Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm
Speaker 1: James Kirkby. Welcome aboard everybody. There is a subject I
Speaker 1: have wanted to do on the show for a long
Speaker 1: time and it's about wills and estate planning and inheritance.
Speaker 1: Now stay with me here. It's only human if you
Speaker 1: were to say not today, no thank you, because that's
Speaker 1: a problem that all investors have. They don't want to
Speaker 1: deal with this until they have to. But one of
Speaker 1: the things we see again and again is it's so
Speaker 1: important actually to be across this. Now. I've been trying
Speaker 1: to find a way to get this issue on the
Speaker 1: show in a way that you'd find interesting, and fortunately
Speaker 1: I've come upon somebody and something Inherits Australia is an
Speaker 1: operation which involves a man called Chris Hill, and he
Speaker 1: has done a marvelous exercise by keeping tabs on the
Speaker 1: most interesting cases in the land basically and what we
Speaker 1: learn from them. And most recently he watched the Mushroom
Speaker 1: murders trial Aaron Patterson, of course, who's now been convicted
Speaker 1: of three murders, one of the biggest cases of the year.
Speaker 1: And what's fascinating of course is that Aaron Patterson's quite
Speaker 1: wealthy and she received most of that wealth through inheritance,
Speaker 1: and there's also going to be consequences now that she's
Speaker 1: been found guilty for that wealth. So is the ideal
Speaker 1: man to have on the show this week, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Chris Hill of inherit Australia, How are you? Thanks for
Speaker 1: coming on?
Speaker 2: Very good, Thank you, James, and good morning or good
Speaker 2: afternoon to our listeners.
Speaker 1: Great to have you on, Chris. And first of all,
Speaker 1: you know, hats off from making the most averted dimension
Speaker 1: of investment interesting on this issue as well, very few
Speaker 1: things are more interesting than the Mushroom murders trial, which
Speaker 1: has been a gigantic story here all around the world. Now,
Speaker 1: one of the things I just wanted to ask you,
Speaker 1: Aaron Partison, it turns out, first of all, is quite
Speaker 1: a wealthy woman, largely due to inheritances. Could you explain
Speaker 1: what is it she inherited and what was her situation
Speaker 1: VISI vie in inheritance and wills.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this all came out in the testimony that
Speaker 2: we heard, I think it was on the first of
Speaker 2: May at court. She inherited about two million dollars from
Speaker 2: her grandmother in two thousand and six. That was distributed
Speaker 2: over an eight year period from I think two thousand
Speaker 2: and seven, and then she also received an inheritance of
Speaker 2: about nine hundred thousand dollars in a beach fund property
Speaker 2: from her mother in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 3: So I guess the.
Speaker 2: Issue that's going to arise now that she has been
Speaker 2: convicted is what's going to happen with those inheritances as well,
Speaker 2: of course, as what is a sentence going to be.
Speaker 1: So there's something in particular, isn't there that might necessarily
Speaker 1: come up and the trial or actly this mightn't come
Speaker 1: up in conventional general news coverage about this whole incident.
Speaker 1: But if you're wealthy basically, and you have assets, and
Speaker 1: you are convicted of murder, and in this case quite
Speaker 1: extraordinary three murders, then the estates linked with the victims
Speaker 1: of those murders they can claim against you, can they?
Speaker 2: Yes, certainly so if we look at the victims of
Speaker 2: those estates, which is the beneficiaries of the deceased persons,
Speaker 2: they have a right to make a claim against Eron
Speaker 2: in this case for what we call wrongful death under
Speaker 2: the Wrongs Act in Victoria, Part three of the Wrongs Act.
Speaker 2: So that's a compensation. That's a civil claim for compensation
Speaker 2: for the loss of income, loss of medical expenses, and
Speaker 2: other indirect losses as a result of it of losing
Speaker 2: their father, their mother, their brother, whoever that beneficiary is.
Speaker 1: And the three estates of the three murdered unfortunate murdered
Speaker 1: people linked in the Air and Patterson case. Those the
Speaker 1: states can claim against Aaron Patterson's own assets, can.
Speaker 2: They Yes, So it's a claim against her personally. It's
Speaker 2: a civil claim for compensation. And of course the issue
Speaker 2: that arises is if there's a judgment, as there inevitably
Speaker 2: will be in respect of each of those states, how
Speaker 2: that judgment can be satisfied and what assets of errands
Speaker 2: can be taken?
Speaker 1: And do you think they will do this?
Speaker 2: I think it's inevitable, right, It's a significant cases you've
Speaker 2: identified the wrongs that claims are easily broad because it's indisputable.
Speaker 2: Or you have to do is show that you are
Speaker 2: a victim of a person who commits a wrongdoing, and
Speaker 2: in this case, a convicted killer is a wrongdoer for
Speaker 2: the purposes of Yet.
Speaker 1: I don't follow criminal cases very often, but I would
Speaker 1: imagine in most cases the perpetrator, the murderer doesn't have
Speaker 1: much money in many cases, but in this case it's
Speaker 1: mostly unusual, isn't it? She is wealthy by most standards?
Speaker 1: But also intriguing here, Chris, is the fact that her wealth,
Speaker 1: in turn is due to wills and inheritance, isn't it?
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2: It's inherited wealth that she's received directly or indirectly. And
Speaker 2: I guess the question that arises is to what extent
Speaker 2: could any court judgment seize those inherited assets? And that
Speaker 2: comes down to in many cases, whether she has a
Speaker 2: fully vested, beneficial and legal interest in those state assets
Speaker 2: or whether they're held in still held on a trust.
Speaker 2: The two thousand and seven estate for the grandmother, my
Speaker 2: understanding was that it was paid out over eight years. Yes,
Speaker 2: so of course that's already expired. Now what she's done
Speaker 2: with that wealth? And I suspect that she's fed a
Speaker 2: lot of it on legal fees? But what if it's
Speaker 2: left of that wealth? I believe there were some loans
Speaker 2: as well that she made to help fund properties. Those
Speaker 2: loans would constitute assets, so to that extent, those assets
Speaker 2: could be seized as a result of a court order
Speaker 2: for any one of these wrongful desk claims.
Speaker 1: So could the properties that she owns end up being
Speaker 1: sold to satisfy these claims. Yes, right, absolutely fascinating. I
Speaker 1: didn't know any of this. One of the things it
Speaker 1: highlights is there are many people, I'm sure where wills
Speaker 1: and inheritance are so important, but in the case of
Speaker 1: Aaron Patterson, it explains almost entirely her wealth, and it
Speaker 1: also explains what's going to happen next in relation to
Speaker 1: that wealth. It's one of the things I suppose that
Speaker 1: the background being that Australia is a wealthy country and
Speaker 1: we have this enormous wealth transfer going on between generations.
Speaker 1: So you were telling me earlier about how the nature
Speaker 1: of wills is changing, how people are being more careful
Speaker 1: about what might go wrong in the future when they
Speaker 1: leave it will. I heard that one time that when
Speaker 1: you do will, most of the time what you hope
Speaker 1: will happen may not actually occur unless you add.
Speaker 3: All these extras.
Speaker 1: What are people doing these days that they used to
Speaker 1: do before to try and ensure that what they aim
Speaker 1: for and the will actually occurs in the fullness of time.
Speaker 2: That's a good question because I think there is a
Speaker 2: growing trend in the community for people to put conditions
Speaker 2: on their wills for a number of reasons. There's a
Speaker 2: build up of wealth, particularly property wealth that's accumulated over
Speaker 2: a period of time that's significant when it comes to
Speaker 2: the value of an estate. We used to see, or
Speaker 2: we still see, migrant workers in sy Carlton that didn't
Speaker 2: have a lot of income in their life but had
Speaker 2: very valuable assets. Their properties appreciated so much that means
Speaker 2: that there are states a lot larger. We're also seeing
Speaker 2: people now that have had more diverse relationships, blended families,
Speaker 2: multiple partners, children from different partners, same sex, and binary
Speaker 2: non binary. So we're seeing the complexity of the Australian
Speaker 2: society change and I think more people are looking at well,
Speaker 2: how do I make sure that my money gets into
Speaker 2: the right hands at the right time and doesn't get
Speaker 2: lost by any other person or any other claim. And
Speaker 2: the trend is towards definitely using testamentary trusts, especially if
Speaker 2: there's more significant wealth, and more even more so restrictive
Speaker 2: trust or capital protective trusts where there's significant wealth.
Speaker 1: So for someone who has no idea. What all these
Speaker 1: things mean. There's a will under trust? Is that how
Speaker 1: it works?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 2: So what we do in the case of a testamentary trust,
Speaker 2: we create the ability for a beneficiary to receive their
Speaker 2: share of the inheritance through a trust that's a connected
Speaker 2: to the will. In a more simple will, we just
Speaker 2: give them their inheritance. Right. So, if we circle back
Speaker 2: to Aaron Patterson, if she had received that money, if
Speaker 2: her mother had died today and just given it to her,
Speaker 2: that would be lost to her through any of these
Speaker 2: wrongful death claims. Or to bring it into context, if
Speaker 2: I left my wealth, say to my son, and he
Speaker 2: got sued or he had a relationship breakdown, that wealth
Speaker 2: will get lost or get dissipated or caught up as
Speaker 2: part of a claim by creditor or claim by an
Speaker 2: ex spouse. The testamentary trust is designed to protect that
Speaker 2: wealth and to ring bark it or quarantine it if
Speaker 2: there's a relationship breakdown.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the simple idea of just a will and
Speaker 1: the amount of money you hand it over, that's sort
Speaker 1: of fading into more complex structures that try to foresee
Speaker 1: complications down the track. Okay, really interesting, we'd be back
Speaker 1: in a moment. There's something else I really want to
Speaker 1: talk to, Chrispose And yes, Aaron Patterson is a fascinating case.
Speaker 1: And so is the case of the person who left
Speaker 1: a will on an iPhone note that was worth ten
Speaker 1: million dollars and what happened next. We'll be back in
Speaker 1: a moment. Hello, and welcome back to The Australian's Money
Speaker 1: Puzzled podcast. James Kirby here with Chris Hill of Inherit Australia.
Speaker 1: And Chris is an expert in this area of wills
Speaker 1: and inheritance and as I mentioned, and as you can
Speaker 1: see from segment one, I wasn't kidding. He has managed
Speaker 1: to make this area so interesting, which is an area
Speaker 1: that is front and center really in weather accumulation, but
Speaker 1: so many people avoid it for a variety of reasons,
Speaker 1: mostly because it's complicated, it's dry, and people don't want
Speaker 1: to think about the fact that they are going to
Speaker 1: die someday and they should leave a will behind. Now
Speaker 1: there was an extraordinary case, wasn't it, Chris Frecent Dave.
Speaker 1: There was a person in New South Wales who left
Speaker 1: a will at the last moment on an iPhone note.
Speaker 1: This would be interesting anyway, the fact that there was
Speaker 1: a ten million dollar will made it twice as interesting.
Speaker 1: And then the will that was written of the iPhone notes, well,
Speaker 1: it ended up in court and it was contested. Could
Speaker 1: you tell us what happened?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: In fact involved in a state worth thirteen million dollars, right, yeah.
Speaker 2: So the significance of it is the fact that in
Speaker 2: this case mister Pete Colin Peak left behind a state
Speaker 2: and he after his death he had a document called
Speaker 2: Last Will of Colin Peak that was found in the
Speaker 2: notes app of his iPhone that purported to leave the
Speaker 2: bulk of his fortune to a close friend and within
Speaker 2: some lesser gifts to families. But there was a bit
Speaker 2: of dispute that arose between Colin Peake and his brother,
Speaker 2: who tried to argue that the note wasn't.
Speaker 3: A testamentary instrument.
Speaker 2: And this is probably a very recent case of a
Speaker 2: line of cases that were seeing the Robert Holmes of
Speaker 2: Court was one of those where people have not made
Speaker 2: a will or attempted to write a scribbled note somewhere
Speaker 2: as if it was a will, thinking that that's enough
Speaker 2: to get over the line. But of course what happened
Speaker 2: here was that the court decided that the note did
Speaker 2: not constitute a testamentary instrument, wasn't valid to be an
Speaker 2: informal will, and in those circumstances, he died in test state,
Speaker 2: which means that he died without a will or a
Speaker 2: valid will. And the Succession Act in New South Wales
Speaker 2: dealt with how that estate should be divided, and it
Speaker 2: left the estate to his brother.
Speaker 1: So just to clarify that the man who died and
Speaker 1: left this last minute with on his iPhone nose, the
Speaker 1: person he tried to end the money out didn't get it,
Speaker 1: and it was contested and the family actually got it.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: And because there was no children, no spouse, the intestacy,
Speaker 2: the Succession Act left the entire estate to the brother.
Speaker 1: I found amazing. Wasn't so much this dispute. The disputes
Speaker 1: every day about money, and thirteen million is a lot
Speaker 1: on a wis, so it was.
Speaker 3: A big dispute.
Speaker 1: But what I thought was extraordinary was the court didn't
Speaker 1: have any problem with the fact that it was actually
Speaker 1: written on an iPhone note. That wasn't any a thing,
Speaker 1: was it. You can even a will on an iPhone
Speaker 1: note if you wish, it would seem yeah.
Speaker 2: And that's because in New South Wales and in every
Speaker 2: state in Australia under the Irrelevant Succession Acts, there are
Speaker 2: provisions for what we call an informal will, and that
Speaker 2: can be a handwritten or typewritten note, or an email
Speaker 2: or a text, a video recording, or even an audio
Speaker 2: or a word document. The courts have considered different forms
Speaker 2: of what we might call a potential testamentary note. Right,
Speaker 2: this happened to be unusual because it was on an iPhone,
Speaker 2: and so the courts have applied three key tests to
Speaker 2: these sorts of issues. The first thing, is there a
Speaker 2: document or a record? Well, of course there was, and
Speaker 2: that can be in any different form. We've seen notes
Speaker 2: on napkins. There have been cases where someone has attempted
Speaker 2: to make a testamentary on a napkin. Yes, and this
Speaker 2: has been sought to be admitted into evidence as an
Speaker 2: informal will. So the court will look at the variety
Speaker 2: of media on which a written record is made and
Speaker 2: then they ask themselves, does the document or the note,
Speaker 2: or whatever the form of media is, even if it's
Speaker 2: an audio recording, purport to state the testamentary intentions of
Speaker 2: the deceased person. And the third question is does the
Speaker 2: decease intend this to be their last will? Right? This
Speaker 2: is their conclusive The court looks at a whole range
Speaker 2: of factors to decide that.
Speaker 1: So very quickly the courts put to one side, follow
Speaker 1: was written on and then discuss conventional issues like intention.
Speaker 1: That all there were always the things around will. And
Speaker 1: I suppose people are writing less, aren't they? I mean,
Speaker 1: I write less than I ever did, and I could
Speaker 1: imagine in ten years time never writing at all. Why
Speaker 1: would I need to? Once upon a time you'd go
Speaker 1: and interview somebody with your notebook. Now we'll just record
Speaker 1: it on my phone, just tip a button and there
Speaker 1: it is on a transcript, which is better than my writing.
Speaker 1: So the point I'm making is wills as we know
Speaker 1: them in this formal written document. It's probably going to
Speaker 1: become quite common that people leave videos or whatever, and
Speaker 1: they will stand up in court if the intention and
Speaker 1: the other legal aspects are good enough. Is that fair
Speaker 1: to say?
Speaker 2: It's fair to say that the courts are more aligned
Speaker 2: to contemporary modes of communication.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But it's.
Speaker 2: A balancing act because the Wills Act and each of
Speaker 2: the states have a very rigid process for making a
Speaker 2: will and executing a will for it to be binding
Speaker 2: and valid, and so what they don't want to do
Speaker 2: is upset that formal process because you introduced a lot
Speaker 2: of risk of mischief being introduced, or fraud or abuse.
Speaker 2: I mean, you could have a video recording of somebody
Speaker 2: making a will, but someone standing behind them with a
Speaker 2: gun outside of the view of the camera.
Speaker 3: So there's lots of issues.
Speaker 2: But you're right, the courts will entertain more common modes
Speaker 2: of communication like video or audio. But I think that
Speaker 2: certainly from our listener's point of view, having an audio
Speaker 2: recording with a written document like a will is going
Speaker 2: to be a lot more useful going forward, particularly when
Speaker 2: you want to explain why a will is drafted in
Speaker 2: a certain way, because we've seen recently cases where a
Speaker 2: court will want to look beyond the execution of it
Speaker 2: and ask did the will maker understand what they were signing?
Speaker 2: And we saw that We've seen that in the New
Speaker 2: South Wales case last year where the court asked, well, yes,
Speaker 2: they signed it, they understand I all know what they
Speaker 2: were signing. So communications like video audio will augment written documents.
Speaker 2: But it's this fascinating trend that we're seeing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the courts are actually, to my surprise, quite
Speaker 1: up to date there and allowing for it.
Speaker 3: Okay, terrific.
Speaker 1: Look, we'll take short break and there's something that I
Speaker 1: think everyone should know in the next segment. But simply
Speaker 1: if you think you inherit the super and there's no
Speaker 1: inheritance text in Australia actually most of the time for
Speaker 1: most people going to pay seventeen percent, we'll explain why.
Speaker 1: Hello and welcome back to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast.
Speaker 1: James Kirby talking to Chris Hill of Inherit Australia. Chris,
Speaker 1: I have a question from Bruce. Came in just about
Speaker 1: maybe the week before last and I said to myself,
Speaker 1: I'll keep this one up my sleeve for when we
Speaker 1: have you on the show. So this is from Bruce.
Speaker 1: He says, can you provide some clarification on the tax
Speaker 1: on inherited super. I used to be under the impression
Speaker 1: that if super was left to your estate then it
Speaker 1: would be passed on on text. However, recent podcast by
Speaker 1: you led me to doubt this. I asked my accountant
Speaker 1: and I ended up more confused than ever well, you
Speaker 1: shouldn't be confused, Bruce. Now this is not advice, it's
Speaker 1: always information only. But tell me if I'm wrong here, Chris.
Speaker 1: There is no inheritance tax in Australia, Part A, Part B.
Speaker 1: If you inherit super, there are super.
Speaker 3: Taxes, yes, all right.
Speaker 1: First of all, I want to ask you, is Super
Speaker 1: becoming more important in your scene book?
Speaker 2: Definitely? I mean we're seeing a build up in super.
Speaker 2: We're seeing the government's interest in super with this three
Speaker 2: million dollar division two nine six SEX, recognizing that that's
Speaker 2: another opportunity to grab more federal revenue. But it's part
Speaker 2: of the government's retirement incomes policy to encourage people to
Speaker 2: save for retirement. Of course, we have an aging population,
Speaker 2: so necessarily we have a buildup of money in the
Speaker 2: superannuation environment and that's going to continue. So there's going
Speaker 2: to be a lot of wealth transfer on death with
Speaker 2: money coming out of super. And tax on Super is
Speaker 2: in the spotlight for many people.
Speaker 1: In fact, I'd go as far as to say that
Speaker 1: it's for the vast majority of people most of the time,
Speaker 1: because tax jew on Super is due on what they
Speaker 1: call the taxable component. The taxable component is the bit basically,
Speaker 1: where you've got a concession compulsory super, that's most people super,
Speaker 1: isn't it. I mean, the vast majority of super that's
Speaker 1: rolling in at twelve percent SGC is compulsory, so most
Speaker 1: super will be due a seventeen percent tax. Why is
Speaker 1: there a seventeen percent tax on inheritance super?
Speaker 2: I think to just correct any sort of assumption around
Speaker 2: that the tax applies depending on who is the recipient
Speaker 2: YEP of the super benefit on death. If it's a
Speaker 2: surviving spouse or partner, there is no seventeen percent tax.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I should clarify that adult children, really, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're really only considering probably the death of the
Speaker 2: last person in the superannuation fund, or if it's a
Speaker 2: single member fund, the death of the member and it's
Speaker 2: either passing to the estate or the children of the
Speaker 2: deceased member. In those cases, the tax impost arises in respective.
Speaker 2: As you say, the taxable amount, which is basically any
Speaker 2: money that you've put into a superannuation fund, including your
Speaker 2: super guarantee payments where there has been a tax deduction
Speaker 2: claimed that forms part of the taxable amount. The tax
Speaker 2: free amount is basically money that you put into the
Speaker 2: superfund after you've already paid tax. That goes in tax
Speaker 2: free and it comes out tax free.
Speaker 1: From the mast reside of people is taxable because they've
Speaker 1: got the concession. They don't even remember getting the concession
Speaker 1: or anything like that. But basically, by law, you must
Speaker 1: put twelve percent if your salary package into super that
Speaker 1: is concessionally treated. Yeah, and so in the future, let's
Speaker 1: just say there's a couple and as you say, if
Speaker 1: the super transfers from one person to the other, it's
Speaker 1: not tax. But if the last remaining person in the
Speaker 1: couple then dies, typically transfers to their adult children. Those
Speaker 1: adult children will pay tax on most of the super
Speaker 1: most of the time.
Speaker 3: Is that right? That's right?
Speaker 2: With one technical point of difference is if they are
Speaker 2: a tax dependent okay, right, and this would only apply
Speaker 2: to children who have like a permanent disability or children
Speaker 2: who are under age twenty five.
Speaker 1: Okay, but adult children being most people most of the time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So Chris, why is there this tax?
Speaker 2: Well, look at it all stemmed from I mean when
Speaker 2: Pulkating developed the tax system. You know, there was basically
Speaker 2: tax when you exited the system, that was all changed
Speaker 2: in I think it was around ninety ninety three with
Speaker 2: the introduction of the Super Innovation act Ors this Act,
Speaker 2: and the government decided to tax money going in tax
Speaker 2: at a lower rate concessional rate, tax it during the
Speaker 2: operation of the fund and tax it on exit to
Speaker 2: sort of compensate for the tax that they were losing
Speaker 2: at the end.
Speaker 1: They wanted some money back for the favors they did
Speaker 1: you in the early days tax Mase.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you know they're basically saying to you, look,
Speaker 2: if we give you a tax benefit when you put
Speaker 2: money into the fund, we want some of that back
Speaker 2: when you die, as simple as that.
Speaker 1: But the thing about nineteen ninety three when Keating created
Speaker 1: it was that it was only three percent of your
Speaker 1: package went in. Yeah, I was twelve, So if you
Speaker 1: think about it, it was four times more involved.
Speaker 2: There is a way of avoiding that, of course, James,
Speaker 2: and that is if you pull the money out before
Speaker 2: you die.
Speaker 3: Yes, you avoid the seventeen percent tax.
Speaker 1: You can pull it out and put it back in,
Speaker 1: can't you and go do this ridiculous circular thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a very popular strategy of recycling money out
Speaker 2: of your taxable amount and putting it back in as
Speaker 2: a tax free amount, and that's a common strategy, but obviously,
Speaker 2: with the contribution caps, for many people, if as you say,
Speaker 2: if most of their superbalances is in that taxable amount,
Speaker 2: it might take many years to be able to recycle
Speaker 2: that out.
Speaker 1: So it's a recontribution strategy. And you basically, as you
Speaker 1: take it out once you are a certain age I
Speaker 1: think it's sixty to seventy five, you take the money out,
Speaker 1: it's tax free. You put it back in. Believe it
Speaker 1: or not, it's tax free. As you put it back in,
Speaker 1: it reduces the taxable amount. It reduces the amount of
Speaker 1: which you pay seventeen percent or at least your beneficiaries
Speaker 1: with in the future. Have I got that? Yes, right,
Speaker 1: in our absurdly complex, often contradictory and circuitous supersystem.
Speaker 2: But you know what, the government's way of stopping that
Speaker 2: is introduced the total super balance cap, yes, which today
Speaker 2: is two million dollars. So if you've got over two
Speaker 2: million dollars, you can't put it back in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a it's capped at
Speaker 1: that level. Very interesting, really really interesting. Thank you very
Speaker 1: much for coming on the show.
Speaker 3: Chris. You're welcome, thank you. That was Chris Hill of.
Speaker 1: Inherit Australia and I did say to you, I thought
Speaker 1: we could do a show on estates and wills and
Speaker 1: inheritance that wasn't dry, and that wasn't dry I hope.
Speaker 3: Okay, very good.
Speaker 1: Let's have some correspondents the money Puzzle at the Australian
Speaker 1: dot com dot au and just remember when you're sending
Speaker 1: in a question if you want to send in two
Speaker 1: or three at the same time. I noticed people are
Speaker 1: doing it more and more and it's very very good
Speaker 1: and it's great for the show. Okay, talk to you soon.