Paul Schroder

And there's about $55 trillion worth of housing.

So there's 30 thereabouts GDP, 31.4 to be precise, of $55 trillion worth of housing.

In Australia, our GDP is $2.72 trillion and housing's worth 12.

The whole show, this whole show is built on housing.

So if we're going to be serious about it, you've got to go, the whole show is built on housing.

The house is always going to win unless we say we're going to build the show on something else.

Well, the cat's out of the bag if everybody's serious about it, right?

So is it embedded, for example, in everybody's model?

that we genuinely want housing to be a smaller proportion as a proportion of GDP?

Is that a thing we would like because we'd rather productive capital, because we'd rather earnings capital, we'd rather turn wealth into investable job creating things?

Or is it I'm a little bit worried about my kids and I don't want to look like my $50 million house matters too much, right?

Is it just kind of like polite conversation or is it really serious that we're prepared to reset housing

The expectations, the measures, the targets, the valuation process.

Well, the first thing is I am really focused on whether people can have houses and housing.

And I do spend a lot of time

advocating about it and challenging people about being much more urgent about it and understanding that it's a supply problem and that it requires much more than just government to respond.

The second thing is we invest...

more than $20 billion across the supply chain to help with supply.

So Rees Plumbing, Blue Scope Steel, great companies that are going to be involved in the supply.

Yeah, but you're not suggesting to me, Alan, that I should invest in anything other than trying to make the best risk-adjusted net return for people, are you?