James Kirby

Okay, that was CGT.

And separately on the negative gearing then, new houses only.

Quick question.

How many investors, as a portion of all investors in Australia, negatively gear new houses?

Roughly.

Would it be less than 10%?

But what I'm trying to find out is they're set to make a big song and dance basically about excluding new properties from any negative gearing changes.

What I'm trying to find out is how often do investors negatively gear new property?

I thought it was pretty rarely.

What's the weakness of what seems to be proposed?

What would trigger that sort of big institutional entry into the market with these changes?

I don't immediately understand why it becomes more tax-intensive.

If you had a situation where the negative gearing was unlimited in new housing and limited in existing housing, it would encourage that.

It's interesting.

That's exactly what the super funds said when Jim Chalmers originally tried to sort of nudge them into going into housing.

They said the yields aren't there, the returns aren't there, but of course it could change that.

That's a very interesting aspect.

From an investor point of view, folks, I suppose it means that you could be bidding against

Blackstone or BlackRock or Australian Super in the market.

That's the issue.