10,000 PEOPLE AT NAIDOC CELEBRATIONS IN ADELAIDE

Written by: Ned K. on 11 July 2026

 

(NAIDOC SA Facebook page)

On Friday 10 July, about 10,000 people attended the annual NAIDOC (National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee) festival and street demonstration in Adelaide. The march through the city to steps of Parliament House was led by First Nations people carrying two banners - "Always Was, Always Will Be Kaurna Land" and "Black Lives Matter".

Land Rights Now was a popular chant and all First Nations speakers highlighted the contributions of First Nations people to life in Australia over the fifty years since the first NAIDOC march in Adelaide and the continuation of this trend for the next 50 years. 

Speakers also emphasised that peace loving people from all cultures from all over the world are welcome to the land of the Kaurna people on whose land the British colonial city named Adelaide was established. Their desire to unite with non-Indigenous people living in Australia and respect for diverse cultural backgrounds was a stark contrast to Pauline Hanson's One Nation who demand a monocultural Australia, a euphemism for an Australia of "pure" white Anglo Saxon culture.

The festive atmosphere and diversity of the 10,000 people at the NAIDOC event in Adelaide was an example of people power in action.

Hundreds rally in Mparntwe to demand closure of US Pine Gap base.

Written by: Nick G. on 22 July 2026

 

Led by traditional owners of the land on which the US military base Pine Gap is located, hundreds of anti-war activists have converged on the base and demanded its closure.

In a written statement, traditional owners the Hayes Family welcomed participants in the convergence. They claimed that the family had never given permission for the US to take their land, known as Kuyunba, and that their old people had been lied to and told that it would be a space research facility.
Instead, it is run by the CIA, spies on people’s communications and is used for targeting opponents of the US and Israel for attack by drones and missiles.

“We don’t want to be feeling guilty all the time,” said the Family’s statement, “when bad things are happening overseas to families – women, children, the old people and their homes. We’re not the ones controlling the facility, but we feel guilty that it’s coming from our lands.”

The Family demanded that Pine Gap be “shut down for good,” and that compensation be paid for the seizure of their land “so that we can get houses for White Gate community.”

(Hayes Family members call for the return of their stolen land.)

White Gate community (also known as Irrkerlantye), sits about 5 kilometres from Alice Springs/Mparntwe yet it has to have water trucked in and power is provided by a small set of solar panels. There is no sewerage.

In 2022, far right quisling Jacinta Nampijinpa Price told the National Press Club that colonialism had been positive for First Peoples. “Absolutely. I mean, now we’ve got running water, we’ve got readily available food,” she said.

Yet she would have known that it was her mother, Bess Price, when she was NT Community Services minister in August 2014, who cut off water from the town camp of Ingerreke/ Irrkerlantye/White Gate, leading to protests by town camp residents against Bess price in September 2014.

Greens senator Lidia Thorpe who met with the Hayes family over the weekend, said "This military and intelligence base, which is aiding and abetting the genocide in Gaza, enjoys security of tenure on stolen land, while the Hayes family are still fighting for secure housing, running water and essential services where they now live at Irrkerlantye." 

Around 500 people participated in the convergence, effectively closing the base for four days as protests took place at its gates.
In Sydney, a solidarity rally with the Mparntwe protests was held outside US consulate last Monday.

Further protests will take place later this week outside the ALP National Conference in Adelaide as the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) gathers to hold its own national conference under the theme that it’s “Time to Break Free from the US”.

 

The Menzies debate (Part 2): Why the denial?

Written by: (Contributed) on 22 July 1026

 

(The Australian people's response to the fascist attempt by Menzies to ban the Communist Party)

The present furore by the Australian Liberal Party about criticisms of its founder, Robert Menzies, carries the hallmarks of those who continue to follow, without question, the basic legacy of a figure portrayed more in line with lower-level, chalk-and-talk, secondary school-type history lessons than with the historical reality. Their seeming inability to comprehend matters arising has been conveniently used to shield them from questionable diplomatic initiatives by Menzies and his associates, which continue to remain highly contentious and problematic.

The pre-War period was marked by a growing concern amongst the business-classes and their political associates about the Soviet Union and its increasing ability to challenge the western countries of the time. Menzies, and his associates, were no exception. The Spanish Civil War of the period provided scenarios which were impossible to ignore. Many figures inside western governments, would have preferred an alliance with Nazi Germany to challenge the Soviet Union, and organised support for such a planned diplomatic initiative. The moves presented serious questions for decision-makers of the time, who preferred to play down the problems which confronted them; political expediency was the order of the day. Present-day studies of that expediency remain an important historical process.

Some British right-wing figures, for example, were clearly colluding with Nazi Germany for that specific outcome; the secret nature of their grand plan carried all the hallmarks of a clandestine intelligence operation. During the mid-1930s, for example, agents of Alfred Rosenberg, who was a prominent Nazi figure in the Third Reich Surveillance Office, travelled to Britain to establish links with supporters and establish the Nordic League. (1) The league was used to then create the Liberty Restoration League (LRL) in 1935, to coordinate far-right, fascist groups and promote Nazism. (2) The LRL subsequently laid the basis for the Right Club which was established in 1939, and attracted secret members, including serving Conservative M.P.s and counterparts in the House of Lords. (3)

Well-placed researchers with access to sensitive documentation about the Right Club have described its role saying it was  'well known that if Britain was attacked they would do everything to encourage a general laying down of arms and the setting up of a puppet state'. (4) The Right Club were 'appeasers' of a certain type; collaborators with Nazism would provide a more apt description of their chosen political and diplomatic standpoint.

The active collusion between the fifth columnists and the Nazi leadership was revealed later, in May, 1941. A senior figure in the Nazi leadership, Rudolf Hess (1894-1987), flew to Scotland on a mission designed to formulate an alliance between Germany and Britain to launch a military assault on the Soviet Union. His flight destination was the Duke of Hamilton's estate. Hamilton had been a member of the Nordic League and had actually travelled to Germany to meet Hess in 1936. (5) Coincidental?

The 235 prominent members of the Right Club were well-placed ruling class figures who were allowed to retain their secret identities until the late 1980s, when their official cover was finally blown. Until that time they, and their descendents lived in a state of denial and challenged the allegations levelled at them as little other than a left-wing conspiracy theory.

Menzies, and his associates, however, had an official diplomatic visit to Nazi Germany in 1938, with the records from the period noting the 'principal object of his visit was to observe the political situation'. (6) It was accompanied with Menzies making the written statement that 'we have no right to dictate what sort of government Germany has'. (7) Following the diplomatic visit Menzies also wrote to his sister declaring 'a degree of admiration for Hitler'. (8) The facts are not in dispute; interpretation, nevertheless, remains contentious.

It would have been inconceivable that the fascist groups operating inside Whitehall and Westminster would not have noted the Menzies diplomatic visit to Germany as a matter of considerable interest. Intelligence and security considerations make complicity inside the corridors of power difficult to prove; the visit to Germany, nevertheless, was openly covered in the newspapers of the day. Diplomatic formalities, however, would have been used as protocol. The trail of interest would also have been noted by the Nazi leadership; they had established extensive world-wide espionage networks to serve their interests. (9)

The espionage networks also included lesser minions who were placed on payrolls for various duties and responsibilities; the aristocratic elite and fifth columnists sought to keep their hands clean, the lesser minions did the dirty work. (10) They should not be overlooked.

The fact that South Australia had a large German community made the Barossa Valley a place of interest for the Nazi leadership. (11) A branch of the Australian Nazi Party was established there in the 1930s. There is no record of Menzies ever having criticised Australian Nazis like he did Australian Communists.

(A 1939 celebration of Hitler’s 50th birthday at the German Club in Tanunda.  In 1945, as Germany was nearing defeat, local Nazis held seven separate birthday celebrations for Hitler in South Australia.)

SA Liberal MP Heine Becker, who served from 1970 to 1997, was the son of Dr. Johannes Heinrich Becker, who had emigrated from Germany in 1927. On 1 March 1932, Becker became a member of the German Nazi Party. A year later, he was appointed as the Nazi state trustee (Landesvertrauensmann) for Australia. Becker was eventually promoted to state leader (Landeskreisleiter) of the Nazi Party of Australia. However, his leadership approach did not impress the Nazi top brass in Berlin and he was removed from his post in late 1936. During World War II, Becker was interned in Tatura, Victoria and in Loveday, South Australia. In December 1947, he was deported to occupied Germany. His numerous requests to return to Australia were rejected.

Australia, furthermore, had a strategic significance for the wider interests of the British Empire. Former German colonies on Australia's doorstep in the South Pacific, continued to be regarded as highly sensitive long after their diplomatic demise at the end of the First World War.

The Australian public service of the day, for example, had direct contact inside the British corridors of power with R.G. Casey (1890-1976) who was a liaison officer with the UK, earlier in 1924. He was close to Menzies, being elected as a United Australia Party M.P. in 1931, and treasurer of the party from 1935-39. (12) Interestingly, Casey was elevated to the position of Privy Councillor in 1939; the executive committee of the House of Lords had direct access into Britain's intelligence services and defence and security provision. In that capacity Casey would have had access to MI5 reports and assessments from surveillance of those regarded as a threat to the British Realm. (13)

Baron Casey, as he later became, remained close to the nerve-centres of the Liberal Party for most of his life, holding a number of prestigious political positions. He was highly regarded, but took many of his secrets to the grave. Some may have been highly relevant for our present-day understanding of Menzies and his associates.

In those sensitive positions Casey would also have had access to information about issues arising about Thomas White, who was part of the Menzies delegation to Germany in 1938.

White, who later received a knighthood, was from a military background. Interestingly, following his visit to Germany, he was an official Australian delegate to an international conference in France where the issue of refugees was a main agenda item. White's stated response to the questions about Jewish migration followed the line that Australia had 'no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one by encouraging any scheme of large-scale foreign migration'. (14) Such people, however, regarded Aboriginals as 'non-people' and therefore did not acknowledge any discrimination against them at that time.

White was also noted, from a far-right position, to have equated the Jewish refugee problem with that of communism, in line with the stated Nazi position of a 'Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy'; he wanted all Jewish immigrants to be made to sign a declaration of non-involvement with communists, with deportation being the solution for dealing with the latter. (15)

The position throws considerable light upon the background role of the Menzies right-wing government to make the Communist Party illegal in 1940; the referendum designed to achieve the same goal a decade later, however, proved a disastrous defeat for Menzies. History had moved on; Menzies, and his associates had been left behind.
 
In conclusion, Menzies, early in his political career during the 1930s, moved in troubled and turbulent times. Making sense of the times involved studying political developments and relying upon the intelligence services for information. The fact Menzies was initially an appeaser is not a matter in question, he clearly was, as documentation has revealed, whatever the reasons and motives for his decisions.

Elsewhere, however, there remain allegations that Menzies made the statement to Liberals in Perth that, 'yes, we should oppose Nazism, but not Hitlerism. Hitler has done a lot for Germany!' The fact that he was not given a senior position in Churchill's Commonwealth War Cabinet, has also fuelled speculation about his chosen position toward fascism. The reason for the decision and question of whether he was regarded by those close to Churchill as not being completely on-side with their position, remains unanswered.

The response of present-day loyal Liberal devotees to the recent criticisms of Menzies has revealed a great deal about their chosen mindset and tenacity; it can hardly be described as straightforward. What are they really hiding behind?
 
1.     Blackshirt, Stephen Dorril, (London, 2007), page 425.
2.     Political Violence and Public Order, Robert Benewick, (London, 1969), page 289.
3.     The Right Club, Spartacus Educational, September 1997, and, Hitler's aristocratic admirers, The Daily Express (London), 12 September 2015.
4.     Wallis, Charles Higham, (London, 1989), page 332.
5.     The strange case of Hess and Hamilton, The Education Forum, 25 October 2004, and, Wikipedia.
6.     Correspondence: A.T. Stirling to W.R. Hodgson, Germany, Secretary to Department of External Affairs, Memo., H150, London, 3 August 1938, Classified: Confidential.
7.     Howard outrage at Liberal icon slur, The Weekend Australian, 4-5 July 2026.   
8.     Conroy is wrong to call Menzies an appeaser, The Weekend Australian, 4-5 July 2026.   
9.     See: Hitler's Spies, David Kahn, (London, 1980).
10.   See: Spies in Britain, Bernard Newman, (London, 1964), with specific reference to Chapters, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, and 17.
11.   Second World War Nazi agitators in the 1930s, German Australia, with reference to Dr. Johannes Becker (1898-1961) who was a migrant into South Australia in 1927. He was appointed by the incoming Nazi regime in 1933 as an official representative.
12.   See: R.G. Casey, wikipedia.
13.   How MI5 spied of Britain's wartime fifth column, The Financial Times, 28 February 2014.
14.   Sir Thomas White (1888-1957),  Australian Dictionary of Biography, John Rickard.
15.   Australian participation and performance at the Evian Conference, P.R. Bartrop, MGIMO Review of International Relations, 4 (61), September 2018, pp. 153-167.

 

The Menzies debate: is there really any question?

Written by: (Contributed) on 13 July 2026

 

Political disagreements about the role of Robert Menzies, who became an important leader of the Australian Liberal Party, reveal far more than what can be observed at face value.

The recent disagreements also throw light upon factors which led to the creation of the party around Menzies and its present-day fate and subsequent fragmentation; emerging from diverse political entities, it is now rife with warring and destructive factions.

The Australian Liberal Party response to the allegation made in Canberra by Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy has added little to the ongoing controversy about the branding of Sir Robert Menzies as a 'Nazi appeaser'. The nature of their response has, however, added insight into how the Liberals continue to regard the whole matter as extremely sensitive; and for good reason, on their part.

Historical commentary surrounding the origins and development of the Liberal Party has tended to be written by those who want a clean-cut image of its founding leader Menzies, rather than serious political and historical analysis. The new Liberal Party organisation in 1944 had drawn together eighteen different political organisations which regarded themselves as 'anti-Labor'. (1) The new right-wing political party soon grew rapidly into a national organisation and part of the Australian political landscape. (2)

Menzies was a supporter of the appeasement trend in Europe. Following the September 1938 Munich Agreement, he wrote to British PM Neville Chamberlain that Germany's proposals on Poland appeared "much more reasonableness than might have been expected", and that a flat Polish rejection could damage public opinion.

Menzies, for example, made a number of highly questionable political judgements, which have been well recorded. In July 1939, only weeks before the outbreak of war, speaking in Melbourne, he said:  "History will label Hitler as one of the really great men of the century." 

In a letter dated 11 September 1939, he wrote to the High Commissioner in London declaring 'it is really quite indefensible for us to be dictating to the German people what sort of government they shall have'. "I feel quite confident that Hitler has no desire for a first class war..." (3)

The Liberal response, issued through the Menzies Institute, about the correspondence dismissed it as 'thinking out aloud to a friend'. (4) The wholly unsatisfactory manner of the response is noteworthy, in itself. As is most of their other 'historical' analysis.

Senior decision-makers do not think out aloud, but respond to sensitive assessments and intelligence reports provided by senior government officials; they also do not then classify the material as Secret without having good reason to keep personal judgements away from public scrutiny.

The controversial letter, furthermore, has to be assessed in the following context: in August 1938 Menzies visited Nazi Germany in an official high-level diplomatic capacity with the 'principal object of his visit was to observe the political situation'. (5) In that capacity Menzies visited the Siemensstadt corporate entity to inspect facilities provided by the company for their workers. (6) During the same period Menzies was also responsible for writing to his sister 'showing a degree of admiration for Hitler and downplaying the prospect of war'. He said "The abandonment by the Germans of individual liberty ... has something rather magnificent about it." (7)

During the period it was not uncommon for political thinkers to draw attention to the rapid economic development of Germany following economic collapse after the First World War. The role of the State, in Germany, to guide economic development was well recorded. And also criticised by those who looked deeper into the nature of fascism and Nazism.

The creation of concentration camps for 'political undesirables', under State control, likewise, was, for example, also well recorded: Communists, Romany gypsies, Jews, physically and mentally handicapped peoples, gays, together with numerous others. They also provided a major contribution toward the wider economic development of the Germany of the period. In fact, the camps were planned to eliminate all those who obstructed the massive flows of capital into State-run corporate entities devoid of industrial relations procedures to challenge exploitation. The politics of Nazism followed the basic economics of exploitation and creation of a German corporate system designed to enslave the working-class and maximise profits.

Menzies, in his official capacity, must have known about the wholesale exploitation, abuse and genocide taking place in the concentration camps; that is, if his advisors were competent enough to read newspapers and discussed matters arising amongst themselves. International aid agencies were assisting those who had first-hand knowledge of the concentration camps and their re-settlement in countries such as Britain from the mid-1930s. Did they read the reports of survivors? Were they even interested? It would appear not to be the case.

On April 22.1940 Tasmanian Labor MP Gerald Mahoney quoted Menzies, now Prime Minister, as “responsible for encouraging the Nazi organizations that exist in Australia to-day, using mean and contemptible methods to destroy the nation. When I walked along one of Canberra's streets with him some time ago he said, ‘I have a great admiration for the Nazi organization of Germany. There is a case for Germany against Czechoslovakia. We must not destroy Hitlerism or talk about shooting Hitler, the gunman of Europe.’ In this address to the people of Australia, the Prime Minister put up a case on behalf of Nazi-ism. He attacked the party of which I am a member because it opposed Nazi-ism from its inception.” Menzies never retracted the accusation.

The closer look at the context of the Australian corridors of power of the day and its subservient nature to that of Whitehall and Westminster remains an important consideration for the wider understanding of the environment in which Menzies moved. From the mid-to late 1930s the threat of war loomed large in Britain; the peace movement reformed and gained considerable support amongst those who had no wish for a return to the horrors of the First World War. The fascist movement, likewise, gained momentum throughout the same period. It was particularly conspicuous in Australia.

The role of Oswald Mosley's Blackshirt movement has been well recorded elsewhere; some of the smaller splinter fascist organisations, however, were allowed to quietly submerge and escape the scrutiny of many observers. They played their cards close to their chests, for good reason; they had no wish to either be identified or be held responsible for divulging their associates. They were a fascist Fifth Column inside the British State.

During the 1920s MI5 had taken 'a passing interest in the small fascist splinter groups … but rightly regarded them as of little significance … during the early 1930s MI5 and the Special Branch began for the first time to pay serious attention to right-wing as well as left-wing subversion'. (8)  

Established in the late 1930s, the so-called British Right Club was composed of well-placed ruling class figures who attended secret meetings and organised in a clandestine manner; it co-ordinated contacts with a range of other fascist organisations including the Nordic League, National Socialist League, the Imperial Fascist League, the Link, The White Knights of Britain, and others. (9) Military links were established as a matter of course. As, no doubt, intelligence connections, through social contacts established inside elite private schools. Noted disagreements also took place over freemasonry; an indication of deeper loyalties and divided loyalties amongst the initiated. (10)

The Right Club, moreover, had 235 members, of which a hundred were female, and included several well-placed Conservative Party members together with House of Lords counterparts. (11) Its membership list also remained secret until the late 1980s. (12) While numerous allegations about its existence took place throughout the decades, the Right Club resided inside plausible denial; that is, until MI5 files were finally declassified, decades later. Its membership had been placed under surveillance, proving their existence. (13)

It would appear inconceivable that Menzies, with his regular contacts with Whitehall and Westminster, did not have some contact with the shadowy fascist grouping and their associates; discourse would have taken place both at an official diplomatic level and in ordinary social discourse through well-placed intermediaries acting as advisors and staffers. They operated subject to parliamentary security and their agendas, however, were not open to public scrutiny at the time.

One political group which eventually merged with the Menzies Liberal Party in 1944 may well have been a suitable conduit for some questionable agendas. It expressed loyalty to the Throne and opposition to socialism and had conservative social policies. 
It was also openly supported by the Victorian Employers Federation. (14)  The AWNL quickly submerged into the sprawling Liberal Party. It left little trace of its previous existence.

In conclusion, studies of contemporary far-right political movements might find listed criteria for identifying members and associates also useful for a historical study of the Menzies period and its associates who moved freely within the newly established Australian Liberal Party circles. They include: primarily white identities, ethno-centricity, strict gender roles, negative images of out-groups, seeming respectability, anti-immigration, together with other characteristics based upon social, political and economic elitism. (15)

The Menzies Liberal Party of the previous Cold War drew upon similar identifiable characteristics, and not by coincidence.

Many Anglo immigrants during the periods of the Menzies' Liberal governments during the last Cold War, for example, were openly supportive of the Whites Only immigration and other discriminatory policies used against Asians. Australia was regarded as more stable than white supremacist Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa for their longer-term settlement.

The baggage of that period continues to hang like a shackle upon the present day party; the controversy surrounding Menzies as an 'appeaser' remains only the tip of an ice-berg. The present day Liberal Party, nevertheless, continue to hide behind their clean-cut and sanitised history; they fear deeper scrutiny about Menzies.

The official Liberal Party response to the Menzies controversy, therefore, can be duly noted as symptomatic of other deeper historical considerations. They reside in a state of denial and continue to worship a tin-pot god, oblivious to social change. The Australian Liberal Party of Menzies was little more than a castle in the air, built on shifting sand.

1.     See: The Albury Conference, December 1944, Official Website: Robert Menzies Institute; and, Liberal Party forms 1944, National Museum of Australia.
2.     Ibid.
3.     Labor attacks Menzies as 'Nazi appeaser' in defence credibility brawl, Australian, 3 July 2026.
4.     Ibid.
5.     Secretary to Department of External Affairs, Memorandum Number: H150, Confidential, Germany, 3 August 1938.
6.     Ibid.
7.     Conroy is wrong to call Menzies an appeaser, The Weekend Australian, 4/5 July 2026.
8.     Secret Service – The Making of the British Intelligence Community, Christopher Andrew, ((London, 1986), page 525, quoted from: File Ramsey MacDonald, MSS PRO 30/69/221 (footnote 122 - page 766)
9.     Fifth Column, and, The Right Club, Spartacus Educational, September 1997.
10.   See: Voices of Hate, K. D. Gott, (Melbourne, 1965), pp. 30-31, with reference to  Arnold Leese; and, Lies and the Law, historyatkingston, 17 October 2024.
11.   Spartacus Educational, op.cit., September 1997.
12.   Ibid.
13.   See: How MI5 spied on Britain's fifth column, The Financial Times (London), 28 February 2014.
14.   Website: The Australian Women's National League.
15.   See: Australian Right-Wing Extremist Ideology, Kristy Campion, Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism, published on-line: 10 October 2019.

 

Deep right-wing influence within Labor

 Written by: Nick G. on 9 Jully 2026

 

Ciccone (3rd left) meeting on June 29 with members of Nuclear for Australia.  Source Senator Raff Ciccone Facebook page

 

Widespread opposition to the pro-US policy orientation of the Labor Party has focussed on the leading triumvirate of Albanese, Wong and Marles. 

To them can be added the three State Premiers of WA, SA and NSW who are complicit in the AUKUS arrangements and the restrictions of civil liberties associated with the anti-war and pro-Palestinian mass movements.

Being groomed for a more prominent future role is Victorian Senator Raff Ciccone.

After graduating from university, Ciccone initially worked in financial planning before moving into industrial relations and employment law, later becoming a senior official in the right-wing Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA). Like too many other union officials, he had not come through the rank-and-file and the workplace, but was recruited from outside the membership.

Having joined the Labor Party at 16, his stint at the SDA provided a path towards employment with Senator Jacinta Collins who had herself been employed by the SDA for 15 years. When she retired in 2019 to take up the position of national executive director of the National Catholic Education Commission on the same day, Ciccone was nominated to fill the casual vacancy.

Wolverines

In 2020, Ciccone posted a sticker of claw marks outside his parliamentary office.  It was a public declaration of his acceptance of membership in the “Wolverines”, a collective of far-right politicians committed to the most hawkish pro-US and anti-China politics. Other members include former PM and current President of the Liberal Party Tony Abbott, Andrew Hastie, James Patterson, Tim Wilson and the Nationals’ Matt Canavan.

Ciccone is an advocate of Taiwanese independence and attended the Presidential inauguration of Lai Ching-te in May 2024. On July 8, he personally met and farewelled Douglas Hsu, representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Australia, who was returning home. Ciccone is a member of the anti-China, pro-Taiwan Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, an international, cross-party alliance of parliamentarians from 43 countries. Andrew Hastie was a founding member, and James Patterson has been a co-Chair. Tiawan is a member, recognised as the Republic of Taiwan.

Zionist supporter

During the 2023 parliamentary winter break, Ciccone visited Israel hosted by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. On June 19, despite Zionism’s genocidal war against the Palestinians, he attended a function of the Council of Australian Jewry to celebrate the 78th anniversary of Israel’s independence. Seventy-eight years of colonisation, apartheid and genocide not a thing to celebrate, but he was happy to do it.

This was no surprise and followed his March 31 call, as chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, for US imperialism and Israeli Zionism to “finish the job” in their joint war of aggression against Iran. “It’s important that the US and Israel are able to, in some ways, finish the job and actually target the regime…” he said.

Fossil fool

Ciccone is no environmentalist. He is a strong supporter of the timber industry and criticised the Labor government in Victoria for its decision to phase out native forest harvesting by 2030. He is connected to a pro-fossil fuel grouping of some 20 Labor MPs, known as the Otis Group, and has argued against the ALP's opposition to nuclear power in Australia.

On 28 November 2025, he welcomed the give-away of Australian critical minerals and rare earths in the deal done by Labor and the US. He said “The landmark $13 billion critical minerals and rare earths framework signed last month by Australia and the United States represents a pivotal moment in our alliance…(and will) strengthen our economic and strategic partnership with the US.”

Supports the US stranglehold

Following the 2022 federal election, Ciccone became Government Deputy Whip in the Senate and was elected Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee.  He has aggressively argued the case for the US Alliance and AUKUS in articles for ASPI (otherwise known as Australians Serving Predatory Imperialism).

In August 2025, fresh from having “the privilege of attending the Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Adelaide”, he wrote in “Alliance that goes far beyond AUKUS”, that the Australia-US relationship “is one of our most valuable assets. Its strength lies not only in defence cooperation, but in the deep trust, shared values and people-to-people connections that underpin it.”

“…it’s our shared values that sustain our friendship. Our relationship is built on freedom, the rule of law, human rights and a commitment to a rules-based international order.”

He praised the commissioning of the USS Canberra in Sydney Harbour in 2023 because it “marked the first time a US Navy ship entered service in a foreign port”, and celebrated the test-firing of a Precision Strike Missile co-developed with the US during the 2025 Talisman Sabre Exercises.

He wrote that the US “treats Australia much like a domestic partner within the US defence trade system”, although it would be closer to the truth to say that the US treats Australia as a “domestic part” of its military-industrial complex.

Ciccone has been unleashed as the Labor triumvirate’s attack dog against the public inquiry into AUKUS. In a June 26, 2026 article published by ASPI titled “Nuclear submarines: bolt-cutters to ensure Australia is never wrapped in chains”, he wrote:

There are those whose foreign policy beliefs were shaped in a more benign era. Distinguished voices now animated by nostalgia are based in tragic and dramatic claims about the very purpose of AUKUS on the strategic needs of the past. With respect to these voices, the world has changed. Our region has changed and, as we speak, military modernisation across the Indo-Pacific continues at pace. Australia must respond to the world as it exists today and not as it existed in the past. Some of these voices have decided to form a so-called independent public inquiry into AUKUS. Although its contributors are certainly not lacking in experience, it is difficult to say what they expect to achieve.

Ciccone represents within the Labor Party that group of willing servants of US imperialism who continue to betray our national independence and sovereignty to a foreign state.

That state actually controls our state though a web of interlocking influence and pressure comprising its economic domination, its military presence, its control of media-shaping culture and influence over opinions and values, and its diplomatic and political ties to local politicians.

The Ciccones of this world accept that state of affairs and seek to perpetuate it. They often stand against the rank-and-file members of the ALP amongst whom there is a strong anti-war sentiment, a determination to support civil liberties and democratic rights, and a desire for a greater capacity for independence in matters of foreign policy. But control from the top ensures that right-wing influence goes deep within Labor.

For our part, we stand for genuine anti-imperialist independence and socialism.

Labor’s rank-and-file must play their part in fighting Labor’s Ciccones and working for the movement for independence and socialism in their work places and communities.

 

New booklet on China’s Imperialist Expansion

 Written by: CPA (M-L) on 8 July 2026

 

Debate continues amongst some on the Left as to whether China is socialist or capitalist, a leader of anti-hegemonic struggle or a social-imperialist rival to the US.

A young comrade has discussed the examples of Pakistan’s Gwadar Port, and Chinese mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to argue that it is both capitalist and social-imperialist (i.e. with a “Communist” government that professes commitment to socialism but actually practices imperialism, “socialism in words, but imperialism in deeds”.)

The booklet says that other examples could be produced, and this website recently looked at Chinese investments in the Peruvian port of Chancay.

We recommend this booklet to our readers.

 

Country Report of the Socialist Party of Bangladesh to the ICOR Asia Conference, Kathmandu, Nepal 04.07.2026

 Written by: SPB on 5 July 2026

 

Bangladesh has passed through a series of dramatic transformations over the last two years, beginning with the July Uprising of 2024. A 17-year-long autocratic regime led by Sheikh Hasina was overthrown in this uprising, which was primarily led by students organized under the platform “Movement Against Discrimination.” 

The movement initially began as a demand to abolish the discriminatory quota system in government jobs. The regime responded with brutal violence, killing 836 people — including 269 students and 512 working people. Women played an extraordinary and decisive role in this uprising, marching in the front lines, organizing at the grassroots, and absorbing state violence alongside their male comrades. Yet almost as soon as the uprising succeeded, women were pushed out of the frame: sidelined from the leadership structures and advisory bodies that took shape afterward, and largely erased from the public narrative of victory, as though their presence had been welcome only for the duration of the struggle itself. This was not incidental — it reflected how quickly patriarchal power reasserts itself and reclaims public space for men the moment the immediate crisis has passed. This repression triggered a mass uprising that ultimately toppled the government. Sheikh Hasina fled to India, seeking shelter under the Modi government, and an interim government was later formed in Bangladesh in 2024, led by Professor Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel laureate known for his work in microcredit and social business.

Dr. Yunus formed an advisory council composed largely of NGO figures. During his tenure, fundamentalist forces were significantly emboldened, and the law-and-order situation grew increasingly unstable. Mob violence became a recurring tool, wielded by various pro-Yunus forces to serve their own political ends. This period saw close to a hundred attacks on Sufi shrines and Baul akhras across the country — police officially logged 44 attacks on 40 shrines, while independent rights monitors placed the real number well above 100 — with devotees assaulted, shrines torched, and in one widely reported case, the exhumed body of a revered Sufi saint desecrated and burned by a mob after Friday prayers. Religious minorities, particularly Hindus, also came under sustained attack: minority rights organizations documented roughly two thousand incidents of violence against minorities within just the first sixteen days after the government’s fall, including attacks on homes, businesses, and dozens of temples. Indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts were not spared either — in September 2024, settlers burned more than a hundred homes in Khagrachari and Rangamati and killed at least four indigenous people while the CHT Regional Council office was torched with army personnel reportedly looking on, a cycle of violence and land dispossession that recurred again in 2025 following the gang-rape of an indigenous schoolgirl, when security forces opened fire on protesting communities. Alongside this, a wave of misogynistic repression was directed at women: reported cases of gender-based violence climbed sharply through 2025, hardline groups forced the cancellation of women’s football matches and blocked women from public events, while online harassment of women surged, reflecting a broader, organized effort to push women out of public life. Against these forces, our party, SPB, together with other left and progressive political parties, has been carrying out resistance to the best of our ability. The common people of Bangladesh, too, continue their struggle against this extremist, fundamentalist bloc.

Another defining feature of the Yunus government was its eagerness to strike lopsided agreements with the US and Western powers using national resources. For instance, the interim government leased out two seaport terminals — Laldia Char in Chittagong and Pangaon in Keraniganj, Dhaka — to Western companies for 22 and 48 years respectively. It also attempted to hand over the New Mooring Container Terminal (NCT), Chittagong’s main terminal, to DP World, a close ally of the US Navy. That attempt was blocked only through massive protests led by port workers and left-wing political forces.
Just before stepping down following the 13th National Parliamentary Election on 12th February 2026, the Yunus government signed yet another agreement with the United States: the Reciprocal Trade Agreement (RTA). Under this agreement, Bangladesh committed to purchasing 14 Boeing aircraft, along with soybeans, cotton, LNG, and various other American goods, as binding obligations. Bangladesh further pledged not to expand trade with China, Russia, or Vietnam, and agreed to accept punitive tariffs should it act against US interests. This is not a trade agreement in any meaningful sense — it is a contract of subjugation.

With the 2026 national election, the interim regime came to an end, and a newly elected BNP-led government took power. Yet this government has continued walking the same path: rather than annulling the RTA, it has upheld its terms, signing a deal on 30th April to purchase the 14 Boeing aircraft and an MoU on energy cooperation. Mob violence at the hands of fundamentalist forces continues unabated. Amid this, the need for a progressive political alternative grows more urgent by the day. Bangladesh remains caught in the crossfire of rival imperialist powers due to its strategic geopolitical position. In response, SPB, together with 12 other left and democratic parties, has formed the “Platform Against Imperialism and War” to resist these imperialist designs. Our alliance with 9 additional left parties — the “Democratic United Front” — is also working to establish left politics as the genuine politics of the people. 

It is worth noting that South Asia witnessed a wave of popular upsurges between 2022 and 2025 — in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal alike. This shared regional moment demands that we seriously study the character of each uprising and calibrate our strategy and activity accordingly.

Call to Action 

We propose that left, democratic, and revolutionary parties and organizations across Asia — and especially South Asia — build closer and more durable ties with one another. This should not remain limited to periodic gestures of solidarity but should evolve into sustained, structured cooperation. Concretely, we propose:

• Regular communication and coordination between fraternal parties across Asia, and especially South Asia, through consistent online exchange as well as physical meetings held at least twice a year. 
• The deepening of internal, cross-border communication — not only between parties, but between the mass organizations of students, workers, women, and peasants across Asian, and especially South Asian, countries, so that our movements learn from and reinforce one another. 
• Working toward joint days of action, where student, worker, women’s, and farmers’ organizations across the region mobilize simultaneously around shared demands — turning isolated national struggles into a visible, unified front against imperialism. 
• Using this accumulated regional solidarity and coordination — built first across South Asia and then across the wider continent — as the foundation for building a broader global unity of anti-imperialist forces, one capable of confronting imperialist plunder and war on an international scale.

Through these steps, we can pool our experiences, sharpen our collective strategy, and build a resilient regional and global movement against imperialism and war, and for anti-capitalist socialist revolution.
 Long live the unity of ICOR! 
Long live Socialism! 
Long live Marxism-Leninism!