it's informed by our decisions around housing, you know, and you have to see it in that light. It's an element of what we're trying to do around making sure young people can actually get in and they're not locked out of the housing market. So the CGT review in March when it was published, We've got one minute. I'll quick question and VD can finish.

It was in March, the CGT review, where broadly the review said it ain't working. Did we – when the war broke out and all this turmoil, it's like this is a good chance. It's going to be a tough budget anyway. Let's just get this done and just deal with this whole thing. Did the war change? Oh, the war's changed a lot in this budget. But did it change maybe bringing this scrapping the CGD discount and negative gearing into this budget?

Like did it accelerate that? Or just more as like this is crazy time, let's just get rid of all the bad stuff that we have. No, no, no, no. No? No, it wasn't. That's not how it happened. Brung it out with the trash.

In fact, Jim kind of touched on this in the press conference where he said, you know, really the turbulence and the volatility and the uncertainty, you know, could present the other side, which is don't do this. And we're making these decisions based on the circumstance we face right now and what we think is the right thing to do right now in terms of supporting our housing agenda. And that's where it began and that's where it ended. I asked my Facebook group, if you voted for Labor, based on the tax changes, what's your vibe? Basically rough numbers, who the people that completed it, about 45% said,

I'm so pissed off, they lied and all. This is Labor voters. The other 45%, and then the rest was like other, were like, no, no, voted Labor, trust their judgment, it's all good, baby. And I just thought that was interesting. Because I guess if you rusted on Labor, you're not upset with this going through, right? I've got a lot more reflection time on the budget that I want to be doing,

but I really do feel like there's a lot of jumping up and down right now about they lied, they lied, they lied. But the world was a very different place when these things were being said and decisions were being made. And like, now we're in the middle of a war. Now there are oil issues. There are so many different things. I think it, do you think that these conversations are being addressed in the right way? Like, I feel like the media is jumping up and down and going, they've lied to us, but the world's a different place. Am I coming from a relatively normal, I guess, trying to be balanced and see where the sun is coming from way? Yeah, look, I mean, the way I think about it is, you know, the politics will be there.

I think if you engage on the substance of the policy issue, you will see that these decisions are being made for the right reason. If you engage on the policy issue, the politics will be there. There's no doubt. My view is if governments change their mind, we're elected to govern. You know, you're not elected to, you know, sit in a seat and not take hard decisions. You know, day to day, that would make my life a bit easier,

to be honest, if we took that approach. So we're elected to govern. We have to make thousands of decisions, many of which aren't election commitments or whatever. You're just dealing with what you're dealing with. And if your view changes, if information to you has come through the budget process that changes your mind for whatever reason, the job then is to front up and explain it. People will make their own view. The politics will happen alongside of it.

But our responsibility is to say, yep, our position has changed. This is why it's changed. This is why we're doing it. And, you know, we'll see where it lands. I mean, there'll be plenty of polls. Yeah, it was just fascinating. It was like half of the people who voted Labor were like, yeah, go for it, baby.

And I feel like that's what's so interesting about politics because opinions of people who are incredibly educated and then people, you know, just on the street are being asked the same questions and we just don't know what weight to put on which opinion when they're all flying around the internet, right? And I think that that makes it really challenging. Anyway, we need to let Katie go now.

We do have to let Katie go. Thanks so much. I can't miss the speech. No. No, it's lovely to see you both. Thank you so much for being a fan. It's nice for me. All right, Vince, welcome back in.

We kicked you out of the hot seat so Katie Gallagher could come on in and that was. Yeah, I'm more, for me, I'm more fascinated with the politics of it. I mean, there's quite a lot of theatre, isn't it? But it's more like if, because one of my questions that I was going to ask someone was like, what has changed between last election and right now to ram this CGT removal, the discount, and the negative gearing? Now, it's very clear that the stripes on the Labor leopard, they wake up. Do leopards have stripes? Do they ever change their stripes?

It's a tiger. Tiger. All right, whatever. Hey, it's been a long life. Back off. So like the policy, and this is not a view whether it's good or bad. It's like they've got, what, an extra 13 seats or whatever in the parliament. They know that let's ram it through now and we've got two years to make it up.

But I think the public has got more concerned about housing than they were two years ago. I know it's not a new issue, but I think it's a much more live issue. I think increasing fuel prices, increasing energy prices, inflation being a bit more stubborn, three rate rises in a row. I think the public is willing to accept something. Sure, it sounds like a broken promise. Something has to change because he's so cooked out there for a lot of people. I agree. And I don't think that the average person was approaching this budget expecting an outcome that was, oh my goodness, I'm so excited I'm going to be able to save. I think it's more we're approaching this budget hoping to just see some more support in areas that are really impactful, like cost of living at the moment. We're not expecting to save heaps or, you know, have our tax or sorry, have our like CGT shine through.

I just think when it came to the headlines, personally, from everything I saw within my community, we're really looking for, you know, how are we going to be a stable economy? How are we going to be able to continue to buy the groceries and pay our electricity bills? Like what's going on there? And I know that there are a few headlines here about taking the pressure off Australians, but I just feel like it wasn't enough. The $250 working Australian. Yeah, I was literally going to say that. The $1,000 write-off for work expenses. I mean, if you're an average wage earner, that $1,000 is worth $320.

It is. And another $250. that's $570 before you get to do with the rest of it. I actually didn't mind the, I mean for some people it might not change the world an extra $250 to deduct

but the fact that it's there if you've got a PAYG income, not just lumping on investment income to your tax return, like that's not too bad. And again like my whole thing is like we haven't actually had the time this is where I think it's our initial

initial response to have a look. Any other initial responses from you, VD? I really honed in on the taking the pressure off the average Australian. I was interested to see the, and this was something that existed before around the fuel excise, the $2.9 billion. That's not new though. That was already been announced. No, but they've really honed in on that in the budget and kind of tried to highlight it. And it's, for me, a little bit frustrating because I'm like, you already did that. Like, most of that has already been spent. But in the speech, in his press conference, on the front page of the key budget initiatives, it's right there.

And I'm like, we're printing things that have already been done. This isn't new. And you're really trying to make yourself look good with this. And they should have done the same thing with the 5% home deposit. Exactly. But that was already there. Yeah, I was sitting next to Kiara going through this and I said to Kiara, if there's anything you don't get, like, come and have a chat with me. And she goes, V, I get this, but I thought we already had this.

And I was like, we do. And that was, I think, in his speech, he's like, this is a bunch of first home buyers. Well. Is it? Because we already had all of these things. Yeah. And I know that there's now $2 billion for local housing infrastructure to support up to 65,000 new homes. how far does that go over a decade you know my thing with this whole new home thing the cost

that has increased to build a brand new home on this island in the south pacific it has gone through the roof so it can like sure if i buy a new home as an investment property sure but it's friggin expensive and i don't and then where we're going to get the labor to build the bastards like this is a real problem it's obviously good to have energy efficient houses but if you put in those laws that make building house go more expensive you're sort of saying to people well you can't have a cheap energy inefficient house you can only have an expensive energy efficient house but even having to consume a choice the oil prices going up like the cost of plastic in plumbing was increased what 30 percent like it was although i paid less than two dollars

a litre coming down here, $1.94 a litre. That's not too bad, but it's still just not going in the right direction more consistently. I thought it was interesting in their estimates. So I like to look at debt to GDP. We know that it's probably around 35% now and in the next few years projected. Everyone's like, oh, the country's got debt. It ain't actually a big deal when you look at other countries. That's right.

It's relatively we don't have debt. And our deficits are low by global standards. Yeah. So, like, we are lucky in that sense. Interestingly, they projected in the budget papers that inflation basically from next financial year, so that's from 1 July, the next financial year, their projection is inflation will drop back down to two and a half. Tell him he's dreaming, son. I thought that was a wild take. That was ambitious, I think.

Courageous. And he did say in his press conference it was an ambitious budget, but I didn't know that by ambitious we meant unrealistic. I don't know if flaky assumptions makes it for an ambitious budget. I mean, so that basically means by December, inflation has got to be back down to just over three. I mean, I would like that. But if the war gets over, if it's over a short time,

you could take 1% out of inflation by the oil price fall, although it's going to be undone when they put the fuel excise back up because presumably when the barrel drops to that. You know, the interesting thing, I don't think we've really felt the impact on the fuel prices yet that has flowed through because there's still a lot of businesses that haven't put levies on and are too scared to, particularly small businesses.

Oh, just on that, on the trust, so at the moment, if you've got a discretionary family trust or it's a trading, if you're using it as a business, trusts generally at the moment do not pay tax. However, if you do not distribute from a trust, you'll pay the highest tax rate. So ordinarily, people would distribute out of trusts and the beneficiaries or the bucket companies would then pay the tax. Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep your cash in a trust. You wouldn't do it. You just wouldn't. It would be silly. So they're now saying discretionary family trusts, 30% tax.

At a minimum. Minimum. Off the top. The question I've got is, as a small business, if you've got an operating trust, there's a burnt-in 30% that you'll now have to pay if it gets put to bed. If it was in a company, you would get 25% because you're lower turnover and you tick that box. So they're also allowing people to move out of discretionary trust into other entities.

For me, and this is, I guess, my opinion piece, that whole taxing the trust thing was potentially more ideological because I haven't actually. Did we think that that's going to operate the same as kind of a franking credit once it is? I didn't dive in. The distinction, though, I know it's getting a bit arcane, but the distinction is that it's not refundable. So if you franking credit for your tax rates less than 30%, like retirees or self-paying super funds, or super funds generally, you'd get it back in cash, whereas these ones are not refundable. So a subtle difference.

Another thing. That's why we brought Vince. That's right. our fact checker in a box. Another thing, which I actually thought was interesting, the FBT rate for electric vehicles, 0%. I've got that up right now. I was about to talk about that. Reducing that. So from the FBT of next April. Yeah, 1st of April, 27. If you buy a car over $75,000 that's electric, you pay a 25% FBT. At the moment, the threshold is luxury car tax,

electric vehicles, $91,000. Yes. So if you do have a family and you want to buy an electric vehicle and package it through work, probably do it before 1 April next year. If you're going to buy an electric vehicle, I'd be doing it before the 1st of April, 27,

according to the budget, not Victoria. There is a bit of arbitrage, though. If you're buying something over the 75 limit, So you're going to, instead of a normal combustion engine is going to be 20% FBT, this will be 25% off that being 15, presumably, or 16. Yes. So a permanent 25% fringe benefit tax discount for eligible electric cars over $75,000 and all eligible electric cars from the 1st of April, 2029. So, presuming that 20% FBT becomes 16, 25% of 20 is 5, 15%. It's 5, yeah.

Right. It's a bit late on budget date. That is okay. You know, I think we, just also for completeness around this negative gearing, so how it works at the moment, if you had an investment property that had $100,000 worth of income and, oh, sorry, $50,000 worth of income and $100,000 worth of expenses. so interest costs or agent fees and whatnot, that $50,000 loss, if you earned $100,000, you would take that loss and take it off the $100,000 and only pay tax on the $100,000. They're stopping that.

And there's a bit of a transition period. So if you buy a house tomorrow after budget night, you can effectively negative gear it for 12 months. Yeah. And the losses are quarantined in the property pool, if that makes sense. So if you had two properties, investment properties, one of them was running at a 50% loss and the other was running at a 50% gain, it would net out. Yeah, which I think is quite an effective strategy. I don't think that's the worst thing ever.

When Allegra did her tax thing, I'm like, yeah, let's just put offset, like just link the offsets and the gains to the asset. But remember, if you've got a $500,000 property, this is potentially a $4,000 tax hit. Yes. This is a big deal. Oh, yeah. And if you couple that with the treasury modelling that says house price is going to grow 2% less, the economics of buying a negative year property is now… Not as sexy as it used to be. And honestly, I just, me, you know, filthy capitalist pig,

property investor and all that stuff, I don't know if I'm rushing just to buy a new property because of the costs. And then you think the amount of, you know, property developers at the best of times are known for being dodgy, right? And that's probably being polite. And hey, if you are watching and you're a property developer and you're legitimate, amen, brother or sister. I think colourful might be a better term.

Colourful, there you go. I just think it could open the door for some more unscrupulous activity around new housing stock. It sort of makes a knockdown rebuild a very attractive option though because you get the benefits. But then you've got building costs. Yeah, but you benefit about being in an established area. Yeah, that's true.

Whereas if you otherwise want to buy a new. As an investment property. Yeah, if you're buying an investment, if you want to invest in an investment property. Yeah, but the numbers still have to stack up. They do, but you don't have to go to the edge of town and you don't have to buy an off-the-plan apartment. You can actually buy something in an established area

and benefit that way. Another thing that I found interesting was the flat on the capital gains tax. And to be honest, everyone, like, again, we haven't actually, it's been very rushed. We haven't fully, this is just our initial reaction, everyone, so add us, please. the 30% flat tax, is it there? Minimum tax, yeah.

So just read that line, VD. So the CGT reform will only apply to gains arising after the 1st of July, 2027, and investors for new builds will be able to choose the 50% CGT discount or the new arrangements. For new properties. For new properties. But then in that CGT, there's a line there about the minimum or the flat. Yeah, so the government will replace the 50% capital gains tax discount with a discount based on inflation and introduce a minimum 30% tax on gains from the 1st of July, 2027. Yeah. So if I sell an asset and this is another thing, it was initially leaked at the start of the year that they're going to have

property only carved out from the CGT discount. Then it was new properties and now it's all asset classes. So as a practical takeaway, Mr. Encyclopedia, I purchased a house, and we'll just do basic numbers, for $500,000. In two years time, I sold that house for 600. So I've got- Clean numbers. I like it. I've got a $100,000 gain. Does this mean here- So I'm going to deduct 6% for inflation? Yes. So we do the inflation first. So we strip the inflation first, then- So we're now at $70,000.

$70,000. So 30% of that $70,000 straight to Jim. Well, the greater of your marginal rate or 30%. Yes. Yeah. So. And for most practical purposes, if you're making a gain of that size, your marginal rate is more than 30% anyway.

Yeah. Given that $45,000 gets you into the 32% range. And I know we'll probably talk about this more on retiree, But this potentially, do we think it will change when we dispose of the property? Yes, it could very well do. Because the general incentive today is to wait till your income drops. To 0%. Subject to potentially sheltering someone with a concessional super contribution.

But generally, the incentive is to wait till your tax rate's lower to sell your property when you now need the income to retire on. And this will change that dynamic a little bit. Another thing we – on the CGT, there was another thing. Well, we've got to talk about broken promises. I mean, bringing pre-1985 assets into the CGT network. I don't know if many of my listeners – Retire right listeners will care about that. Retire right listeners may have a property they have.

She's on the money. I don't think so. Well, they will care when they inherit mum's house. They will. Because they won't get a market-based cost base when they get it. They'll get an adjusted purchase price. So, yes, it will matter. And I mean, having a look at this as well, because I think for my community, a lot of it is, well, how does this benefit me?

Like, they're not going to sit down or maybe they will sit down and watch the budget. But I feel like that's a lot of spiel. It's a lot of marketing. It's a lot of trying to sell us the dream. And I feel like when we had our little chat before with Jim and Katie, they came around and, you know, came into our room and they were like, what are the questions? that at the end of this episode, if you want. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. The audio of that you clipped. It was interesting because I asked a question about what you would be most proud of when it comes to this budget. And I feel like that's usually pretty telling about

their top line marketing, right? It's not really what Jim thinks. It's what they're trying to sell the most. And that was the first thing he talked about in his press conference as well, almost word for word. So you would think that where it does play into first home buyers is if there's fewer negatively geared investors competing for the same stock and Treasury are saying prices are going to rise at 2% less, that makes it easier. Less demand, lower prices, what's not to like? Now, we've got an inflationary budget and we're going to have more rate rises, which

could undo all of that. So interesting challenge. From a cost of living perspective as well, like if you add all of those tax benefits together, so we've got the $250 working Australians tax offset and then, you know, on top of that, the three tax cuts that the government has already legislated that we've spoken about as well as that $1,000 instant tax write-off come tax time. That kind of means up to, like you could be up to about $2,800 better off this financial year, which I think is a good situation for us to be in when you kind of bring it all together for the average Australian. And that's the average Australian earning less than, what was it, $182,000. So for my community, I'm like, well, this is better than a kick in the pants. Yeah. We didn't see, I mean, establishing a 20% domestic gas reservation, that's not new. They talked about that last week. I think that was a budget leak.

Well, there was a lot that was leaked. A gas leak. And I acknowledge that $3.2 billion to establish more fuel, like a 50-day supply. If you look at the winners and losers when the abc and all that do the the winner is hopefully we don't run out of fuel there's an island and we didn't have to do this when we had four refineries in the country yeah but that's but that's like and now they're saying that they're gonna withhold 20 of all oil reserves to stay for australians don't get me wrong or gas sorry um that sounds very favorable but we were always going to have access to that from my perspective. I was like, okay, like what?

You know, on the gas thing, Australia has that much natural gas. We could probably power Australia for 1,000 years, right? That's not a comment on whether it's good for the environment or not. It's a comment about a lot of gas. But your light's not going off. Like why as a nation can't we do it? So it's like you can – and this is where they're really dodging this gas tax thing in this budget. They obviously haven't talked about it.

And it's almost like if we're a country, why not say, yeah, you can send as much gas as you want offshore, but Australia doesn't pay for it. Like, could that be a trade-off? Like, sure, we'll reserve 20% to sell into Australia. And because at the moment, I believe Australia buys gas that's mined in Australia at international spot prices. Well, it's traded at import parity. Yeah. So what they're saying now is there will be a reserve that is set apart from that structure. I'm saying, well, let's just go, all right, we won't do a gas tax as savage as the 25%. Why not just go literally free gas for Australia?

I maybe have that argument with the Western Australian government who's coining in the royalties. I don't know. I just think, I think we'll finish up because this is just a lot of- And there's a lot of topics we haven't touched on. So for example, I haven't touched on the First Nations communities and how they're being benefited and there was some really significant work there the budget is investing 1.2 billion dollars into them and 299 million dollars is being invested into creating an additional 3,000 jobs in regional Australia which I think is or remote Australia sorry and I think that that's really powerful

and then there was also a really big section in the budget which come start of the year would never have been something that, you know, we would have thought would have been part of the budget. And that's the government's response to the Bondi attack and how big that is. And I won't get into the semantics of that now. I'm having a sit down tomorrow with Anthony Albanese and Katie Gallagher again, but it was really interesting just seeing, and I want to know where this money has been like kind of pulled from. What's it being spent on? So $69 million for the Australian and Federal Police's National Security Investigations Team. $80 million is going to respond to violent extremism,

prevent youth radicalisation and enhance capabilities to counter terrorism threats online, and $70 million for the high-risk terrorist offender regime. So it's just general anti-terrorism rather than a specific... Yes, and I think that... We're not putting armed guards in synagogues. No. And I think that a lot of people are just going to see the headline there of like, oh, well, that was one event. And I'm not, you know, undermining that for any, any stretch of the imagination. But I think it is really important to say that that's really important for Australia's security. But then also, where did that come from? Why wasn't it a priority before? If it was a priority before what was going to be invested, I'm just so interested in where it was kind of. Because there's been money taken out of that.

Different areas of the budget. I really feel for, so could you imagine being a state treasurer at the moment? Like, feds are like, NDIS, we're stripping that back. States can pay for the stuff that falls out of that. Yeah. I just, that would be a lot. But guess where the state's money comes from? Federal.

Or GST. Well, GST, federal grants. Yep. And land tax, stamp duty. Don't get me started on stamp duty. Parallel tax is so interesting that it's a state thing, isn't it? It's the vibe in the Constitution, Glenn. Yeah.

Anyway, I don't know. We might wrap it up there, but they're our initial kind of reactions. Yeah. Overall, what's one word that would summarise the budget for you, Glenn? Are we playing a word? Difficult. Are we playing a word association game? Ask Albo if he can play that tomorrow.

I've already got a note for that. Did he get caught doing that with some- With Grace. Yes, and he called her difficult. I was like, man. But then they backpedaled like, oh, no, I was talking about situations anyway. Oh, sit down. What's your word, Vince?

Can I have two? You can have as many as you want, honestly. Different, courageous. This is the first budget in a long time where there's actually some real meat in it. And I think any budget where they don't get their mitts on super is a win. Like, honestly, how attractive would that honeypot be? It absolutely would be. But also, the second they get their mitts on super and they start taxing it away, the second they're going to have to start investing more in pensions and supporting our aging community.

Yeah, I think to be fair, though, they did all their tweaks in the last six months anyway. Although, if you look at some of the treasury consultation around forcing or encouraging, nudging super funds into investing in private equity and venture capital. I mean well do you know what they like they've just done that in the UK yeah

with mandatory contributions so I was actually going to bring this up and we we get to ask Jim I don't know if I can sit down

with him tomorrow but they're trying to change the what's the performance test the performance test to carve out

VC stuff to allow funds to make to lose money on venture capital yeah but I think for me

The only thing that I saw that wasn't leaked was potentially the flat 30% tax, potentially the negative – the choice for a new property. If you sell it, you can choose the indexation method or the 50% method. I think that was interesting. And the pre-85 GST. And the pre-85 CGT. No one was talking about that. Yeah. But I just think my honest take was the chat show with the war, we've got a messy situation in Australia. We've got the 101 labor ideology of ditching CGT and negative

gearing. Let's have a mess. Let's push it through. Let's take a couple of years to win back trust. But I'm a big fan of something needs to change. 100%, it is cooked out there for people trying to get into their first home to get ahead, something needs to change. And if you've already, like, particularly I've talked to my listeners here, not VDs, you can talk to hers. You can talk to mine. If you've got five investment properties at the moment, you'll be okay.

Yeah, that's really true. Like, let's, you'll be fine. So I think we need to look at this, how do we help others get to buy their first home to live in if they want? yeah but then it's like okay well the energy costs and oh there's so much to take into consideration and i think we've gotten really granular but i guess overarchingly it is very nice to see the debt trajectory of the country headed in a less aggressive upward yeah it's pretty stable which is interesting i i haven't and maybe we'll have a look overnight because i

want to record the retiree one and maybe look at what they're actually taught like about spending and GDP and- Yeah. But remember, a government deficit is the flip side of private sector wealth growth. Yes. But that's economics 101. Like the money's, it's got to land somewhere. The money's going to live somewhere.

So if the government runs a surplus, the private sector has to run a deficit, which means you and I are getting poorer. Yeah. All right, friends, that's all from us tonight. We've got to go edit this podcast before- We'll get it up. And at the end of this, we'll put the, when Jim and Katie came into the locker- Came into our-

Earlier. Yeah. Perfect. If anyone's interested, stick around. Thank you, friends. Hey, if you've watched this on YouTube, on She's On The Money, give She's On The Money a like and a follow. If you've watched it on my channel, welcome.

Give us a like. Don't worry about following me. It's not worth it, but maybe give us a like. It's really not. What about a five-star review? Yeah. Yeah, give him a five-star review. On the podcast platform of your choice.

Yeah. Ideally, the She's On The Money Apple feed. Thank you. Yeah. huge emphasis in the budget on intergenerational concerns i think that really one of the main motivations of what we're announcing tonight is to recognize that for too long too many people particularly young people have been locked out of the housing market that the interaction of the housing market and the tax system is effectively broken the status quo is not working because it

provides tax breaks of a sufficient magnitude that it crowds out young people from getting a toehold in the housing market in particular. So really some of our biggest motivations in this budget, particularly in the tax package but more broadly, is a sense of intergenerational fairness. The tax reforms are driven really by trying to better align tax on people who work for a living versus people who get their income from other sources. It's about getting an extra 75 000 owner occupiers into the housing market over the next 10 years and it's about encouraging more innovation in our economy as well and so really that's a long way of saying

that we don't just acknowledge that there are genuine concerns about the generational unfairness in our budget our tax system our housing market our economy more broadly more than acknowledging that we're doing something about it and that invites an element of political risk there will be a lot of people who will go to the wall to defend the current arrangements frankly a lot of defenders of the status quo but from our point of view the reason we've come to this the view that we're putting in the budget tonight the policies that we're changing tonight in the budget is because we don't want to leave this challenge to go unattended to and to become even worse over time yeah well a really important part of the negative gearing

changes is to say if you're going to negatively key you've got to make a contribution to supply you know we think that housing supply is still the main gain when it comes to the housing problem but the challenge doesn't end with supply with this new investments in there around youth homelessness and also these big changes or two big changes we're making in the tax system and so the 75,000 extra owner occupies is the net effect of both negative gearing and capital gains and that's because we think that the the composition of the market too many people are getting crowded out what happened was in 1999

big change made to capital gains and what it did was it decoupled people's incomes from house prices and it meant that because the capital gain system was overcompensating investment in existing houses and undercompensating investment in other areas more and more people were just plowing into the housing market and it was crowding out more and more more and more people including or especially young people and so that's really the challenge that we're trying to to address to try and deal with that distortion which is crowded too many people out at the time hi Jim hi hi thanks for having us Glenn from money

money money okay quick question on the negative gearing I borrowed to invest in shares I can still effectively offset that loss against my taxable in time we're just carving out property is that yes or yes yes because the I think something like 98% of negative gearing is property yeah and so the focus in negative gearing is on property the focus in capital gains is across the system and and again that's deliberate we're trying to deal with the main challenges here around the fact that labor income and other income is out of whack the housing challenges that I mentioned any innovation challenge I

mention. A final question from me and I'll shut off. In 1999 Ralph Review said part of the change in indexation to the discount method was to keep capital moving, encourage investment into Australia and also carve out inflation. How are we addressing the parts about ambition and investment? Yeah well there's a three and a half billion dollars worth of tax cuts which are all about investment and innovation so if you look at the tax package it's it's broadly neutral over the four years of the of the budget and that's because it what it raises it provides back in terms of a working strain tax offset which is incredibly increased the tax-free threshold for people who work for living

and it's got three and a half billion dollars where the tax cuts for venture capital for startups for the more innovative and more dynamic parts of our economy because we want to encourage more of that so across the board it's very pro investment and innovation because we want to get that dynamism and productivity in our economy yeah we're going to get going folks now I was curious about the reforms to that especially with the inflation adjustment indexation sort of tilts the balance in favour of first home buyers and owner occupiers. Just sort of really curious,

especially looking at the rates for units, I was really curious about, is that something that a lot of young people really want to, that's sort of their first way into the property market, especially for young people, it might be a bit of a challenge to sort of understand the, how the indexation sort of works. So if you really came to sort of hear, especially for young people, how to translate that there. Yeah. So we're talking about a capital gains discount. It used to be that when you sold something and you made money on it, you'd pay tax on half of it. Now you'll pay tax on the real gain, so the bit that isn't inflation. And so a different calculation, but still taxed at marginal rates, all of those sorts of features of the tax system, just calculating the discount differently.

And the really important thing to understand there is if you think about a couple of decades in between the Howard change in 99 and now, the average over a couple of decades, what it showed was the if you calculated the discount by indexation rather than the 50% flat then what you see over that period is people who invested in existing homes got quite substantially overcompensated for their investments why people piled in prices come up people crowded out of the market but

units were not overcompensated and shares were not overcompensated on average over that 20 year period and so it's really about that big distortion That was created a quarter of a century ago and trying to address that and trying to address that in a way that benefits particularly young people. We might take two more, Matt, because I saw some looks on faces when you said that was the last one. So, yeah, two more. One more after this.

Chair, Victoria De Mare, I'm very much in for the money. This is a big budget. Like, there's just a lot to quarrel about. I feel like I'm only halfway there. But what is one thing that you are most proud of in this budget? Well, the thing I'm most proud of is when you sit down and put the budget together, we've had this huge disruption from the war in the Middle East, right?

And a lot of governments would think, OK, huge volatility in the world, we've got to do a fuel security package, we've got to cut fuel taxes because people are under pressure. We'll do some of that hard stuff later. There's a real temptation to do that, if I'm honest. And the thing that I'm proudest of and proudest of our colleagues about, from the PM all the way down,

is that we resisted that temptation. We didn't use the war in the Middle East as an excuse not to act on some of these intergenerational issues. And so it's really kind of like two budgets in one. There's the near-term stuff, inflation, petrol prices, war in the Middle East, fuel security. There's all of that stuff which in ordinary times would be big enough to be a budget on its own.

I think you acknowledge that in your question. There's a lot here. It's broad, ambitious. But instead of doing that, instead of longer-term stuff, We're doing that in addition to longer term stuff. And that's what I'm trying to start. One more and then we're done. Hi, I'm from Chief Media. First of all, like credit where credit's due.

Good work on some of those tax reforms that you push through. We know that's been a contentious issue for you guys for ages. But in terms of making choices of where to get more revenue into the budget and where to cut, I think one of the big things on lots of people's minds will be the gas tax. and the lack thereof in the budget how I think um what I want to ask is like what would you say to people who are currently in the NDIS who feel like maybe they're facing the brunt of the cuts as opposed to corporations that

could kind of put a lot more into the budget that could be dispersed across the community and some of the other things you're looking at investing in Yeah, I think a couple of really important answers to those questions. First of all, spending on the NDIS continues to grow. I'm a huge supporter of the NDIS and my view is we kind of had to save it from itself. You know, the risk was that the growth in spending on the NDIS was going to become so extreme

that some future government, I think, of a different political stripe to ours would be tempted to knock it off or to do things which aren't in the interests of Australians with a disability. And so, you know, we carry that responsibility heavily. We've created the NDIS. We believe in it. We're trying to save it. And what that means is spending's still growing, but growing more slowly,

trying to make sure that we can afford to fund the services that people need and deserve. So I understand there's a... Whenever you're making changes like that, there's a level of anxiety. I get that. Similarly, when it comes to the gas tax, I want to be up front with you and say I know that there's really strong views about it and of course I don't miss the very substantial campaigns that a number of you are running on social media. I get that.

There's a lot of strong views about it and I understand the arguments that people are putting to us. But there's also really good reasons, I think, to prioritise two things. One, you know, we're trying to make sure that we have enough fuel to keep the place ticking over. And so those two-way supply arrangements with our partners in Asia, refining partners in Asia, are really important. Not everybody agrees with that, but I think that. And secondly, this gas reservation thing that we announced on Thursday

is a really big deal, like it's a huge deal. And so we've prioritised those two things over changing the gas tax arrangements. Now, to assure you that I understand the arguments in the first term, I changed the PRRT so we get a bit more revenue sooner. I know that people have rathered I do much more than that and get that too, but I did change the arrangements to get more revenue sooner. In the budget there's about an extra $1.6 billion. Again I acknowledge that you would like there to be much more

than that. But we have changed the arrangements, we are collecting a little bit more and we're prioritising those other two things I think for good reason. Thanks very much everyone. Thank you for watching. We'll see you next time.