Housing and Cost of Rent [S1-15]

Show Notes

A live event was held on Sunday 15 March 2026 at 2pm at the AEU Tasmanian branch.

Please leave a comment, particularly if you have your own “Why can’t they just…” question, or email us at whycanttheyjust@gmail.com. We’d love to hear from you.

Please also feel free to rate and review us, as it does help people to find us.

Music: Franz Schubert’s Piano Trio No. 2 in E-flat Major
Performed by Rudolf Serkin, Adolf Busch, and Hermann Busch

Transcript

William Sinclair
Welcome to Why Can’t They Just? looking at politics, policy and getting stuff done. My name is William Sinclair and I’m a recent graduate at the ANU.

Janaline Oh
My name’s Janaline Oh. I am a former diplomat and a climate and anti-racism activist. I’d like to acknowledge that William and I are both recording on the unceded lands of First Nations people in Australia and we pay our respects to their elders past and present and to any First Nations listeners that we have today.

William Sinclair
This episode we’ll be looking at the question, why can’t they just stop rent freezes? This was a very popular Greens policy two years ago, in the lead up to the 2025 election, where the Greens blocked Labor’s housing bill as it was making its way through the Senate.

The Greens were calling for an immediate rent freeze for two years, coordinated through National Cabinet. Following the freeze, capping future rental increases at 2% every two years. Now rent freezes have been explored in the ACT where the Greens and Labor are in coalition. Janaline, why can’t Labor just put in a rent freeze?

Janaline Oh
So on the ACT’s rental policies, it’s not a rent freeze, it’s a limit on the amount that landlords can increase rent. So you’re allowed to increase rent by up to the consumer price index plus 10% every 12 months. So that is a control, it’s not a freeze.

On why Labor can’t do rent freezes, there are some technical reasons and there are some kind of economic reasons, and I suppose also social reasons. So, on the technical side, it’s not a Commonwealth responsibility. Rental policy is the preserve of the states and territories. As you can see, the ACT has a particular policy on rents. I think New South Wales and Victoria have also been looking at ways of controlling rent increases.

So the Greens were arguing that the Commonwealth could, through the National Cabinet, essentially strong arm the states and territories into implementing a rent freeze by either threatening to withhold money or by offering money to states and territories who did that. To be honest, I think it is very difficult for the Commonwealth to force the states and territories to do stuff. One of the things that we saw recently in the response to the Bondi terrorism attack was that Labor introduced some stricter laws on gun ownership for example. And the Northern Territory and Queensland and Tasmania, all of whom are currently run by conservative governments, have said straight up ‘no, we’re not going to do that’. So I think the sort of constitutional reason that Labor can’t just do this is because it’s not actually a federal responsibility.

Having said that, is it a good idea? It sounds very attractive, right? For current renters, the idea that you can just have your rent frozen is an attractive idea, particularly for people who may have recently suffered significant rent increases. And I think there was a spate of media articles over the past couple of years of people saying that, you know, their rents have increased by a significant amount. I have to say, those stories are terrible and obviously individuals’ lives have been affected.

But overall, if you look at the rental market, rents for existing renters have not increased by that much over the last couple of years. When, kind of, real estate analysts talk about rental increases, what they’re talking about is an increase in the price of advertised new rentals. So this is when properties come back onto the rental market or enter the rental market for the first time, they’re advertised at a certain price and the price that is cited for the amount that rents have increased over the past 12 months or two years is the price that is advertised for new rentals. So it doesn’t mean that for people who are in existing rental properties, their rents have increased by 10% over the last two years or 50% over the last five years, right? So, that’s an important distinction.

Having said that, why wouldn’t you freeze rents? Well, a number of cities have experimented or have implemented rent freeze policies. New York’s had rental controls for decades. And what has happened in New York is that as the population has grown and the market rate of apartments has risen, the rental controls have led to a situation where a lot of controlled apartments are falling into disrepair because their landlords cannot afford to upgrade them, because they can’t recoup that investment back in rent. Or there have been situations where a rent controlled apartment has been vacated for whatever reason and the landlord has not put it back on the market because the amount that they would have to spend to repair it to make it livable is so much, that the rent controlled rate at which they’re allowed to lease it means that it is actually cheaper for them to keep the apartment vacant than it is to upgrade it and have someone live in it.

So in that respect, in New York, arguably, rent controls are actually making the rental market smaller. It’s putting pressure on, upwards pressure on the price of market rental apartments, and it’s also stopping landlords from actually improving their properties and making them livable.

So I think it sounds very attractive from the perspective of existing renters. It could potentially be locking people out of the rental market, and it could also be just making the properties that are rent-controlled worse. As in, they’re not getting maintained, they’re not getting upgraded because the landlords can’t recoup that investment.

William Sinclair
I’ll just come in on that. I guess for people who are renters, for people who are progressively inclined, for people who are seeing their budgets dwindle because they have to pay more and more for rent, what can Labor offer these people instead? Because I suppose the feeling is that the current situation is untenable. What has Labor got?

Janaline Oh
So, I think the thing about rent freezes is that they’re not necessarily going to deliver the outcomes you want. I think what Labor can do and what Labor is doing is try to increase housing supply, which means just firstly building a lot more stuff. And, you know, the Housing Australia Future Fund was actually about putting quite a bit of money into new building.

The other thing that Labor governments across the country, and again this is principally a state and territory responsibility, is encouraging what the so-called YIMBY movement, or Yes in My Backyard movement, is calling the missing middle, which is essentially in established suburbs, which are full of single family detached dwellings, actually changing the planning laws to make it possible to have medium and high density dwellings in those areas.

What that does is it means that where there is existing infrastructure, so there are shops, there is public transport, there are schools, there are parks; all of that existing infrastructure doesn’t have to be rebuilt because what you can do is you can change maybe a handful of single family dwellings and make them into two, three, four or six family dwellings. So where you had one family, you can potentially have three families or six families.

This has been quite strongly resisted by a lot of the existing residents in these suburbs for, you know, reasons that it changes the character, they don’t like the idea of all these new people coming in, they don’t want to have flats in their suburbs. But the advantages of doing this is it just provides more options in these suburbs, particularly for older people in large family homes who want to downsize once their children have moved out. They want maybe, maybe not an apartment, maybe they want a townhouse with a spare bedroom for their grandchildren. But what they really want is to be able to stay in their existing suburb because that’s where their friends are, that’s where their shops are, that’s where their hairdresser is. You know, they have access to public transport, they know the neighborhood.

So enabling those people, giving them the option to downsize but stay in their suburb can then free up the big family home for a growing family, a young family that wants to move in and can then make proper use of that family home.

William Sinclair
That all sounds great, but I think that young people are increasingly despondent about the situation now. It seems unlikely that they’re going to be able to get into a house at all. House prices, I think the median house price, particularly in Sydney, is $1.5 million or something like that. It’s impossible to get $1.5 million. It would seem near impossible to get your hands on $1.5 million purely through working, unless you’re some incredibly talented person working in finance.

Ultimately, I think that the issue is essentially an inequality crisis. Like I think rich people buy up all the assets and the assets get more expensive and then there’s less for everyone else. Do you think that the Labor Party would ever think about linking high asset prices, high house prices, high rents to increasing inequality?

Janaline Oh
Yeah, and look, I think they do. I mean, definitely the Treasurer has said that he wants to look at options for tax reform in this coming budget - with a particular eye on intergenerational equity. So I think they are aware of the problem.

So increasing supply is definitely something that they’re trying to do, including, you know, infill in existing suburbs, which of course means also that you’re not clearing new suburbs. You’re not having to put in all that expensive infrastructure. People are in the city and not miles and miles away from the city, but increasing supply is not, I think, going to be enough to deal with the current problem, because I think you’re right.

In a lot of ways, it’s not necessarily just a supply problem. It’s also an affordability problem, and it’s also an access problem. So I think looking at the taxation arrangements, is also useful.

So people are probably aware that in Australia, if you have an investment property, then you can claim all expenses associated with that property, including interest payments on the mortgage against your personal income tax. And this is called negative gearing. It very, very disproportionately benefits higher income earners. I think something like 70% of the benefit goes to the top quartile of income earners. So it’s very regressive.

The other thing that the government is actually contemplating, maybe, or at least, rumour has it that they’re contemplating and they keep saying that - they keep not ruling it out, let’s say, is a change to a thing called capital gains tax. So what the Howard government, the Howard Liberal government instituted in the 1990s was a concession on capital gains tax. So if you buy an asset, and you hold it for more than a year, and it doubles in value, then normally you should pay tax on the amount that it increased in value. That’s called a capital gain.

So if I buy a house for $500,000, I sell it more than a year later for $1,000,000, I should pay tax on the extra $500,000. What Howard did was he said, if you hold that property for more than a year, you only have to pay capital gains tax on half of that amount. So I only then have to pay tax on $250,000 of that $500,000. So it’s a pretty big concession.

Various people have done modelling on this and have found that if you remove that concession, it probably wouldn’t dramatically reduce house prices. Now, there’s a lot of debate amongst economists about that modelling and how accurate it is. But a bigger question is, how much is it costing the budget? So, capital gains tax, the capital gains tax concession is costing the budget something like $35 billion a year. And that is projected to increase significantly over the next several years. So essentially what it means is that you are forgoing $35 billion a year that could be used for increasing Medicare, you know, expanding the National Disability Insurance Scheme, funding schools and roads.

William Sinclair
I’m going to go further than that. I would say that it’s a betrayal of the stated Liberal Party values of wanting to reward hard work. They say they want to reward hard work. They say that if you work really hard, we want to help you get ahead. And then they tax the kid who works at McDonald’s, who makes $50,000 a year, more than the kid who just sold some asset which he bought by getting money from his parents. So it’s just a, I mean, to say nothing about how it helps the bottom line of the budget, I think it’s just a total betrayal of that centre-right ideology, which the Liberal Party claims to represent.

The other Greens critique about housing and housing prices and why the Labor Party - the Greens would say something like this, the Labor Party does not want housing prices to decrease because a whole bunch of Labor politicians in Parliament own 3, 4, 5 investment properties and they personally stand to gain if housing prices go up.

Janaline Oh
A recent survey of parliamentarians’ holdings found that Mereen Faruqi, the Deputy Leader of the Greens, is the second highest property owner in the parliament.

William Sinclair
Really?

Janaline Oh
Yeah, I think she has something like 6 investment properties.

I mean, I think that is kind of a ridiculous argument, right? Because politicians have not traditionally, in Australia at least, implemented policies purely for their own self-interest. I mean, you know, look at, let’s look at the stage 3 tax cuts, right?

So the stage 3 tax cuts were legislated by the Morrison Liberal government in 2019. Stage one tax cuts provided a temporary lower and middle income tax offset. Stage 2 tax cuts provided tax cuts for sort of slightly higher earners. And the stage 3 tax cuts were going to get rid of a whole tax bracket and dramatically cut the top tax rate. It was going to deliver a very substantial tax cut to people earning more than $200,000 a year, right? That is every single member of Parliament.

What did Labor do? They implemented the tax cut, but they changed it, so they halved the benefit to those people at the very, very top of the income scale: instead of getting an extra $9,000 a year, they only get an extra $4,000 a year. And with the rest of that money, they distributed it as a tax cut all through the system with a particular focus on the lower end. So essentially they voted against their interest. If they had done nothing, they would all have got an extra 900, an extra $9,000 a year.

William Sinclair
Okay, so if the Labor Party is not in the business of acting in their own best interests, what is the Labor Party’s objective when it comes to housing prices? Do they really want housing prices to increase or decrease? What is the Labor Party’s objective?

Janaline Oh
Look, I would say the Labor Party is probably not desperate to see house prices increase. I think they are aware that increasing house prices are putting a lot of pressure on people who are already suffering a lot of pressure. And that is a political risk for them. Also, it is, you know, these are people that I think Labor genuinely cares about. I would hope everyone in the parliament cared about these people.

I think they are nervous about saying we want to see house prices decrease. And the reason for that is because there are a whole lot of people who bought houses right at the tail end of the pandemic, when the Governor of the Reserve Bank had said that he did not think there would be a case for raising interest rates, which at that stage were close to zero.

He said he didn’t think that there would be a case for raising those interest rates for at least another two or three years. And a whole lot of people piled into the housing market. House prices were quite high, but interest rates were very low. Those people are the people who have been hit hardest by the 13 interest rate rises that happened between 2022 and 2024.

If house prices fall dramatically, those people are seriously underwater, right? They’ve borrowed a lot to buy their houses at the top of the market. If the value of those houses goes under, then they’re left with really high mortgages for a property that, even if they sell it, will no longer be enough to cover that debt.

So it’s very difficult for the Labor Party to say, ‘oh, yes, let’s just see a, you know, decline in house prices’, which would be great for people trying to enter the market, but potentially terrible for a significant cohort of people who have very high debt because they bought at the top of the market when interest rates were low. So I think what Labor would probably like to see, and they probably will never admit to this in public, I think they would probably like to see a slowdown and potentially a very slight and gentle decline in house prices over time, so that as people’s wages get higher, house prices come down a little bit and they kind of come together.

Now, that is not very satisfying for people who are trying to get into the housing market, because at the moment, as you say, I think the median house price in Sydney is not one and a half million, but it is over a million. I think it’s something like $1.1 million. That’s a lot of money for a young person in your position about to start, you know, your first real job after uni to contemplate being able to, you know, cough up.

So I think it’s a very, very difficult problem, right? It’s about how do you manage to, how do you, how do you balance the interests of people trying to get into the market with the interests of people who are already in the market in a way that doesn’t make things worse and hopefully makes things better. It’s not a very satisfying solution, right? But I think, if you look at, kind of, the economic reality, you don’t want to have a housing crash in the way that you had in the US in 2008.

William Sinclair
So, I’ve been thinking about this myself. I guess that, okay, so let’s say we lived in an economy without mortgages. So let’s say there were workers, workers would work until they saved up enough money to buy a house outright. That means that most of the people on sort of the bottom 50% of people who don’t really own assets would want to see house prices fall and then the people who own lots of assets would like to see house prices rise. And then obviously the people who want to see house prices fall could vote accordingly.

What mortgages do is they allow poor and middle income people, those people in the bottom 50% if you will, to buy property and then they themselves are incentivised to see house prices increase just like rich people. So then when the Labor Party comes in, they can’t, if they make house prices increase, that means that people trying to get in are screwed. If they make house prices decrease, that means that the people who are not terribly wealthy, are working class, who have mortgages, are also screwed over. So to me, the goose is kind of cooked as soon as you give ordinary people mortgages, because you incentivise them as if they’re a rich person, but they’re not.

Janaline Oh
But what’s the alternative? Because I think, I mean, I think we’re very, very far from a world where people can sort of reasonably expect to buy a house outright, like that’s just, that’s an insane amount of money to save even within a lifetime, right? So I think you’ve got to have a mechanism where people can buy a house up front and then pay it off over time. I mean, that’s the point of a mortgage.

I think the other thing that Labor can do and should do more of and probably isn’t doing enough of is a focus on social and public housing because I think… So the difference between social and public housing, public housing is built by governments, owned by governments and managed by governments. I will say governments aren’t very good at this. If you look at the state of public housing in the ACT for example, which is a relatively rich jurisdiction, it’s pretty awful and it suggests to me that the government’s not very good at managing housing. Social housing is basically low rent housing for low income people that is managed by a third party, usually a charity. So, it’s generally managed by a not-for-profit.

I think the government should be looking at ways in which it can improve, incentivise and increase the provision of social and public housing. Now, again, this is not a federal responsibility. What the federal government can do is provide money to the states and territories to deliver this. And that was one of the things that the Greens were asking for and that’s one of the things that Labor actually delivered. They put $3 billion into social and public housing for the states and territories.

The other thing that I think Labor should do more aggressively, both at federal level and at state and territory level, is look at ways of incentivising and removing the barriers to factory built housing. So in Europe, a lot of the houses are basically built in factories and then, you know, taken out on big flatbed trucks to sites and put on the site. The advantage of that is that the house can be built in a much more reliable timeframe because you’re not subject to the weather. So if you’re building a house on site, obviously if it rains, you have to stop work. If it’s too hot, you have to stop work. You know, the wind can blow things away. The rain can damage things.

If you build it in a factory, none of that is a problem. Factory housing also means that you can have all of your trades on site available at any time you need them. So another big issue with on-site building, and the reason that nearly every building project runs over time, is because at some critical moment your plumber cannot be there on time. Or, you know, the glass maker is late or some order of something has been held up because of, I don’t know, an accident on the Hume Highway. And so the whole project grinds to a halt until that gets sorted out.

Factory built housing does not have these problems. The unions love factory built housing. Why? Because people are on site, they’re easy to organise. It’s good for the unions and also they tend to be good jobs. They’re more reliable jobs. There’s less reliance on, you know, subcontractors whose quality and qualifications can’t always be guaranteed. So there’s just a lot more ability to make sure that work health and safety is observed, that, you know, things can happen on time, that it’s very good for… Because some of the major cost blowouts, the biggest sources of cost blowouts for building projects are things being delayed. Like, it’s very, very costly to have delays. So you don’t eliminate those problems, but you dramatically reduce them. So there’s all sorts of advantages. Now, one of the things that I think the federal government could usefully do is work with the states and territories to look at the building regulations and make sure that they are compatible with and provide incentives for factory built housing.

William Sinclair
I’m just going to take a pivot. I want to talk about Labor’s plan to allow people to buy houses with smaller deposits. So a trip down memory lane, the great financial crisis happened after the big stock market crash of 1929. So the lead up to that was Wall Street had allowed regular investors to take out insane debts called levering to buy more of the stock market. So you could put in some amount of your own money and then borrow many, many times more than the actual amount of money that you had to buy a huge number of stocks. And then, that sounds great because initially that pushes up stock prices so everyone kind of wins for a while, except when you see a big price decrease, then that means that those people who had massively levered up their positions get completely wiped out. And this led to the crash of the 30s. In a similar way, the 2008 financial crisis was a very similar thing, allowing people to borrow a lot or lever up just with houses as opposed to stocks.

I am nervous that Labor’s plan of, ‘Oh, we’ll just let people borrow their way into pretending to be a homeowner’ is going to lead to a similar consequence.

Janaline Oh
So I think the protection against that is the fact that they’re in co-equity with the government. So the 5% house deposit is to buy into an equity arrangement with the government. And that is different, because what it means is that the government is there as the kind of silent equity partner, so that if you get into trouble, there is a public fallback, I guess. It’s not so much the government will bail you out, but that the part of the debt that is held by the government is not your problem. So you only have to worry about being half as leveraged as you as it looks on paper in terms of the value of the house.

William Sinclair
But going back to your thing earlier, you think that the Labor Party ideally would like to see house prices gently decline. What this kind of policy does is exactly the opposite.

Janaline Oh
Yeah, so I am not saying this to defend the policy. I am saying this to directly respond to your concern that this is going to lead to another subprime mortgage catastrophe. I think it is less likely to do that because of the sort of the government role in this.

Having said that, I generally think that demand side measures to help people into housing are not actually effective. I think they do just serve to push up house prices. I actually think they’re a terrible idea. I’m going to be honest. I would not have done that. I think it’s better than the Coalition’s version of that, which was just to have a direct $10,000 grant, which just pushed up house prices and meant that people just sort of had more debt. So I’m not going to defend the policy. I think it actually was not, I don’t think it was a policy that is actually going to help solve the problem, and as you say, to the extent that it pushes up house prices, and I think there is some evidence that it has done, it has actually worked against the objective of getting more people into affordable housing.

But I think some, you know, I mean, if you’re looking at, if you’re looking for solutions, I really think it is kind of an all of the above thing, right? I think you’ve got to try basically a whole lot of things and see what works. And I hope that what the government will do is when they see that a thing perhaps isn’t working like that 5% deposit scheme, I hope that they will review that policy and potentially either, you know, cancel it or phase it out or just reform it, do something different.

But I think there are all sorts of quite interesting experiments going out there in the private sector, in the not-for-profit sector, at state government level. You know, things like cooperative housing, things like community based housing. I think they’re probably not going to be a solution for the mass housing market. But I think all of these solutions help in their own way. And if you have enough of these solutions that help particular parts of the market, then you start to make a dent in the global problem.

William Sinclair
I guess, I guess my, my, I guess I’ll start off with my own, why can’t they just question? Ultimately, we don’t want to see a situation where people are either landlords or renters. We don’t want to see a situation where people are either renters or they own investment properties. My own why can’t they just is why can’t Labor just quietly end wealthy Australia’s obsession with rental investment properties and put in tax regimes that would put that would make it less lucrative to be a rent investment property owner so that people who have those properties sell them and that everyone can end up with more or less one house.

Janaline Oh
Yeah, so interesting. I mean, I had this conversation with Callum on a podcast episode a little while back. I think, like, I agree with you. I think we should look at the tax system. I think we should look at ways of decreasing the attractiveness of real estate as an investment option relative to investing in shares or productive enterprises, right? I definitely think we should be doing that.

I wish I wish we had won the 2019 election and then we would have reformed negative gearing and the capital gains tax and we would have reformed the franking credits regime for, you know, shareholdings in Australian companies. We would have hopefully, you know, taken a look at some of the more egregious superannuation concessions for very, very high super balance holders. All of these things would have helped a lot.

Unfortunately, we lost that election and one of the lessons that the Labor Party derived from that was that these policies were not popular. Like, you know, if I had a dollar for every time I heard a Labor minister say, ‘well, we took that to two elections and we lost. The voters have spoken; they didn’t like that policy’.

So you know, I’m hoping that they will now be at a point in 2025 of saying, well, nine years later and six years later for those two elections that they lost, I’m hoping that they will see that the electorate has changed, that maybe voters will take a different view now, that the world has changed, circumstances have changed. There are different voters now. I mean, a lot of the voters who were there 10 years ago are no longer with us and a whole lot of voters like you who were not voting 10 years ago are now voters. So I think it’s, I’m hoping that the party will draw, will not overthink the lessons of previous elections, but actually look at the current situation and look at the appropriateness of current tax settings and do something.

Because when I say all of the above, I think we need to do more housing supply. I think we need to do planning and zoning so that we can do that, you know, high density in existing suburbs. I think we should look at different options for social, affordable and public housing. But I also think we need to look at the tax systems and look at ways of making it more attractive to invest in productive enterprises as opposed to real estate.

William Sinclair
I, okay, I’ll just say this final point and then I think we’ll wrap up. I broadly agree with Labor’s incrementalist style. I think that rapid change is A, tends to be unpopular and B, tends to, we may tend to make a lot of mistakes and I do like incrementalism. And the Labor Party has tended to go too far and shock the electorate with a big thing and then create a wave of resistance and then get thrown out of government off the back of that resistance. And obviously I think that Anthony Albanese’s strategy of being so slow and methodical that it’s impossible for the other side to form a coherent resistance against one particular policy which they would view as an overreach. I think that’s a good policy.

Having said that, we’re in a very different place now than in 2019, and the electorate is angrier and they’re looking for people to blame, probably people in the so-called establishment two-party system. And I am concerned that that incrementalism will look too much like defending the system, at a time when defending the system is very unpopular.

Janaline Oh
Yeah, and look, I think your concern is very well founded. What the government actually needs to do is to get better at framing the pretty significant policy reforms that they are implementing as significant policy reforms.

I mean, I think you’re right. I think one of the traps that Labor has fallen into under Anthony Albanese is, again, over-learning the lessons of the past, that, whereas in the past, I think you’re right, you know, Labor has tended to go for kind of bold reforms and then got beaten back and lost elections. That was certainly the case with Gough Whitlam. It was the case with Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.

I think you’re right though that at this stage, just careful incrementalism and hoping that people notice those little changes making a difference in their lives is not going to cut it. I think it is not enough. I think what they should be doing is being prepared to own the ambition of their own policies because they are not an unambitious government. They have done a lot of ambitious reform. I mean, increasing bulk billing in Medicare, fully funding public schools, not to mention the energy transition, which is literally the most revolutionary change to our industrial base since the Industrial Revolution. I mean, they have done all of these things. They are ambitious. They are big, big policies. And they’re talking about them as though, oh no, they’re just a little tinkering just to make things a little bit better. So I think they need to actually own their own ambition.

The other thing that I think they do need to do though is again, and coming back to housing and taxation, they need to be willing to do something a little bit brave that is going to generate a bit of a backlash from certain areas and be prepared to actually make the case for why this is better and actually take that to the people and say, we think that this is going to be in your interests, you the average Australian, and this is the reason why, and we are going to own that. And I think that kind of, that kind of presentation of their ambition is what will hopefully, what has the potential to give people hope that the government might have some solutions and therefore restore a little bit of that faith in government and the ability of government to make change for good.

William Sinclair
That was this week’s episode of Why Can’t They Just, recorded on the 24th of February 2026. This is actually going to be one of the last episodes of Why Can’t They Just. Janaline is going to be moving on to a radio show in Canberra. But for those of you lucky enough to live in Tasmania, Janaline will be coming down and we’re hoping to host a live podcast event where the audience can ask questions.

Janaline Oh
That will be so fun.

William Sinclair
My name is William Sinclair.

Janaline Oh
My name is Janaline Oh, and this is Why Can’t They Just?