I am disputing that. Similarly, if somebody tells us that Australia is spending 2% and we're spending 1%, is it another dark age? The argument is that the amount of money we have to spend on defence is determined by various factors, two of which, the most important, are the threats—Australia—and the fiscal situation. When you don't have the money, you don't have the money. You can spare the axe for Aboriginal Affairs, fine, or the transfers can be reduced, but nobody can claim a special status, especially defence, given that Australia is always around very dangerous waters and we're not.
What I'm saying is that we cannot pick and choose what determines how much we spend on defence. There are two major determinants. One is threats...well, foreign policy and threats, obviously, plus the fiscal situation. Those are the most important. The third one, equally important but over which we have no control, is how much all the equipment will cost us, so that's sort of—