'Force projection' and the Indian Ocean: the role of Australia as a hub for 'US interests'

Written by: (Contributed) on 10 June 2026

 

(Above: Royal Australian air force Wing Commander Tanya Evans, RAAF No. 23 Squadron commanding officer, left, speaks with U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Bolton, Eighteenth Air Force commander, right, during an immersion at RAAF Base Amberley, Australia, Dec. 9, 2025. The immersion was part of a welcome briefing for the players participating in Operation KENNEY STRIKES BACK, a joint and coalition exercise designed by the 62d Airlift Wing to validate rapid generation and power projection capabilities, while operating effectively with joint, allied, and partner forces. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Blake Gonzales. Public domain)

 

Scrutiny of Australia's defence budget following demands by the Trump administration to increase expenditure has provided some interesting insights into the mindsets of the higher echelons of decision-makers in Canberra. It has also thrown light upon Australia's designated role to 'project power' in support of sensitive US defence and security provision in the Indian Ocean. All is not what it would appear.

A study of the Australian defence budget has revealed allocations into sensitive areas of the Canberra bureaucracy not usually associated with the military. The fact that what was diplomatically noted as 'large slices of funding for ASIO, ASIS, the Department of Home Affairs, the Office of National Intelligence, and the national intelligence watch-dog, the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security', have remained comparatively well hidden in vast troves of government bureaucracy. (1) Secrecy can be used to serve many purposes.

The findings have to be seen in the light of recent demands by the Trump administration for Australia to increase its defence budget to 3.5 per cent of GDP 'as soon as possible'. (2)

During the days of the immediate aftermath of the previous Cold War, Australia's defence budget fell to about 1.75 per cent of GDP; previously it had been above 2.5 per cent of GDP.
(3) Only in 2013 did the defence budget increase to about two per cent of GDP, hovering between 1.9 per cent and 2.1 per cent of GDP. (4) For the next Australian financial year the budget actually falls back to 2.02 per cent of GDP. (5)

Defence budget projections have recently concluded that Canberra's use of its present accounting methods show the present budget will increase to about 2.5 per cent by the mid-2030s. (6)

The budget percentages, however, have been disputed by various government officials on the basis of what actually constitutes a defence allocation. The fact that Canberra uses part of its defence budget to finance the intelligence services perhaps reveals a great deal about the present Cold War mind-set in both domestic and foreign monitoring and surveillance.

Just who is spying on whom? And for what reason? Immigration? Emigration?
The debate has taken place amid concerns that China, for example, has already established a credible foothold across the vast Indo-Pacific region. The US, in response, has begun upgrading its Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS), making greater use of Australia for the defence and security of 'US interests'. References in military publications have included, 'enhancing its northern and north-western bases to support force projection into the region'. (7)

Reference to force projection, however, is misleading. It is not merely restricted to the range and capacity of missiles being launched into Australia's neighbouring region. It is, primarily, the role of the intelligence services to assessments developments and to analyse their significance. It should be noted, for example, that the 'Pentagon has a vast bureaucracy devoted to gathering and analysing intelligence'; the use of sensitive signals-intelligence (SIGINT), however, rests upon 'ground humans', who are well-placed agents (HUMINT) trusted with providing sensitive and secret intelligence in their localities. (8)

References in recent military publications about Australia's role in the Indian Ocean have provided an interesting insight into the close links between US-led intelligence facilities and their counterparts in Australia. A significant part of the US upgrading to their Indo-Pacific Strategy has included expanding the three tier Island Chain Theory across the Asia-Pacific region into fourth and fifth chains across the Indian Ocean, with specific reference to Diego Garcia as a main intelligence-gathering facility closely linked to Pine Gap.

It has been noted, for example, that 'Australia identifies the north-east Indian Ocean, alongside the South Pacific and South-east Asia, as one of its strategic priority areas'. (9) The high-level diplomatic statement was accompanied by a list of countries in the Indian Ocean regarded as geo-strategically important being drawn closer to Australia for the specific purpose of establishing 'mechanisms for the sharing of information and intelligence'. (10)

And the implementation of the grande plan would appear already under-way, if the facts and figures in the defence budget are correct. Breaking down the budget into individual areas of significance for the plan include Australian Signals Directorate, which specialises in SIGINT. A marked increase in their recent budget allocation has been recorded as:

                                                          2025-26 – 2331 ($m)
                                                          2026-27 – 2531
                                                          2027-28 – 2382
                                                          2028-29 – 2266 (11)

Their intelligence counterparts, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, likewise, have a recorded recently increased budget allocation of:

                                                          2025-26 – 524 ($m)
                                                          2026-27 – 549
                                                          2027-28 – 522
                                                          2028-29 – 503 (12)

When incoming US ambassador, Dr. David Brat, stated at a recent high-level diplomatic mission in Canberra that, 'he loved everything about Australia … and that … few countries were more important to US interests than Australia and he expected the alliance relationship to deepen over time', he left little to the imagination. (13) It was to be expected.

A statement from Brat's counterpart, US Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, James Risch, likewise, included the statement that 'Dr. Brat would be charged with overseeing an historic transformation of our alliance with Australia as the US moved to step up diplomatic economic and security co-operation through AUKUS and other initiatives'. (14)

Studies of sensitive information can often clarify and highlight seemingly hidden insights:

                                             We need an independent foreign policy!

1.     Sexy little numbers that conceal our modesty, Australian, 2 June 2026.
2.     Ibid.
3.     Questions cloud big-spending ambitions for national strategy, Defence Report, Australian, 2 June 2026.
4.     Ibid.
5.     Ibid.
6.     'We must be more self-reliant', Australian, 2 June 2026.
7.     Making our bases harder nuts to crack, Indian Ocean Defence and Security Supplement, Australian, 26 May 2026.
8.     See: Pentagon's parallel spy network revealed, The Guardian Weekly (U.K.), 28 January – 3 February 2005.
9.     New wave of diplomacy creates a secure Indian ocean for all, Indian Ocean Defence and Security Supplement, Australian, 26 May 2026.
10.   Ibid.
11.   'We must be more self-reliant', Australian, op.cit., 2 June 2026.
12.   Ibid.
13.   Envoy's focus on Pacific security, Australian, 22 May 2026.
14.   Ibid.     

China announces regulations to protect its capitalists overseas

Written by: Nick G. on 9 June 2026

 

(Source: www.yicaiglobal.com)

The Chinese government has just adopted a new set of guidelines for the protection of Chinese capital export to take effect on July 1, 2026.  

Competition between the imperialists for the capture of raw materials, labour power and markets via outbound investments has intensified in recent years as China’s economic strength begins to rival that of the US.

Part of that competition is to use compliant governments in capital receptive countries to facilitate or block investment according to its source.
Australia has long been under the control of US and other Western powers owing to the size of their investments here.

Several decades ago, having abandoned the socialist road following the death of Mao Zedong, China embarked on the road to social-imperialism, maintaining its Communist Party leadership and its socialist rhetoric, but exporting capital in competition with the US and others.

At that time, Australia adopted the pretence of having a non-discriminatory policy towards foreign investment here.  It still claims that is the case, although it is predominantly Chinese firms that have been blocked from acquiring, or forced to divest, their Australian assets.

Several examples make the point.  

Australian government: protecting US capital, attacking Chinese capital

In 2016, Federal Treasurer, and later PM, Scott Morrison blocked the NSW government's planned sale of electricity distributor Ausgrid to two Chinese companies, citing national security issues, in what was seen as “a preliminary decision that could have broader implications for foreign investment in Australia”. The Chinese government-owned State Grid Corporation and the Hong Kong-based company Cheung Kong Infrastructure, had been in the running to secure the 99-year lease for a 50.4 per cent stake in the grid, in a deal that was expected to be worth about $10 billion to the state government.

At that time, and continuing since then, the pro-US media in Australia has directed a campaign against Chinese investments in Australian agriculture and real estate.

Unlike the Australian authorities and major political players, our Party has a genuinely non-discriminately policy, opposing the economic control of Australia by foreign capital whether it comes from China, the US or anywhere else where capital export leads to political, cultural, military and diplomatic coercion over Australia.

Currently, the Australian government is seeking to cancel the 99-year lease that the Chinese Landbridge Corporation has over the Port of Darwin. China is retaliating with the threat of suing Australia for loss of earnings under Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions.

Our view is that all Australian ports should be under the control of an Australian national ports authority.

A final example.  in April 2020, the Australian government prohibited an investment in Western Australian rare earths miner Northern Minerals from Chinese state-owned Baotou Steel. Northern Minerals is extracting large quantities of dysprosium and terbium: critical elements for the magnets used for military, computing and clean energy technologies.

In 2023, the Albanese government intervened to stop Yuxiao Fund, another Chinese investor, increasing its stake in Northern Minerals from 10 per cent to 19.9 per cent based on advice from the Foreign Investment Review Board. 

Yuxiao Fund, registered in Singapore, had a single shareholder owning a single share, Wu Yuxiao. He is the son of Shandong capitalist Wu Tao whose Yuxiao Group has investments in Africa and in the Chinese gaming industry.

In November 2023, Yuxiao Fund sought to oust Northern Minerals’ previous executive chairman and install its own candidate, Wu Tao, on the Northern Minerals board. This prompted Northern Minerals to request the Australian government to investigate whether a series of share purchases were being orchestrated by Yuxiao Fund to evade investment restrictions imposed by Canberra. It was alleged that Chinese investors in Northern Minerals had transferred their investments to a Hong Kong registered company.

In June 2024, Yuxiao Fund and four associates with ties to Chinese conglomerates were forced to reduce their shareholdings in Northern Minerals.

In April 2026, Australia signed a Critical Minerals Framework with the US to ensure US investment in and access to Australian critical minerals and rare earths.  

The agreement included support from both government for a rare earths refinery and further development of ten rare earths mining projects.

To ensure that its policy on foreign investment was “non-discriminatory”, the Albanese government sent China a further message in May 2026, when it ordered another six Chinese companies to divest their holdings in Northern Minerals to prevent Chinese-backed investors from seizing control of the rare earths mining company.

The six investors had to sell their holdings within the next two weeks. They were Hong Kong Ying Tak Ltd, Real International Resources Ltd, Qogir Trading & Service Co Ltd, Chuanyou Cong, Vastness Investment Group Ltd and Lin Zhongxiong, which together held around 17 per cent of the company.

Chinese capitalists retaliate

It is against this background of “non-discriminatory” preference to US investors and restrictions on those from China, that the Chinese have announced their first all-encompassing regulation on outbound investment, named the State Council Regulations on Outbound Investment. According to Chinese sources, the regulations provide “stronger institutional safeguards for protecting investors' lawful rights and interests”.

Article 5 explicitly stipulates that "the country supports investors in carrying out outbound investment activities in accordance with market principles" and that "investors enjoy autonomy in outbound investment in accordance with the law, whereby they make independent decisions, assume their own risks, and bear their own profits and losses."

The regulations promote “market expansion, rights protection, and dispute resolution”.

“It expressly provides that where investors encounter investment barriers or other obstacles to overseas investment and business operations, the competent authorities may conduct investigations according to law and take appropriate action based on the findings.”

“Appropriate actions” may well include the use of tariffs and other sanctions, and the use of Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions.

It may also further encourage Chinese capitalists to make their own decisions about investing in projects that treat foreign workers abysmally, wreak havoc on the environment and undermine biodiversity.

Whether it is capitalism with Chinese or US characteristics, it is still capitalism, and if strong enough, becomes imperialism.

We don’t want either, and neither do the peoples of the world.

For the broadest international unity to abolish capitalism and move onto socialism!

EOS builds its own military-industrial complex

Written by: Nick G. on 2 June 2026

 

Australian company EOS has just announced the appointment of Air Vice-Marshal (Ret’d) Catherine Roberts AO, CSC and Major General (Ret’d) Kathryn Toohey AM, CSC as Non-Executive Directors, effective 1 June 2026.

Roberts was Australia’s inaugural Commander of Defence Space Command, led the establishment and operational delivery of Australia’s military space capability and has worked extensively with allied defence and government organisations across North America, Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

Toohey has worked in sovereign defence capability, infrastructure, digital systems and national security environments. She is on the board of right-wing opinion maker Australian Strategic Policy Institute Ltd.

The following excerpt from our recent publication “Fight the Militarisation of Space” may help to understand the significance of this merging of industrial and military interests and their application to the military domain of Space:

On November 30, 2023, the Australian Defence Magazine hosted a Space Summit in Canberra. If the various imperialist blocs actually honoured the UN Outer Space Treaty there would never have been such a Summit. 

This was made clear by the contribution to the Summit of Australian company Electro Optic Systems (EOS). The company began operating more than 40 years ago in the civilian arena, but has increasingly focussed on the following: 

• space domain intelligence and control services 
• laser, remote weapon system and counter-drone technologies 
• high-performance naval satellite communications products 

2022 was a disastrous year for the company financially, and it lost many staff. Its Chairman and CEO told shareholders in the 2022 annual report that they were cutting back so “we are focused on core business areas where we have genuine technological advantages over competitors. Current examples include our family of remote weapon systems (RWS); our long-established expertise in space domain awareness and other space services”. The presentation it made at the Summit was basically to sell its services to US imperialism in its contention with Chinese social-imperialism over the seeking of military superiority in Space. 

It claimed that Australia is one of just two countries with the capabilities to neutralise large numbers of satellites passing over its territory. EOS spokesperson Dr Ben Greene said Australian Space Domain Awareness (SDA) covered around one sixth of the sky, delivered by, among others, EOS with its laser tracking facility in Canberra, the RAAF’s space telescope in WA and the new US-owned LeoLabs Australia space radar, also in WA. 

“We could intercept and interdict the satellite operations of any country on earth, if we chose to. That’s a really powerful platform for us,” he said. “It’s quite feasible now to talk about taking out hundreds of satellites a day if that was necessary.”

The US imperialist drive for control of Space, aided and abetted by the likes of EOS, was revealed on May 29 by the US SPACECOM’s Chief Scientist who said that “Developing capabilities for operations in cislunar space, including offensive space control, is among the top new science and technology (S&T) priorities for US Space Command (SPACECOM)”. This was reported in the US online journal Breaking Defense (see: SPACECOM exploring tech for future offensive cislunar ops: Chief Scientist - Breaking Defense ).

He added, “…we want to exploit that space from an offensive sort of space control perspective.” 

Both SPACECOM and the Space Force have been expressing increased interest in future operations in the vast volumes of space between Earth’s outer orbit and that of the moon as an outgrowth of President Donald Trump’s December Executive Order on space superiority.

A SPACECOM spokesperson said the aim was that the US, “working alongside its allies and partners, has the freedom of action to operate in space and the ability to project power when and where required.”

EOS’s appointments of senior retired military personnel to its board indicates that it will seek to profit from the US militarisation of Space.

We must stop Australia’s involvement in the US military’s colonisation of Space.

'Dispersed operations': Pentagon upgrades the Indo-Pacific Strategy

Written by: (Contributed) on 2 June 2026

 

(Source: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0)

Official announcements from the Pentagon that the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) is being upgraded into a “new defense architecture taking shape across the Indo-Pacific” have revealed far more about the changing balance of forces taking place across the wider region than the US is usually prepared to divulge. A down-scaling of the importance of Guam for hosting sensitive defence and security facilities has taken place due to China's increased capacity to hit the Micronesian islands with missiles; they have been assessed by the Pentagon as vulnerable.

Alternative sitings for the Guam facilities have, therefore, been identified; other geo-strategic military facilities, including those in Australia, have also been subject to quick relocation procedures. The moves carry all the hallmarks of serious preparations by the US for 'real-war scenarios' in the Indo-Pacific region.

The Pentagon has acknowledged a changing balance of forces is taking place across the vast Indo-Pacific region; China has moved from being a competitor to traditional US hegemonic positions toward establishing primacy in some areas.

Regional US defence and security provision has, historically, included the role of sensitive intelligence facilities based at Pine Gap in Central Australia, being linked to a hub on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and their counterpart based on Guam in Micronesia. The two hubs swing on an arc from Pine Gap and have been upgraded for military operations, linked to Darwin Harbour as a support centre for deployments.

Revelations, therefore, that Guam has been assessed by the Pentagon as well within the range of later designed Chinese missiles, has caused the US military to re-organise part of their regional defence and security provision; Guam, itself, is regarded as a target. (1) Recognition of the problem, by the Pentagon, also acknowledges China's range and sophistication of military satellites for intelligence-gathering and planning of operations.

The fact that Guam rests upon the Second Island Chain, used by the US to block China's access and egress into Oceania and Australia's geo-strategic regional area, has caused a serious setback to traditional US hegemonic positions.

War Secretary Hegseth, for example, recently addressed a regional defence and security summit with the announcement that 'stronger alliances, greater burden-sharing and a shift away from dependence on the US', were to become the order of the day. (2) The US, however, continue to take the line that peace is established through military strength. (3)

The moves follow already established acknowledgement that the US is no longer the dominant power in the Pacific. In fact, a US Congressional committee revealed those findings nearly a decade ago; it also included reference to the Pentagon making greater use of both Australia and Japan as regional hubs for 'US interests'. (4)

It should, therefore, come as no great surprise to find moves by the Pentagon to draw Australia into the position of a 'central node' alongside the US; it marks a shift away from the traditional 'hubs and spokes' type defence and security provision toward a 'multi-node web' with the US in position at the centre. (5)

And recent high-level diplomatic meetings between Australia and Japan appear to follow the new US regional upgrades to existing defence and security provision. A diplomatic statement issued by the Japanese Ambassador to Canberra, Kazuhiro Suzuki, noted that the recent visit to Australia by PM Sanae Takaichi, aimed to 'forge an unprecedented level of solidarity and strategic co-operation'. (6)

Indonesia and Australia involved

Indonesia also has an upgraded role, alongside Australia and the US. A report in Breaking Denece (see note 1) talks of “the emerging amphibious partnership among the US, Australia, and Indonesia”. 

“The Australia-Indonesia Defence Cooperation Agreement and the expansion of Exercise Keris Woomera are formally a bilateral story. But that framing leaves out the unspoken third leg of the triangle.

“The United States Marine Corps is woven through nearly every aspect of what Australia brings to the littoral. Marine Rotational Force–Darwin has made northern Australia a sustained laboratory for US and Australian experimentation in Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations, stand-in forces, land-based anti-ship fires, and the logistics of dispersing small lethal units across austere island locations. The November 2024 amphibious landing at Banongan Beach in East Java, the largest and most complex joint drill Australia and Indonesia had ever conducted, carried that intellectual and operational DNA directly into a bilateral framework where no American flag appeared on the beach.”

Camel train

As an example of the projected dispersal of forces, Breaking Defense cites the Australian “camel train project” which uses drones to carry out supply chain tasks in northern Australia.  

“The problem is operationally straightforward: Australia has only a handful of permanently manned air bases, all of which would be priority targets in a high-intensity conflict. Camel Train addresses this by turning general aviation itself into a defense asset,”

No doubt influenced by the successful use of drones in the war to resist Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the article says that “Australia has approximately 30,000 licensed drone operators certified under CASA standards; in a mobilization phase, this represents a potential operational reserve that has never existed before in this form.”

New role for “lower-level partners”

Announcements about wider scale military inter-operability and the significance of the AUKUS agreements have to be viewed in that light. The US will maintain its control of existing military agreements although it will increasingly rely upon US allies to take front-line diplomatic and military positions, as directed by the Pentagon.

What the Pentagon appears to have also begun is a systematic upgrade to their IPS, by using former lower-level partners as hubs for future regional deployments and the siting of military facilities at short notice. While the main IPS, for example, uses the 'Quad' to contain and encircle China, lower-level partners, including the ROK, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam and others in the South Pacific, are now regarded as strategic attachments to the main military body. (7) They are now set for enhanced use, and operations, by the Pentagon.

A recent statement from Canberra about the defence and security of Australian military bases also contained fears that China may have the potential to use their advanced satellite imaging to threaten military facilities in the Northern Territories  'with a long-range strike'. (8) A recent military operation, for example, relocated important facilities 'to safer locations … it was … taken to rehearse counter-strike operations had this occurred due to conflict'. (9) It was noted in military communiques that 'within 24 hours we'd flushed the base, repositioned the assets', and then conducted a lengthy air-born operation involving flights of 2,400 nautical miles in a 'maritime strike mission'. (10) South China Seas?

In conclusion, the moves can only endanger individual countries across the Indo-Pacific region by drawing them closer to likely military hostilities between the US and China:

                                         We need an independent foreign policy!

1.     The new Indo-Pacific security architecture, Breaking Defence, 18 May 2026.
2.     Pentagon chief Hegseth, Gulf News, 30 May 2026; and, 'US not retreating, its remaking world,   Australian, 1 June 2026.
3.     Ibid.
4.     Study: US no longer the dominant power in the Pacific, Information Clearing House, 22 August 2019.
5.     Breaking Defence, op.cit., 18 May 2026.
6.     See: Takaichi's visit strategic more than ceremonial, Australian, 15 May 2026.
7.     See: The reasons behind Washington's push for GSOMIA., Hankyoreh, 12 November 2019.
8.     Making our bases harder nuts to crack, Indian Ocean Defence and Security Supplement, Australian, 26 May 2026.
9.     Ibid.
10.   Ibid.

Contradictions and conflicts in the race for Space

Written by: Nick G. on 27 May 2026

 

The contest for the domination of Space between China and the US is reflected in yesterday’s (May 26) announcement by NASA that it plans to inhabit the Moon. However, the hawks pushing for a militarised Space are demanding to be included in the action.

Since Trump’s appointment of Jared Isaacman as NASA Administrator last December, NASA has released various announcements about US objectives, particularly in relation to the Artemis II circumnavigation of the Moon. Isaacman in his private capacity has flown in Space aboard Elon Musk’s SpaceX Inspiration4. He is a billionaire whose wealth came from a credit card processing company he founded, and he has a private fleet of jet fighters to train the U.S. military for aerial combat.

Yesterday’s announcement packaged previous statements into a plan for a permanent lunar outpost, involving robotic landers, moon buggies and hopping drones before the expiry of Trump’s presidency. Placing astronauts on the Moon by this date will also give the US a jump on China, which currently has four astronauts (Taikonauts) on permanent rotation aboard its Tiangong space station. It has announced plans to land two astronauts on the Moon before 2030.

The threat of lunar colonisation 

The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty (OST) defines the Moon and all outer space as the "province of all mankind". It says that outer space is “not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means”. 

Despite this, the US is commercialising its work in Space and speaks of the Moon as its property.

On 24 March, Isaacman said that “NASA is committed to achieving the near impossible once again, to return to the Moon before the end of President Trump’s term, build a Moon base, establish an enduring presence, and do the other things needed to ensure American leadership in space… This time, the goal is not flags and footprints. This time, the goal is to stay. America will never again give up the moon.” 

The White House’s official X account released a graphic with Isaacman’s pledge.

Military muscling in 

Belligerent and hawkish opinion makers in the military are demanding their cut of the action.

They point out that China’s space program is “completely military-led” whereas “the United State has long maintained separation between its military and civilian space enterprises.” 

This, claims Col. Kyle Pumroy (Ret.) writing in the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies’ paper “Military Human Spaceflight: A Key Component to US Space Superiority”, places the US at a disadvantage in the race with China for control of Space.

Sounding like something out of science fiction, Pumroy argues that “now is the time to begin placing Guardians in space to develop the skills, tools, and concepts to build a future capacity to defend core US interests…”

“Guardians”?  The term was adopted by the US Space Force in 2020 for its service members, analogous to “soldiers” in the Army or “sailors” in the Navy. So “Guardians in Space” means actual Space Force personnel physically operating in orbit, on space stations, or potentially on the Moon, rather than controlling satellites remotely from Earth.   

As a branch of the military, Pumroy argues, the Guardians need the legal protection of the US Congress’ Title 10 of the US Code which authorises all aspects of military organisation and operation. 

“While upholding the OST should be the United States’ desire and priority, pragmatically, it must prepare otherwise,” writes Pumroy. “Only Guardians can ensure human spaceflight dominance and maintain the strategic flexibility to conduct Title 10 operations in defence of US interests in space.”

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels made the observation that “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.”

Now, with Isaacman, the logic of colonial exploitation reemerges with this commercial imperative: “The Artemis program will live on past any one launch vehicle, and at some point in the future, transition to commercial pathways with crewed missions as often as every six months to ensure we never give up the Moon again…. stimulates a lunar economy…(and) Ignite the orbital economy – launch frequent astronaut missions to the Space Station, prioritize high ‘commercial potential’ science, work to stimulate more private astronaut missions and support a transition to one or more commercial space stations.”

Stop the militarisation of Space!
No to the colonisation of the Moon!
End the US-China Space race!

Fight the militarisation of Space

A new Party publication focuses on Australian involvement in the militarisation of Space. Wars of the past were fought in three domains: land, sea and air. Two new domains have now been added, cyber and Space, the later in violation of the UN Outer Space Treaty. The booklet “Fight the Militarisation of Space” can be downloaded here: https://www.cpaml.org/web/uploads2/Stop+the+militarisation+of+space.pdf #auspol

SA nurses, midwives to resume industrial action

 Written by: Nick G. on 22 May 2026

 

Representing over 25,000 nurses, midwives and health care workers in SA, the SA Branch of the Australian Nursing and Midwives Federation announced that members would recommence industrial action in the public sector last Monday (18/5). 

Industrial action was suspended in February when the government made an offer of a 6% “interim administrative increase” in the lead up to the state election. Following the election, negotiations resumed over the ANMF’s full wage claim and demands for improved conditions. These negotiations have now stalled with no further offer forthcoming from SA Govt.

Negotiations had begun on April 30, 2025. More than a year has now passed, which is typical of how governments and other employers string out the process in the hope of weakening the resolve of their workers.

However, the determination of nurses and midwives for wages and conditions improvements is very strong. Earlier in the campaign, it featured some of the largest strike rallies seen in SA.

Health workers want respect

While wages and conditions are important, especially at a time of cost-of-living crisis, the ANMF says the campaign is about respect, saying that resumption of the industrial campaign is the only way to force the government to show members the respect they deserve.

This is important for public sector employees in daily contact with members of the public. 

They want to know that their service to the community is respected by their employer, the government, and that they are not resented as a burden on its finances.

At the same time as their conditions of employment give rise to the need for struggle, their campaign is constrained by the professional nature of their employment and their concern to not place patients at risk by withdrawing their services.

This week, ANMF members started wearing campaign t-shirts to work as well as only fulfilling roles strictly within their job requirements. Next week industrial action will escalate to bans on non-clinical duties. If a decent offer has not been made by June, nurses will move to strike action.

Malin-Auskas: respect for the big end of town

The respect demanded of the Malinauskas government by the ANMF is slow in coming, in contrast to his service to the big end of town and to the circuses he uses government funds to provide in the hope that workers will forget to worry about bread.

In February, Malinauskas announced that SA would host the Motorcycle Grand Prix and take it from Phillip Island in Victoria. He has not revealed how much SA would have to pay to host the event, but it will be considerable as the operators had just knocked back an offer of additional funding from the Victorian government to keep it in that State. 

He has also committed $45 million to redevelop the public North Adelaide golf course, firstly for the now-collapsed LIV Golf tournament, and now for a replacement arrangement with Golf Australia.

In August 2025, the state, federal and Tasmanian governments stepped in to pledge $135 million to a bail out of Port Pirie’s metal smelter and Nyrstar’s zinc refinery in Hobart. The state government invested $55 million with the Commonwealth spending $57.5 million and the Tasmanian government contributing the remaining $22.5 million. As of May 1, things are back to square one, with Nyrstar asking for a further government bail-out to continue its operations. (Nyrstar is owned by Trifigura, one of the three-largest commodities companies in the world. It had revenue of $244.3 billion in 2023 yet demands taxpayers fund its operations here.  In January 2026, it secured one of the first two special licenses issued by the United States, to negotiate sales and to export Venezuelan oil. It has been mired in controversies and scandals around the world.)

At Whyalla, the SA government has firmly committed around $650 million to the Whyalla rescue and transition package so far. A further $140 million in “contingency” funds has been allocated. 

The government has refused to take out equity in either of the Pt Pirie and Whyalla bail-outs, arguing that operations are best left with the private sector. His respect for them, and belief in them, is undisguised. 

At the National Energy Conference this week, Malinauskas displayed his loyalty to the mining and fossil fuel industries by announcing that the SA government would move to overturn a ten-year moratorium on fracking in the State’s South-East which had been sought by farmers and grape-growers. In the past, Malinauskas has had family connections with the Santos corporation, and is keen to see them supported – even respected – by his government.

Whilst the bulk of capital costs associated with the AUKUS arrangements are met by the federal government, Malinauskas has thrown in $5.4 million to establish the new “Office for AUKUS” inside the SA government to coordinate the state’s role in the nuclear submarine program. That project obviously has his respect and support.

There are many more Malinauskas government handouts to the corporate sector and the military industries, but he declines to respect the hardworking people who hold our community together.

We demand better pay and conditions for our public sector nurses and midwives who are more deserving of our respect than the clowns providing circuses for our distraction, and the militarists who are driving the competition for our destruction.