Good morning, and thanks for joining us on the call today. As this is my last market call, I'll speak briefly on my tenure at Northern Star Resources and then hand over to Ryan Gurner to present the highlights for the financial year and the outlook for FY '27.

There's been a lot to focus on in the recent trading period. But for those that have been here with me on the journey for the past 13 years, we've been on an incredible journey and had some real fun along the way.

During that time, we've seen annual gold production increase twentyfold. We've enjoyed a 30x uplift in share price from $0.70.

Over the 13 years, gold resources have grown 40 times to 89 million ounces, and market capitalization is up 100x from $300 million to over $30 billion. As a true demonstration of any healthy business, we give back.

To date, we have returned $3.3 billion to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks. During my tenure, I have seen the team grow from a humble single asset with 250 jobs to now a global portfolio employing over 10,000 people with decades of future ahead.

This is something which I am extremely proud of. It's a rare experience to be associated with such success, and I really wish to give huge recognition to the numerous great people that I've had the privilege to work alongside through both the challenges and opportunities.

This is the team that will continue to drive success in the future. Their relentless efforts, 24/7, 365 days a year is what matters and truly makes the difference.

The STARR core values are strong, and our team are the true contributors to value creation and have done the heavy lifting to build the great company that Northern Star is today. There is no doubt that we have built an exceptional platform that is absolutely set up for success in the very near term.

Northern Star will continue to generate significant value for shareholders, and I'm proud to have worked with such an outstanding team. I'd now like to hand over to our very capable Deputy CEO, Ryan Gurner, to talk to the highlights of FY '26 and the outlook for FY '27.

Thanks, Stu, and good morning, all. I'd also like to welcome here today Steve McClare, our Chief Technical Officer, who is joining us today and who'll talk to a few of the slides.

So welcome, Steve. I'm pleased to now present to you the financial results for the year ended 30 June '26 and our outlook next year -- or this year, I should say.

And I'll be referring to the slides in the results presentation pack from here. So if we go to Page 4, FY '26 was a year of significant investment and transition for Northern Star as we completed Stage 1 of the mill expansion at KCGM.

While the business faced operational challenges during the year, the underlying strength of the portfolio remained evident in the financial results. The group generated $4.3 billion of underlying EBITDA, up 22% on the prior year, which translated into $2.9 billion of cash earnings.

Importantly, despite FY '26 representing the peak investment phase of KCGM mill expansion, the business still generated $190 million of underlying free cash flow. Today, the Board has declared a fully franked dividend of $0.30 per share, bringing total FY '26 dividends to $0.55 per share.

And during the year, the company completed $129 million of its $500 million on-market share buyback program. We enter FY '27 with the KCGM expansion commissioning underway, marking the transition from a period of significant investment to one focused on operational execution and value realization.

Supported by an investment-grade balance sheet and financial flexibility, the business is well positioned to begin capturing the benefits of this transformational investment. Turning to Slide 5.

Our balance sheet remains a key strength. We ended the year with $1.2 billion in cash and bullion with gearing, leverage and liquidity metrics all comfortably within our financial targets.

Our financial position is further supported by access to flexible long-term funding, and we continue to maintain 3 investment-grade credit ratings. This reflects both the quality of our asset portfolio and longevity of our production profile, all located within Tier 1 jurisdictions.

We enter FY '27 with a well-funded business, strong balance sheet, and the flexibility to progress our organic growth pipeline while maintaining capital allocation discipline. If we go to Slide 6 now.

Our approach to capital management remains unchanged. And as mentioned earlier, the Board has declared a fully franked final dividend of $0.30 per share, bringing the total FY '26 dividend of $0.55 per share.

This represents a 27% payout of cash earnings and approximately $785 million returned to shareholders through fully-franked dividends during the year. In addition, we completed $129 million of our $500 million on-market share buyback program.

Now to Slide 7, which highlights all 3 production centers generating strong margins and making meaningful contributions to group earnings. At a group level, FY '26 underlying EBITDA margin was 56%, with underlying EBITDA of over $2,700 per ounce, reflecting the strength of the gold price environment.

Kalgoorlie delivered a particularly strong result, achieving 64% EBITDA margin, while Pogo continued its improvement trajectory, achieving a 60% EBITDA margin. Yandal delivered a 47% EBITDA margin and contributed approximately $1 billion of EBITDA during the year.

While margins were lower than Kalgoorlie and Pogo, we remain focused on further improvement here. Importantly, Yandal remains a significant contribution to the group, generating over $300 million in net mine cash flow during the year.

I'd like to point out a reconciliation of statutory NPAT to underlying EBITDA and cash earnings has been provided in the appendix of this presentation on Slide 18. And Slide 17 outlines abnormal items to reconcile from statutory profit to underlying NPAT.

If we move over to Slide 8 now, which highlights our continued improvement in returns and earnings per share. FY '26 delivered an 18% increase in return on capital employed with ROCE increasing to 13.4%, while underlying earnings per share increased 5% to $1.24 per share.

Underlying EBITDA also increased 25% year-on-year to $2.7 billion. Importantly, these improvements were achieved during a year of significant operational transition and investment, including the Stage 1 commissioning of the KCGM mill expansion.

And as KCGM transitions from commissioning into steady-state operations, the asset will become an increasingly important driver of earnings, free cash flow and shareholder returns. Over the slide to Page 9, we've released our FY '26 reporting suite today which provides a comprehensive overview of our safety, environmental, social and governance performance.

These documents outline our approach to responsible business practices and the progress made during FY '26. I encourage you to read them alongside the annual report.

Now Slide 10. The company is forecast to deliver group production of 1.5 million to 1.65 million ounces in FY '27.

Production is expected to be weighted to the second half of FY '27 reflecting planned major shutdowns in the September quarter and the commissioning at KCGM. We will discuss KCGM in more detail over the coming slides.

Jundee's operational review is complete with the outcomes incorporated into an updated medium-term mine plan that rationalizes the operating footprint and optimizes the mining sequence. FY '27 all-in sustaining cost is forecast at AUD 3,050 to AUD 3,450 per ounce, with cost per ounce expected to improve through the year.

This guidance reflects approximately 5% inflation across the portfolio, higher royalties associated with the gold price, together with higher oil price assumptions, drawdown of stockpiles at Carosue Dam, Jundee and KCGM and approximately $850 million to $915 million of sustaining capital, primarily comprising underground development and associated ventilation, power and pumping infrastructure. And I would like to highlight Bannockburn at our Thunderbox operation is now in commercial production.

And that means the stripping costs and the associated equipment costs are now within sustaining capital at that production center, which is about $85 million to $95 million for FY '27. FY '27, total group capital investment, which includes sustaining capital, growth capital and the Hemi project is forecast at $2.6 billion to $2.9 billion.

While contingency has been incorporated into the capital plan, a portion of capital expenditure remains discretionary, providing flexibility to optimize expenditure in line with operating performance and capital allocation priorities. FY '27 growth capital of $1.5 billion to $1.77 billion comprises operational growth capital of the Kalgoorlie, Yandal and Pogo production centers and KCGM mill expansion and readiness.

$200 million to $250 million is planned for the Hemi project primarily for ongoing engineering design, NPI works and commitments for long lead items. Exploration expenditure in FY '27 is forecast at $230 million to $250 million, with investment focused on KCGM, Pogo and Hemi to support resource growth and mine life extensions.

Steve will talk to this shortly. FY '27, depreciation and amortization is forecast at $1,000 to $1,200 per ounce.

And the effective tax rate is forecast at 30% to 32% with FY '27, cash tax payments forecast at $450 million to $550 million based on current assumptions, which incorporates approximately $300 million to $350 million of cash tax benefits associated with the acquisition of the Hemi project. Over to Slide 11 now.

We are guiding KCGM production of 550,000 to 650,000 ounces for FY '27. The guidance range reflects a balanced assessment of ramp-up expectations and associated risks during the early stages of commissioning.

It has been informed with the early data from commissioning and Northern Star's established operational planning technical review and risk assessment process, supported by external benchmarking and an independent technical assessment. The range also considers downside scenarios relating to ramp-up performance, stockpile grade variability and recovery performance following completion of Stage 2.

KCGM is forecast to deliver 3.5 million to 4 million tonnes per annum of underground ore with open pit mining at Golden Pike North continuing. At KCGM, operational growth capital of $895 million to $945 million is forecast, primarily relating to the Fimiston South cutback and associated mining fleet expenditure supporting targeted material movement of 60 million to 65 million tonnes this year.

Underground development and infrastructure at Fimiston Underground and Mt Charlotte, together with the equipment fleet costs supporting mining activities across the underground operations. mid-life refurbishments of the open pit fleet associated with the Fimiston South cutback, processing capital works and capital drilling to support future resource and reserve growth.

We have combined the mill expansion project and readiness projects with the FY '27 forecast expenditure of $350 million to $470 million. This comprises KCGM mill expansion project of $150 million to $210 million to complete Stage 2 and consolidate Gidji processing into a single hub.

The capital outlook includes additional contingency as a prudent measure, reflecting the remaining construction commissioning and transition activities ahead. KCGM tailing facilities, we are guiding $100 million to $120 million to complete the final stage of the project and the KCGM Power infrastructure, $100 million to $140 million for the new thermal power station and renewable-ready transmission infrastructure.

I'd now like to hand to Steve McClare to talk through our growth projects. Thanks very much, Steve.

Thank you, Ryan. Turning to Slide 12, where I'll discuss the FY '27 outlook for KCGM, our largest asset.

The 27 million tonne per annum processing expansion has now moved into the commissioning phase and remains on schedule. Ore commissioning is underway, then project handover to operation occurs and the ramp-up to follow a measured approach to the first half of FY '27.

The existing processing plant is expected to operate through August before tying to the expanded processing facility in September. Stage 2 remains on track for completion in late 1 half FY '27 and is expected to deliver additional benefits through improved recoveries and the elimination of concentrate haulage between KCGM and Gidji.

Importantly, FY '26 represented the peak capital investment phase of the expansion project. As we move through commissioning and establish operating parameters during FY '27, our focus shifts from construction and execution to operational performance, cash flow generation and returns.

Turning to Slide 13 and the Hemi project. Hemi is a high-quality gold project in a Tier 1 jurisdiction with 13.2 million ounces of mineral resources and 5.5 million ounces of ore reserves.

State and federal permitting is progressing with secondary approvals required before early works can commence. The managed aquifer recharge trial is underway and progressing to plan.

The current focus is on progressing engineering and design for the processing plant and nonprocess infrastructure, together with mine sequencing and updating of feasibility assumptions. FID is targeted for late FY '27, subject to the required external and internal approvals with an estimated build period of approximately 2.5 years post FID.

FY '27 expenditure is, therefore, focused on progressing the project towards FID, while maintaining flexibility around the timing and level of investment. Turning to Slide 14.

Exploration remains an important source of long-term value creation for Northern Star. In FY '26, we continue to grow and upgrade our mineral resource and ore reserve base.

We ended 31 March 2026 with 88.9 million ounces of mineral resources and 28.4 million ounces of ore reserves, supporting a reserve-backed production profile of more than 10 years. Resource growth was delivered across the portfolio, with meaningful contributions from Kalgoorlie, Pogo and Hemi.

Importantly, we continue to add resources at attractive rates with the cost of resource additions averaging $23 per ounce during the year. Exploration remains a high-value investment in the portfolio extending mine lives, increasing reserve flexibility and creating the future growth opportunities.

Each additional reserve ounce strengthens the long-term production profile and increases the value of the existing infrastructure and operating platform. I'll now hand over to Ryan to complete the final slide of the formal presentation.

Thanks, Steve. Yes.

So turning to Slide 15 summarizes the investment case and the key themes shaping the next 3 years for the company. FY '26 represented a significant year of investment and transition for Northern Star, and we -- as we move into FY '27 and beyond, our focus increasingly shifts now towards capturing the benefits of those investments and striving to improve the performance of the portfolio.

Taken together, these elements provide a strong platform for Northern Star over the medium term. The investments made in recent years, particularly at KCGM, have established the foundation for improved operating performance, with a focus now on delivering ramp-up and realizing the returns from that investment.

And look, before we go to Q&A, I think I'd just like to say a few words about Stu here, given that he is right, this is his final call with Northern Star. Stu, look, I'd really just like to recognize the remarkable contribution you've made to this company.

And on behalf of all of our employees, thank you for the leadership, the vision and commitment you've brought to Northern Star over more than a decade. Under your leadership, Northern Star has grown from a single asset Australian gold producer into a globally recognized gold company, delivering significant value for shareholders.

For me, personally, it's been a privilege to work alongside you. Thank you for your trust, support and friendship.

I've learned a great deal from you over the years, and I'm grateful for the opportunity for you. From all of us at Northern Star, we wish you and the family, mate, all the very best for the future.

And on that note, I'd like to hand back to Mel for the Q&A. Thank you.

Thanks for your time over the years, Stu. Maybe just another question for Steve on the ramp-up at KCGM.

So thanks for the extra color. But what are the expectations around when you'll be in a position to update us on the, I guess, the ramp-up further?

What do you need to see? And can you remind us how the power requirements or the power plant you're building might fit into that?

Thank you for the question, Lee. I just updated where we're at, at the moment.

So we're basically within the project running the start-up in terms of the ore commissioning and when we transition in September to handing that to operations, the project team will actually remain in support, but the operations will be in the driver's seat. So at the moment, the operations group is there supporting the project and those roles just reverse.

But everything is tracking to plan in Stage 1, and we anticipate the tie over of the Fimiston SAG mill into that circuit to occur in September. With regard to the power we actually have a good connection, and we also have exclusive rights to the joint venture Parkeston facility, which is a 110-megawatt power station and that combined provides the power to KCGM.

Longer term, the building of the thermal power project actually improves the efficiency and modern I guess, rapid power support to the KCGM and that will just transition. Once that is free, are built, Parkeston becomes free and can take on other roles.

Okay. So it's not a constraint on the ramp-up?

Not at all.

Okay. And then just sticking with guidance.

When it comes to Jundee, Thunderbox KCGM, what's imputed in today's FY '27 guidance. Is that what they look like going forward or 3 assets, I guess, obviously, the growth capital has rolled off a fair bit at Yandal, even if you back out something for Bannockburn, is that the go-forward plan for all 3 assets?

Thanks, Levi. Look, we'll -- obviously, we haven't and we won't and we're not giving out medium-term guidance at this stage.

Obviously, we've got a new CEO coming. He will have a view.

And I guess we'll go through that as a business, and we plan to come back to the market with medium-term guidance later. So I can't give you beyond FY '27 for now.

Again, Stu, congrats on the tenure. Look picking up firstly maybe from Levi's question.

Just you've noted in the release that Jundee operational review is complete, and you've incorporated those outcomes into an updated medium-term mine plan. Can you talk us through some of the conclusions that came out of that review and what's actually been incorporated into that future plan?

And is FY '27 commentary around production and costs broadly what we should assume going forward out of that?

Thanks, Hugo. Yes.

Look, I think -- I mean, I'll start with just saying, I mean, I think we all agree, Jundee's been an incredible asset for Northern Star for more than a decade. But you've seen over the sort of near term that we have been facing grade decline increasing development to achieve the same profile against a backdrop in the sector, at least of rising costs.

So yes, we got around that. We've reduced ultimately the operating model of the footprint to maintain, I guess, a steadier and consistent production profile, focus on the core ore zones at Jundee.

And we have, I guess, rightsized or reduced equipment and people from the plan to slow down activity and focus on quality. So what you'll probably see this year, FY '27 is in the back half, we've got to do a little bit of investment, but we're going to see a bit higher grade in that back half.

So H1 is a setup half. Set up the development to provide those higher ore sources in half 2.

Got it. That's helpful.

And then if I turn to Hemi, I believe your federal approval conditions are due to be received today. Is there anything in that process so far that would lead you to think you won't have all your primary and secondary approvals by the end of 2026?

And does the $200 million to $250 million CapEx guidance for this year that you've given assume that those early works at site can commence in the second half on the back of that?

Hugo, in answering that question, I guess we don't control the approvals. The approvals will come when the approvals are done by the government.

That's tracking to plan as we work at the moment. We're happy with those numbers and approvals are not currently a constraint.

It's actually aligned with the FID. The early works that we talk to are minor matters of things like camps and stuff like that, that we can do whenever we receive approvals at that point in time.

So no constraints and tracking to that end of financial year.

Stu, best wishes for the next chapter and thanks for your time over the years. Just the KCGM guide for the FY, we've got production expectations in underground, could you just give us some color on the range assumed for the mill throughput and head grade, particularly how to think about how long you're expected to feed the low-grade stockpiles?

And then, Ryan, are any of the cost capitalized there? Or are all going to OpEx in time that you know?

Yes. Thanks, Kate.

Look, I won't give throughput of what we're expecting because there's a range, obviously. And I think in my commentary, I sort of spoke about how we've I considered that with industry benchmarks with an external assessment with our own views.

We've thought about delays in ramp. We thought about grade, lower in grade with the -- in relation to the stockpile.

So when we've come up with, I guess, the range, all those factors were involved and of course, we've got very early data from our commissioning, which Steve sort of spoke about. So that's what's formed the view there.

You see that I've called out our underground outlook in terms of tonnages, that 3.5 million to 4 million tonnes. And then, of course, there's going to be primary ore from the pit feeding it.

So Hopefully, that's enough Kate, to sort of formulate those views. In terms of your question on capital OpEx, yes, so probably as sort of Steve was mentioning, we've obviously started that C3 commissioning, which is ore commissioning now and looking to tie in, in September.

So over that period, some of the costs associated with running the plant will be capitalized. And those costs included things like power, water, some reagents, not all reagents, but some reagents and then probably the major cost is operational people as we commission.

I'm not expecting that to be a large amount. It might be in the order of $10 million, maybe $15 million maximum, but that's covered in our guidance and our contingencies for FY '27.

Okay. And then can I just come back to Jundee?

Sorry, I'm just a bit confused here. So we've got the new mine plan.

But we've got flat production year-on-year. So does that mean that we have like a higher margin?

It doesn't seem like we have a higher margin, lower production mine plan going forward? Or does that kick in later?

I'm just trying to understand what the new maintain and the review means.

Yes. So there's a reduction in primary ore this year, supplemented by low-grade stockpiles.

That's the plan this year. There's -- as I said, there's going to be development in this first half to get access to higher grade in the second half, Kate.

So the focus is going to be on a higher quality -- like lower tonnage, but higher quality ore sources.

I guess potentially awkward question, Stu, given you're leaving and Suresh coming in, in October. But can the team maybe talk about what approach has been taken to put this guidance together, i.e.

is it the same process as prior years with the same error bars and contingency within? And then secondly, who is accountable for this guidance?

Is this where everyone on the ExCo is going to be judged by that?

Thanks, Dan. I'll hand to Ryan.

No awkward questions, mate. It's all good.

Thanks, Dan, for your awkward question. Look, really simply, our outlook has been developed through our established budget, operational planning and technical review process, and we -- and it's been informed by demonstrated performance.

And in relation to KCGM, as I mentioned in my talk there, it's then being informed by industry benchmarks, so ramp-up curves, an independent assessment of the plant. And then we've rightsized it or we've stress tested it on other factors around slow ramp-up, grade profile.

We've looked at delay to our recovery expectation on Stage 2. So we've done all those things.

And ultimately, as a management team, yes, we are accountable for.

Okay. On the Carosue Dam, you're guiding to 150,000 to 160,000 ounces for FY '27 and then you say [indiscernible] and Twin Peaks come in from '28.

Does that mean we expect production in FY '28 to just lift a tad from '27 levels because you have those new ore sources coming in. Is that how I should read that?

I think, look, as with all projects down there, they don't start roaring. So it will be a slow buildup.

But I think what I'd say is that those 2 projects are there to supplement the ore source feed at Carosue Dam. [indiscernible] is a 2 million tonne 3,000-plus underground in close proximity to the mill.

So it's going to be a really good little project for us, 300,000 ounces. So yes, it's going to be a good additive ore source for Carosue Dam.

And then, Ryan, just sticking on some of these financial things. Just on the AISC guidance, is there a significant noncash charge that comes through for the various stockpiles, particularly KCGM through FY '27?

Just wondering obviously, we've got the AISC guidance you've given, but it could be a large margin stockpile charge that's within that, that's noncash. Just keen to unpick that.

Yes, Dan, it's -- yes, it is a good point. And I think it's something that I'm sure quarter will talk to and go ahead does this work.

But Really, I'd probably say for KCGM no, I mean, Jundee and CDO yes, because they'll be drawing down, yes, feed, and that will have a noncash cost. So from a margin perspective -- sorry, cash flow perspective, it won't matter.

From -- in respect of KCGM, probably what I'm actually expecting is neutral to maybe even a small buildup of inventory. And the reason being is -- and it's going to depend on how ore sources reach the mill and direct tip and how much that goes in.

But what I think you'll find is that we will draw down the -- we'll draw down and we've got a 1 million tonne of high-grade material there we'll draw that down, that will have a charge. Costs generally, right, across the business, the sector increasing.

So that means our inventory costs are increasing, whether we like it or not with oil, people's costs, capital, all those things. So that will probably sort of negate that.

But then probably just to remind everyone, the stockpiles actually carry no cash costs. So they come through free.

They'll have a P&L charge in noncash because we've acquired them. But actually, those stockpiles come through of a 0 cash cost.

The reason why we're building up inventory in this current year just gone is because, obviously, we were mill-constrained. So we've had that 1 million-ton on the stockpile.

But equally, we're also stockpiling lower-grade material right? So we're building up that balance sheet, whereas now we're going to be obviously drawing it down.

But those initial stockpiles, they have no cash value.

Can I firstly ask about the step-up year-on-year in terms of sustaining capital spend? You've given some of the detail there on the breakdown across some of the projects.

If I look through that, some of those look like one-off sort of capital or maintenance projects there. But I guess, at a high level, to what extent is that run rate of spend in FY '27 kind of now embedded in terms of sustaining capital?

If you think about it in sort of a dollar per ounce basis, that's around $550 an ounce. So is that the right number going forward?

Yes. Good question, Matt.

I appreciate it. The -- well, first what I'd say is there's contingency in that profile.

Yes, there is some -- again, this lumpiness. I remember last year, if you recall, we were talking about mid-life or midlife rebuilds at KCGM.

Well, those are around the 20,000 hours now up to the 30,000 hours on some of these equipment. So those tend to come in and out.

There's absolutely I'll say, lumpy capital around processing and the things we need to do there. And then, of course, I think the real outlier is this deferred stripping at Bannockburn.

The reality is, is we've got to bring that into our cost because we're 10% into the ore body, and that's what the rule sort of guide us around to sort of bring them into. So I'd probably say, like from a Yandal perspective, their actual total cost, if you just look at total cost last year to -- if you look at what we guided, it's actually the same.

It's just this bring forward in relation to stripping. But there are some more processing costs in both the Yandal region.

And then there's some lumpiness at KCGM. And equally, I'd say, Matt, there's some discretion in some of this capital.

I think last year, we guided $750 million. We ended up printing about $650 million.

So we are able to prioritize the capital that is required in the business and hold off that, that isn't subject to macro performance and business performance.

Yes. Got it.

That's helpful. And then I guess in the similar vein, that Slide 11, the breakdown of KCGM there.

Obviously, you highlight some ongoing activity in terms of growth capital at some of those projects. Is it fair to again sort of extrapolate that level of activity on those projects beyond sort of FY '27.

Is that what you're sort of trying to indicate there? And then conversely, obviously, you've got the mill expansion and readiness projects and the mill expansion CapEx itself, presumably rolls off pretty materially into FY '28.

Is that fair?

Yes. Yes, Matt.

So I guess, it was great to see you out at KCGM. You know how much waste we've got to shift on that southern leg of the pit.

So we're guiding 60 million to 65 million tonnes of movement there. So that's going to continue.

And our aspiration to get to 8 million tonnes of the underground will continue too. So that's the majority of that investment.

So yes, I think it's fair. In relation to the readiness, absolutely, tails were finished this year, project will finish this year.

I think there's a very small amount potentially into the '28 year for the thermal, but there's almost -- yes, not much beyond that.

That's really helpful. And then maybe just lastly, if I look at KCGM production guidance and the outlook for the ramp-up, obviously, you've filled a couple of questions on this already, and you've talked through how you've really kind of stress tested the numbers there, how you've kind of thought about error bars in terms of that ramp up, looking at ramp-up curves and so on.

I mean if I take a step back, you've got a new mill that's going to be plugged in, in a month's time, which is going to more than double your capacity. And your guidance is that you're going to produce a little bit more this year than last year.

So I guess I'm wondering where Steve and his team see the real opportunities to maybe do better than what you're guiding to in terms of the ramp-up. What are the opportunities to kind of beat the expectations there?

And what sort of work programs are you trying to implement in the next sort of 3 months to try and do better than those numbers?

Thanks, Matt. Look, I will hand to Steve.

But I think what I'd say from my perspective is it's -- you walk through, Matt. It is phenomenal, but it hasn't been demonstrated yet.

So I think we're just going to be cautious around that before we set, but I'll hand to Steve to maybe talk to some of it.

In releasing the guidance we've got here, Matthew, we basically have achieved the milestone in all commissioning to date, and that's allowed us -- given us the confidence to release the FY '27 numbers. From there, we want to continue to build history, a data set and then methodically apply that to the future.

So we don't wish to speak beyond FY '27. What we've got here is a very prudent assessment, and we'll keep the market updated as we progress.

Okay. Got it.

Congrats on a successful 13 years at Northern Star, Stu.

All the best for the future endeavors, Stu. Just one on recoveries at KCGM.

Just looking at, I guess, the ramp-up period in that where you're predominantly milling the low-grade feed. And I guess prior to the integration of the Gidji facility, can you give us, I guess, a benchmark where we're expecting recovery in this ramp-up period?

Yes. I can, Adam, to give you some flavor on that.

The plant, as is designed gives an uplift of 1% to 2% is what we put over the longer-term average, but that requires Stage 2 to kick in, in that phase. During the interim period, we'll be feeding material to Gidji and also producing a concentrate, and we don't get that uplift in materials.

So if you look at our status quo in our history, it's business as usual, and we only get the uplift once we successfully commission Stage 2.

So no kind of change to that like 82%, 83% recovery that you have been getting in previous quarters prior to the integration and Gidji facility. And I guess the one big change there is the low-grade feed going through the plant.

So I'm just wondering if there's an impact to recoveries, just putting lower-grade material predominantly through plant?

Yes, not the numbers you said because that depends on the grade that's fed and the source and the properties. So overall, the number, I'd say, is probably a little bit lower than what you've said there.

But it's what we would traditionally expect until we get the improvement from the capital.

Fantastic. And I'm not sure who wants to take this one.

But yes, I guess, just on Hemi managed Aquifer recharge trials, just looking at EPA recommendations, one of the recommendations is putting the abstracted water back into the Aquifer. Is this a common industry practice?

And I guess, do you see any risk with doing this into the future Hemi?

Yes. No, it's a common practice where you basically -- I've actually said very good practice where you are dealing with water in an open pit operation.

So we actually take the water. We -- the trial is going very well.

We're pumping approximately 7 kilometers out and reinjecting that back into exactly the same aquifer. So -- and then over time, for many years, can return back to the mine.

So it's nothing novel unique in what we're doing, but we just need to test the parameters of the actual ore body and flow within the system.

Just another question on the KCGM ramp-up. Just trying to understand the quarterly shape of the ramp up.

Should we just think that is a smooth ramp-up from Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 or Q1, I know that you're running the old mill for a period of time in parallel? So just some clarity on that would be great.

It will follow normal industry averages. It basically starts rough at the start, gets tuned, gets optimized.

We learn how to run it. And over time, and we've said before, it's a 2-year ramp-up we anticipate before we get to the denominator of 27 million tonnes.

So if you look at those industry norms, we're not expecting anything different from KCGM.

Okay. Yes, I just note that you're running the old mill for a period in time in parallel.

Does that change anything?

Except what we're doing today is what we've been doing for years. And in September, we change over to the new.

Okay. Second question, just given the external calls for a broader strategic review, has the Board's thinking changed at all around the optimal portfolio of Northern Star How it should look over the next 3 to 5 years?

I mean, no, Jonathon, I mean, we're always evaluating the strategic fit of our assets within the portfolio. So -- and you've seen we've been active there in the past.

So nothing has changed.

Thanks for joining us on the call. I appreciate your interest in our company on what is a busy day.

Thank you to Stu, and thank you to all of you, and have a great day.