Live proud podcast Ep.4: The 2026 post-budget outlook with Cameron Kusher

• Taxation surprise: The 2026 Federal Budget proposed a 30% minimum capital gains tax (CGT) across all asset classes, impacting future transactions for property, shares, and other investment types.
• Capital gains overhaul: Under the proposed changes, investors face a return to an indexation model rather than the traditional 50% discount for established assets sold after 1 July 2027, with no grandfathering of future gains on existing assets.
• Negative gearing restrictions: Cameron outlines that under the proposed changes, negative gearing will be restricted exclusively to brand-new properties, meaning losses on established properties can only be offset against rental income or carried forward rather than offset against personal income.
  • (Editor’s note: Under the actual federal budget proposal, existing property investments owned prior to the legislation's implementation will be grandfathered, meaning current owners will retain their existing negative gearing benefits.)
• New-build incentives: The proposed policy aims to incentivise investment in new housing supply by reserving negative gearing benefits, higher depreciation allowances, and the choice between the 50% CGT discount and the new indexation method at sale exclusively for brand new properties.
• Rental market impacts: Shrinking the pool of established property investors is anticipated to place additional pressure on rental vacancy rates, which may lead to further rent increases for tenants.
• Alternative supply solutions: Rather than transactional tax changes, Cameron suggests that long-term supply could be better supported by aligning migration with building capacity, increasing federal infrastructure funding, and reforming stamp duty.
• Increased focus on yields: With capital gains facing higher tax rates, rental yields and income generation are expected to become a more prominent focus for future property investment strategies compared to capital growth alone.
• The importance of builder track record: As the market adjusts to favour new builds, researching a developer’s delivery history, financial stability, and quality standards is highlighted as a critical step in the due diligence process.
• Long-term market outlook: While short-term policy transitions can introduce uncertainty, Cameron notes that residential property has historically remained a resilient, long-term wealth-creation vehicle through various economic cycles.

Brent: Welcome to the Live proud podcast. I'm Brent Hill. If you own an investment property, or you've been thinking about buying one, the 2026 federal budget might affect how you approach it. The government has announced significant property tax changes, including changes to capital gains and negative gearing. Today, I'm with Cameron Kusher, who has spent over two decades analysing Australia's property data for some of the biggest names in the industry. We're going to break down exactly what the changes are, who they affect, and what the likely flow-on effects are for the broader market. Cam, welcome.

Cameron: Thank you.

Brent: Riveting topic. We're talking tax, capital gains, negative gearing — a lot of political drama, which we've got in this episode today. So, I just thought, if you could dumb it down for somebody like me that's not quite across the current tax legislation: what do these changes mean? So, if we start with the capital gains tax changes — what is it currently, and what are the proposed changes going to look like?

Cameron: So, at the moment, when you own an investment and you get a capital gain and you go to sell that asset, you pay tax on half of the gain you make. So, if you make a $200,000 gain, you pay tax on $100,000 of that gain. It's what they call the 50% discount on your capital gains tax. What they're changing it to is actually back to a system that it used to be. The reason for the 50% discount is that it's meant to offset inflation: any increase in an asset value is partly the actual increase, but it's also partly inflation. So, they used to index it to inflation, so you would accurately calculate that gain, and that's what they're going back to. But what they also slipped into the budget was that there was going to be a minimum capital gains tax of 30%. So, they indexed it.

Brent: So, did we miss something there?

Cameron: Well, that was the bit that was never leaked.

Brent: Can you recap that for me? Is there a hidden tax there that we didn't know was coming in?

Cameron: Well, none of that was actually leaked before the budget, so this was sprung on everyone the night of the budget. [Surprise, surprise!] It was a surprise, surprise. And I think the other thing that was sprung on everyone was that these changes were for any capital gain on any investment. I think everyone was expecting changes for property, but it's also shares, ETFs, if you invest in Bitcoin. If you're starting your own business and you're selling that business when it's successful, you're paying a high rate of capital gains. So effectively, at the moment, the highest capital gains tax you would pay is 23.5% — the highest marginal rate is 47%, and half of that is 23.5%. Now the lowest you will pay is 30%, and it could be much higher than that depending on how high the asset gain is.

Brent: So, the lowest you'll pay is 30%. The indexation model sounds technically more equitable. Would you say that's fair comment?

Cameron: Yeah, it's much more accurate to how much inflation has actually affected the price. The reason it was removed, basically, was back in… So, it was changed in 1999. It was changed because it was really hard to calculate. There were tables of inflation, and accountants had to adjust for that. I think with the rise of computers, and even AI and things like this, it's going to be a lot easier to calculate what component is inflation and what's not. But the interesting thing is — and we'll talk about negative gearing in a minute — these changes aren't actually being grandfathered. So, assuming they pass Parliament, from July 1 next year, even if you've got an asset that you've held before then, any of the gain from there on is actually going to be calculated on this minimum 30% and the indexation calculation, rather than the 50%.

Brent: So, it's not retrospective. Okay.

Cameron: But if you buy a brand new property, you can choose to have the new methodology or the capital gains tax discount.

Brent: When do you have to choose that? At the time of buying, or at the time of selling?

Cameron: You have to choose it at the time of selling. So, you actually get to choose whichever is better for you, and the 50% discount is probably going to be better for most people.

Brent: Okay, I got it. So, in practice, is it better or worse for a typical property investor, this new CGT patch?

Cameron: It's worse for a property investor; it's actually worse for any investor. So, anyone investing in any asset class is likely to be worse off under this system than they were under the previous system.

Brent: Okay. The government put this in as a provision to assist first home buyers. Do you think, in your eyes, it's going to assist first home buyers to get into the market?

Cameron: I actually do think this, and the change to negative gearing — which again we'll talk about in a minute — I think it will help first home buyers, because ultimately what they're trying to do is make investors focus more on buying brand new assets and add to supply, and they're making it less attractive to own existing properties. Now, some investors will still choose to buy existing properties, but you're probably going to have less of them. I think overall, though, what these changes are likely to do is lower the level of investment — not just in housing, in all asset classes. It's likely to lower that level of investment because the returns are just not as strong.

Brent: So, do you think it's going to cool that established market, particularly the investor-grade product?

Cameron: Oh, definitely. I mean, the key problem for a first home buyer is they usually are buying at the lower end of the market, and that's usually also the part of the market that investors are sniffing around to buy in. Now, if you're a first home buyer, you do get help from the government — so you get the home guarantee scheme, the state governments usually give you some sort of stamp duty discount — so there's assistance there for first home buyers, but they just don't have the same level of borrowing capacity that an investor does. So, you hear the stories about first home buyers getting outbid by investors; that's true, because investors have equity and they have a lot more borrowing capacity. So, it will, in some ways, I think, level the playing field. But you're also just going to have fewer investors trying to buy that stock.

Brent: So, if you're saying it's going to affect property prices in that established market, by what sort of percentage? Are you saying maybe a 5–10% drop in that investment stock property, or more?

Cameron: So…

Brent: If you give us a number, that would be great.

Cameron: Yeah, I can tell you exactly. So, the modelling — there's been a few people that have tried to model this — and I really want your listeners to understand that modelling is only as good as what your inputs are, and a lot of these models don't tell us what their inputs are. So, the models that are out there say that this will impact on prices by about 2–4%.

Brent: Per year?

Cameron: No, just overall.

Brent: Overall, okay.

Cameron: But I think that it has the potential to be larger than that, especially because we've got the double whammy of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount changed. But we've seen some pretty poor examples of modelling of late. We saw Treasury coming up with the fact that the home guarantee scheme would only lift prices half a percent, and prices at that lower end of the market, in the six months that the home guarantee scheme has been available, are already up about 7%. So, you don't always trust the modelling; use it as a guide. I think it could be a larger fall than what those models suggest.

Brent: Do you say the politicians are lying to us about the modelling, or…?

Cameron: Well, most of the modelling for the changes to CGT and negative gearing hasn't actually been done by politicians. It's been done by think tanks. But again, it depends on how they're modelling and what their inputs are.

Brent: What data is going out? Probably what I'm hearing is that established market might ease off a bit. What does that mean for new product, though? What I'm hearing now is it actually could supercharge potential price growth and demand for that new product, given that investors, if they're prudent, will be wanting to buy new product because it's going to give them the optimum taxation benefits through the CGT changes and negative gearing changes. What are your thoughts on that?

Cameron: Yeah, so in terms of the new product, the idea of this policy is to drive more buyers to new* product, and therefore add supply. That'll mean less competition in the existing market. So I think it will drive more buyers to (new) product, but I guess we do know that typically, like for like, a brand new property is going to be a little bit more expensive than an existing property. So that's why I think overall the level of investment will come down a little bit. But I think it's really important for investors to understand these changes don't mean that you can't invest in existing properties; it just means that the benefits of doing so are not going to be as great as they are if you go and invest in a new property.

*Editor’s note: The speaker mistakenly said 'existing product' here. The transcript has been updated to 'new product' to reflect the intended policy context.

Brent: I think that's great advice, and it's been really difficult for our customers. When we're talking to them on a day-by-day basis, trying to unpack what these changes mean, it is a little confusing for people that are getting into that market. So I think, by simplifying it: if you're an investor, you can still buy established product. You're going to have more tax benefit on a new product. There may be some slight price drops, if I could use that term, on existing property, just through the sheer lack of — there might be less demand coming into that. But it's obviously to try and make it more equitable for those first home buyers coming into the market, is what we're hearing. The term negative gearing gets floated around all the time. Let's bring it back to basics: what does negative gearing mean?

Cameron: So negative gearing is when you own an asset and your expenses exceed your income*. So at the moment, if you own a property and say your rental income is $50,000 a year, but your expenses related to that property are $80,000 a year, you've got a net loss of $30,000 a year. That loss can be offset against any of your income. What the proposed changes are is that you can only negatively gear on a new property. So what that means is, if you've got an established property, that $30,000 loss can't be offset against other income — you can only offset your rental income. So you can carry forward those losses to future years, when you may be able to claim them, or when you sell that property. But I think again, if we look at what this practically means, a lot of people are not going to be in a position to carry forward those losses. You're probably going to find in the established housing market that it's wealthier investors, that already have quite a lot of investment properties and are financially able to carry forward those losses, that will be the ones likely to still invest in the established market — whereas other investors that are looking for that negative gearing benefit will go to brand new properties. And of course, with a brand new property, you get greater depreciation on the fixtures and fittings as well, so the loss that you can claim will be quite significantly larger.

**Editor’s note: The speaker misspoke, saying 'costs' instead of 'income'. This has been corrected to ensure the definition of negative gearing remains technically accurate.

Brent: Yeah. Just in the last few weeks, we have had a real spark of inquiry from investors looking at newer off-the-plan opportunities that we've got in our portfolio across Australia, from the investor side. So we are starting to see that flow through. That's from a customer that's looking to buy. What about for tenants? It feels like rents are continuing to increase, and I'm just hearing noise in the market saying now rents are going to explode, because people are getting out of the market and there's not going to be as much product. What are your thoughts on this?

Cameron: Yeah, it's an interesting one, and everyone's got different thoughts. Look, I wouldn't say rents are going to explode, but I think it's going to put more pressure on rents. And the reason for this is, if you've got investors selling out of established properties, you can say, okay, yeah, a first home buyer may purchase that — but not everyone that's a renter right now is in a position to buy their first home. Some people are renting because they're not citizens of Australia. Some people are renting because they haven't saved up a big enough deposit. Some people are renting because they don't know what the future holds —

Brent: — and they choose to rent rather than buy, and they have a different investment strategy.

Cameron: So, for me, the issue is, if you shrink that rental pool, yes, you may get more first home buyers. But when we've got a population here in Australia that continues to grow at a rapid pace, particularly from net overseas migration — most people that are moving to Australia from overseas are of an age where they're living by themselves, or they need somewhere to rent. If you're not growing that rental pool, that's going to put more pressure on rents. And we're already seeing, at a national level, rental vacancy rates are at around 1.5%, 1%, when a typical market is about 3%.

Brent: It's at dire levels. It doesn't seem fair or equitable for tenants there, and it doesn't look like that's going to help them out. Not on what I see. But it's interesting to get your view.

Cameron: Oh, and a lower level of investment across the economy and across property is going to mean that there's less rental stock. Now, the federal government's trying to encourage things like build-to-rent and get that going, but it's still not really at a big scale. I know Frasers do some build-to-rent product and others do as well, but again, interest rates are part of this story. A lot of the build-to-rent doesn't stack up quite so well when you've got higher interest rates — and that's like any property development as well. So the supply crunch that we could possibly see from these changes to the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, I think, is really serious, and I think that renters are the ones that will potentially lose out on this.

Brent: So, I'm hearing that we could be in a dire position with a lack of supply, and that's something which government keep saying they're trying to bring on. But what you're telling me is this might actually have a reverse effect, and have a harder impact on the tenants out there — that are struggling to put food on the table and a roof over their head, that are still trying to save for a deposit to buy a home. So it sort of feels a bit counterintuitive when you look at it that way. Now, what's led government to make these changes in this recent budget, in your eyes?

Cameron: I think it's the fact that they —

Brent: Like 18 months ago, they said they wouldn't scrap negative gearing or make any changes to capital gains. What do you think? And I'm not telling you to read into a politician's mind here, but why have they made these material changes?

Cameron: I think they've got a big majority at the moment. I think they probably do something like this because they don't think much of the opposition at the moment, and I think there's a desperate realisation that we need to do some sort of tax reform. I mean, if you go back to the Henry Tax Review that was done in 2010 — that's 16 years ago — I think on last count there were about three parts of the 125 recommendations that have actually been implemented. So I think it's them trying to be bold and undertake some tax reform, but I don't think they've thought it through very well. And obviously, we've seen that there's been a severe backlash from this. Look, I'm a property guy. I do invest in shares and other things as well, but I mean, I'm very much a property person. I can kind of understand a justification for making some of these changes to property. If you think property is really expensive, if you think it's very hard for first home buyers, if you think that investors have got an unfair advantage — I can kind of buy that argument. But if you're going to do that, you need to give people an option of somewhere else to invest. And with the blanket 30% minimum capital gains tax, you've made all other asset classes less attractive to invest in. So not only are you making it less attractive to invest in property, it's now less attractive to invest in shares — you're going to have to pay more tax on that. Going and starting a business with ambitions to sell it in the future: you're going to be paying more tax on that. So, look, I think they've misread the mood of the market here. I think people want tax reform, but they want it to be broad.

Brent: Does it pass the pub test?

Cameron: I don't think it does pass the pub test, and I think that's kind of been proven in the last two or three weeks since it was announced.

Brent: Because what you've just said to me is it was a political play — not necessarily the right levers to be using to potentially bring on more supply. You're saying it's probably going to restrict that supply. Do you curve demand, which might be an immigration policy to look at? Well, they haven't done that at all. So, in your eyes, you probably don't look at it as a fair policy change — particularly when it was pitched about first home buyers, and assisting renters and first home buyers in the market.

Cameron: Well, they actually pitched the budget as being about intergenerational fairness, which I find laughable. Negative gearing has been around since the 1930s. It's not like it's new. It's what businesses do. When you're starting out a business, if you've got more expenses than you're bringing in, you can offset those losses. Now, people will say maybe owning an investment property isn't really a business, but it's been a core fundamental of the tax system. Up to 1985 there was no capital gains tax at all; from 1985 to 1999, capital gains tax was indexed; and from 1999 until now, we've had the 50% discount. So, you've had generations of people that have had access to much more beneficial capital gains tax regimes. So younger people aren't going to have —

Brent: The Boomers have had it pretty good, from what I've seen.

Cameron: They have! And they've had interest rates falling since the early 1990s, so they've had access to better capital gains tax. They've had access to negative gearing. And the younger generation isn't going to have access to that, and it's going to be harder for them to go and invest in other asset classes as well. So, I see it as, actually, if anything, Boomers pulling the ladder up as they leave, and the next generation finding it harder to invest.

Brent: I'd love to get hold of some of this intergenerational wealth that they keep talking about, but we'll see how that goes in the years to come.

We've touched on the tax reform. I'd love for you to be Jim Chalmers for a moment, Cam, and put on your treasurer hat. What levers would you pull in order to assist home ownership and property investment, and make some fairness in the Australian property market today? What areas would you look at? I know that we've touched on supply and demand — would you mind elaborating on that?

Cameron: Yeah, I think… Well, I think one of the biggest issues at the moment is we've got too many people wanting too few homes. So, at a federal level, what can you do about that? Well, you are in charge of the rate of population growth, the rate of overseas migration. You can't control how many kids have babies or not. So I would look at levers to better align the rate of net overseas migration with our capacity to deliver housing and infrastructure, and I'd make a concerted effort to lower the rate of net overseas migration, as they are forecasting. But we know that the last few years they've forecast lower net overseas migration and haven't gone close to achieving it. In fact, I think in the latest budget, net overseas migration is actually forecast to increase in 2026/27. So I think that's one lever that you can pull. We all probably know about the federal government's housing accord target: 1.2 million new homes.

Brent: How far off are they?

Cameron: They're about 300,000 homes off, so they're nowhere near —

Brent: On the current run rate?

Cameron: On the current run rate, and nowhere near where they need to be. What levers can you pull there? Now, I'll give them some credit. In the federal budget, they actually announced, I think it was $2 billion, to invest in essential infrastructure to deliver more homes. Now, they say that's going to deliver about 65,000 new homes. Why not make that $10 billion? Why not take everything that's left in the HAFF and maybe invest it in that? That's going to give you a better return.

Brent: So, HAFF — the Housing Australia…

Cameron: Sorry, the Housing Australia Future Fund. So maybe invest more, a lot more, in that. I think that's what the federal government can really do: more carrots for state and local governments to induce more housing supply. So, you know, link funding for local governments and state governments to hitting housing targets. Do partnerships with them to deliver more housing. They actually announced in last year's budget — and they're starting to announce these now — that they were going to do 100,000 new homes that were going to be specifically for first home buyers. They've had announcements, I think, in WA, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT already. Do that, but maybe go bigger than that. I mean, the biggest challenge for first home buyers is that it's hard for them to compete with existing homeowners. So these are all the kind of levers that I would look to pull if I was treasurer. But I think also we just need broader tax reform. Look, no one likes more tax, but stamp duty is the one for me that is ripe for reform at the moment.

Brent: How does that look in your eyes?

Cameron: Well, unfortunately, it means more tax for everyone. But I think you move from a stamp duty to a universal land tax. And the reason why I think that is, if you look at stamp duty, about 5% of properties transact in a given year. If you look at first home buyers, most first home buyers don't pay stamp duty. To me, that's a recognition that stamp duty is a really inefficient tax. So, if you're relying on all of this big chunk of revenue for state governments from only 5% of people that transact, firstly, it's very volatile year to year. If you just levy a small land tax on everyone, you can massively offset — you can offset, and then some, the cost of stamp duty — but you can also then give state governments certainty about how much money they're going to have in their coffers each year. Equally, I think state and local governments then have an incentive to actually deliver more supply. So if they want to get more revenue out of stamp duty — sorry, more revenue out of a universal land tax — the best way to get more revenue is to actually get more homes built, because then everyone's paying more land tax.

Brent: So, what I'm hearing from you there is we've got to fix the supply issue, and be really prescriptive about that, and put the funding where it's needed, which can have a direct correlation to homes being built. Some slight tax reform from a stamp duty point of view is another element that you've said, but also fix that demand element with minimising the overseas migration. I think it's vote 1: Cameron Kusher! With this new policy coming in — and again, smart policy that's actually going to fix the problem and not just be a political play — is really what we're wanting in Australia. If you want fairness, I think for Australians we need to have some policies that actually tackle the real issues, being the supply and demand issues. So that has, from the strategists in the property market, they're all saying the same thing as you are, Cam: fix the supply issue, fix the demand issue. Then there's going to be fairness in play there. It just feels like the government has probably read the room wrong, read the pub wrong, and maybe been a little off with their current settings at the moment. So, yeah, very interesting to hear your thoughts on that.

I want to just touch on one more thing, which is the foreign taxes. We can remember back in 2014/15 that there was a lot — particularly when selling off the plan in Melbourne and Sydney — they were selling a lot to overseas investors that were basically allowing the construction to get underway, which was bringing on supply of product. We haven't seen the depths of that market for a long time. And when I'm saying that, it would be less than 5% of the market — I'd say more like 2% of the market — that would be selling to foreigners at the moment, within our area of off-the-plan and built form along the eastern seaboard. So, very few. Despite what people are saying of overseas customers buying, very few are actually buying. Would that be a policy that they would look at, to stimulate investors into the market, to bring on more rental properties, to lower rents, to get construction underway? Is that another area that could be looked at?

Cameron: Oh, 100%. I mean, we saw that big surge in investor homes being built, particularly in your state in Melbourne, particularly around Southbank. There was a huge number of apartment projects that went up. That was mainly because, firstly, we had low interest rates, and the Australian dollar compared to some of the Asian countries in particular made it look quite attractive. But it was also because Kevin Rudd, when he was Prime Minister, relaxed some of the rules around foreign investment and allowed more than half of a brand new project to be sold offshore. Now, that was actually changed again, back to only 50% can be sold offshore. And then we hit the pandemic period, where the only stuff that really stacks up in terms of high-end, high-density apartments is that high-end owner-occupier product. Projects don't get out of the ground without 50–60% pre-sales, and particularly investor product is not going to get out of the ground without someone buying it. I look at it as — we look at what's happening with build-to-rent. We let foreign capital come in and own a whole building of build-to-rent, but we limit how much foreign capital can purchase in a brand new apartment project.

Brent: And if they're serious about fixing — and I want to say “serious” — if politicians are serious about fixing the supply issue, then that's something that we should be looking at.

Cameron: 100%. And I think the other thing here with this as well — I think we should do that, but I think we should make it a requirement that those overseas investors actually put that property up for rent. Because there's certainly reports that some overseas investors bought these properties and they never actually made it into the rental pool. So I think we should allow it, but a proviso of allowing it should be that it actually has to become available for rent.

Brent: Yeah. We'll start to wrap things up soon. I think we've explored, and hopefully changed the world with our policies, and from your point of view, come up with some really smart suggestions there. Now, for our listeners — they're on the ground, they're investors — what's your message to a would-be property investor in the market today? What's your bit of advice?

Cameron: I think my advice to a would-be property investor is that investment has got more difficult than it used to be. I think that all the incentives are going towards buying brand new properties, but not all brand new properties are the same. So, you really need to understand who it is, firstly, building your project, but also delivering the project — what their track record is, who they are, and what sort of quality they do deliver. I think the other thing is, it's not all about the incentive. So, if you're in a certain situation, you may still be able to invest in established properties, but you need to understand that there are significant costs, potentially, if you're trying to negatively gear a property. I think the other point is, not everyone wants a negatively geared property. Some people want positively geared properties. So increasingly, going forward, if you are investing in residential property or any other asset class, the income from that asset is going to be more important than the capital growth — because you're going to get taxed a lot more on the capital growth than you are going to get taxed on the income that comes from that property. So, yields, I think, become a lot more important. And I think this is one of the reasons why there's likely to be more pressure on rents as well, because landlords are going to be looking at how they can get a better income from this property, rather than a better capital growth outcome.

Brent: I think you're spot on with that. Probably lastly, if you're a property investor, do you think now is the right time to be buying?

Cameron: Look, I think there's always good opportunities. And I think, as I said, it's become a little bit more difficult to be buying now, but you shouldn't discount that. In fact, it might be better to make a move now, before all of these changes go through Parliament. The other thing I would say to any property investors is this does still have to go through Parliament, so there's a real chance that things could change a little bit. They could get watered down. I do know that they're trying to pass it quite quickly this year, and trying to get the Greens on side to do that. But look, you shouldn't discount investing at the moment. It's probably just got a little bit more tricky than it has been for the last little while.

Brent: Yeah. But when you look at it — and we've spoken in parts through this — long-term property investment will always do pretty well. There's going to be some short-term bumps. There might be some tax changes along the way, but evidently, long-term property investment is still a good wealth creation vehicle for people.

Cameron: Yeah, if you're in it for the long term, still a great time to be investing. But if you're looking to make a quick buck, the next couple of years it might be a little bit more difficult to make a quick buck from investing in residential property.

Brent: Yeah, excellent. Cam, it's been really insightful today. You've made tax sound fun. I think you've come up with some great ideas to fix the housing issue within Australia, particularly around the supply and demand levers that could be considered. But I think you've given our listeners some really useful advice. So, thanks so much for joining and passing on your experience.

Cameron: Thanks for having me.

Brent: Thanks for listening to the Live proud podcast, brought to you by Frasers Property Australia — creating stronger, smarter, happier neighbourhoods since 1924. Because pride starts with where you call home, but it grows through community spirit and a sense of belonging that makes life richer every day. Subscribe to hear more conversations that celebrate what it means to live proud.

Disclaimer: The views, opinions, estimates, forecasts, and recommendations expressed in this podcast are those of Frasers Property Australia and any guest speakers and are provided in good faith based on information believed to be accurate and not misleading at the time of recording. These views do not necessarily reflect those of Frasers Property Australia as a whole. Frasers Property Australia does not make any express or implied representations or warranties that the opinions or statements of guest speakers are accurate, complete, or correct. The information discussed is of a general nature only and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation, or needs. This podcast does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice and should not be relied upon as such. Before making any decisions or taking action based on the information discussed, you should consider whether it is appropriate for your circumstances and, if necessary, seek independent professional advice.