Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. With me on the call is Chief Financial Officer Ryan Gurner, and our Chief Operating Officer Simon Jessop. As we confirmed this morning, for the June quarter, we sold 444,000 oz of gold at an all-in sustaining cost of AUD 2,197 per oz. This enabled us to meet our revised production and cost guidance, with FY2025 delivering 1.634 million ozs at AUD 2,163 per oz all-in sustaining cost. I'm very proud of the team for safely delivering a record in terms of gold sold for the full year, which has driven record annual underlying free cash flow. I also want to acknowledge that it's been a challenging 12-month period as we have faced productivity and cost headwinds, particularly at KCGM, our largest asset. This led us to confirm that we will not reach our ambitious 2 million oz per annum group target in FY2026, primarily because KCGM is not yet able to deliver the 650,000 oz a year run rate. Let me emphasize, with a mine life exceeding 20 years, KCGM remains a cornerstone of our medium and long-term value proposition, and this is why we continue to invest in the potential of this asset, which in turn will drive a positive step change in free cash flow generation for the company for many years to come. Notwithstanding the challenges of the past year, record gold sold, combined with an elevated gold price, resulted in the generation of strong net mine cash flow of AUD 1.189 billion for the year. All three production centres contributed positive net mine cash flow, with Yandal and Pogo delivering record cash flows for FY2025. Our investment-grade balance sheet remains strong and in a net cash position, and I'm pleased that we were able to complete our on-market share buyback, which has delivered significant returns for our shareholders at an average price of just over $11 per share. Meanwhile, our KCGM Mill Expansion project is well advanced and tracking to plan, and this has allowed the company to formally revise its hedging policy with a decision to wind down our hedge book because of our confidence in our outlook and our balance sheet. I also would like to mention the successful acquisition of De Grey during the quarter. Since then, we have welcomed the team into our group and continue to advance the HEMI Development Project. Now, let me touch on FY2026 guidance that we released to the market earlier this month. The company is forecast to deliver 1.7-1.85 million ozs of gold sold at an all-in sustaining cost of AUD 2,300-2,700 per oz. We continue to advance major growth projects to achieve our goal of being a long-life, high-margin returns-focused global gold producer. Our CFO, Ryan Gurner, will elaborate on the increase in spend across our business shortly, but first, I'd now like to hand over to Simon Jessop, our Chief Operating Officer, to discuss our operational highlights. Thank you, Stu, and good morning. As Stu mentioned, FY25 has been a busy but challenging year. Safely improving productivity remains our key focus across all three of our production centres. Pleasingly, Pogo delivered a strong June quarter to exceed the full-year guidance. At Yandal, the June quarter was also strong to enable us to meet guidance. The Kalgoorlie production centre proved more challenging and missed guidance because KCGM mining efficiency was below expectations and access to the high-grade Golden Pike North area was delayed. At Kalgoorlie, total gold sold for the year was 832,000 ozs, which included 419,000 ozs at KCGM. In the June quarter, KCGM delivered 118,000 ozs of gold sold. During the quarter, open-pit mine grades were impacted by ore source variation despite an increase in Golden Pike North contribution. Total open-pit material movement was 22.7 million tonnes, up 48% compared to the March quarter, as productive mining commenced restoring to business as usual. Total material movement for FY25 was 74 million tonnes versus a planned 80-90 million tonnes. June quarter underground ore mine volumes were 871,000 tonnes, up 78% compared to the March quarter, with mine grades also increasing. Northern Star Mining Services (NSMS) increased development metres to 7.5 km for the quarter and commenced development at the newly established Drysdale Portal. KCGM mill grades were lower than planned due to open-pit ore sourcing. What really excited the team during the quarter was the commencement of the new Drysdale Portal. Drysdale is 400 m below the surface and allows for future drilling and a lower link drive to the Fimiston underground work area. This platform will commence the journey of delineating the many mineralised systems at depth and is exciting for KCGM's long-term growth. Looking ahead to FY26, KCGM is forecast to deliver 550,000-600,000 ozs. Underground mine volumes are planned to be around 3 million tonnes, while open-pit mining productivity is forecast to increase throughout the year as mining in Golden Pike North returns to one mining horizon by the second half of FY26. Mill grades are expected to stabilise in the September quarter and then lift for the remainder of the year. Just briefly, Stu touched on the KCGM Mill Expansion project, which remains on track. We remain very pleased with the on-ground construction activities as the project advances to structural and mechanical installation. Let me finish off with the Kalgoorlie production centre by highlighting the Carosue Dam and Kalgoorlie operations generated net mine cash flow of AUD 657 million for FY25, a fantastic performance. Turning to our Yandal production centre, the highlight for the quarter, in fact the year, was the milling performance at both Jundee and Thunderbox. This enabled Yandal to meet FY25 guidance, although, as we experienced across our entire portfolio, the cost environment remains challenging. At Jundee, record mill tonnes were achieved to deliver an annualised run rate of 3.4 million tonnes per annum, above nameplate capacity. Griffin continued to ramp up with a transition into stoping planned in the second half of FY26. Pleasingly, development advanced increased to a new record of 8.5 km for the quarter. At Thunderbox, strong mill performance achieved a record 6.3 million tonnes per annum run rate during the quarter, bringing total FY25 mill throughput to nameplate at 6 million tonnes. The Wunda underground mine continued to increase volumes as development with one jumbo averaged 603 m per month for the quarter. At Bannockburn, the team continued to ramp up open-pit activities in preparation for the first ore feed in the second half of FY26. Finally, turning our attention to Pogo. Pogo has had an excellent quarter to finish off an excellent year, especially H2. For the quarter, the Pogo mill delivered a record performance on multiple fronts: monthly throughput, quarterly throughput, availability, and utilisation, operating at an annualised run rate of 1.6 million tonnes per annum. Higher grades and increased recovery also contributed to Pogo delivering 85,000 ozs of gold sold at a $1,154 an oz. During the quarter, the development lifted 12% quarter- on- quarter to an average of 1,650 m per month. Late in the quarter, we started work on two new portals to access and develop Central Veins and Goodpaster deposits. The resource for these areas is 5 million tonnes of 10 grams for 1.5 million ozs, with only 50,000 ozs in reserve, and hence this is a critical long-term strategic development. The mill also achieved a new quarterly record of 395,000 tonnes of throughput as the availability was 97% for the quarter. It is worth noting that for the full FY25, Pogo sold 283,000 ozs and generated AUD 463 million of net mine cash flow. In US dollar terms, this corresponds to $301 million, which is greater than the $260 million purchase price paid for back in 2018. Let me finish by reiterating group guidance, production guidance we provided to the market earlier this month. We guided FY26 gold sold to be in the range of 1.7-1.85 million ozs, including September quarter production of approximately 400,000 ozs at the high end of the all-in sustaining cost guidance range. As planned, mill shutdowns will be carried out across all three production centres this quarter. The June quarter is forecast to be the strongest for the year due to access to increased volumes of high-grade ore sources as they become available. I would now like to pass over to Ryan and Chief Financial Officer to discuss the financials. Thanks, Simon. Good morning, everyone. As demonstrated in today's results, the company is in a great financial position as we enter FY2026. Our balance sheet remains strong with cash in volume of AUD 1.9 billion, and we remain in a net cash position of AUD 1 billion at 30 June. This includes the AUD 663 million of cash acquired following the acquisition of De Grey. The company has generated record full-year cash earnings. We expect the final figure to be in the range of AUD 2.8 billion-AUD 2.95 billion. A reminder that our dividend policy is based on 20%-30% of cash earnings. Importantly, as Stu has already mentioned, all production centres delivered strong net mine cash flows, which totaled AUD 1.2 billion for the full year. As Simon mentioned, Pogo is a standout, delivering a record contribution. The company continues to deliver on its key growth projects across the portfolio. Growth capital was AUD 40 million above the full-year group forecast of AUD 1.63 billion. The additional spend related to AUD 21 million for previously committed long lead time items and project development progress at HEMI, and AUD 22 million at the KCGM Mill Expansion, which remains on budget. The company's committed hedge position at 30 June is 1.4 million ozs at an average price of AUD 3,286 per oz, with no further commitments added during the quarter. Let me touch on the company's cash, bullion, and investments movements for the quarter. The company recorded AUD 922 million of operating cash flow, which included AUD 37 million advancing the HEMI project, which included the AUD 21 million I referenced earlier, and AUD 80 million in corporate tax payments. Quarterly free cash generation was AUD 211 million, bringing the full-year underlying free cash flow to AUD 536 million. Now turning to our FY2027 outlook. As Stu mentioned, we expect to deliver 1.7 -1.5 million ozs at an all-in sustaining cost of AUD 2,300-AUD 2,700 per oz. We forecast cost per oz to improve throughout the year. The higher cost base in FY2026 reflects inflationary pressures of 5%, corresponding to a year-on-year increase of approximately AUD 100 per oz. Higher gold price-related royalties and Pogo tariff assumptions have also contributed. Sustaining capital of AUD 750 million, corresponding to AUD 420 per oz, or a year-on-year increase of AUD 130 per oz, primarily from higher development advance and associated underground ventilation, power, and pumping infrastructure investment across underground operations. Processing plant capital across all facilities to underpin asset availability and reliability. Additional lease payments for open-pit fleet at Yandal and KCGM, underground fleet at Pogo, and mid-life rebuilds of the haul truck fleet at KCGM. An allocation of mine operating and development costs, including deferred stripping to all-in sustaining costs for assets expected to reach commercial production during the year. These include Griffin Underground at Jundee, Wunda Underground at Thunderbox, United Consols at Fimiston Underground, and Bannockburn and Orelia open-pit operations at Yandal. FY2026 operational growth capital, excluding the Mill Expansion project, operational readiness, and HEMI development, is guided at a midpoint of AUD 1.17 billion. At the Kalgoorlie production hub, the majority of the investment is allocated to projects that will deliver the mill feed and infrastructure for the KCGM plant expansion. These projects include development and ramp-up of Mount Charlotte and Fimiston underground mines and infrastructure requirements and continuation of the Fimiston South cutback. At Yandal, investment primarily relates to Thunderbox open-pit development, infrastructure, and required equipment for Bannockburn and the Orelia Stage 2 cutback. These two operations underpin future mill feed to Thunderbox. At Pogo, $70-$80 million for underground development and infrastructure associated with increasing mining volumes, along with accessing new areas, as Simon mentioned, and further mill optimization works focusing on throughput and recovery. Gross capital expenditure guidance for the mill expansion project remains unchanged at AUD 500million-AUD 530 million. KCGM mill operational readiness capital of AUD 315-AUD 370 million includes spend for new tailings and a new thermal power plant and transmission infrastructure. Capital for the additional tailings capacity was included in KCGM's base case life of asset plan and included in the returns assessment of the expansion project. This capital has been brought forward to cater for the increased throughput rate from the expanded mill from FY2027. At our HEMI Development Project, we are guiding AUD 140-AUD 150 million spend, which includes ongoing engineering and design, as well as commitments for long lead time items. Our FY2025 exploration program is guided at AUD 225 million. Importantly, with the company's strong liquidity position of AUD 3.4 billion at 30 June, our capital investment and exploration activity is fully funded. I'll now pass back to the moderator for the Q&A sessions. Thanks very much. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be annozd. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Kate McCutcheon with Citi. Hi, morning, Stu and Ryan. Good to see KCGM underground above 3 million tonnes. I guess we've had so far the expectations for CapEx for FY2026 miss the mark, like $1 billion a year ago, close to $3 billion today, and the top of that is HEMI, which is new. I guess moving forward, can we expect some guide rails in terms of the CapEx band for a few years ex HEMI, or what are the key things to think about in terms of dragging right or not on CapEx for the medium term, both that 400 annozd as sustaining and growth capital? Yeah, thanks, Kate. Yeah, I appreciate. That has definitely been an uplift to what's been included in consensus, but I think if we kind of break it down into whether it's price or activity, there were some activities there that really need to be captured and understood. The tailings facility is a big chunky piece of KCGM. I appreciate that if the mill expands, we need to bring that capital forward. It was in the life asset plan, but it's bringing that capital forward, and we've guided what the saddle of that expenditure is this year and next year. Other items that may not have been picked up, and we hadn't guided a year ago, are things around the thermal power station, the transmission lines, and the readiness for the renewable power projects in Kalgoorlie. [audio distortion] in the next year. Those are items that were not forecast and predicted, but I can assure people that with a multi-decade project, these are very strong return capital investments to ensure that we have power security, we have lowest cost of power availability, and we're not held to the group, held to ransom. Jundee is a great example where we've got lowest cost energy across the group because of that investment earlier. Other big items, obviously the continuation of the Fimiston mill this year, but that hasn't changed, that AUD 500+ million and then a tail of AUD 100 million for 2027. That's the same on track number for the FID for that growth project. The mining volumes are probably one of the things that's lifted a bit, and it's on, you get something for the money. It's not just a price escalation, it's the underground mining volumes at Fimiston and KCGM. Because of one, the 3 million tonnes is a production number, but there's still a significant amount of development. You see in the quarter, 7.5 km, we're seeking to keep lifting that development lead indicator to build and expose big tonnes per vertical metre there for future production. This is something where we'll work hard to get that development done, which will translate into capital expenditure. There are some of those lumpy things. I'll throw to Ryan on some of the other capital items, but the sustaining capital as well is something which we feel has lifted up, but there's still an approach that it's not a finite one-year investment. There is multi-year benefit from some of that uplift in the sustaining cost at the moment. Yeah, just to add, Kate, look, just to call one out. I mean, the mid-life truck rebuilds at KCGM. There is AUD 20 million just there on some of those trucks. That is one item just to pull out that, yeah, we are spending it this year, but they are five-year effectively investment cycles on those types of trucks. We are incurring it this year in sustaining capital when we will not see that next year. Look, we are spending a bit of money on plant in terms of capital that I do not think we will have to spend in the next few years. We are doing tank relines, we are doing refurbishments, we are doing some steel remediation on some of the—we have got aging infrastructure. It is one reason why Fimiston expansion as well and that plant is going to be very beneficial for the company. Its capital requirements from a processing plant structure are going to be much less. As Stu mentioned, the underground infrastructure piece, we are having to put a bit in there this year again, particularly around KCGM. That multiple years investment around primary fans and infrastructure and things like that. It will still have a requirement going forward, but it is a bit heavier this year. I do expect some fall away on some of these items going forward from a sustaining perspective. Okay, but there's no plans to sort of give the market some medium-term guide rails. It's very difficult, as we've shown, to predict and show what we can tell you the projects, we can tell you what's approved, and the actual commitments that are out there tended locked. Which is what we've done. We've shown the tail of some of those projects, which are multi-year projects. Rounding up and giving multi-year guidance, we've not done that previously and we don't intend to do that today. Okay, got it. We did not get that new outlook to FY2029 today, so I am sticking on the guidance piece. Is that pending HEMI or will that come with the Super Pit site visit? I guess I am looking to understand the business after next year. Yeah, so look, with the Kalgoorlie site visit, we'll give some more color on both. On progress on HEMI, but HEMI is still pre-approval. The timing, we can tell you what it looks like in space, but ultimately when its commencement is out of our control on the hinge ticket approval state. Overall, we'll give you the view of what the assets are doing at the Kalgoorlie site visit. Okay, that would be great. Thank you. Finally, just removal of the hedging policy, that's great. Is it fair to assume that HEMI will be funded without any new hedging? Yeah, so to be clear on what that is, is we've just brought the minimum. We've taken away a minimum hedging commitment, which was important to us whilst we were giving capital, long-life capital project investment. Basically taking that floor away, in the last three quarters, we've added no hedges. That's been the attitude because we've got confidence in the outlook and our balance sheet. The policy is basically, yeah, removing the minimum. Allowing us to essentially unwind delivering to the current hedge book. We're not accelerating it, we're not delivering early, we're just not adding to it. Okay, thank you. The attitude you just asked about HEMI, the attitude would be we've got well capacity to deal with that within our current balance sheet without looking at hedges. Okay, makes sense. Thank you. Your next question comes from Hugo Nicolaci with Goldman Sachs. Morning, Stu and team. Thanks for the update and congrats on our record free cash flow for 2025. Just want to pick up on Kate's question around the CapEx piece and sort of looking at what that ongoing spend is. If we try to break out what that ongoing cash cost versus all-in sustaining cost, you're able to give us a bit more color in terms of that 750 for FY2026, what the rough breakdown is between the production centres? They're probably all sort of going up. Hugo, it's Ryan. They're probably all increasing at similar, I'll say, rates. I guess Kalgoorlie's probably lifting, this is Kalgoorlie operations, probably lifting AUD 100 an oz, Yandal's AUD 150-170, and then Pogo's probably lifting $70 an oz. That's probably the ranges, Hugo. I'd say to the point saying it's a bit of a wave of investment. We've moved from, say, AUD 280 an oz to, say, AUD 420 an oz. It's sort of hinging between 13% of all-in sustaining cost to sustaining capital to up to sort of 17% now. Midpoint there is probably the happy place, and it will go in cycles. Some of our fleet lasts three years, the underground stuff, some of it's five years for the open pit stuff. Big investments like capital vent, power at Fimiston are one-offs. It's about smoothing and going between those bands throughout the years. The sustaining capital number on a per-oz basis may sit around about that 15% of all-in sustaining cost. That's probably how it relates through to the dollar millions. That AUD 700+ million this year is probably a bit of a peak. Great. Got it. Thanks for that, Ryan and Stu. Then sort of also picking up on the other point, when do you expect to be in a position to give that medium-term outlook to market? I think historically you've talked to later this year. Do you need to get more certainty around the timing of HEMI before you can give that update and feel comfortable there, or can you give a portfolio outlook on an ex-HEMI basis and maybe give the market something a bit earlier? Look, the Kalgoorlie site visit will provide as much as we can on visibility of these assets. I think we're just in the tail end of that five-year strategy that's a stabilized Pogo, a stabilized Yandal. You've still got that last step change piece at KCGM with the mill expansion. The sliding piece is the introduction of HEMI. It's quite a simplified, look-forward business. We'll try to show what that looks like. If you're asking us for decade CapEx, AISC, and production outlook, we're just never going to give it out in that regard because it's a moving beast. Yep, no, understood. On HEMI, just in the press this week, just around appeals on native title and water discharge concerns, no doubt that probably would have come up in your DD. What got you comfort there in terms of water or alternative water treatment options and how much work is left to go to either study those or recost and just sort of any comments on how those discussions are progressing? Oh, thanks, Hugo. Got the question in the second one. I thought I was expecting that from the media. Couple of clarities. One, it was misreported that the EPA had approved HEMI. Starting with that, all the EPA has done is put out for public comment, the appeals window. Let's sort of stick to the process that is there and that attracts the appeals. We are very aligned with the thinking of all stakeholders up there and there are lots of options. Yeah, we do not see anything different to what we have done through the due diligence and just basically will continue to look at those options going forward. Yeah, what is being reported is to sell papers, not to deal with facts at the moment. Great. Good to hear, Stu. I'll pass it on. Your next question comes from Daniel Morgan with Barrenjoey. Hi, Stu and Ryan. Just on the Super Pit, it's fair to say FY2025 physicals were below plan. Just looking at the June numbers, looks like a big lift in underground ore mining, open pit material movements. Can you just expand a bit more on rectifications to the plan and whether these early wins look like they're sustainable? Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Dan. I'll let Simon just go through because there's some huge highlights in the quarter that show confidence of why we've set the plan forward. I'll throw it to Simon. Yeah, thanks, Daniel. Simon here. In terms of the step change in the underground, we've been building with the development for that for a while. The Fimiston underground itself delivered nearly 200,000 tonnes in the quarter. That was the step change as it moves into the stoping side of mining there. Sort of step change in the Fimiston, which will be sustainable and ongoing and continue to lift as we go forward. Also at Mount Charlotte, just the bigger bulk stopes starting to come through. Really, really pleased with the step change we've seen in the underground. We knew that was coming, probably a little bit later than we wanted in FY2025, but you can't unsee that number now, 870,000 tonnes. Great step change. It will continue to build with the development as a lead indicator. You'll see that build out as we go forward. Undergrounds in great shape really going forward. In terms of the open pit, 22.7 million tonnes for the quarter. That's back where we need to be. We've also seen with that extra volume, about a 37% reduction in the cost per BCM. Going really well in terms of the open pit volumes coming up and those costs starting to come down. Going forward, really comfortable in that 80-90 million tonnes. Just a couple of clarifications on that. When you were saying Fimiston did 200,000 tonnes underground in the quarter, you're just defining the area that's not Mount Charlotte, I presume. Just a clarification on the open pit material movements. I imagine in the quarter you were more near the top of the pit, and so you got shorter shuttle distances and whatnot. Whereas later in the year you're planning to be in Golden Pike, where you're deep in the pit. Just wondering if you could talk about the sustainability once you have to go down to the bottom of the pit. Yeah, good question. The Fimiston side of the business has just seen that step change in the stoping. No issues in going forward with that. In terms of the open pit, yeah, the whole distance gets a bit longer, but we've already started moving that. We've got all the equipment, all the gear, really just simple mining versus what we were dealing with in FY2025, which was dealing with a lot of big rocks and the east wall. That's all behind us now. We're just seeing the productivities lift overall. Thank you. The plant at the Super Pit, I know it's denoted often as a 13 million tonne plant per annum, did 11.8, I think, in the year. There is some unreliability. What's the confidence of the throughput before you turn on the big mill expansion? Yeah, we've factored it at 12 this year, Dan, for that reason. There is this sort of balance. Simon and Steve himself, we're looking closely at. We're about to turn on a new plant in 12 months. How much maintenance investment in an old plant, or limp it along. There is a bit of a balance there. We've allowed a buffer, so we're not sweating that plant to get 13 million tonnes per annum this year. We've come back to the 12, allowing for some of that breakdown and some of that proactive sort of reactive maintenance because of the age of it. This is that balance for not spending capital on something that you're not going to get the benefit from in future years with the new mill switchover. If it's something that will be used in concert with the new plant, absolutely, we'll invest. It is this bit of a balance where we want it to run confidently up to the day we switch over and then be done. Very clear. Thank you, Stu and team. Your next question comes from Matthew Frydman with MST Financial. Sure, thanks. Morning, Stu and team. A couple of questions from me. Firstly, can I just continue the thread of the prior questions on the medium-term outlook and your CapEx guidance? You talked about the thermal power station and tailings dam at KCGM, obviously reasonably material items which were likely already in your capital works plan for the year and really arguably part of the total budget and the economics for the mill expansion, but obviously hadn't really been clearly spelled out to the market. Again, just picking up on some of those prior comments, do you think differently maybe about how you approach some of the more forward-looking outlook on those sorts of items? Then particularly as you come to building HEMI or maybe other major projects. I mean, I know you said it's not going to be practical to give a 10-year outlook for the business as a whole, but certainly I think from a market perspective, probably something worth considering if those sorts of capital works are already kind of in the budget. Yeah, I appreciate that. Look, the AUD 1.5 billion mill expansion, we were very clear on the boundaries and ring fence of what that was, and we were very clear that it did not include the tailings facility and that the tailings facility is related to the total tonnes, the life asset, but the relativity is it's got to be established and built earlier so that your mill throughput can pick it up, right? The economics and the returns were based on that stockpile going through the expanded plant. They are still true and robust. There's nothing missing from any of those articulated returns metrics. The visibility of multi-years to get these things done, appreciate we still had the Section 38 approvals for that extra footprint for the advancement of all those things. They were all in train to be approved and put there. Our ability to either get hard-tendered numbers, internal, external, contractors, or owner-operator activities, all the pricing around all that. Two years ago, we were not in a position to give forecasts on hard capital numbers, or if we had, that'd be different today. I think appreciate that I'd rather give you no numbers than wrong numbers. We give you the foresight of what type of activities or what projects are in front of us. When we talk about near term, you're asking for multi-year detailed capital and sustaining cost guidance. We're giving you the elements of the big projects that are being approved and being budgeted. As far as the stitch-up together, we can give armwaving guidance to production outlooks. You look where we are five years on, 2 million oz target, which is still a project where the assets can deliver. However, FY2026, when we projected this five-year plan to get there, we're not there. You can see the impact that the market's had on us because we haven't delivered to the decimal point. However, all those projects and the viability and the returns of them are still very significant, very important, and still in train. We're a bit gun shy of really giving granularity that then we get held to, why isn't it that number? It's a bit of a balance here. We're going to try and tell you as much as we can tell you to what we're looking at working on. Give us a bit of grace to say, look, there's still some hard numbers. No doubt to HEMI. HEMI's CapEx numbers are stale. Once we get that refreshed and renewed and we know when the approvals are, we will be able to articulate what those numbers are with confidence. Right now, we're stuck on the DFS plan and numbers that are out there. Yeah, I understand. Thanks for the additional commentary there, Stu. I mean, we're all pretty simple beasts as analysts, or at least I am. So anything you can spell out for us, obviously, is quite helpful in terms of the medium-term outlook. I appreciate that. Maybe secondly, on capital management and shareholder returns. I mean, I think I probably sound like a bit of a broken record on these quarterly calls at the moment, but as you alluded to there, your share price performance has disappointed relative to the peer group and gold price. You've picked up arguably a bit of excess cash with the De Grey acquisition, now sitting at AUD 1.9 billion cash and bullion. If I do the maths on your dividend policy in the second half, you're probably only likely to return up to maybe AUD 500 million of that with the final dividend. Can you comment on the attractiveness of potentially a new buyback program in FY26? How do you think about weighing that up, as in weighing up a new buyback against maybe closing out some of the out-of-the-money hedges given your revision to the hedging policy? Thanks. Yeah, good. I'll work in reverse. There's really no benefit in closing out hedges. There's far more better returns, investments for that one. I know it's a big overall number, but relative to our business and relative to the unhedged ozs, we've got really good exposure and leverage to gold price. The hedge one is a lower priority. You've seen that our commitments are to not add hedges and not compound it. You come back to all of the organic projects that we're investing in have very strong returns, and they are taking the priority. We were very pleased with a AUD 300 million buyback that we got in at AUD 11. We see that as a valuable tool in capital management. I think the board in time will assess the opportunity to do that again. At the moment, looking at surplus cash flow, we see the greatest returns in order and ranking back into these organic projects that we are there. Doesn't mean a buyback's not compelling when we're at a discount enough, but the returns out of these organic investments are significant. We want to make sure that we complete those in good order. Yeah, thanks, Stu. Good problem to have. Thank you for the comments. Our next question comes from Al Harvey with J.P. Morgan. Yeah, morning, team. Apologies to look back at some of the guidance and outlook you did put in some of your early presentations. I guess just in the context of the sustaining CapEx discussion at KCGM and cost more broadly, do you think, I think the target in there was for the project to do about [$1,425] an oz on sustaining cost once you reach that 900,000 oz per annum steady state rate? Is that still achievable? Might we get a little bit of an update on that at the site visit that's coming up? Yeah, good. Thanks, Al. Look, it's a stale number. What we're really looking at is the overall step change improvement to the cost base once that new mill comes in and the savings on the cost per tonne through that new expanded efficient plant, plus all the other good stuff Simon's got in hand with productivity gains and improvements and growth in the underground. Yeah, hard again to circle right back to a firm number. Why that number was relevant was when we costed up the feed for that AUD 1.5 billion investment, we road tested it at AUD 2,700 an oz. We got a pretty solid IRR with a significant 200,000+, 250,000 oz uplift for a AUD 250 reduction in AISC. All these things were relative to the decision at the time, including the hedges. Right now, as we know, all of those numbers have moved. Directionally, this is the investment and the improvement on the overall operating cost of that asset, which will be half our business, is still very compelling. I think on a percentage basis, we'll surpass the investment case on the day. That [1,425] is perhaps a stale number. Albeit, this asset will be a top five global gold mine, and it will be saddling or inside the third lowest quarter global cost curve. That's been the investment case. Relative, it will generate as much cash flow as anything globally. That's been the continuation, the remit of what we've been trying to achieve out of that build. Yeah, thanks, Stu. Maybe just one on the Yandal hub. I think it's a five-year plan. You did note that it has stabilized there, but probably at a bit lower level. I think you've been targeting about that hub to do about 600,000 ozs per annum longer term. I think you kind of alluded to it. Maybe it's just a timing issue. How do we think about the timeframe that we might end up getting there to that 600,000 oz per annum rate? Yeah, look, that's one, and I'd look at Thunderbox particularly. That's one that we're, jury's out on, and we're road testing its capacity to do that 300 consistently. We've got the 6 million tonne per annum nameplate that Simon's demonstrated. Really, this is a great blend. What we tested and why we really didn't push hard to this total 2 million ozs in urgency is at what cost? When you start looking at some of the ozs we can grab and drag in, perhaps you're changing cut-off grades, perhaps you're changing, in turn, changes AISC. We don't want to chase a number at any cost. We want to look at margins. We want to look at the happy place that these assets produce at. Well spotted, but that's something that I would retest. What is the happy state for Yandal generally? We've demonstrated what Jundee can consistently do. The Thunderbox region, we want to make sure that we're not just trying to sweat it to get a round number. We're getting the best overall margin and the best AISC that we can achieve out of that. No worries. Thanks again, Stu. Your next question comes from Hugo Nicolaci with Goldman Sachs. Thanks for the chance to follow up, guys. I just wanted to round back on the power station CapEx. Obviously, it looks like an upfront CapEx hit near term, but we have not really talked too much to the benefit you expect to extract out of that one. Maybe just with reference, you mentioned Jundee and the power works there, what sort of operating cost saving do you expect to get out of putting in new power infrastructure at Kalgoorlie? Okay, so. To clarify what it is, we've obviously got the thermal, the joint venture with the thermal for the Parkston power station presently, which is quite aged infrastructure. We know the cost of that. We know the cost of the grid. I'm not going to use commercial and confidence numbers, so I'm not going to be giving you hard cents per kWh. We've got the grid costs that we've got in front of us right now. That we know. Then we look at absolute capacity that the site needs. We're saying we would prefer to have renewables. We prefer to have the lowest cost thermal generation that we can have. This investment at the moment is saying I could generate all the power from Parkston and feed KCGM, the expanded case, but it would probably be some of the highest cost energy. We cannot rely on the state grid. It cannot provide the power that we need in Kalgoorlie. We've got to go alone here. It will be the highest cost as well on staying on the grid. What we're doing in the first instance is the thermal backing for a new gas-fired power station, nearly 120 meg of power installed. It will underpin the base load for a large renewables wind solar battery system, which in time will be through a PPA, through a third party likely. This foundation investment is a joint venture with a thermal power station and all the connectivity, distribution to KCGM to give us power security and give us confidence of price. We know that we'll be some of the best pricing that we can ever achieve in Kalgoorlie. It will be probably on par with Jundee. It still relates to the gas price we get to the gate there. Yeah, not going to give you hard commercial confidence numbers. We've weighed up the our energy is we'll get the lowest cost that we can get out of the goldfields. Fantastic. Thanks for that, Stu. Just another one around the divestments piece. You've historically talked to the potential to rationalize the portfolio. Any updates there in terms of timing or sort of high level what you're thinking of where those could come from? Yeah, I mean, good question. Look. The outlook's probably around. Who are the buyers and what are they prepared to front up? Because what we've guided for here, all the assets we have are all contributing. Simon and Ryan spoke about the cash contribution that each of these assets are doing. Nothing's holding us back. In fact, they're helping fund the growth. Unless we're paid well for those assets, they're in the fold at the moment. You've seen some minor things like the Central Tanami project. We still love and believe in that ground and see that opportunity. As far as the scale for Northern Star, it's probably not going to get there. There's an example there where we can do small divestments to, say, simplify, but put it in the right hands for people that can advance the project. On the other side, we're not out here running processes and putting things for shop. We're investing in our projects and they're contributing well. Great. Thanks, Stu. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be annozd. Your next question comes from Levi Spry with UBS. Hi, Stu and team. Thanks for your time. Maybe just rounding back to some of these questions. On the CapEx, thanks for the extra lead on the sustaining piece. On this operational growth CapEx line, what percentage of that is a go-forward number in my mind, a sustainable number? Repeatable, whatever the terminology you want to use. Particularly in FY2029. Yep. FY2029. It's a long way out. Look, I think, look, at the end of the day, the majority of the, if we just break it down, Levi, the majority of the spend is in relation to the growth of Mount Charlotte, Fimiston Underground, and then the cutback. I would suggest, and we've guided that AUD 500 million-AUD 550 million. That will likely continue for a few more years until we get some steady state, particularly in the underground. That's going to be in the business for a few more years, and that, as you know, gives us that long-term feed source. Across the other assets, you've got Bannockburn and Orelia make up a large chunk of sort of the Yandal growth. It's about AUD 220 million, I think we've guided. Again, those two assets are coming into productive years, I'll say. I'd probably say that CapEx would drop there, but then there's other satellite pits opening up that then will take the place of those two. I can probably see some drop off, small, but again, there'd be capital for other projects coming in for the open pit feed source there. Across the assets else, they're sort of smaller targets and smaller projects that we're delivering. It might well be Hercules comes into the plan around the South Kalgoorlie region to feed KCGM or KB as well in the years going out. I can't give you a number of what that's going to be, but it's not going to be a large, large chunky bit of capital for that to come online. I think the key thing is any capital investment growth projects, I mean, comes commensurate with the production growth. It's just the timing and the lag of when that actually comes in. With investments that were previous years, you still haven't really seen the step up in the production coming from that historic investment. We're trying to align that the CapEx this year is aligned with the growth this year, and we don't see a lot of growth. It's coming in future years, and any investment in capital going in 2027, 2028, 2029 comes with further production growth after that. To Ryan's point around, if you start a new underground or a new pit and do a cutback for AUD 100 million, it will kick in extra ozs on the back of that, which will either fill a hole of a dip or it'll add to the ozs of that operation. The big structural CapEx events, Fimiston Mill expansion is complete and falls away as is tailings facility is built for a decade. The HEMI Development Project is the big lump that's to come that then comes with commensurate 500,000 ozs years later. I think a view of Pogo, it's doing great. It's generating good US dollars. What else can it do? People say, how much CapEx is that? What's the price? What's the payback and the investment? We'll do some thinking around that that could occur before 2029. Other things in or out, these are really just working. Every oz that lifts up attracts that dollar per oz sustaining capital. It might be a case where some of this CapEx growth slides across and is called sustaining because it's attached to the ozs that are being maintained. Yeah, we'll probably point to big lumpy projects. To not scare people with the renewables Kalgoorlie. It's a big number, but it's likely to be outsourced to a third party and embedded in a lower operating cost through a PPA as opposed to Northern Star paying for that capital for that big renewables project. The capital at the moment with the thermal and the we want control of the connectivity and the head end of the connection through to the grid as part of our owned infrastructure. We're not, I guess, held to ransom on that. That is like we have the power at the moment. We've got retail, wholesale, generation in Kalgoorlie. We want to maintain some ownership of those things. That's why we're willing to put that capital up. We could have outsourced that capital, given it to a third party, but then we're paying rent on it forever. Yep, yep. Thanks. Appreciate the extra detail. Maybe just a second one around the KCGM ramp-up. It looks like you've reiterated 900,000 ozs in 2029 and the processing sort of throughput. It's really just a question around the grade. Can you just remind me around the underground ramp-up? The really good quarter you've just had, 3 million tonnes now. I think previously you've said 8 at some point in time. Can we just help us sort of work out that profile, the grade that matches this throughput? Yeah, not today, Levi. I reckon we'll give you that color at the Kalgoorlie site visit with the operation. What we've said is 3 million ton per annum from the underground this year. We've shown a run rate above that for the quarter. It gives people confidence of that. Roger. Okay. Thank you. Your next question comes from Mitch Ryan with Jefferies. Hi, morning, Stu and team. Just wanted to dig into KCGM mill expansion CapEx a little bit. You sort of, I know we're not talking shape stations in quantum, but CapEx spend for the year was AUD 544 million there versus guidance of AUD 500 million-AUD 530 million. It's only gone up a little, but then you've maintained the profile into 2026 and 2027. Can you talk to how much of that was just timing of capital spend versus how much was inflation? Do you see any risk at all to be upside on that capital number? Hi Mitch it's Ryan. No, look, there was a couple of items that were expedited in that last couple of months. And there were some choices around doing some structural modulation of steel, which just meant that basically we just had to upfront some of that cost. So nothing in relation to overrun or inflation. It's all tracking as we plan right now. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the call. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Tonkin for closing remarks. All right. Thank you very much for joining us on the call. I appreciate your interest in our company and what is a very busy reporting day. I look forward to catching up for many of you at our annual visit to Kalgoorlie. Thanks and have a great day. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.