Great. Thank you, and good morning, everyone.

We're here today to announce our full-year results, provide you with some additional financial information and commentary on the performance of each of our business units, and of course, answer your questions. With me today is Andrew Thomson, our Chief Financial Officer, who you will hear from shortly.

Turning to slide four in terms of our group results, this slide summarizes the group's FY 2026 performance. Group underlying revenue increased by 2.1% to $1.37 billion, while pathology revenue increased by 1.8% to $1.33 billion.

Agilex revenues grew strongly with growth of $5.4 million, or 14.1%, to $43.6 million. Group underlying EBITDA increased by 8.1% to $258.6 million, and underlying EBIT increased to $30.2 million.

Pathology EBITDA increased by $15 million to $247.9 million, and Agilex EBITDA increased by $4.3 million to $10.7 million. Healius had net debt of $32.8 million at year end and remained well within its banking covenants at 1.2 times.

Now turning to slide five, this slide focuses on pathology where revenue growth has been driven by changing the revenue mix, which combined with flat costs, has helped improve margins. Strategically, the business has focused on margin recovery through improved revenue quality and strict cost discipline.

The slide also highlights that Fair Work Commission labor cost increases are having an impact, but network and labor optimization have helped reshape the cost base, resulting in flat costs in FY 2026. Importantly, the major phase of our digital technology program has been completed, and this has become an important value driver for the business alongside AI and automation.

Operationally, pathology revenue growth was attributable to changes in revenue mix, including growth in genomic diagnostics, B2B, clinical trials, and veterinary pathology. GP attendances reduced by 0.9 .9% over the past 12 months, while specialist attendances increased by 2.9%.

GP attendances have, however, grown in three of the last four months. Significant technology progress has been made this year, and includes the new Medway collectors portal, an upgraded Medway results portable for referrers that includes education and CPD opportunities for diabetes, skin, and cervical cancer, along with a shortly-to-be-released patient app.

Artificial intelligence is being used as we set out previously to improve productivity with fast payback or ROI and low running costs. AI coworkers, Reva and Judy, have been launched, with two additional coworkers now live in production, supporting high-volume transaction environments and workforce planning.

Turning to slide six, this slide covers Agilex Biolabs and highlights the strategic decision that made to boost Agilex's participation in the growing large molecule market. Along with the pivot to large molecule work, the decision to exit the toxicology business has contributed to improved performance and allowed business development resources to be reallocated to other geographies including Europe, which is showing traction.

The opening of a new bioanalytical laboratory in Brisbane focused on flow cytometry is a significant milestone and a benchmark operating model for future network sites as Agilex plans to expand its national footprint across Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney. The order book or won work for Agilex is strong and supports our FY 2027 targets.

On the sale process, as we previously advised, Healius has engaged UBS to explore a sale of Agilex Biolabs. The business has received strong interest from a number of potential acquirers, and we will continue to keep shareholders updated as required.

Now turning to slide seven, this slide provides a performance update on the T27 program and shows some of the detailed progress we have made across the key pillars. A couple of callouts, as this is a very busy slide.

On investment in digital technology with Medway and Pathway as our two modern technology systems has strengthened our national capability across customer services and laboratory modernization. The business has made strong progress in digitizing collections, with more than 80% of ACC episodes now processed through Medway.

E-referral volumes were 28% higher than the prior corresponding period, and 220,000 patient appointments were booked through that new capability from August 2025. We have also significantly improved our contact center response times, and are imminently launching a new patient app.

With regard to laboratory modernization, Pathway has enabled digital anatomical pathology with Ibex AI for sharing cases nationally, new track automation for microbiology, digitized workflows for faster genomics processing, and enhancements in clinical reporting. This slide also highlights regional lab optimization, including a 24.3% % reduction in FTEs compared to FY 2025, as well as productivity gains made in the main lab optimization.

In emerging diagnostics, genomic revenue increased by 16.9% with 15 new products launched and a focus on hereditary cancer detection. Clinical trials revenue increased by 92.9%, and Vetnostics has digital courier and consumables ordering fully in place.

Looking ahead in digital technologies, with build complete on our further Pathway core lab services and currently being rolled out nationally, we are well positioned to leverage our systems to unlock the next wave of structural efficiencies. These include centrally shared scientific tasks, automation of data entry, and the consolidation of volumes for further lab footprint reductions.

Finally, in people and ways of working, this slide notes $24.4 million in annualized corporate cost savings, more than 600 collectors graduating from the new national collector training academy, and flat FY 2026 labor costs despite the Fair Work Commission decision. The slide also highlights AI workers supporting finance transactions, workforce planning, and priority operational areas.

With that, I will hand over to Andrew.

Thanks, Paul. On slide nine, firstly, I'll move to discussing the financial performance at a group level.

FY 2026 was a year of disciplined execution on cost control and tangible improvements across the group. Our underlying revenue grew by $28.7 million, or 2.1%, bringing total revenues to $1.37 billion.

This growth was driven by stronger fee mix in pathology and robust revenue expansion in Agilex. It's a clear sign that our strategic focus on higher-margin services is delivering results.

Group EBIT rose to $30.2 million, in line with previous guidance, and up from $17.1 million last year, a significant improvement. Pathology EBIT came in at $23.8 million, reflecting strong cost control and operational discipline in a challenging environment.

Agilex EBIT more than doubled to $6.4 million, supported by revenue growth and tight cost management, which together drove that margin expansion. We also recorded $27.1 million in non-underlying items.

Of that, less than a quarter, or just over $6 million, was in the second half, and primarily related to restructuring costs to rightsize the business and expenses related to our digital program in the first half of the year. These are strategic investments that position us for future efficiency.

As required under accounting standards, we recognize a non-cash, pretax impairment of $332 million against goodwill. It's important to note that this is a non-cash item.

It doesn't impact our operating performance or cash flow. In the results this year, we also made an adjustment to derecognize a deferred tax asset of $31.5 million related to prior periods, and we also did not recognize $14 million of deferred tax assets related to the FY 2026 loss.

While we've derecognized these items from the balance sheet, we do retain access to these carryforward losses, and remain confident that these losses will be used to offset taxable income for upcoming financial periods. Interest costs reduced significantly here thanks to lower average debt levels.

On the cost side, we exceeded our support cost savings target of $15 million to $20 million, achieving $24.4 million in annualized savings. That includes $7.3 million realized in FY 2025 and $17.1 million additional savings in FY 2026.

We expect the full run rate benefit from these initiatives to flow through from FY 2027 onwards, and we're continuing to execute further savings opportunities. In summary, we've strengthened the core, improved margins, and built a leaner cost base.

These results demonstrate that our transformation is delivering, and we're well positioned for sustainable growth heading into FY 2027. Turning on slide 10, focus on the core pathology business.

As I said already, we delivered steady revenue growth and continued margin improvement through disciplined cost management. Revenue grew 1.8%, benefiting from a stronger mix across specialists, hospitals, and B2B channels.

This improved mix led to higher average fees and underpinned the overall growth. Genomics continues to perform exceptionally well, up 16.9% on prior corresponding period.

Clinical trials also showed outstanding momentum, almost doubling year on year, supported by a solid pipeline and growing demand. Labor costs were held flat compared with last year.

The benefits from our labor optimization program in the second half offset enterprise agreement rate increases and the Fair Work Commission's decision on gender undervaluation for pathology collectors. Consumable costs were also well controlled, down 3.8% in absolute dollar terms and reduced as a percentage of revenue from 16.2% last year to 15.3% this year.

Network costs, including property, AASB 16 depreciation, and finance costs, trended slightly higher as a percentage of revenue, mainly due to timing differences between new site openings and site exits. The ramp-up of these cost-saving initiatives over the year contributed to stronger EBITDA and EBIT margins in the second half of FY 2026.

Overall, pathology continues to demonstrate resilience and operational discipline. Moving to slide 11, Agilex.

Agilex continues to deliver strong growth and margin expansion, underpinned by a clear strategic pivot and disciplined execution by the team. Revenue growth has directly contributed to margin improvement.

The EBIT margin of 14.7% this year reflects the shift in business mix as we move away from small molecule work towards large molecule programs. This transition has strengthened profitability and positioned Agilex for sustainable growth.

Closure of the loss-making toxicology business at Agilex has also supported this margin uplift. At the same time, the national footprint has expanded, with the new Brisbane bioanalytical laboratory performing ahead of expectations, a great example of the investment translating into operational success.

The Agilex pipeline heading into FY 2027 remains strong, and we expect continued revenue growth to translate into further EBIT margin expansion. The fundamentals of the industry remain solid, and Agilex is well placed to capture that momentum.

As we outlined in our 13th of May, 2026 announcement, Healius is exploring a potential sale of Agilex Biolabs following several unsolicited approaches from credible parties. This forms part of the ongoing program to optimize shareholder value.

In summary, Agilex continues to perform strongly, with clear strategic direction, competitive advantages, and industry fundamentals that support ongoing growth and value creation. On slide 12, we can look at the capital expenditure and capital management for the year.

Maintenance capex for FY 2026 was $16.5 million, down from $31.3 million in FY 2025. This primarily covered the replacement of older laboratory equipment and IT hardware, essential investments to maintain operational reliability.

Growth capex totaled $28- $26.8 million, compared with $34.6 million last year. These investments focused on select, large-scale collection centers, equipment for new hospital contracts, including Grampians and Northwest Tasmania, and ongoing AI development.

These initiatives are driving future capability and efficiency across the business. Capex spend was partially offset by proceeds from the sale of property, plant, and equipment, helping balance the overall investment profile.

From a capital management perspective, we moved from a net cash position of $57.2 million in FY 2025 to net debt of $32.8 million this year. The shift was partially due to one-off payments, including a settlement with the ATO, payments related to the divestment of Lumus Imaging, restructuring costs, digital investment, and working capital requirements.

Importantly, and as Paul said, we remain well within our banking covenants for both gearing and interest cover, reflecting strong financial discipline. In summary, our capital investments are targeted and strategic, supporting growth while maintaining the prudent balance sheet.

We continue to manage capital efficiently to ensure flexibility and resilience as we move into FY 2027. I'll hand back to you, Paul.

Thank you. The last slide in terms of outlook.

We expect our FY 2027 EBIT to be in line with consensus of $39.7 million. We anticipate that volumes are going to grow in line with MBS on a like-for-like collection center basis, in addition to modest increases in profitable collection sites.

Non-MBS volumes are expected to see the benefit of the full year of new commercial and hospital contracts, and the continued growth in genomic diagnostics, vetnostics, and B2B, including clinical trials. Disciplined cost control in pathology is expected to contain our cost growth to 3.5% in FY 2027, inclusive of the impact of the Fair Work Commission costs relative to gender undervaluation, and the 4.75% increase linked to modern awards.

Due to the significant impact of the Fair Work Commission costs and reduced GP attendances, Healius expects to achieve the T27 target of mid to high single-digit EBIT margins by approximately December 2028. In terms of Agilex Biolabs, as we said before, in terms of the order book and revenue conversion remains strong and in line with our expectations.

With that, I will hand back and open to questions.

Paul and Andrew, I might start with that last slide in terms of '27 outlook. I just wanted to understand and just clarify when you say modest increase profitable sites, is that ahead of the MBS or likely to be below the MBS growth rate?

By that, we mean collection centers. We have a very focused plan to increase our volumes next year through profitable collection centers.

We have a chunk of those that have already been completed in July.

Fantastic. Just to give us an indication, what proportion would be still sites which are below your profitability threshold?

Look, I think there's a marginal number of sites. We have 100 less sites now than we did at the start of last year.

Our footprint has been rationalized quite significantly. I think part of that is sites that you were talking about there, Lyanne, in terms of ones that are either not profitable or don't meet our threshold.

There's clearly other ones that we have that we would have preferred to have kept as well that we've lost. The plan is to expand with profitable revenue.

Okay. Just a final question, then.

You mentioned you want to grow in line or you anticipate you will grow in line with MBS volumes. I guess given what you're doing and what Healius is doing with all its initiatives, why do you think it limits your ability to grow above market?

I don't think we're saying that it limits. I think our wording there, what we were trying to get across, is that our like-for-like ACC collection centers, which primarily through medical centers, will grow in line with MBS volumes.

Where we hope to grow further than that, which we've demonstrated this year, is through genomics, through vets, and through our B2B sector. The incremental sites that we would open this year.

Yeah.

Yeah. Great.

Thank you very much. I'll leave it there.

Thank you.

Thanks. Morning, Paul.

Morning, Andrew. Just wanted to touch on your revenue initiatives outside of the MBS.

I believe the strategy there was to grow exposure to hospital contracts. Also, just thinking about tests that are unfunded by the MBS at this point, private tests, could you give us a sense of how initiatives on those two fronts are going, please?

Look, I think on the hospital front, around two-thirds of our revenue is bulk-billed, and one-third of our revenue is non-MBS related. A big chunk of that does relate to both public and private hospitals.

In terms of the hospital network, we've had Western Health in Victoria revert back to the public system this year, those are revenues that, or episodes, that kind of disappeared out of the system. We obviously announced that we have renewed our deal with Ramsay, and that included Joondalup Hospital in WA for a long term.

Then we've renewed the Grampians hospital out to 2034. The hospital network in public hospitals in particular, I think, over the past 12 months have actually shown quite strong growth.

I've forgotten the second part of your question.

The tests that are un-

Far the tests. Look, I think similar to probably some other commentary, that's easier said than done.

We were forced down that route last year with B12 and urine changes. I think what we've proven is that we are charging for B12 and urine tests, and that's broadly accepted.

As for charging out-of-pocket fees for other tests that are either unfunded by MBS or don't cover the cost of actually doing the test, I think we are making some progress on that front. It's difficult.

It's difficult from an acceptance point of view from referrers, and I think it's also difficult, and you need to be cautious in the way that you are actually charging patients so that they understand the impact, and you can actually collect the revenue. I'd say look, we have made progress on that.

B12 and urines was a really good test case, but it's also difficult.

Yep, okay. My next one was just on your cash flows.

If I look at the EBIT performance of the business, it is improving, but the cash flows seem to be going the other way. Now, I think some of the drivers, perhaps you could sort of help us understand that disconnect.

One of the drivers appears to be this Lumus divestment payment. Perhaps if you could just explain what that is, and then also just help on the other moving parts, please.

Thank you.

If I just make an overarching question first, then Andrew can talk you through some of the quite large one-offs in FY 2026. We've obviously given guidance for next year in terms of EBIT.

We've talked about the cessation of the digital investment program, which was non-underlying and obviously did impact cash. What we're saying is that we've given you consensus numbers.

The business on that basis is cash flow positive in FY 2027, which is different from what you've seen in that slide today and the changing cash for this year, which was impacted by a combination of things including some of those one-offs. Then, I'll just get Andrew to answer some of that.

Look, I won't go into every single line, but I think the key items maybe that you're asking about, there was an ATO settlement for a historic claim. Look, that was $20 million, give or take.

The Lumus number that were talking about earlier that you referenced, there was a true-up on the settlement of the Lumus transaction. We talked about that maybe just at half-year numbers, and that was just over $22 million.

We had capex. We talked about capex during these results of $42 million and then the digital transformation costs and the restructuring costs that came through non-underlying.

Those items all sit outside the EBIT number you're referencing.

Okay. Thanks, Paul.

Thanks, Andrew.

Good morning. Just wanted to understand that $15 million Fair Work case amount.

Just wanted to clarify, is that the actual amount of increase in FY 2027, or is that an annualized run rate number?

That is the actual cost that we will incur in FY 2027, and it's made up of three different amounts. It's made up of, effectively, the 4.75% variation between what's traditionally been kind of circa 3.5%.

That's a relatively small piece. It is the changes to the scientists from the 1st of October, and it's the additional increase for collectors on the 1st of January, which is the second tranche of their increase that they received back on the 1st of April this year.

It's a combination of those three things.

Great. Thanks for clarifying.

Then I just wanted to tease out the cost savings that you expect to derive in FY 2027 over and above what you've already achieved in '26. Could you help me out with understanding what benefit that is?

Look, I think it's twofold. It's the full run rate of the changes that we have made this year, and broadly, that is the changes in our workforce up front in the customer commercial area.

It's the changes that we've made to both our main laboratories and our regional laboratories in terms of workforce. It's changes to our couriers, and then it is the reduction in costs just generally right across the business.

Those are the main factors. I think a lot of these things are gradually being unlocked with technology.

I know we all as a group internally, externally talk about one laboratory information system, and we will have that fully in place by the end of FY 2027. A chunk of that is already in place.

Our histopathology, we have one LIS with that, we share work all around the network and clearly get efficiencies from that. That is the same for cytology, and genomics diagnostics will have that capability by the end of next month, which will be a major step change for the way that their workflows work, their capacity constraints that they have at the moment will no longer be there, which obviously enables them to do more work and process faster turnaround time.

It's a combination of all of those things.

Are you able to put a number to the amount of savings? Because I guess I struggle a little bit with what you've earned for '26, then you're facing the increased costs from the Fair Work cases and just general inflation with kind of modest sort of volume

Look, without trying to give you a reconciliation, if you take the $15 million out of pathology, labor costs for next year, costs are broadly flat again year on year, if that helps.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Oh, thanks very much for taking my questions. First one, just if you could just characterize the second half in terms of the movements of sort of how you fared against MBS and noting that you've got the ADF contract, I think, started, and at the same time, you may have had movements, the Victorian contracts, I think that probably came to an end, Western Hospital.

Look, I think all of those things that you spoke of make a bit of a messy reconciliation. Western Health obviously finished.

That contract was delayed, and their pricing went up across that period. We obviously did start the new ADF contract, so that started from the 1st of April and ramped up.

I think mixed in all of that is just the movement in ACCs. I think that the movement in ACCs or the reduction in ACCs, combined with GP attendances, which were up and down.

I think there's a lot of moving parts in that second half. I think the one thing I'd say is that from a customer and commercial or sales point of view, we have a very clear idea of that ACC footprint that we have now, which is reduced from what we had at the start of the year.

We have a very clear picture of the hospital environment we have now with Western Health out, Joondalup renewed, the new Grampians contract, plus a range of other public hospitals that have had price increases across that period, which we have benefited from in H2, but we'll benefit more from in FY 2027. There's a whole lot of moving pieces.

Just trying to get a bit of a run rate. Fourth quarter was sort of probably when you stabilized, is my guess, just based on movement of those contracts.

It has, and I think, look, we've given you guidance for next year, I think that's probably a pretty good indicator of where we think revenue is heading from MBS, hospitals, and so forth.

My follow-on would just be in terms of all those contracts, I guess they seem to have settled now in a sense that there's no other sort of cliff or anything you've got coming up.

From a hospital perspective, there's not really any other. I think for us, it's mostly upside in terms of pricing, contract renewals.

As you said, there's no other cliffs out there.

Then just final one for me, just on the regulatory front, I know you've talked previously to some lobbying efforts in Canberra. Any sort of update that you've got that might be positive or negative on that sovereign risk piece?

Look, no update other than we continue to put our case that, in particular with the additional costs of Fair Work, I think that's probably an additional element that we didn't have this time last year to talk about. I think everyone's fully aware that the limited indexation that we received last year was offset probably twofold by the changes to B12 and urines.

Having the Fair Work costs added on top of that just exacerbates the situation. No update other than we continue to mount our case forcefully with what we think is a very constructive argument.

Great, thank you.

Good morning, team, and thanks very much for taking my questions. Just want to go back to guidance and the number that you've given of EBIT of call it $40 million bucks.

Just want to be 100% clear. Does guidance include an impact from the $15 million of Fair Work cost impost that you've got?

I.e., if you didn't have that, would you be happy with a number around the $55 million number or not?

It's fully included. It's fully included, David.

Yep.

It's fully included. On that basis, if you didn't have the $15 million, then you'd be happy with consensus around the $50 $55 million.

Very good.

Then

very clear. Then second question, capex, can you give us some idea around maintenance and growth capex for '27, please, what you're thinking?

Look, I think the number in FY 2026 was obviously higher than where we'll be in FY 2027. We've spent more this year on replacing some of the equipment.

I think we're through that. Some of the AI spend that we've done this year is around setting things up, and we expect next year to be a lower number is the best way to say it.

Fair enough. Then I guess on that basis, then, can you sort of give us a bit more color on how you get to a positive cash flow in F '27?

I think, look, without giving sort of step-by-step guidance, I think the important thing to think about it is the shape of the half one and half two numbers this year, which, obviously from a revenue perspective, normally we see that phasing skewing more towards H2 on the revenue side. I think this year, as Paul talked about, with Western, with Hollywood, and then with the new contracts ramping up, the revenue in the second half this year was lower.

Now, then if you look at the cost base, normally what we see is the cost bases are about the same between H1 and H2, except for kind of the working days. Paul and I have both talked a lot about the cost resetting this year.

You can sort of see that in the cost base for H2 this year versus H1. If you take that sort of cost run rate and project that forward, and then think about the ramp-up of some of the revenues that Paul's talked about and the other revenue initiatives and of ACC growth, and that's sort of how we get to that.

Also, the cash impact, as we talked about earlier, is partly driven by things like the non-underlying, the digital spend, and we had sort of $20 million of digital $20 million of $21 million of non-underlying in H1 and $6 million in H2. Digital spend is moved into the underlying business, and it hasn't gone away, but it's less.

It's business as usual now. Overall, the cash component in the second half is better, and that's what we expect to continue.

Understood. Thank you very much.

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions.

Firstly, you called out an underlying pathology volume growth of 0.3% excluding changes in hospital contracts. Just wondering if that also excludes the 100 net closures.

No, it didn't, is the answer. That was supposed to just set out the impact of those major changes from a contract point of view to volumes across the year.

No, it doesn't.

Great. As a follow-up, any comments you can make on what happened with those two material hospital contract losses, and if you see net closures sort of stabilizing this year?

Yeah. Sure.

Western Health was a large hospital in Melbourne that's gone back to public hands, which we could talk about forever, the pathology piece rather. The other one was Hollywood Hospital in Perth, which has gone to one of our competitors, gone to Sonic.

Outside of that, Joondalup, we renewed that hospital, along with a consolidation of contracts for all the Ramsay hospitals that we have. There's no other major changes or major changes coming, I should say.

Just on net closures stabilizing, sorry?

Pardon?

Just on the net closures?

Of the hospital contracts?

No, sorry, of ACCs. You had about a 100

Oh, the ACCs. Yeah.

Look, that 100 is across the year. I think the point we're trying to make now is that our ACC footprint is significantly less.

So 5% less than what it was. Are we seeing a 5% reduction in volumes?

No. It's significantly less, so that kind of tells us that that rationalization piece is working.

Now, are there some ACCs in that 100 that we would have liked to have kept? That's just natural competition, and we know there's more competition out there in ACC land.

That's our starting point. We see the number of ACCs, as we said in our release, will grow modestly across this current financial year.

Great. Thanks.

Just lastly, thinking about growth of telehealth, you sort of mentioned that as a headwind to the T27 target. Just wondering what difference you're sort of seeing between referrals from telehealth versus face to face, and do you see that gap narrowing in the future?

Look, I think that's a very good question. Telehealth represents around 18% of all GP attendance numbers.

That's based off Medicare data at June. I think over the last 2 years or 3 years, it's kind of gone from 15% to 18%, it's not growing exponentially.

The work that we've done on looking at referral patterns for telehealth versus face-to-face visits is that telehealth visits generally have referrals slightly less than half of what a face-to-face visit would have. That's kind of a point in the sand, I guess.

They are facts. It's also an environment I think that's changing quite rapidly as well.

It's something that I think we monitor. The good thing in terms of GP attendances is if you look at the last four months of the financial year, March, April, and June all had growth in GP attendances, both for face to face and total attendances.

That's a trend that we hope continues.

Great. Thanks very much.

good morning, Paul and Andrew. Just question on your pathology outlook, you're expecting 3 to 4% sorry, 3.5% pathology cost growth, which I assume implies around a 3 to 4% pathology revenue growth next year to get to that that EBIT number.

Just hoping you can provide a bit of a breakdown of of how you get there. Are you expecting better growth from MBS or non-MBS into FY 2027?

Look, I think if we look at our revenue pie, two-thirds of it is MBS, we are hoping to grow in line with MBS volumes. We have a pretty structured, focused plan on how we grow our footprint and grow those revenues at least in line.

I think the remainder of the commercial, we hope to grow well ahead of that, as we did this year. Vets is now growing quite consistently.

Genomics is growing, as we said, almost 17% this year. We think the hereditary cancers, the reproductive testing, and hematology testing, which are the growth engines in that business, will continue to grow at those levels or higher with our changes to our Pathway, our digitization of their workflows, and there's a lot of work out there in terms of B2B or B2B2C, which is the telehealth businesses, and then all of your normal drug and alcohol testing.

The Defense Forces are a growth part of our business for next year, and so forth. It's kind of two components.

It sounds like probably stronger growth from non-MBS, but are you

That is Yeah.

Yeah. Yes.

Yeah. Sounds like maybe you're seeing some green shoots on the MBS side, or is it more hope at this point?

No, well, I think, look, I think specialist attendances are, they've been growing. We're very aware that that's a part of the revenue pie that we need to increase, and we think we have a very good plan to try and do that.

Just as I spoke about earlier, three of those last four months in terms of GP attendances have been more encouraging than the previous eight months.

Yeah. Thanks.

Then just so I get this right, if we should be layering on top of that continued drag from ACC closures, is that the right way to think about it?

No, I think our view is that our ACC footprint will grow this year, and in a profitable way, but not necessarily in a conventional way, either. I think when we talk about ACC footprint, I think people normally think about medical practices.

There's been a push to independents, which take longer to ramp up, but are more profitable, but I think there are other ways to do that as well. We think our footprint will grow overall.

Thanks. Last question, please.

Just in terms of some of the non-MBS growth that the industry is seeing, it looks like the industry's been pushing pretty hard on upfront billing and commercial contract price increases. Do you think there's much scope to keep going with that and driving that non-MBS growth?

Absolutely there is. I think the commercial growth is easier than the kind of out-of-pocket growth, but the industry has been forced down that route, I think everyone's pushing with that.

On the contractual, although I think it's important to think about not just price, and price pressure or price increases, a lot of it is around the stuff that Paul talked about, the investment in the whole business to make the service offering, as we go into those commercial contracts, better and better value.

Great. Thank you.

Good morning, Paul. How are you?

Good, thanks, David.

Just I've got a fairly simple question. Paul, it's nearly 3 years since Healius did the $1.20 emergency rights issue.

Now, clearly, then paid out $0.41 special dividend, no other dividends, but let's just say the adjusted price is $0.80 ex the special dividend. Yet now you're in the low $0.40s 3 years later.

Look, clearly you're also pushing out the guide for mid to high single-digit margin for another year, which is obviously disappointing the market. Look, my simple question, Paul, is probably your most direct peer is ACL has In the last year to date, in 1 January, it was around about $2.80.

It's currently $2.80, Paul. Whereas Healius, 1 January this year, was around about a dollar.

It's now low $0.40s. Just appreciate if you could give us some macro view as to what's gone wrong.

Why are you underperforming ACL in share price terms so dramatically? Because obviously, it's hurting shareholders.

There's no dividend apart from the special. It's just more pain and more pain.

Obviously, the results today is a bit disappointing. Appreciate if you could explain why ACL is performing far, far better than Healius.

Thank you.

Thanks, David. Look, it's a bit hard for me to respond to a comparison to ACL.

I think what we're trying to do today is set out what we're doing. I think there's clearly been some headwinds in the past 12 months that has impacted the sector.

Whether they be GP attendances, changes to B12 and urines, or Fair Work, I think the important thing for us is what are we doing about it. We've set out today what we're focused on in terms of the collection centers, driving profitable revenue through non-MBS revenues, which we are making good progress on.

I think we've demonstrated that we've kept labor costs flat. Have we got more to go?

Absolutely, we do. An unlock of that is one lab information system, and that is something that ACL have had and built from the ground up, that we have come from the other direction with four systems and building that into one, which we've partially done.

Look, I think our focus is on positive cash generation. We've given you guidance on that.

We've given you guidance around the cash-positive nature of this current year. I think that's probably all I can add, David, is that we're here to say that we have a plan, and we believe that plan is starting to work.

Point out, Paul, we all accept that the industry has challenges, so that's a given. The beauty of comparables with peers is that both of them have got the same macro challenges.

ACL has got the same challenges. Really, it's a very stark issue, Paul, that in the last 8 months or so, you've lost around about 60% of shareholder value according to the market price today, whereas ACL has lost nothing.

There's got to be some macro reasons why you think they're performing dramatically better than Healius. Oh,

look, I completely understand there's a comparable there. I think we're not disputing that.

I think what we're saying is we are coming from a different starting point, and we've got a plan to close that gap. That's what we've set out.

As I said, Sonic's a different beast, it's global, but ACL is a direct comparable. At the moment, Paul, to be frank, Healius' performance is embarrassing relative to ACL.

If ACL was down 30, 40%, fine, but it's constant year to date. Anyway, leave it with you guys, but the comparables are indicating that Healius is not performing properly.

Thank you.

Thanks, David.

Thanks for taking my one question. Just wanted to ask just noting the debt and the net debt going up slightly by the end of FY 2026.

As it relates to the net interest cost into FY 2027, can you just give us a sense of what that could look like versus the $48 million for this year?

I think Saul, obviously, the $48 million includes the allocation of the lease interest under the accounting standards. Just sort of like for like on the bank interest, I guess the assumption is that the drawn debt will stay, I call it approximately where it is, and we pay a market interest rate, the interest will be proportional to the time we've drawn the debt.

On the bank debt side, I think you can draw your own conclusions on what that number's like. Let's call it roughly half a million dollars a month in interest, and then there's also kind of an undrawn facility fee.

Then on the lease costs, look, it won't be materially different from what you've seen this year.

If I understand that correctly, in totality, the net interest should go up a bit because of the interest cost on the bank debt. Again, if I think about where the business will land on a profit before tax basis, effectively, all of that EBIT, if you guide into consensus EBIT, all that EBIT is lost through that net interest line.

I just wanted to make sure that that's the case.

I think you're right on the costs, and then you have to work out from there. If we look at the somewhere north of $7 million on the bank interest is the right number.

Maybe not to ask for guidance for fiscal '28, but all may warrant here, do you think the business can actually generate positive net profit in FY 2028?

Positive net profit?

I guess the question is also

at what line you're talking about. We certainly expect to be generating Yes, we expect to be generating positive cash next year.

After tax.

Yeah. Yes.

Because obviously the issue is all of the EBIT is more than eliminated by your interest expense, which is a combination of lease costs and bank debt. If bank debt is going up into fiscal '27, the question then is, in FY 2028, are you finally in a position where your net debt then reduces again, your lease costs don't rise materially, and your operating profit is significant enough to then be able to generate positive net profit and positive EPS?

Because that's what the market is waiting to see.

Yes, the answer to that is yes. Look, we're talking about an increase in interest costs that is, compared to the increase in earnings, not as material.

Sure. Thanks, guys.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thanks taking my questions.

Apologies if you've explained this before, but I just wanted to understand why the true-up for working capital for Lumus happens so long after the transaction. Then, as we start to prepare for the sale of Agilex, I'm just interested to understand what the stranded costs might look like for Agilex relative to bearing in mind that was the case with Lumus when it was sold.

I think that Steve, they're two different beasts, look, the Lumus settlement took a little bit longer than normal because there was just a general wrangling that happens with a true-up at the end of any of these sales processes, but that's, I think a relatively easy question to answer. I think on Agilex, it is completely separate for all intents and purposes from Healius, the tie-up between the two is almost non-existent in terms of, if you talk about systems and costs and so forth.

There's very limited overlap. I think with Lumus, clearly there was, they were on the same systems, there was co-location.

I think with Agilex, it's a completely separate business, very limited input operationally from the center, let's call it.

Yeah. Okay.

It's going to be a fairly clean separation. When I think back to the two other sales that Healius have done, the sale of the medical centers, that came with an obligation around leases for the imaging business, and then there was obviously some stranded costs associated with the Lumus business when it was sold that all sort of resided in the business that was left behind.

You're saying that when you sell Agilex, we won't be inheriting some costs that are part of Agilex now

within

the stub of the business.

No, none. Look, I think Lumus, to be fair, had things like digital and storage and systems and that kind of stuff that just naturally had to be separated over a period of time.

Those things now, for all intents and purposes, are fully complete, and all of those costs that were left behind with Lumus and the way that the group was set up, they have all been taken out as well. You're right.

The second part of your question around Agilex is that it is very clean, and there would be nothing left behind.

Excellent. Just a very quick clarification question.

Within your profit and loss detail, there's other expenses. Sort of never actually known what it was, of $95 million.

Are you able to just sort of help me understand what that is? It's obviously pretty chunky component of your cost base.

There's a mix of things. I think the easiest way to think about it, though, is everything else that isn't listed out separately, right?

Everything that's not labor, lease costs, etc. There are a lot of cost categories in there that don't want to go through line for line, but the best way to think about it is broadly everything that isn't sort of labor, rent, or consumables.

Can you give an example of one or two?

Look, insurance is one. There are other costs around we've had some consultant and advisory costs that sit in there as well, but insurance is certainly a relatively chunky cost given insurance on motor vehicles, properties, etc.

Insurance isn't called out frequently. Insurance is a

Then look, there's also probably the biggest individual line item is the property management fees, we have an external property management advisor.

Okay.

Then logistics, external logistics that don't sit Some of them don't sit within the courier costs.

Okay. All right, thanks for your help.