Australia news live: PM ‘very happy' to meet Trump; Exports at risk of tumbling $30b; Trump pushes for ceasefire in Gaza
Latest posts
Latest posts
7.17am
PM 'very happy' to meet Trump: Plibersek
By Cindy Yin
Social services minister Tanya Plibersek has confirmed organisation of a meeting between prime minister Albanese and US president Donald Trump is underway after their first meeting was cancelled earlier this month.
The US president was forced to leave the G7 summit early to deal with the Iran-Israel war in the Middle East, a blow for Albanese who was due to meet with him face to face for the first time to discuss issues including trade and AUKUS.
Speaking on Channel Seven's Sunrise this morning, Plibersek said the government was awaiting confirmation for a suitable time for the two leaders to meet.
'I'm sure the prime minister is very much looking forward to it. We're awaiting confirmation of a suitable time, and I'm sure when that confirmation comes through the PM will be very happy to visit Washington,' she said.
'He's had a number of calls with president Trump. There's a lot of communication going on both ways, but it's not the sort of thing where you pop in with a plate of scones, hoping someone's home. The organising of the visit is in train.'
It comes as foreign minister Penny Wong is set to meet her US counterpart, Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington DC this week.
6.53am
Australian exports to tumble $30b as Trump's tariff war hits home
By Nick Toscano
Australia is headed for a $27 billion collapse in income from two of its biggest exports – liquefied gas and iron ore – as Donald Trump's trade war with China deepens fears for the global economy and stifles demand for commodities.
The outlook for some of Australia's largest mining and energy companies has deteriorated since April, when the United States imposed across-the-board tariffs at much higher rates than many had been expecting, leading to increased uncertainty and lower global growth forecasts.
While Trump gave Australia the minimum baseline tariff rate of 10 per cent, the fallout for the country is expected to be wider-reaching as the biggest Asian buyers of Australia's natural resources, particularly China, face much higher US tariffs amid an already sluggish time for their economies.
'Rising trade barriers – and uncertainty over how high these barriers will settle – have disrupted trade between the US and its major partners and caused businesses and consumers to adopt a 'wait-and-see' approach,' the Department of Industry, Science and Resources says in its latest export forecast report, to be released on Monday.
'The associated uncertainty is likely to impinge on world commodity demand, as the nations that Australia supplies are impacted.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
34 minutes ago
- Perth Now
‘Fast enough?': Ex-spy chief's key question
The 'real issue' with Australia's defence spending is not if the Albanese government is splashing more cash but whether it is 'enough' and flowing 'fast enough', an ex-spy chief says. Duncan Lewis headed the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) from 2014 to 2019. Since departing the country's domestic spy service, he has become chair of the European Australian Business Council and the Australian arm of weapons maker Thales. Mr Lewis said on Monday there was no doubt Labor had increased the defence budget since coming to power. Ex-ASIO chief Duncan Lewis says the 'real issue' with Australia's defence spending is if Labor is spending 'enough' and 'fast enough'. Kym Smith Credit: News Corp Australia 'The government has increased defence expenditure and spending over the last couple of years, and the projections going forward continue that increase,' he told the ABC. 'The real issue is whether it is enough and whether it is fast enough.' Mr Lewis noted that the defence budget was sitting about 2 per cent of GDP or $59bn. Under Labor's spending commitments, that would increase to about 2.35 per cent of GDP by 2034 – the same year the Albanese government has warned a major conflict could break out. At roughly $100bn in the space of a decade, Mr Lewis said 2.35 per cent was 'a sizeable increase'. 'But the question is, is it enough to have the kind of defence force that we might require in the future?' he said. Anthony Albanese is facing domestic and international calls to boost the defence budget, with the US warning of a potentially 'imminent' threat from China in the Indo Pacific. But the Prime Minister has resisted, making Australia an outlier in the West – a position highlighted by NATO's decision last week to dramatically hike military spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The Trump administration has asked Australia to lift spending to 3.5 per cent. Both Labor and the opposition have pushed back on that target, with the Coalition proposing 3 per cent instead. The Albanese government is aiming to spend 2.35 per cent of GDP on defence by 2034. Jeremy Piper / NewsWire Credit: News Corp Australia Asked point blank if 2.35 per cent of GDP was enough, Mr Lewis said he thought Australia would need to front up more. 'I'm of the view that if we are going to run a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, together with an effective defence force that's capable of doing the kind of things that we expect might be required in the future, there will have to be an increase in due course,' he said. 'But look, I'm cognisant of the fact that there are competing challenges for the public purse, and it's up to the government to get their balance right. 'But I think there is a sense of urgency in this matter, which is not universally being exhibited, and I think that needs to be something that we should pay more attention to.' Mr Lewis also said defence companies were not getting the 'certainty' needed to do business in Australia. 'There is a concern that we are unable to get into long-term, reliable partnerships with government,' he said. 'The defence industry in Australia requires long term, regular contractual arrangements if we are to develop sovereign defence capability, and that is a stated objective of the government. 'You can't have just episodic buys and expect defence companies to continue operating in Australia.'
The Advertiser
38 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Time to obliterate the off ramp for language's sake
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'."
News.com.au
43 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Ex-ASIO chief questions Australia's defence spending amid Western budget boosts
The 'real issue' with Australia's defence spending is not if the Albanese government is splashing more cash but whether it is 'enough' and flowing 'fast enough', an ex-spy chief says. Duncan Lewis headed the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) from 2014 to 2019. Since departing the country's domestic spy service, he has become chair of the European Australian Business Council and the Australian arm of weapons maker Thales. Mr Lewis said on Monday there was no doubt Labor had increased the defence budget since coming to power. 'The government has increased defence expenditure and spending over the last couple of years, and the projections going forward continue that increase,' he told the ABC. 'The real issue is whether it is enough and whether it is fast enough.' Mr Lewis noted that the defence budget was sitting about 2 per cent of GDP or $59bn. Under Labor's spending commitments, that would increase to about 2.35 per cent of GDP by 2034 – the same year the Albanese government has warned a major conflict could break out. At roughly $100bn in the space of a decade, Mr Lewis said 2.35 per cent was 'a sizeable increase'. 'But the question is, is it enough to have the kind of defence force that we might require in the future?' he said. Anthony Albanese is facing domestic and international calls to boost the defence budget, with the US warning of a potentially 'imminent' threat from China in the Indo Pacific. But the Prime Minister has resisted, making Australia an outlier in the West – a position highlighted by NATO's decision last week to dramatically hike military spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The Trump administration has asked Australia to lift spending to 3.5 per cent. Both Labor and the opposition have pushed back on that target, with the Coalition proposing 3 per cent instead. Asked point blank if 2.35 per cent of GDP was enough, Mr Lewis said he thought Australia would need to front up more. 'I'm of the view that if we are going to run a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, together with an effective defence force that's capable of doing the kind of things that we expect might be required in the future, there will have to be an increase in due course,' he said. 'But look, I'm cognisant of the fact that there are competing challenges for the public purse, and it's up to the government to get their balance right. 'But I think there is a sense of urgency in this matter, which is not universally being exhibited, and I think that needs to be something that we should pay more attention to.' Mr Lewis also said defence companies were not getting the 'certainty' needed to do business in Australia. 'There is a concern that we are unable to get into long-term, reliable partnerships with government,' he said. 'The defence industry in Australia requires long term, regular contractual arrangements if we are to develop sovereign defence capability, and that is a stated objective of the government. 'You can't have just episodic buys and expect defence companies to continue operating in Australia.'
