Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wooB6bPM1c

Subscribe to The GSDC video podcast feed: https://feeds.zencastr.com/f/0WbDFyh1.rss

https://zencastr.com/The-Great-Southern-Discussion-Club

The dust has settled on what many are calling the "inevitable election," but the tremors from the 2026 South Australian State Election are only just beginning to be felt. In this special, The Next Four, a collaboration between The Great Southern Discussion Club and RawCut, host Rhys Jarrett sits down with David Fox, President of Bendigo Trades Hall, to dissect a political map that has been fundamentally redrawn.

With Labor securing a staggering 33-seat supermajority, the conversation moves beyond the tally room to ask the hard questions: Why did the Liberal vote collapse? What does the surge of One Nation mean for the future of the "crossroads state"? And can the Malinauskas government translate its massive mandate into a new era of industrial sovereignty?

A Supermajority and a New Third Force

The headline figures are impossible to ignore. While Labor cruised to victory with 37.5% of the first preference vote, the real story lies in the fragmentation of the opposition. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation surged to 22.9%, leapfrogging the Liberal Party, which languished at 18.9%.

David Fox notes that while the Labor win was expected, the scale of the One Nation "shot in the arm" signals a profound shift in the electorate. The traditional two-party dynamic has been disrupted, leaving the Liberals diminished and searching for a role as a reputable opposition.

The Strategy Behind the Landslide: Defence and Rare Earths

The episode explores how the Malinauskas government successfully branded itself as the "party of government." By leaning heavily into the AUKUS pact and South Australia’s position as a global supplier of critical minerals, Labor has courted international trade interests and big business alike.

Rhys and David discuss the "Justin Trudeau" effect—the polished, popular aesthetic of Peter Malinauskas—and how that may add to his undoing.

Rebuilding the Industrial Heart: From AUKUS to Whyalla

Perhaps the most compelling segment of the show tackles the future of South Australian manufacturing. For a state built on the back of post-war icons like Holden and Hills Hoist, the pivot to high-tech defence manufacturing via AUKUS represents a major gamble.

David Fox, a boilermaker by trade, argues for a return to civilian manufacturing. He raises the critical issue of the Whyalla Steelworks, currently in administration. In a provocative turn, the discussion looks at whether "nationalisation" should stop being a dirty word. For David, public ownership of the steelworks isn't just about jobs; it’s about national sovereignty and ensuring the state has the materials to build its own future.

Topic Chapters and Timestamps

• 00:00 – The Inevitable Election: Introduction and Labor’s Landslide.

• 00:55 – The Numbers: Breaking down the 33-seat Supermajority.

• 01:52 – The One Nation Surge: How the Liberals lost their spot as the primary opposition.

• 04:27 – Why Labor Won: AUKUS, Energy, and Global Strategy.

• 07:34 – The Malinauskas Image: Aesthetics and Governance.

• 08:09 – The "Liberal Wing": Neoliberalism and the Labor Party tradition.

• 11:06 – Manufacturing Legacy: Looking back at Elizabeth and the post-war boom.

• 15:32 – The AUKUS Gamble: Defence vs. Peacetime Manufacturing.

• 18:43 – Vocational Future: The role of new Technical Colleges.

• 21:56 – The Whyalla Crisis: The case for Nationalisation and Sovereignty.

• 24:27 – Conclusion and how to join the Great Southern Discussion Club.

Notable Quotes

1. Rhys Jarrett: "You could reasonably call it the inevitable election. The South Australian State Election for 2026 with a landslide towards Labor."

2. David Fox: "What surprised me though, it was actually the high percentage of the One Nation vote... it is a very big shot in the arm for them."

3. David Fox: "South Australia is in that strategic spot on a world economic level, not just even on a national level."

4. Rhys Jarrett: "With the Malinauskas government... he has tried to promote this kind of almost Justin Trudeau kind of image."

5. David Fox: "I think that it shouldn't be a dirty word, a nationalisation... we need to have our own industries for our own national sovereignty."

Episode FAQs:

Question: What were the final primary vote percentages for the major parties in the 2026 SA Election?
Answer: According to the transcript, Labor received 37.5% of first preference votes, followed by One Nation with 22.9%, the Liberal Party with 18.9%, and the Greens with 10.4%.

Question: Why is South Australia being referred to as a "strategic spot" in the world economy?
Answer: David Fox explains that South Australia is a critical supplier of rare earths and minerals necessary for modern technology like microchips and electric cars, alongside its heavy involvement in the AUKUS defence pact.

Question: What is the suggested solution for the struggling Whyalla Steelworks?
Answer: David Fox argues that the government should consider nationalisation or public ownership, backed by financial guarantees and modernization, to ensure national sovereignty and industrial capacity.

Transcript:

Rhys Jarrett: You could reasonably call it the inevitable election. The South Australian State Election for 2026 with a landslide towards Labor.

Peter Malinauskas: Tonight I'm overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude, a gratitude to so many people who have provided this government the opportunity to be able to continue to serve, to be able to continue our work of making sure that the momentum in South Australia delivers for the people who deserves it most. And those are the people of South Australia.

Rhys Jarrett: But what happens next?

Voice-Over: From the Great Southern Discussion Club and RawCut, this is The Next Four. The immediate election takeaways, the long-term vision, and the hard choices ahead.

Rhys Jarrett: Welcome, friends. My name's Rhys Jarrett, and this is a Great Southern Discussion Club special reviewing the South Australian election for 2026. The results of the election meant that the Labor Party in the Assembly has a supermajority of 33 seats, with other parties making up the remainder. On the first preference vote side of things, the Labor Party got 37.5% of all first preference votes, followed by Pauline Hanson's One Nation with 22.9%, then the Liberal Party with 18.9%, and the Greens with 10.4%, with minor parties following. Joining me today is the President of Bendigo Trades Hall in Victoria, and we're going to have a little bit of a discussion about the results of the South Australian election and what can come next over the next 4 years, particularly in the view of prosperity for South Australians. So, David, welcome.

David Fox: Good evening.

Rhys Jarrett: Now, just based off of the basic results from the election, what is your immediate take?

David Fox: Well, first of all, my immediate take The results was not surprising for me. Labor was expected to win and the results with One Nation wasn't surprising either. So in some aspects, this was already on the cards of the way it was going to end. What surprised me though, it was actually the high percentage of the One Nation vote compared to in previous years. And I think for them, it's been a major boon for them to step up for further elections in the future. It is a very big shot in the arm for them. I think when I was looking at the Labor win itself, I mean, obviously they've got absolute majority now. They've written the mandate. They'll go ahead and do what policies they will implement. But at the same time, I think with One Nation, They've been given a boost and I think now we're looking at other states and we'll talk about Victoria in a little while. They are looking at other places to obviously expand and grow their influence. Well, I think for the Liberals, there's a big loss for them. I think now them as being as a reputable opposition at least has been diminished even further now with the very few seats they did win. I think One Nation's now starting to overtake take them.

Rhys Jarrett: Yeah, so we had the 2018 election, from memory, which is the election where SA Best, the party that was led by Nick Xenophon— he was trying to get into state politics— that was the last time that we saw a real swift kind of attack towards getting a new party with a large majority of people involved over all of the seats. So all in every seat, from memory, every seat had a candidate from SA Best. And this time we're seeing Pauline Hanson's One Nation, not a particularly new party when it comes to Australian politics in general, but new to South Australian politics, at least in this iteration. So it's interesting to me that I think we need to just rewind a little bit and think, how can we— how did the Labor Party actually win this election. What really was the driving force behind that? Do we have any ideas there?

David Fox: Oh, look, there's quite a few. And I think the Labor Party as well has been very big interest, vested interests in the defense industries in South Australia, especially with the onset of AUKUS. They've been playing a very— both federally and on state level, been a significant player there. But also many others in the energy sector as well. They're looking to expand the renewable sector even further and obviously other minerals, rare earths, that which now on a worldwide scale has put South Australia on that strategic era of being a world supplier of all the critical minerals and rare earths component to all of the modern technology we have today. For example, electric cars, microchips, just one or two examples, but many others. So South Australia is in that strategic spot on a world economic level, not just even on a national level. It's part of the country effectively. Very much. Your rival state in that sense would be actually Western Australia in the energy sector and rare earths and minerals as well. The fact is both states have all those natural resources. Now, I think the plan for South Australia is how you're going to be to take advantage of the strategic position they do hold in the world economy. And I think, well, the Labor Party there, I was meant to say with them, they have been behind the scenes a lot of working. Obviously seen the trade deals, seen all the overseas trips and encouraging of overseas functionaries and big businesses as well. So there's a lot more to it. So obviously they've all given all these powers that be, have given the Labor Party the tick approval. They need to have good stable government there in South Australia and policies implemented in place so it can allow them to then take advantage of where South Australia lies with its natural resources.

Rhys Jarrett: Yeah, I suppose that's the interesting dynamic there. Obviously there's the energy sector side of things, but on the political side of things, you have the Labor Party being seen by a lot of different parts of this country, a lot of different sectors in society, as being a party of government, a party that is capable of practically governing. We saw during the COVID-19 period, the Steven Marshall government, there was a certain kind of clownish kind of nature to it all. Not to say that Stephen Marshall wasn't trying to take it seriously, but it just had that kind of vibe to it. And we see with, with the Malinauskas government, ever since that election win in, I think it was 2022, he has tried to kind of promote this kind of, I suppose, on a kind of a an aesthetics level, a kind of almost Justin Trudeau kind of image. And I think that's a very good comparison because you could say he's very similar to Justin Trudeau in those early years when he was popular. He also expresses some of those weaknesses that Justin Trudeau has had in his later years before he got really unpopular. But Malinauskas overall is generally seen as a pretty popular leader of the Labor government. So is that really the dynamic going on here, that they're just simply the government, the party that is seen to be capable of governing?

David Fox: Well, I think we look at the context of the Labor Party and besides its trade union base, the Labor Party is very much the Liberal wing of the system we live in. And I don't mean the term of Liberal National a party, I mean, of a liberal wing, more so in the American sense. But you just mentioned even with the Canadians, with the Democratic Party there, they're more in line with that side of politics and that side of business as well. Where you're looking at the Liberal and the Nationals, they traditionally was part of that conservative side of the politics. The liberal wing, obviously, sometime. I know like in America, for example, the Democrats are in crisis for many years. There was a lot of rejection through that and obviously voting Trump. In Canada, it's a little bit different scene there as well. But that's what the Labor Party in that context, I think, what was interesting because what Labor has been standing for the last 40 years, free market ideology, the market determines and all that bit. It's surprisingly how often they have voted in. You'd think for even— it was actually Labor on a federal level that kicked it all off in the first place under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating.

Rhys Jarrett: And obviously you're talking about the neoliberalization of Australia.

David Fox: Yeah. So they've been right at the forefront of that for a long time. Obviously they were trying Obviously they've been keen on having concessions out of that to try and make population benefit. And that's what they've sort of represented, where the Liberal Party itself predominantly have always represented a very ultra-conservative side of things. But major cutbacks, everyone's pretty much on their own two feet and they wanted to play the small government in that sense, where the Labor Party wants to still play a role in the whole, much bigger role in the whole neoliberal scheme. So they're the main two contrasts there as well. But I think that that's what made Labor, and I think it's pretty much unique for South Australia. I think it's the state with the most Labor governments or longest-serving Labor governments compared to other states throughout Australia. And I think it's, you know, so in some aspect you could say it's a historical tradition.

Rhys Jarrett: There's a traditional dynamic of there being multiple Labor terms of government followed by maybe a Liberal term of government, then directly followed by multiple Labor terms of government. That's the cycle that goes on and on again. And so that it's interesting that that is always the dynamic, particularly for South Australia. Is the main reason for that the manufacturing dynamic. And I know this interests you as the manufacturing dynamic because you are by trade a boilermaker. And in South Australia there is a legacy, particularly in the post-war period, of manufacturing in the state, particularly with the establishment of suburbs like Elizabeth, where we had this, the adjacent Holden manufacturing plant, and in amongst a number of other plants like Westinghouse, which is now Electrolux, and they still even exist down there. But yeah. it is a traditional manufacturing hub for the country in some respects, as was Melbourne in many respects as well. So did that reflect in the vote? Did the Labor Party actually reflect the interests of Labor in that postwar period?

David Fox: I think for this state election, to a degree, there is still some of that. To a degree, I think Labor out of, say, the two— we'll just use the two major parties— had the better position for manufacturing. And I know there's been a lot of hard work, even on behalf of my own union, to bring back manufacturing. As I think, as I mentioned before, South Australia is in a very good strategic spot on the worldwide economy. And why can't we manufacture all the means for the rare earths and minerals and and various other stuff. I mean, defence has always been one of the big things, but there's many others as well where manufacturing could be a major support service there and industry for South Australia. It would be a major shot in the arm for that. And we can even know where there's strategic cities where a lot of that can happen. We've still got Port Augusta, Whyalla, and right down through to Adelaide. And it's all connected up by interstate rail and it's perfect position to do so. It's basically at a rail crossroads and you can move stuff everywhere.

Rhys Jarrett: Indeed, because all of the railway, major railway corridors, the rail corridor going from east to west in Australia as well as the other east-west corridor, at least for part of it, is the corridor between particularly Melbourne and Adelaide, which in times of problems, particularly around the Broken Hill area, the Australian Rail and Track Corporation tends to reroute traffic along that southern route, which is more or less there for the servicing of things like Geelong Port as well, because the route actually takes an interesting diversion through Geelong instead of taking a direct route to Melbourne.

Voice-Over: Coming up.

Rhys Jarrett: And now we're going into a new Malinauskas government. What should they be doing? Should they be nationalising it?

David Fox: Yes, I think that it shouldn't be a dirty word, a nationalisation. Everyone's going, what does that mean? I think it should come under public ownership. All that and more on the next Four.

Promo: Watch all episodes of RawCut's Life Bursts at our Life Burst webpage https://www.rawcut.com.au/shows/lifebursts/

David Fox: The Next Four, now continues.

Rhys Jarrett: South Australia is the only mainland state that touches every other mainland state geographically as well as the Northern Territory. And for that reason, that's why we say it's a crossroads state. So there is a significant heartland element there. And then there's also a significant dynamic there for precious minerals, for natural resources, for energy resources. And so that has had a heritage in building that manufacturing capacity in Australia, but also South Australia specifically. So what's the future of manufacturing in South Australia? We know that the state government has its eyes set on something following the AUKUS pact and manufacturing around that. Is that the future of heavy manufacturing in Australia?

David Fox: Well, for starters, defence spending is a natural occurrence by all governments, mainly federal, not state, but usually federal. And to try and reboot the economy. That's been a case since prior to World War II, but obviously more of a case now, especially in these days. I think for the future of manufacturing based around AUKUS, all that type of— there's a few things. I mean, it basically prior, during World War II and after, most defense manufacturing was also catered to manufacture for peacetime purposes as well. This is the key for it because I think one of the questions you would have for AUKUS, what about for peacetime purposes? Well, the new naval shipyards, that is, or is it just going to be straight for submarines, that alone? And I think that those important questions and sure, it employs some people. I'll take that back. It's more than just some people. It does a lot of people. But in the whole scheme of things for manufacturing, it's actually only a smaller component. Really, we just mentioned about before what South Australia once had, like General Motors, Holden, also Victor lawnmowers, Hills Hoist, many of the common brands that we still know about but no longer made. But those were just the main two and they employed far more people in its time and they generated more more gross domestic product and a strong economy than SA is just strictly defence. Now for defence also, and I'll just say to keep this in mind, it also too, we've had no nuclear— well, I won't say no, we do have a nuclear facility in Sydney, which is called Lucas Heights, but actually for working on nuclear reactors and that, well, there's been less of that experience. Now that was also, I think, part part of it. And both political persuasions, both parties have come up with it. Well, basically we can get people trained up in that because obviously in the future, I know the Liberal Party may announce they want to go down the nuclear power act. So they've got the skills and the basis to go that path. Because the problem is with the Liberal Party when they say, oh, we want to have nuclear generation. Well, we actually don't have the vital skills in that era. I think they've I think they're dreaming a little bit without actually taking some serious consideration and how they would go about that. But that's part of that whole AUKUS plan. So it's not just having these big submarines nuclear powered, but it also allows to build up the skills base to have that option open to if we're— if Australia ever decided to adopt nuclear energy, then Look, I want— I think the argument tonight, we won't get into the pros and cons of it or if we are going to go that way. But that's obviously left Australia with a door opening to it.

Rhys Jarrett: Yeah, it's a very interesting dynamic. And I remember when the kind of bringing in of all of these various policies relating to AUKUS, I think the most beneficial one at the moment, from my perspective at least, has been the establishment of these technical colleges. Which is an after-secondary school education system that is on this sort of vocational level of education where you're trying to teach people who are graduating from high school new skills to be able to enter those emerging industries and specifically those emerging industries. Historically, this kind of role has been for TAFEs in Australia, but they're creating this entirely new technical colleges entity to be able to do that now. And they've got a number of different campuses in the works and some are operational already. So for me personally, if those existed 10 years ago when I was leaving high school, more than 10 years ago when I was leaving high school, that would have been a very significant option for me to consider. In terms of my future and how I could facilitate a greater prosperity for myself along with everyone else who lives around me. But what other options is there for South Australia to actually facilitate practical prosperity? Because you're talking about civilian manufacturing in your answer. Do we actually see any genuine growth in that civilian manufacturing capacity based off of the developments we're seeing in the defence industry?

David Fox: Well, good, that's a good question because over the many years there's been a very big decline of manufacturing in that sense. We've still got some manufacturing, but very— it's not— it's very small compared to what it was those many years ago when we did have a very big industrial capacity. The thing is, Personally, I think this is where governments need to focus on, is rebuilding that industrial base again, that manufacturing base for everything, because we seem to still be importing a lot. I think what's going on at the moment on the world scale, what's happened in the Middle East and that, it's put again, put the question in, well, why aren't we have our own industrial base to supply ourselves even further? And manufacturing is not just heavy engineering, we're looking at all sorts, or making cars. We're looking at food production is a major one for us, stuff for the medical facility and health. Health and medical is the biggest growing area at the moment, has been for some years. So you'd be thinking, well, we'd have a manufacturing base to supply all that from medicines right through to general stuff for hospitals, the whole lot instead of having to wait for bringing something on a plane or a ship over here. But yeah, We should be looking at everything. I mean, I know there is around the country being considered effort now.

Rhys Jarrett: But there is an option here, and that is you have the Whyalla Steelworks. The Whyalla Steelworks there, that was sent into forced administration by, in the previous term of government, the Malinauskas government. And now we're going into a new Malinauskas government. What should they be doing? Should they be nationalising it?

David Fox: Yes. Look, I think that it shouldn't be a dirty word, a nationalisation. Everyone's going, what does that mean? I think it should come under public ownership and guarantee it's backed up by a financial guarantee to keep those steelworks going, but also a major upgrade, modernising it as well. That's what has to happen. And bringing in new methods of steelmaking. Whyalla's in that strategic spot. It's got its own port. Again, it's connected to the national rail network. It's got iron ore around it. Why would you want to see a place like that close down? In its day, and I'll just tell them the history about there, Whyalla used to have its own shipyard there as well. BHP used to build their own ore carriers and steel carriers. The remnants of it you can still see to this day. But that should be a major heartbeat for South Australia to have those steelworks. And it's part of also a question of sovereignty. We need to have our own industries for our own national sovereignty. Steelmaking is one of them, along with, you know, we could talk about oil and gas as well and energy sector, but steel manufacturing is one of them. We shouldn't have to rely on imports from overseas. The only time we should import steel is if there's a shortage of steel here. If we can't keep up to capacity. But really, Rhys, we can be quite dependent on our own steelmaking if we had some foresight and planning and proper steelmaking here. So Whyalla is a vital asset for the state of South Australia. And I think to have that closed down altogether would be just devastating for Whyalla, but the whole state and national economy. As well, be devastating for the state and the national economy because where are we going to get our steel from?

Rhys Jarrett: Yeah, indeed. And I think we can all agree that in this immediate term, I think there's two things that need to be shored up is that steel manufacturing capacity as well. But most importantly, the energy capacity because we're in a tight spot at the moment. Well, I suppose that is all the time that we have for this conversation. Now, this is a conversation brought to you in part by The Great Southern Discussion Club. You can find the Great Southern Discussion Club at gsdc.znn.au. That's gsdc.znn.au. And there you can find a number of articles, including articles from myself and David, as well as a number of other participants in the Great Southern Discussion Club. And you can be a participant too. We are not a closed book society here. We ensure that everybody has the capacity to be able to participate in the Great Southern Discussion Club. My name's Rhys Jarrett. Thank you for watching.

Voice-Over: This was a RawCut production for the Great Southern Discussion Club.

https://www.facebook.com/TheAMWU/posts/pfbid02deqykGAULxASpiDcdyVvLJKwhBHQrpkeATH4dvTrdJNrNiLnWE4wgsmaAgr8QcLl?cft[0=AZZu6ir_qM526uEq0eBMp1KQb4R8MC9nHxqVWIJo-fKrQPWTUx-jR9AS2riHwI_0StDezI52iF99Vu6-qq1PCG9ee_KJFZk8_K5xcTgIggx3yKowKJ9DbsynCA2SFB8Vh0cqctwl8UTvBuoPK9ObBP62Onal6CA_cI3bFVnbj4GDCvdVbheHDg4Kkx4-WXCoigY&tn=%2CO%2CP-R]

The AMWU National Steering Committee (NSC) notes that as the workers who build and maintain Australia's defence capabilities, we have a unique responsibility and a powerful voice in how the fruits of our labour are used on the world stage.

NSC notes we are the builders of peace through strength and safety. We will not allow our labour to be weaponised for wars of aggression that bring nothing but grief to the poor and profit to the powerful.

NSC further notes the drums of war are beating louder again, this time directed at the people of Iran following the ongoing catastrophe in Palestine. We recognise that these conflicts are not about "democracy" or "liberation," but are the violent byproduct of imperialist interests seeking to secure resources, markets, and strategic dominance.

The AMWU affirms:

• our skills and our industry exist to ensure the safety and sovereignty of the Australian people. We reject any attempt to drag our nation into "wars of choice" or foreign interventions that serve only to destabilise regions and line the pockets of global arms giants. Our defence capability is for safety and sovereign capacity, not aggression;

• the workers in Iran and Palestine are not our enemies. Like us, they want stable jobs, safe homes, and a future for their children. We refuse to see our craft used to shatter the lives of fellow working-class families;

• Australia's defence policy should be determined by the needs of the Australian people, not by the strategic demands of foreign powers or the profit margins of multinational corporations who treat war as a growth market; and

• while we must maintain a strong defence industry, every dollar wasted on aggressive escalation is a dollar "stolen" from the social wage—from the schools, hospitals, and housing our members and their families rely on.

NSC resolves to:

• demand a policy of de-escalation — we call on the Australian government to use every diplomatic lever to prevent war with Iran and to demand a permanent, just peace in Palestine;

• protect the integrity of our work — the purpose of the Australian defence industry is the protection of our shores and our people, not the pursuit of aggressive military adventures abroad; and

• fight the cost-of-living crisis — we reject the claim that we must choose between national security and social security. We demand that the wealth of this nation be used to lower the costs of food, energy, and housing for all workers.

NSC reaffirms that the AMWU stands for peace, prosperity, and the right of all people to live free from the threat of foreign bombing and economic strangulation.

The term "fascist" has been weaponized to smear opponents of government narratives, such as those who questioned COVID-19 lockdowns or supported Russia's intervention in Ukraine (an irony, given that actual neo-Nazis fought for Ukraine, not Russia).

Yes, openly fascist groups like Australia's National Socialist Network exist. However, widespread misunderstanding persists because people focus on fascism's form (e.g., authoritarianism, nationalism) rather than its essence. This confusion stems from education, media, and deliberate historical falsification—often equating fascism with communism, despite their diametric opposition.

To clarify, we recommend these essential texts for in-depth analysis:

• Against War and Fascism by Georgi Dimitrov

• Fascism and Social Revolution by R. Palme Dutt

• Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti

The Essence of Fascism: Economic Degrowth to Rescue Capitalism

These works reveal fascism's true essence, rarely discussed elsewhere: degrowth as a desperate mechanism to rescue monopoly capitalism from its internal crises. Fascism is not primarily about ideology, racism, or authoritarianism (though it employs these as tools). These existed before and after fascist regimes. Rather, fascism is an economic response to capitalism's failures—specifically, overproduction/oversupply and the falling rate of profit.

Capitalism's Crisis: Oversupply and Imperialist Impasse

Under imperialism (monopoly capitalism's highest stage), production outpaces effective demand. Workers produce far more goods than they can afford to buy due to stagnant wages, leading to oversupply crises (e.g., unsold inventories, factory shutdowns, mass unemployment). This triggers economic stagnation.

Globalist/imperialist monopolies dominated by finance capital, (e.g., Wall Street, City of London) face a structural dilemma:

• They cannot invest in expanding domestic markets (wages too low to boost demand).

• Colonial/imperialist expansion hits limits: superprofits from the Third World diminish as resistance grows and resources are exhausted.

• Massive capital accumulation creates a glut, but profit maximization requires destruction of excess value to restore equilibrium.

Fascism "rescues" this system by wielding the state apparatus to enforce forced degrowth:

• Destruction of productive forces: Wars, military spending, and autarky eliminate oversupply (e.g., WWII munitions factories "absorbed" Europe's industrial glut).

• Suppression of wages/living standards: Union-busting, mass pauperization ensure labor costs plummet, temporarily boosting profitability.

• State-directed investment: Unlike laissez-faire capitalism, fascism mobilizes the state to cartelize industry, ration resources, and prioritize war production—channeling imperialist capital into profitable destruction rather than unprofitable social needs.

• Export of crisis: Territorial conquests provide new markets/outlets, but ultimately accelerate collapse (as in Nazi Germany's "Lebensraum").

Historical results? Germany's GDP briefly surged via rearmament (1933–1939), pulling it from Great Depression oversupply—but at the cost of hyperinflation risks, worker immiseration, and inevitable war. Italy under Mussolini followed suit: public works and autarky masked degrowth, making the masses poorer to prop up monopolies. Similar patterns emerged in Pinochet's Chile (post-Allende oversupply "resolved" via neoliberal fascism) and Suharto's Indonesia (anti-communist terror stabilized imperialist extraction).

Fascism stabilizes capitalism temporarily by destroying value (goods, lives, infrastructure), creating artificial demand via state terror and war. It's the ruling class's "last resort" when democratic reforms fail.

Australia on the Fascist Path?

Australia shows ominous signs of fascist evolution: a low-wage police state, expanding military-industrial complex (AUKUS subsidies), and burgeoning prison-industrial complex. The 2026 "Hate Speech Bill," backed by both major parties, targets anti-imperialist dissent (e.g., opposition to Israeli crimes in Palestine) but will suppress working-class struggles. NSW Labor's protest bans and expanded police powers under Minns accelerate this.

Without organized resistance—an Anti-Monopoly Coalition championing independent economic development, growth, and sovereignty—Australia risks fascist degrowth to serve Washington/London monopolies.

Reject fascist rescue of the empire. Build the people's economy.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

In early December 2025, the current White House Administration released their new National Security Strategy. From a perspective of pro-multipolarity, this document seemed to be rather bipolar in what it was saying. Whilst there were various statements claiming the United States reign of being the world's dominant superpower was at an end. There were also various statements that it should also continue to be the world's dominant superpower. The document also pointed to the Trump administration interpretation on a sphere of influence. Just after the Trump administration was inaugurated in 2025, we here at the Great Southern Discussion Club wrote an article called the New World of Sphere's. We discussed the fledgling Trump administration concept of a sphere of influence, summarising various perspectives of the time. At that time, the concept of a sphere of influence as a new-era in the organisation of United States International Power, was quite a niche concept only relegated to various foreign policy focused means of discussion online. These days, the mainstream press is talking about it like it's the most fashionable thing on the planet, particularly after the events of the first few days of 2026.

The Trump administration concept of a sphere of influence is more or less, at least rhetorically, looking like it is somewhat akin to what is in reality a neocolonial project across the entire Western Hemisphere. It is this author's understanding based on the various perspectives that I have learned to relate to the historical understanding of what a sphere of influence is. This has been regarded as softer in its approach than an overt colonial project. But they have been used in tandem with colonialism. Broadly, spheres of influence were largely agreements between other major international powers regarding the particular regions in which they would be focusing on. With the crux of the arrangement being that those other major powers wouldn't interfere with each other.

The Monroe Doctrine was supposedly one of these informal agreements, where the Americans agreed amongst their various partners, particularly in Europe. That others would largely economically stay out of the Americas and leave it to the United States as the major economic country in that particular region. This would by default lead to other countries, smaller countries in the Americas, to naturally partner with the United States on various economic matters. Naturally, in return, the United States made a promise to treat the Europeans in kind. But of course The Monroe Doctrine, shortly after its first public reading in President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on December 2nd, 1823. It effectively became a part of the US state myth where they could dictate what goes on across the Americas. I refer you to the series by Australian history enthusiast Jeff Rich (The Burning Archive) and his recent series regarding The Monroe Doctrine. Because otherwise we would be here all day reviewing history.

On January 3, 2026, the United States conducted a military operation, code-named Operation Absolute Resolve, resulting in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at their residence in Caracas. In the days since, Vice President Delcy Rodriguez has become the acting president.

The attack from the Americans on Venezuela using an extraction team that flew into Venezuela and over Caracas using multiple Chinook Helicopters faced fairly little resistance given the international incursion. The main act of resistance being the Cuban security team defending Maduro in conflict with the extraction team, subsequently 32 specialists in the Cuban security team perished in the conflict. These particular dynamics have led many to suspect that there were insider dynamics occurring within the military and maybe the Venezuelan government, but the Venezuelan government denies such concepts of a broader conspiracy.

Other than the build-up off the coast of Venezuela that has been occurring since September 2025. This has probably been the most blatant action on part of the Trump administration to show what it means by having a sphere of influence. Or at least what the Trump administration believes to be a sphere of influence. And given that the Trump administration has also been extremely overt in the fact that they are doing these actions to obtain the natural resources of Venezuela by force and for free. This has led others with a pro-collective west mindset to question the move. Usually before the Americans do this type of thing, they try to find a justification amongst their various collective west partners to be able to facilitate these types of actions, take the various Iraq conflicts as examples. Frequently this involves various fairy tale-like language such as “we are doing it for freedom”, “we want to make sure that human rights are upheld”, or my favourite, “there is an international rules-based order”. It's highly unusual for the United States to just blatantly come out and say, “we need to get the oil”. Even though, with all of these various conflicts that the United States has entered in on the basis of human rights and other flowery language, since they have become the primary economic mover of the planet after World War II. They have obviously not been for those flowery or anticommunist ideas. The primary goal has always been economic control of the planet, where the United States and its various major owners are the primary beneficiaries. This has been an obvious fact for a long time to all of those who have sought to look at the world in objective reality. But to those in the mainstream press, it is now somehow a revelation, a “new post rules order”, “might make right returns”, NO! IT NEVER LEFT!

Whilst trying to justify his country’s rapprochement with the People's Republic of China to other collective west leaders. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, a man who is a rusted on collective west operative for much of his life, overtly pulled off the collective west narrative mask at the World Economic Forum in 2026.

“For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.”

… “We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”

https://www.weforum.org/meetings/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2026/sessions/special-address-by-mark-carney-prime-minister-of-canada/

Until Collective West people manage to finally realise that the only way to have a world which has balance, rules, and mutual prosperity is to observe and learn from the various projects throughout Eurasia that are actually doing this. And when Collective West countries manage to drop the idea of the Collective West to then adopt and implement the ideas of mutual respect and prosperity currently being physically implemented throughout Eurasia, there will only be, might, makes right.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

What follows in this article will be a summary of the readouts regarding the visit from both sides and a short analysis by myself on the significance of this prospective treaty.

Let's start this readout summary with the host country, Australia. On the 11th, the Prime Minister's website announced the arrival of the Indonesian President. On the 12th, the Australian PM published a transcript of the joint media statement announcing the prospective Treaty that was presented to the public on HMAS Canberra in Sydney. The Foreign Minister's website also followed up with what could be regarded as the formal readout regarding the details of the prospective Treaty. And those were the three readouts that the Australian side published during the trip.

By contrast, the Indonesian side published 10 readouts regarding the 2-day trip. This is actually a normal amount given the nature of the Indonesians to publish a significant amount of details, and the fact that this is a formal state visit. On the 11th, the first Indonesian readout summarised President Prabowo’s arrival. The second highlighted the enthusiastic welcome by the Indonesian diaspora in Australia for the President. On the 12th, the third readout highlighted the closed one-on-one discussion that the Indonesian President and the Australian Prime Minister had at Kirribilli House. The fourth read out, summarised the meeting between the Indonesian President and the Australian Governor General. The fifth readout described the Indonesian President and the Australian Prime Minister, inspecting HMAS Canberra. The sixth readout highlighted the Indonesian President's comments during the Joint Press Statement on the HMAS Canberra. The seventh readout from the Indonesians highlighted the Prime Minister of Australia's comments on the new perspective treaty. The eighth readout described a friendly meeting with the former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating, The ninth readout provided details of the Indonesian President leaving Australia. And the final tenth readout provided details of the Indonesian President arriving back in Indonesia, and his comments summarising the importance of the visit.

The major international relations achievement of the Albanese government's first term was the rapprochement of Australia-Chinese relations. In the second term, the major achievement seems to be growing Australia-Indonesia relations and relations with other South Pacific and Oceanic countries. Whilst, cynics may fairly come to the conclusion that Australia facilitating more relations with South Pacific and Oceanic countries seems to be Australia trying to facilitate its de facto US Deputy Sheriff status in the South. Facilitating greater relations with Indonesia, on the other hand, is not that simple.

According to World Population Review, Indonesia is the fourth-largest country in the world by total population of over 285 million people, with a steady year-on-year population growth since records began. According to the World Bank, in the year 2000, Indonesia by purchasing power parity standards was a trillion dollar economy. In 2024, it will be a 4.66 trillion dollar economy. The most significant recent bump in that purchasing power parity valuation occurred between 2020 and 2024. Where Indonesia was a 3.22 trillion dollar economy in 2020 and in 2024 is now a 4.66 trillion dollar economy. On a per capita purchasing power parity basis in that same period, Indonesians earned on average $11729.4 in 2020, and in 2024 $16448.3. According to Macrotrends, the manufacturing output valued in US dollars in the 2000 was 37.39 billion dollars. The most recent manufacturing statistics are from 2023, which according to Macrotrends in US dollars is 255.96 billion dollars.

By all rational measures of Indonesian economic and population size, it's pretty obvious to conclude that Indonesia is ingrained into the broader Southeast Asian ongoing economic boom. And is one of the most significant contributors to this ongoing boom, which has been a significant international relations and economic factors in the 21st century thus far. So with that being said, I think it's pretty fair to conclude that Australia is the junior partner in this bilateral relationship. Therefore, you cannot apply the de facto US Deputy Sheriff status in the same regard as you could with other bilateral relationships between Australia, South Pacific and Oceanic countries compared to Indonesia. This is also because of Indonesia's history with the non-aligned movement, as it staunchly and proudly proclaims its independence. If the Australians decide to attach themselves once again to the Collective West and act up against the Indonesians, because the Indonesians aren't doing what the Collective West wants. Well, the Indonesians will just disregard Australia, they've done this before.

For Australia to be a successful country in the 21st century, it needs to remove its tendencies towards the Collective West. Sure, you can have moderate bilateral relationships with Collective West countries. But to fundamentally tie yourself to Collective West countries for defence, economic (financialisation) and emotional reasons, as it does now, is a recipe for societal and economic failure. According to the Harvard University Atlas of Economic Complexity in 2023, Australia's majority exports 84.71%, go to Asian countries, 6.08% go to Europe, and 5.43% to the Americas, with the remaining to Oceania and Africa. Clearly, the vast majority of our trade occurs within our own region, but yet we still have these ridiculous emotional ties to Europe and the United States in particular. With the United States and Europe promoting the idea that our greatest trading partner, the People's Republic of China, is somehow also our greatest military threat. Why? Even the Defence Minister Richard Marles recognises this irony, even though he agrees with it.

“China is our largest trading partner on the-, on the one hand. And-, and it is our biggest source of security anxiety on the other. And that's just-, that is the way the world is.” — Defence Minister Richard Marles

To further emphasise this Collective West emotional idiocy, I will leave you with what is probably my favourite recent quote from a conversation on ABC 7.30 between Sarah Ferguson and Foreign Minister Penny Wong. This occurred on the 12th, regarding this new perspective treaty.

“Sarah Ferguson: Let me just put this to you. So this treaty commits the two countries. If either is threatened to discuss what measures would be taken to deal with those threats? Does that mean potentially deploying Australian military assets, air naval, to defend Indonesia from China?

Penny Wong: What it means is that we are giving a commitment to one another as neighbours, to consult with each other, to work together and to cooperate. That's what it means.”

Economics is everything. It shapes, adapts and forces every technological change, driving production higher and extracting more wealth for the ruling class.

Let’s not deny it—we live in a class society. That is the first and most fundamental truth we need to understand. Within this society, we all play a part in the economy in different roles, on the one hand I am a worker and on the other hand I am a consumer. I might save my money and feel, for a moment, that I’m in the same position as the ruling class. I might spend money at the shops, rent a house, or even buy a house and a car, just like others do and feel invested in this society and economy. But what does any of that actually mean? Where is the real difference?

The truth is simple: if you’re reading this, you are part of the working class, not the ruling class. And as a member of the working class, you have very little control over what truly happens in the economy.

The ruling class owns and controls the economy. Governments—the ones we believe we freely elect—do not run the economy for you and me. They manage it on behalf of the ruling class. For example, lobbyists representing the elite are granted free passes into parliament, giving them direct, ongoing access to politicians. Senator Pocock has challenged this system, pointing out:

“Ministers aren’t accountable for who they meet with and more than 2000 people have 24/7 access-all-areas passes with no public visibility over who they are or who gave them this access … the professionalisation of lobbying in this country into what is now a multi-billion dollar industry requires improved regulation, and the time to make those changes is now.”

https://www.davidpocock.com.au/major_parties_shirk_serious_lobbying_reform

Meanwhile, you and I do not have 24/7 access to politicians—though we should. After all, it is the working class that creates the wealth of this nation. Our labour creates new value. Every product of the economy rests on human work, and every single activity in the economy is someone’s work.

If you don’t agree with that basic idea, then continue on as you are—but understand, nothing will ever change. If you don’t visualise how things can be different, there is no possibility of change.

In case you do agree, then the next question becomes unavoidable:
If we, the working class, are the sole creators of wealth, shouldn’t we also have the largest say in how the economy is run?

AI vs workers.

As workers, we get worried about technological changes taking jobs, and how this is going to affect our lives, (our basic individual consumer place in society).

Changes in technology have always occurred. What makes humans unique is not technology itself, but our ability to labour, to consciously transform nature and create the tools we need. Technology is the product of human labour, not the other way around.

New technology has always replaced old. The Industrial Revolution brought the locomotive to replace the horse and the steamship to replace the sail. Production became faster and more powerful, but this wasn’t just about machines taking jobs, it reorganised labour and increased exploitation. Machinery allowed capital to squeeze more out of workers in less time.

Now we face the same question with AI. It can design, operate machinery, even build a house quickly. But AI is only a tool, an extension of our labour. On its own, it cannot create wealth. Machines and AI are what Marx called “constant capital”, they can only pass on the value already in them. Only living labour creates new value.

Take the car industry. Imagine car manufacturers announced they’re returning to Australia. Politicians, union leaders, business reps would all celebrate. But the factories of today won’t employ tens of thousands as before. Automation and AI will dominate. A few technicians will maintain machines, designers will work remotely, and production will run with minimal labour. For capitalists, this looks perfect: lower wages, fewer disputes, higher output. But here lies the contradiction, more output with fewer workers doesn’t resolve the crisis, it deepens it.

Capitalism depends on profit. Machines don’t create profit, only labour does. As workers are displaced, less new value is created. Meanwhile, production keeps expanding, flooding markets. The result is overproduction: more goods than can be sold profitably. This is why crises erupt again and again, not simply because workers can’t buy enough, but because production for profit always collides with human need.

AI won’t solve that contradiction. In fact, it may sharpen it by reducing the share of living labour in production. Unless we face the real question, who creates wealth and who controls it, the problem remains.

It all sounds complicated, but it isn’t. We are all part of the broader society, but some are benefitting economically far more than others from the labour of the majority. The only way to change this is to consider a different future, one where AI benefits the majority, where those that create the wealth own the wealth, and no longer relying on a government structure that does not represent us.

The world is changing, and to truly be part of that change we must not just understand it, but dare to imagine what the future could be. A future where education is free and equal for all, where healthcare is a human right, and no one is left homeless. A future with world-class public transport, high-speed rail carrying us across the continent in hours, and thriving industries that guarantee secure jobs and advancement for Australian workers.

It could be a future where our trade with Pacific nations is built on equality and mutual respect, not on acting as the region’s deputy sheriff. A future where culture and the arts flourish at the highest level, enriching every life.

It could be a future where real democracy begins on the shop floor, discussing targets of production to benefit all society. Profits go to the shop floor and decisions made by the shop floor as to how and where to spend those profits. Where unions are able to compete economically with business, build childcare centres for its members, housing, or holiday parks for members.

The possibilities before us are limitless, if we choose a society built for people, not for profit.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

Understanding Australia's Imperialist Reality

Australia is not simply a victim of foreign domination. Since the Second World War, it gained from the US-dominated architecture of economics and finance. Obtaining a so-called status of US protection on the cheap through military hardware, shared intelligence networks and diplomatic backing. The Australian government pursues these interests through partnerships with the US and UK, serving as a significant regional player in Oceania and the South Pacific. This reality fundamentally shapes how unions in Australia must approach the question of sovereignty.

The AUKUS nuclear submarine deal exemplifies this dynamic. Within 24 hours of the announcement, the then Federal Labor Opposition announced its support, and except for the Maritime Union, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union VIC Branch, and the Electrical Trades Union, no unions criticised it. Although since then more Unions have come against AUKUS, The silence at the time revealed how deeply some senior people in the Union Movement are integrated into the imperialist consensus.

Breaking the ALP-Union-Imperialist Nexus

The first step is recognising that the Australian Labor Party (the ALP) does not oppose imperialism, calls for it to adopt a more “independent” foreign policy, a utopian dream that serves primarily as a trap for anti-war sentiment. Achieving this “independent” foreign policy, is futile without Unions backing it up with mass action.

1. Build Rank-and-File Anti-Imperialist Committees

Instead of relying on union officials tied to the ALP's imperialist agenda, workers should form independent committees that:

• Expose how Pine Gap plays a crucial role in supporting US military operations worldwide. The facility controls military intelligence satellites that capture electronic transmissions and detect missile launches.

• Educate members that information gathered at Pine Gap directs US drone strikes that have caused thousands of deaths, with the facility allowing identification of individuals through mobile phone tracking.

• Organise workplace resistance to military production and logistics supporting US wars.

2. Revive International Working-Class Solidarity

Drawing from Australia's hidden anti-imperialist union history:

• In the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Communist Party of Australia press carried reports about “Hands off China” campaigns. With a 1926 rally of 2000 people in Sydney protesting “the action of the Governments of England, Japan and America in intervening in the internal affairs of China”.

• The Pan-Pacific Trade Union's anti-imperialist propaganda helped undermine racism dividing workers in Australia from those in the region, showing how it's possible to win mass working class opposition to militarism and war.

Modern unions must:

• Build direct links with workers in countries targeted by US imperialism.

• Organise industrial action against weapons shipments and military logistics.

• Support independence movements in West Papua, Kanaky (New Caledonia), and throughout the Pacific.

3. Target the Military-Industrial Complex

Workers are the cannon fodder in imperial profiteers' wars to capture resources and global spheres of dominance. It's ordinary people who die, are left injured, homeless, and living in poverty in devastated countries. Unions should:

• Map and expose all military contractors in their industries.

• Organise strikes and boycotts of companies profiting from war.

• Demand conversion of military production to socially useful purposes.

• Follow the example of the Vietnam Moratorium led by the Working Class and it’s Unions, who downed tools. Stopping production to end the War.

4. Challenge the Surveillance-War State

Pine Gap gives the Australian State and allies expanded ability to monitor political communications of individuals and movements. Unions must:

• Refuse cooperation with national security laws targeting activists.

• Protect whistleblowers exposing war crimes and surveillance state practices.

• Build encrypted communication networks for organising.

• Support direct actions like those in 2016 when activists set up peace camps and blocked entrances to Pine Gap.

5. Develop Anti-Imperialist Political Economy

Unions need to articulate how imperialism undermines workers' interests:

• Expose how military spending diverts resources from social needs.

• Show how imperial wars create refugee crises in Australia.

• Link casualisation and attacks on unions to funding imperial wars.

• Demonstrate how “sovereignty” under capitalism, means sovereignty for bosses, not workers.

6. Unite with Indigenous Sovereignty Struggles

Representatives from the Arrernte people remind the world that Pine Gap occupies stolen land, with no consultation or permission sought to build the US military spy base. Unions must:

• Recognise the urgent need for poverty eradication amongst aboriginal communities.

• Support treaty processes that challenge Imperialism.

• Link workers' struggles to Aboriginal land rights and self-determination.

• Uphold rights of Aboriginal nations to self-determination, up to and including secession.

7. Build a Revolutionary Anti-Monopoly Movement

Working People’s struggle for economic sovereignty and reindustrialisation is anti-imperialist, only by struggling together can we challenge multinational corporations, opposing imperialism and supporting all genuine national liberation struggles.

This requires:

• Rejecting all pro imperialist parties.

• Building structures both in and out of the workplace.

• Utilising current structures such as Labour Councils, Sporting Clubs, Community Organisations etc.

• Developing an economic plan for Australia, which would include a Public Bank as the cornerstone for reindustrialisation to organise around.

Confronting Opportunism and Building Power

The pseudo-left groups that claim to promote a more effective and “independent” Australian foreign policy, calling for “armed neutrality”. Whilst supporting the NATO War in Ukraine against Russia, and calling China Social Imperialists. Genuine anti-imperialists must expose these tendencies as adjuncts of US imperialism, including those in the Unions movement and other parties that favourably note nationalist calls for expanded defence manufacturing to the benefit of Washington.

From Resistance to Revolution

Only a movement of ordinary working people, united in fighting against the interests of Anglo US Finance, can defeat imperialism and create a world free from war. Australian unions can lead by:

Immediate Actions:

• Passing resolutions demanding closure of all US bases.

• Organise strikes against AUKUS and other imperial focused military production.

• Build solidarity with Palestine, and other anti-imperialist struggles,

• And demand No War with Russia and China.

The path forward requires Australian workers to recognise that they have no interest in supporting militarism and warmongering that threatens death and destruction, we need to build an anti-war movement that can put a stop to this madness. This means transforming unions from tools of class collaboration into weapons of international working-class solidarity against US imperialism.

The choice is clear: remain tied to the ALP's imperialist project, or forge an independent, revolutionary path that links the fight for workers' power with the global struggle against imperialism. Only through this transformation can Australian unions become a leading force for genuine sovereignty—not the dominance of Australia by the monopolies, but the sovereignty of the ordinary working people over their own destiny.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

“Policing in the Pacific has never been about propping up governments; it has always been about serving communities. Yet Beijing’s introduction of Mao-era community policing into Solomon Islands last week was a sharp departure from this tradition.” — Raelene Lockhorst and John Coyne, ASPI The Strategist

“Sovereign states need to come to grips with authoritarian regimes using sub-national relationships to undermine national unity.” — Justin Bassi and James Corera, ASPI The Strategist

“China is about to host an extraordinary military gathering with some of the world's most powerful leaders, but United States President Donald Trump isn't on the guest list.” — Allyson Horn, ABC News

“The question nearly everyone — Labor friend or foe — is asking is, why would Daniel Andrews turn up for a class photo alongside autocrats and dictators?” — Nicole Asher, ABC News

“The meat-eaters are hunting in a pack. The eagle is no longer a reliable protector. The age of carnivores is upon us.” — Peter Hartcher, The Sydney Morning Herald

Some are sophisticated enough not to directly accuse the Chinese of potentially invading Australia, but some directly say that they are a threat.

“Beijing deployed a naval task group to the waters around Australia for three related reasons. First, to demonstrate the reach and potency of Chinese sea power and to put Australia on notice that it is vulnerable to the application of that power. Second, to test our political and military responses. Third, to rehearse for wartime operations against Australia.” — Michael Pezzullo ASPI The Strategist

The Real Outcomes of Anti-China Rhetoric

When you take a moment to think about it, without discarding the possibility that this is all a bit too much, an overblown narrative. Then you start to realise the impractical dynamics that the Chinese would have to overcome in order to actually physically pull off an Australian invasion. Why would they even bother? If they need our natural resources, as they so commonly do, then they can just buy it from an Australian company. And you can say that about almost any product or service that is available in Australia, unless there's some silly sanction involved.

The first and now second term of the Albanese government has certainly cooled the ‘war’ dynamic to a significant degree. But given that, the narrative still crops up from time to time again in the mainstream media, and by those think tanks. One seems to think the Canberra crowd doesn't necessarily mind the idea of keeping this antagonism going. As if it were some Australian concept of Machiavellianism.

One outcome of the ‘Ooh China’ mentality is the approach that we are applying to our partners in the Pacific Islands Nations. This approach can be simplified, as Australia is effectively shoehorning many of these Nations into security arrangements with Australia. The effective outcome making Australia the de facto sole security partner of these Pacific Island Nations, by requiring nations to consult Australia regarding other partnerships as a general theme in these treaties.

Australia’s Pacific Prize

“One of the things that I want in the Pacific is for the Pacific family to look after our own security. And that's why we established the Pacific Policing Initiative. That has been very successful. There have already been three deployments of the multilateral dimension of that, there's already been substantial training as well at the Pinkenba facility in Brisbane. And what I talk about is Australia's ongoing support as a security partner of choice in the Pacific.” — Press conference, Sydney, Friday 12 September 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

“Look, we always discuss defence relationships. And Australia plays an important role in this region. Throughout the Pacific, we are the security partner of choice. And that's a good thing for democracies in the region.” — Television interview — Sky Politics Now, Monday 15 September 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

One of the more significant outcomes of this pacific approach by the Australian Government, is how we have decided to treat the Nation of Tuvalu. Which their leaders have decided to accept, but not without some critique from dissenting Tuvalu people.

“The Falepili is actually Australia weaponising our poverty, our vulnerabilities in Tuvalu to its advantage at the international level… I think it’s a very, very serious issue… Australia is a close friend of Tuvalu, and that remains to be the case. The question is, did we need to move further into interfering into the sovereign rights, sovereignty rights and cultural rights of one party in order to achieve what is actually a matter driven by geopolitical interest in the Pacific. Did we need to bully small islands? I don’t think so.” — Former Tuvaluan PM, Enele Sopoaga, ABC 730

The Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union treaty includes that aforementioned de facto sole security partnership.

“Tuvalu shall mutually agree with Australia any partnership, arrangement or engagement with any other State or entity on security and defence-related matters. Such matters include but are not limited to defence, policing, border protection, cyber security and critical infrastructure, including ports, telecommunications and energy infrastructure.” — The Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union treaty Article 4, Section 4

And a curious promise, which has manifested itself within a kind of rhetoric regarding reparations for climate change damage. To provide a very special visa to a significant quantity of people of Tuvalu, effectively adopting them as a part of Australian society, without providing them citizenship. This visa provides them with a number of benefits including unlimited rights to visit Australia, to be able to work in Australia, and to be able to utilise welfare benefits in Australia. Though a layman Australian hearing that list of visa benefits may be a bit confused, thinking that they are citizens, when that are not.

1. “Australia shall arrange for a special human mobility pathway for citizens of Tuvalu to access Australia which shall enable citizens of Tuvalu to:

   1. live, study and work in Australia;

   2. access Australian education, health, and key income and family support on arrival.

2. To support the implementation of the pathway, Tuvalu shall ensure that its immigration, passport, citizenship and border controls are robust and meet international standards for integrity and security and are compatible with and accessible to Australia.

3. Australia shall provide assistance to Tuvalu to enable it to meet its obligations under paragraph 2 of this article.” — The Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union treaty Article 3

Australia and New Zealand have a history of treating the people of Pacific Islands nations as a kind of play thing. A human resource of guest workers that could be brought in and expelled as needed, and is promoted to people of Pacific Islands nations as a means of economic development. Though given the nature of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, and just how substantially different their concept of development is compared to this concept of development, one can roll their eyes.

Genuine Economic Development

“The Chinese aid differs with the Australian, New Zealand and others in that it is not given with ‘strings attached’ – China does not try and change the recipient government’s way of governing or demand that things be done their way. The other thing that makes China aid attractive is that from inception to construction, a project will be done in about 2 years, or at the request of the recipient government, sooner.” — Vanuatu journalist, Raymond Nasse

Colonialism, a function of the broader concept of Imperialism, as conceptualised by former Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin. Meant, the expansion of an Imperial system by force to another land and its people. A famous example of this would be the way the British forced Indians to buy products from Britain under British rule. One may recall the history lesson that they learnt in school of Gandhi being imprisoned for boiling water to create salt, because he didn't pay the correct taxes. One also would have learned from their schooling the atrocious examples of undue force, upon the many Aboriginal people of Pacific Islands Nations in order to facilitate the external Imperial system upon them.

The United Nations maintains a list of regions around the world that do not have self-governance, as well as a list of those who apply governance to those regions. They also make clear the responsibilities those external governments have to the non-self-governing regions that they govern. One of those countries that apply governance upon a pacific territory is France, with the classic example of the New Caledonia. But even though Tuvalu is technically regarded by the United Nations as a self-governing country. One has to reevaluate how this concept of self-governance operates. When an external country like Australia maintains such a significant level of impact, upon the daily lives of a significant quantity of a country's citizens like Tuvalu.

If it was really the intention of the Australian Government to help our Oceanic and broader Pacific partners to economically grow, facilitate win-win outcomes, and nature a couture of genuine mutual respect among countries. And not just be The United States Deputy sheriff of the Pacific. Then Australia should partner with China and their Belt and Road Initiative. Why not? We have a significant amount of natural resources and energy resources to contribute to a broader plan for regional economic development. If Australia partners with China, we will learn very quickly if they are genuine facilitators of economic development. Or, for that matter, if Australia is a genuine facilitator of economic development.

To any honest observer, it's clear that the Chinese don't see the Belt and Road Initiative as a charity effort. The Chinese President Xi Jinping said the following at the opening of the Belt and Road Initiative Forum in 2017. “China will endeavor to build a win-win business partnership with other countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative, enhance trade and investment facilitation with them, and build a Belt and Road free trade network. These efforts are designed to promote growth both in our respective regions and globally.” He also mentioned. “We are ready to share practices of development with other countries, but we have no intention to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, export our own social system and model of development, or impose our own will on others. In pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative, we will not resort to outdated geopolitical manoeuvring. What we hope to achieve is a new model of win-win cooperation. We have no intention to form a small group detrimental to stability, what we hope to create is a big family of harmonious co-existence.”

It’s obvious that the Belt and Road Initiative is a mechanism for international economic development, for the whole world’s benefit. Developing countries get a genuine opportunity for prosperity, and larger countries like China and Australia can benefit from expanded markets because people in developing countries will be wealthier. This is a win-win situation, and Australia will only lose if it does not decide to participate fully.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

We live in a world where finance capital dominates everything. Banks and financial institutions shuffle money around the globe, inventing ever more complicated ways to gamble on the rise and fall of stocks, shares, and derivatives. None of this creates anything real or useful for everyday people. Instead, it keeps wealth concentrated at the top while feeding the dream that maybe, just maybe, ordinary people can “crack the code” and get rich too.

What I loved about Bank of Dave was that it flipped that story on its head. It gave us a glimpse of what’s possible when we dare to challenge the banking system. It showed that we don’t have to be at the mercy of big banks controlling our mortgages, our small businesses, our interest rates, in other words, our lives. Not only that, but it was a reminder that alternatives could exist, and that sometimes all it takes is the courage to imagine and act differently and organise to create something new.

The movie tells the story of how the self-made millionaire Dave Fishwick fought to set up a community bank to help his local community in Burnley, England. The Bank of Dave is actually called Burnley Savings and Loans and runs as an independent lending company with customers able to deposit a limited amount. Although it is not a fully formed bank, the Burnley Savings and Loans Bank has done incredible work for the community, lending over 30 million pounds to local businesses and families after the crash of 2008. It started after Dave began helping out people by lending them money out of his own pocket because the banks started to decline loans. “Dave’s Bank” runs on a peer-to-peer crowdfunding model, where people’s savings are pooled and lent directly to borrowers, who are then responsible for repaying the loans. This is the main point of difference, the profits of the bank go back into the community. Dave is also still fighting for his 'bank' to become a UK regulated bank and for his idea of a community bank to spread across the country.

The banks here in Australia are closing down offices and forcing people to only bank online and through the internet. For the big banks it means making more money by cutting hundreds of jobs, and all the while they are making record profits without having to share in the “good times” with the people who are creating those record profits. For us, it means lack of service and higher banking fees because we won’t have a choice.

What can we do? Any real change has to come from us. The demands we place on our governments (Liberal or Labor), whether it’s about banking, support for Palestine, peace, Aboriginal rights, housing, and welfare, falls on deaf ears. At best, we get polite platitudes about supporting our right to protest, but rarely do we see any genuine, lasting change. Let’s start to think about how we can do things differently for ourselves.

The story of Dave’s Bank is that of possibility. The possibility that ordinary people can form a bank, run it, share the profits with the community, and challenge the dominance of the stinking rich and the banking elite, and make genuine lasting change.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

According to the Parliamentary Education Office, “The Australian Government is responsible for making decisions about how the country is run, including setting a policy agenda, proposing new laws and putting laws into action. The government plays an important role in shaping our society and making sure that Australians have the services and safeguards we need.”

Australia is an incredibly wealthy country that is rich in minerals, fossil fuels, and human capital. Its people have grown up in a relatively peaceful society, protected by a strong social security system that was once among the best in the Western world. Given these advantages, one would expect Australia to be far more developed and forward-thinking than it currently is. And isn’t that, fundamentally, the role of government - to help the country reach its full potential?

However, reality paints a different picture. Infrastructure development remains sluggish. Our transport system is still heavily reliant on cars, trucks, and planes rather than on high-speed rail or modern, efficient public transport. We lack a robust manufacturing base, and too many proposed projects are stifled by excessive red tape and bureaucratic hurdles. Australia is facing a housing crisis, while a bold infrastructure campaign could both resolve homelessness and provide economic stimulus, transforming lives virtually overnight.

The Problem of Government Overlap

Perhaps a fundamental problem lies in Australia's outdated governmental structure. The current system, a legacy of colonial federation, has created an inefficient overlap between state and federal authorities. Designed in the 19th century, this model makes meaningful reform extremely difficult. The high rate of failed referendums underscores how hard it is to enact constitutional change.

Moreover, our political structure too often serves corporate interests over the needs of everyday Australians. Profit drives policy more than the needs of the people, at both the federal and state levels.

State governments were originally formed from the six British colonies due to Australia's vast geography and sparse population. At federation, American political thinking influenced our structure significantly. Australia adopted a written constitution, a bicameral legislature (two houses) and a division of powers between federal and state governments - similar to the U.S. system. While we retained elements of the British parliamentary model, the influence of American federalism is especially clear in the Senate’s design and in the independent governance of states under a central government.

Whatever the rationale for this model in the past, it no longer serves us well today. It is bloated, inefficient, and extraordinarily expensive.

The Cost of Political Redundancy

In an article titled “Revealed: the true cost of democracy - October 30, 2004”, the Age newspaper claims, “Australians are paying almost $2 million a year to keep each of their elected representatives in Federal Parliament.” With 226 federal MPs, the total cost exceeds $400 million annually. And that’s just the federal level.

State governments are even harder to account for, but consider this: Western Australia alone employs 95 state parliamentarians, with a combined wage bill of $17 million. Extrapolate that across six states and two territories, and wages alone exceed $80 million. Add in support staff, office expenses, maintenance, vehicles, travel, and other day-to-day costs, and the total expense could conservatively reach $600–800 million annually across federal and state governments. This is only an estimate by my self, but we can also consider the generous packages they receive when leaving office. Parliamentarians are able to access $105,000 on retraining and improving their prospects for future employment after leaving office. All parliamentarians are able to access superannuation (paid at 15.5% by taxpayers) at 55, which is a much earlier age than you and I. Depending on when they entered parliament, they can also receive a pension upon leaving parliament for life. The ex-premier of WA Mark McGowan and Peter Dutton will receive a pension of $250,000 per year for the rest of their lives, and they are only the recent retirees. There are hundreds of retired politicians accessing huge pensions, not the same age pension you and I receive. The rules have changed and the pension payment no longer exists, but there are hundreds of ex-politicians receiving lifelong pensions at today's rates of politicians salaries. (The Daily Aus - politicians that will get paid for life)

A Simpler, Smarter Structure

It’s time to rethink our structure. States should be transformed into administrative hubs for implementing federal directives. The core governance structures can remain intact courts, education, health systems, - but the separate state governments themselves could be abolished. Local governments could be expanded to manage regional issues more effectively.

Some argue that state governments better represent local populations, or that without them, the federal government would focus too heavily on major eastern cities. But if we already recognise this imbalance, why add more bureaucracy to “fix” it instead of resolving the root issue directly? Is it democratic to acknowledge inefficiency and allow it to persist? Or should our government do what it is supposed to: solve problems in the best interest of all Australians?

However, let us briefly consider this argument also. Is the government actually representative of all Australians, and was it ever? The answer is no, and it is fundamental to understand this if we ever want to effect change of any meaningful kind. The governments we elect are representative of a small elite ruling class, elected to manage those interests in opposition to the needs of the people. A simple measure of that is the taxation system, those at the top and corporations pay less than that of ordinary people.

Simply changing the structure of government won’t fundamentally change anything, but it would reduce the amount of representatives the ruling class has to manipulate the economic and political life of Australia. With less opposition, some major projects can go ahead across this great, vast nation to improve the efficiency of transporting goods and services.

What does democracy for ordinary people look like?

It could look like a discussion in your workplace about production targets and a vote taken so everyone agrees. It could look like a discussion on politics of the day and a vote taken, entered on a computer, and directly linked to government. So, the government knows the people’s position and level of support on political events of the day. For example, the genocide war in Palestine, or a vote on AUKUS spending. That’s democracy.

One reason Australia is not moving forward is because its political structure anchors it to the past. The cost of maintaining redundant systems is enormous - both financially and socially. Bold reforms are needed, and we must start with the courage to challenge our outdated federation model. Australia deserves a government that works for its future, not one stuck in its colonial past.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

Australia's economy is currently in a precarious state, as it is no longer able to rely on a manufacturing capacity, energy sovereignty, or a public bank as its cornerstone for financial support. Rather, it is heavily reliant on a service sector, agriculture, mining, and real estate speculation, which has driven the prices of homes so high that homeownership is now unattainable for the majority of the population. This situation has impeded the nation's ability to develop and rebuild a strong domestic economy that benefits all Australians.

Along with a population that is unaware of the power and influence that Anglo-American Finance has over ordinary working people by using culture wars, immigration, national security, and even COVID-19, just to name a few. Apart from not achieving any real significant reforms and changes to the benefit of all, the status quo is maintained by keeping the people divided on secondary issues.

With the backdrop of a failing economy, one would think the people would learn from history, by putting their differences aside, by coming together for a common cause. So why isn’t this the case?

Well, let’s start by asking, Are We Serious About Changing Direction In Australia?

This country has such a rich history of ordinary working people coming together to create change. Examples of this include:

• Resistance against brutal British colonial rule by Aboriginal people and early convicts (much of them Irish Rebels, Chartists, other Political Prisoners and French-Canadians).

• The gold fields rebellions against an unjust tax on all the people, culminating in the Eureka Stockade at Ballarat, which led firstly to male suffrage and other democratic reforms.

• The Great Strikes of the 1890s waged by unions against a major onslaught by government and employers to decrease wages, which eventually resulted in the basic wage.

• The anti-conscription struggles of World War One.

• The fight against the results of the harsh economic conditions and fascism of the 1930s and 40s, through to the Vietnam Moratorium of the early 1970s.

These are just some examples as there are many more, but the key to all these struggles is the Working People were front and centre.

In order to move forward and change direction in Australia, this is the primary lesson to study and learn from to be successful. If we are serious about change, ordinary working people cannot afford to be distracted by secondary issues such as culture wars, which are pushed and led by groups funded by big money sources. This results in the continuation of Finance Capital's grip on power. Instead, we must unite and lead around an economic vision and fighting program to break the power of Washington, London, and Wall Street.

Working people can do this firstly by organising in their communities, sporting and recreational clubs, volunteer emergency services, army reserve, other community associations, independent media, and unions just to name a few. They can also do this by discussing a vision for Australia, which would for example include a people's bank.

This is the first step for ordinary working people to gain the political and economic power necessary to change our direction onto a pathway the Nation needs. So we can strive forward, plan and rebuild for our current and future generations. It will be tough at times, with setbacks and other hurdles to overcome, but if the working people stand solid and keep focused, they will be able to achieve this goal.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

In a powerful display of international solidarity, David Fox, a long-serving Australian union member and boilermaker, took to the stage at the Center for Political Innovation’s 2025 Great Unity National Convention in Chicago, USA, on July 12. As a valued participant of the Great Southern Discussion Club, Fox delivered a speech that highlighted the historical anti-imperialist roots of the Australian labour movement and drew parallels with contemporary struggles facing both nations.

Profile: Who is David Fox?

With over three decades of experience as a union member, David Fox embodies the spirit of the Australian working class. His journey began as an apprentice boilermaker, a trade that instilled in him the crucial values of solidarity and collective action. A quiet achiever with a firm grasp of history, Fox’s commitment to social justice is rooted in his lived experience and the lessons passed down from generations of unionists. He sees the struggles of ordinary people as interconnected across the globe, and believes that true prosperity can only be achieved by challenging imperialist influences that hold nations back.

Comprehensive Summary of Remarks

Fox's address was a historical tour de force, beginning with his personal background as a union member and the importance of sticking together. He then provided vivid historical examples of the Australian union movement's anti-imperialist efforts, showcasing their role in shaping the nation’s history. He reminded the audience of the labour movement’s leadership against conscription in World War I, the refusal of dockworkers to load Dutch ships in support of Indonesian independence, and their defiance in not loading pig iron for Japan before World War II. Fox also highlighted how union-led work stoppages were instrumental in compelling Australia to withdraw from the Vietnam War.

Transitioning to current affairs, Fox noted the striking similarities between the challenges facing Australia and the United States, including the high cost of living and a looming housing crisis. He pointed the finger squarely at imperialism, which he argued was holding back the country's economic and social progress. He was particularly critical of the AUKUS security pact, condemning it as a “catastrophe” that binds Australia to US foreign policy and, in his view, makes the country a potential nuclear target.

In a poignant moment, Fox presented a historical Eureka Flag, explaining its origins in the 1850s gold miners' rebellion for fair governance. He mentioned that the flag symbolises the Australian people's enduring fight for their own future and independence. He concluded by stressing the critical need for international solidarity between labour and communist movements, declaring that the struggles of the Australian and American working classes are one and the same. The speech concluded with a gesture of goodwill, as Fox gifted the Eureka Flag to the host, Caleb Maupin, who in return presented Fox with a flag featuring the timber rattler snake, a symbol of American revolutionary defiance.

Notable Quotes

1. Australian Union Movement: “The most important thing is we weren't going to achieve anything by ourselves, but we always had to stick together one way or the other.” [01:53]

2. “Imperialism, it's been holding us back for a very long time, and I've seen it myself. The social decay over the last 40 years.” [07:11]

3. AUKUS: “It's a catastrophe and we don't need it. Actually, our former Prime minister Paul Keating finally I agree with on the AUKUS issue, and it was actually a relief to hear someone senior politician come out and actually spoke against it.” [08:27]

4. The Eureka Flag: “And to me, for this flag, it represents our struggle. That's our flag.” [20:16]

5. “The political scene, it really became a joke for a while. I counted up to about 16 Trotskyist organisations, 3 communist parties, several anarchist groupings, and what were they achieving?” [21:48]

Speech FAQs:

Question: What is the significance of the Eureka Flag that David Fox discussed?

Answer: The Eureka Flag represents Australia’s struggle for independence. It originated from the Eureka Stockade rebellion in the 1850s, a revolt by gold miners against government taxes and police brutality.

Question: Why did David Fox criticise the AUKUS security pact?

Answer: Fox believes the AUKUS pact is a catastrophe for Australia because it ties the country to U.S. foreign policy, turning it into a potential nuclear target, among other downsides.

Question: What did David Fox suggest was the solution to the struggles of the working class?

Answer: He emphasised the need for international solidarity between labour and communist movements, stating that the struggles of the Australian and American working classes are fundamentally the same.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

True independence means freedom from poverty, dependency, and injustice. To achieve this, the government is implementing five priority programs designed as a bridge between the ideals of independence and the realities of daily life.

August always arrives with familiar stories: the red-and-white flag fluttering from bamboo poles in front yards, children joyfully competing in games, and prayers of gratitude echoing in mosques and churches. Yet, for President Prabowo Subianto, the independence celebrated each August 17 is not the final destination. It is an unfinished journey, a promise that must be fulfilled for every Indonesian citizen.

On Wednesday, July 23, at the State Palace in Jakarta, President Prabowo officially launched the theme of Indonesia’s 80th Independence Day: “United and Sovereign, Prosperous People, Advanced Indonesia.” The theme, he said, reflects the nation’s long journey and serves as a reminder that independence must be nurtured with unity, defended with sovereignty, and fulfilled through prosperity.

"This is the nation’s journey, built on the blood of fighters, the sweat of the people, and the prayers of mothers who long for their children to live well in their own land," the President declared before ministers, regional leaders, and representatives of Indonesians abroad, who attended the launch both in person and virtually.

For President Prabowo, true independence is realized when the three national goals enshrined in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution are fulfilled: to ensure the welfare of the people, to advance the nation’s intellect, and to contribute actively to global peace.

“We have been independent for 80 years, yet poverty still exists. We must free ourselves from poverty,” said Presidential Communications Office (PCO) Chief Hasan Nasbi on Thursday, Aug. 14. He added that the President also highlighted the challenges of out-of-school children and Indonesia’s dependence on other countries for food and energy.

True independence, therefore, means freedom from poverty, dependency, and injustice. To that end, the government is carrying out five priority programs that serve as the bridge between the ideals of independence and the daily lives of the people.

Five Priority Programs for All People

The programs are Free Nutritious Meals (Makan Bergizi Gratis/MBG), Free Health Screenings (CKG), Sekolah Rakyat (People’s Schools), Red-and-White Village/Urban Cooperatives, and the Construction of Three Million Homes.

PCO Senior Expert Hamdan Hamedan explained that these initiatives are designed as an interconnected system, covering everything from the first 1,000 days of life to economic self-sufficiency.

He illustrated this with the story of Ani, a girl from a modest family. From pregnancy, her mother received free nutritious meals. Ani grew up healthy, studied at a People’s School that provided education, nutritious meals, and regular health checks. Her father, once struggling for capital, received financing from a Red-and-White Cooperative. As the family’s economy improved, they were able to purchase a decent home through the Three Million Homes program.

"Poverty must not be inherited. These programs are promises being realized and will continue to be realized," said Hamdan.

The Free Nutritious Meals program, he added, is a tangible manifestation of Indonesia’s independence in nutrition. More than just food aid, it is an investment in the future of the nation’s children. Thanks to MBG, millions of students, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and toddlers across the country now have access to nutritious meals every day.

The program not only boosts students’ concentration and academic performance but also supports physical growth and brain development. In the long term, MBG is expected to lay the foundation for a generation of excellence on the road to Indonesia Emas 2045 (Golden Indonesia Vision 2045).

Red and White Cooperatives: Empowering Local Economies

Another milestone is the establishment of 80,081 Red-and-White Village/Urban Cooperatives (KDMP) on July 21, 2025. These cooperatives drive local economies by shortening the supply chain for essential goods, medicine, and fertilizers, making them more affordable and accessible.

Dedi Nurendi, Chair of the Red-and-White Cooperative in Cileunyi Wetan, Bandung, West Java, said the initiative has eased the burden on local residents.

"This cooperative addresses the community’s concerns about having to travel far to buy basic goods. Many residents trapped in informal lending schemes now also find relief through our savings and loans system," he explained.

For Dedi and the people of Cileunyi, the cooperative represents more than just economic access. “Let’s build cooperatives because they are by us, for us, and from us. Cooperatives embody the spirit of mutual cooperation,” he said.

This massive cooperative movement, therefore, is not just about economic distribution but also about transitioning from reliance on social aid to sustainable, productive economic empowerment.

Three Million Homes: Decent Housing for All

The Three Million Homes program aims to resolve the housing backlog affecting 9.9 million families and to renovate 26.9 million substandard homes. Houses are being built across cities, villages, and coastal areas, with disaster-adaptive designs.

"President Prabowo wants independence to be felt by every citizen, including through decent housing for all families," said PCO Senior Expert Ujang Komarudin.

Beyond addressing inequality, the program is also spurring the national economy. Deputy Minister of Housing and Settlements Fahri Hamzah emphasized that the housing sector drives construction, building materials, and job creation.

The program’s beneficiaries range from civil servants, military and police personnel, teachers, and journalists to low-income families and even tribal leaders. Homes are also being built in remote, frontier, and outermost regions such as Maluku and Papua.

Eight decades of independence mark a moment to look forward. For President Prabowo, independence is not only about raising the flag but also about ensuring it is present on the people’s dining tables, in their schools, in their village cooperatives, and in their homes.

Through these five priority programs, the government seeks to make independence a lived experience every day, from newborn babies in remote areas to farmers in villages, fishermen on the coasts, and workers in the nation’s big cities.

As President Prabowo stated, “True independence is when every citizen lives in prosperity, stands on their own feet, and takes pride in being Indonesian.”

Writer: Kristantyo Wisnubroto

Editors: Untung Sutomo/Wilda Stiana

Translator: Sri Widadi

Article Originally Published at indonesia.go.id

This is precisely why Professor White's essay deserves attention from those who often find themselves diverging from the narratives of these aforementioned groups. It stands as one of the few pieces of media exposing concepts of international multipolarity to Australia's intellectual establishment.

Context and Timing

Professor White's essay emerges from particular contexts that shaped both its content and perspective. His applied political context is liberal democracy, a concept he views favourably and applies throughout the entire essay. The temporal context includes Donald Trump's election, the immediate period after his inauguration featuring discussions of multipolarity by Secretary Marco Rubio, and the beginning of tariff implementation against numerous countries worldwide, including traditional allies.

The general media commentary, particularly after aluminium tariffs were levied upon Australian aluminium exports to the United States, sparked significant discussion about diversifying Australian political and economic partnerships globally. This level of discussion about Australian economic and political independence from the United States was once relatively unheard of in the Australian mainstream press, given their relative favourability toward US unipolarity. These conversations occurred within a pro-liberal framework.

The early discussions of multipolarity relating to the second Trump administration affected me, as evident in my article “Age of Spheres” on the Great Southern Discussion Club website. Even then, I hinted at scepticism regarding the age of spheres concept being communicated by the Trump administration at that time. Professor White appears influenced by this sphere's talk in writing his essay, which he calls “AMERICAN REVOLUTION.” I raise this because the sphere discussions were clearly premature, given the Trump administration's behaviour in the weeks since Professor White's essay release, acting harshly against that concept.

This is particularly evident in their behaviour regarding the 2025 two-week war between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the Trump administration facilitated and supported a new hot war. This was seen as a broken promise by the administration's supporter base, the MAGA movement, for the US to avoid starting and becoming entangled in new overseas wars. Something Trump famously criticised the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations for doing.

The Rules-Based Order: A Question of Interpretation

The essay's introduction discusses the short history of United States-Australia relations and the concept of the “rules-based order,” outlined in Professor White's particular wording. As far as I'm concerned, the “rules-based order” should not be confused with international law. If it's meant to reference international law, then the many contradictions the collective west have created throughout many decades must be addressed. The “rules-based order”, as I see it, is where the United States makes the rules and then orders everyone else around. Such harsh criticisms don't exist in Professor White's essay, though you can certainly add sarcasm whilst reading it.

Professor White observes: “The foundation of our security is undermined by the eclipse of the US-led rules-based order. And the power of our values is undermined by the persistence of strong authoritarian governments in many powerful states, and the rise of populism and the erosion of democratic norms in places where these once seemed strongest, especially the United States.” He notes this dynamic ending whilst observing, “our leaders are still in denial about all this.”

It's positive that Professor White makes this observation, though he does so within a theme of complaining about liberal democracy's fall, which carries throughout much of the essay.

Historical Perspectives: The Heartland Theory

One of the more significant parts of the essay, in my view, was Professor White's examination of an important 20th-century historical dynamic. Halford Mackinder's concept of the Heartland Theory and the competing United States version of it, though Professor White doesn't name Mackinder.

The original, Mackinder's version of the Heartland Theory. Could be regarded as the British version, summarised as: whoever controls the Heartland controls the world, or whoever controls Eurasia controls the world.

The American version, conversely, was largely communicated by Zbigniew Brzezinski and can be summarised as working “to stop any single power or coalition growing strong enough to threaten America itself by dominating Eurasia.” - Professor White

These two forms of the same idea show the differences in characteristics between the British Empire and the United States Empire. The British Empire appears more open to directly owning, ruling, controlling, or colonising areas such as Eurasia. Whereas the United States sees fit to destabilise Eurasia, not directly govern, ensuring no regional Eurasian government or bloc could be genuinely strong enough to control much of Eurasia and compete with the US economically. Which allows them to remain at the top.

This strikes me as an interesting historical and psychological observation.

The Chess Logic Problem

One of the critiques by myself and others at the Great Southern Discussion Club regarding this particular essay includes the dynamic where Professor White seems to compare international relations to a situation comparable to a chessboard. It's all about countries moving their various pieces into particular places to somehow dominate and win. Much of the essay could be characterised and compared to this form of chess logic.

Professor White doesn't take much time to listen to and quote extensively from the various international players, particularly Russia and China, who are mentioned frequently in the essay. Regarding why, they behave as they do, from their own words, based on their own history and culture. Much of their behaviour, as well as that of the United States, is attributed to chess logic.

I believe this is incorrect because in most cases, Eurasian states are often acting in their own sovereign regard. Countries like China and Russia and other Eurasian nations want to be peaceful and secure in their own lands so they can develop their people and economies without being dictated to by a unipolar world power.

The Economics Oversight

Another oversight by Professor White concerns economics. Whilst he critiques both recent United States presidents for what he calls a confusion they make between “strategic aim” and economics, a layman such as myself finds it difficult to separate economics from broader strategic aims.

If a country intends to be prosperous and develop its people's capabilities to the highest level possible, this is economics. Militaries serve a purpose to ensure sufficient stability to make this possible. Additionally, the capability of politicians and diplomacy to facilitate mutual outcomes for all countries is a significant and fundamental dynamic.

Many countries worldwide, particularly Eurasian countries, have demonstrated capability in recent decades of the 21st century to facilitate mutual respect and mutual outcomes for all involved. Even when minor military skirmishes occur between major Eurasian countries, they choose diplomacy to settle immediate issues whilst taking time to resolve major issues between them. A classic example is the relationship between India (Bharat) and China.

This strikes me as quite a significant oversight by Professor White. He hasn't mentioned many of the forums that make mutual outcomes and mutual respect possible in the new age of multipolarity, which separates itself from multipolarity of earlier centuries.

The BRICS Omission

How can an article about modern 21st-century multipolarity and Australia's role in it not mention the importance and practical outcomes seen through forums such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Eurasian Economic Union, and most importantly, BRICS? The essay doesn't even mention these names, which seems to follow the established practice of mainstream Australian media to never mention those names.

A Question of Qualifications

But you may ask, who am I to judge any of this? Who am I as a layman qualified to talk about strategy? Professor White has been senior adviser to former Defence Minister Kim Beazley, Prime Minister Bob Hawke, a senior official in the Department of Defence and was the first director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. But here I am, just a random guy from South Australia, and I clearly don't have all the qualifications that Professor White does. But for the sake of providing you, the reader, with a holistic understanding of a concept, or at least attempting to bring you one as a layman, here is an extensive quote from former Soviet Naval Officer, Andrei Martyanov:

“Strategy is a buzz word among politicos and journos because it is 'loaded' and it gives an impression of something really mysterious and cool.”

One thinks of Defence Minister Marles here, but I will let the expert continue.

“Strategy as a 'plan' of achieving political aims in anything, however, in the field of practical geopolitics of the second half of the 20th and the 21st centuries is a bit more than a 'plan'. As in military campaigns, one cannot become a 'strategist' without having tactical and operational background and that is why all advanced military education in the world is structured around taking an officer from the tactical, to operational to strategic level of thinking, thus providing a pivot around which all strategic decisions, with inputs from tactical and operational levels, will revolve. This is not how modern political 'science' and what passes for 'strategic decision making' in the West works.”

Should I Read The Essay?

With that, I suggest you read the Quarterly Essay, “Hard New World, Our Post-American Future” by Hugh White, if you have the time. While it offers valuable insights into the changing global order and Australia's potential place within it, it's crucial to approach it with an understanding of its limitations. Particularly, its chess-like view of international relations, its liberal democratic lens, and its notable omissions regarding the practical mechanisms of modern multipolarity like BRICS.

The essay serves as a useful starting point for discussions about Australia's future in a multipolar world, but it shouldn't be the final word. A truly comprehensive understanding requires looking beyond the established narratives and considering the perspectives and initiatives of the very countries that are shaping this new international order.

Short Bio of Professor White

Professor Hugh White AO FASSA is one of Australia's most prominent strategic studies scholars and defence analysts. Born in 1953, he is Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University in Canberra and his work focuses primarily on Australian strategic and defence policy, Asia-Pacific security issues, and global strategic affairs especially as they influence Australia and the Asia-Pacific.

White has enjoyed a distinguished career spanning government, academia, and journalism. He has served as an intelligence analyst with the Office of National Assessments, as journalist with the Sydney Morning Herald and as senior adviser to Defence Minister Kim Beazley and Prime Minister Bob Hawke. White served as a senior official in the Department of Defence, where from 1995 to 2000 White was Deputy Secretary for Strategy and Intelligence and was the first director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

A key highlight of his government service was being the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper. From 2004 to 2011 he was Head of the ANU Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, cementing his academic credentials in strategic studies.

White is perhaps best known for his public commentary and analysis of Australia's strategic challenges, particularly regarding China's rise. He has been a prolific commentator on Australian strategic and defence policy for over a decade and is credited with pushing the debate about the implications for Australia of the rise of China into the mainstream media and political consciousness. He is a regular columnist for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.

His academic achievements have been recognised with the appointment as an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) and Fellowship of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia (FASSA). Through his combination of government experience, academic rigour, and public engagement, White has become a leading voice in Australian strategic thinking and defence policy debates.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

While in the meantime the primary vote for the other smaller parties receiving :

Totalling 33.6%, shows the electoral swing away from the major parties have declined quite significantly in the last 25 years.

This is not by mere accident, either. It’s a reflection of the domination of Anglo-American Finance over Australia, especially since the end of the Second World War. This has led to a broader crisis of consistent Neo-Liberal and Austerity Plus Policies imposed on the Australian Public by both major parties over the course of 45 to 50 years. This causes an erosion of living standards across a much broader section of society.

With the costs of living increasing, housing affordability out of reach for younger generations, deindustrialisation and other degrowth measures, Australians are looking for alternatives, which was demonstrated in the Federal Election.

With major parties still going down further in this direction, their overall primary vote will further decrease.

For Australia to move forward, it needs a Government of Action that will fight for Working People. Through rapid infrastructure projects such as Iron Boomerang, High Speed Rail and the Bradfield Scheme and develop policies to create our own Economic Sovereignty to the benefit of all.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

Australia’s economic exposure goes beyond direct trade with the United States. As The Australian Financial Review noted, U.S. tariffs impact global supply chains, in which Australia plays a vital role as a supplier of raw materials. These materials are often processed in other countries and then re-exported, including to the U.S. So even though the U.S. accounts for just 4% of Australia’s direct exports, the broader implications are much deeper.

Gareth Spence, Head of Australian Economics at NAB, observed that this 4% figure understates the true effect of U.S. tariffs on Australia’s economy due to our embeddedness in international manufacturing processes. In other words, economic disruptions elsewhere ultimately circle back to affect us.

This raises a broader question: how should Australia position itself in a world where trade relationships are becoming more transactional and less predictable? Our close alignment with the U.S. economy exposes us to risks - especially when now, our major ally takes protectionist measures that harm global trade.

To ensure long-term economic resilience, Australia must seriously consider diversifying its economic partnerships and investing in sovereign industrial capacity. One example of such a nation-building vision is Project Iron Boomerang.

This ambitious proposal, developed by Queensland-based East West Parks Ltd, would link Western Australia and Queensland via a transcontinental rail corridor. The goal is to combine Western Australia’s iron ore with Queensland’s coking coal to produce steel domestically, rather than exporting the raw materials and re-importing finished steel products.

According to the ABC, the plan includes building five steel mills at either end of the rail line - near Newman and Moranbah - along with export terminals at Port Hedland and Abbot Point. This would shift Australia’s role in the global steel supply chain from a resource exporter to a manufacturer of high-value steel products.

The benefits could be substantial: thousands of construction and manufacturing jobs, lower transport emissions (by shipping compact steel slabs instead of bulky raw ore), and a step toward restoring Australia’s manufacturing capabilities. Importantly, it would also enhance our strategic autonomy by allowing us to make more of what we need domestically.

However, the project has faced challenges. The federal government has raised concerns about the cost of a feasibility study into the viability of the project, the limited consultation with Traditional Owners, and doubts about the number of jobs it would realistically create. These issues should not be dismissed, but addressed openly through proper feasibility studies, transparent dialogue, and inclusive planning. As with any major infrastructure undertaking - such as the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme - challenges are inevitable but not insurmountable and the benefits outweigh costs. In a submission to the senate standing committee charged with preparing a report on the inquiry into “The Project known as Iron Boomerang”. Civil engineer Max Hooper, in his support of the Project Iron Boomerang (PIB), cites its potential to transform Australia through nation-building infrastructure, economic gains, and carbon reduction. He notes positives such as:

• Private backing: Major global steelmakers are reportedly ready to invest.

• Economic impact: Expected billions in annual tax revenue, cheaper steel production than China, and enhanced sovereign capability.

• Environmental benefits: Targets 80% emissions cuts by 2030 and net-zero by 2040.

• National security: Diversified steel supply could reduce conflict risks.

• Synergies: Aligns with other major projects (Inland Rail, pumped hydro, Sun Cable) and could host HVDC energy infrastructure.

He urged the Senate to consider PIB in the broader context of energy, manufacturing, and national resilience, but the government rejected the Project in August 2023 failing to recognise the impact this project could have in the region not just Australia.

Australia could become a leading supplier of manufactured goods and a major supplier of steel in our region. This in turn would encourage manufacturing and create jobs in the Pacific Nations, making them less reliant on other countries.

The question of funding is a fundamental obstacle. But if COVID-19 taught us anything, it’s that governments can mobilise vast sums when the need arises. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the federal government borrowed over $88 billion in a single quarter in 2020 to fund stimulus during the pandemic. Much of that spending was emergency support and stimulus packages, not investment in long-term productive capacity.

Why not apply similar urgency and resources to a transformative industrial project? Critics might point out that Iron Boomerang is a private initiative and argue against public subsidies. Yet the fossil fuel industry receives billions in government support annually - $9.6 billion in fuel tax credits alone, including $1.5 billion to coal, oil, and gas companies, according to the Australian Council of Social Service.

If the Australian government is willing to subsidise fossil fuel extraction, surely we can have a serious conversation about supporting a manufacturing revival that creates jobs, builds infrastructure, and adds long-term value to our economy.

Australia stands at a crossroads. We can continue exporting raw materials and relying on volatile global markets, or we can invest in ourselves - through sustainable infrastructure, sovereign capability, and inclusive development. Projects like Iron Boomerang aren’t just about steel; they’re about the kind of country we want to be.

Historical Context: From Free Association to Strategic Diversification

The Cook Islands’ relationship with New Zealand has been foundational since 1965, when the nation opted for “self-governance in free association” over full independence or colonial subjugation. This arrangement, formalised in the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration, granted the Cook Islands autonomy in domestic and foreign affairs while retaining New Zealand citizenship for its people. Minister Elikana praised this partnership but emphasised that “the world of 2025, is very different to that of 1965”.

Over six decades, the Cook Islands has grown from a GDP per capita of $747 (1973) to $17,033 (2025), according to the Minister referencing UN data, while expanding its diplomatic ties to 67 nations and joining over 40 international organisations. Yet, as Minister Elikana noted, challenges such as climate change, supply chain disruptions, and “graduated OECD DAC status” (which limits access to concessional financing) have forced a reevaluation of traditional alliances.

The China Partnership: Pragmatism Over Ideology

The Minister’s speech implicitly defended the Cook Islands’ controversial strategic partnership with China, framed as a necessity for economic diversification. While New Zealand’s free association model provides security and migration privileges, critics argue it has perpetuated dependency. The Cook Islands’ economy remains heavily reliant on tourism and fisheries, sectors vulnerable to external shocks.

Minister Elikana stressed the need to “solidify opportunities beyond a single industry-based economy,” a veiled critique of New Zealand’s perceived complacency. Unlike Wellington’s aid-focused approach, China’s Belt and Road Initiative offers infrastructure investments—such as port upgrades and renewable energy projects—that align with the Cook Islands’ National Sustainable Development Agenda (NSDA) 2020+, a 100-year plan prioritising climate resilience and “quality growth.”

New Zealand’s De-Growth and Colonial Hangovers

In response to the coinciding events regarding the Cook Islands, and it’s relationship with the People's Republic of China, the New Zealand government has publicly questioned the China partnership. The most publicly visible event a day after the speech from the Foreign Minister was a seemly Wellington coordinated protest in the Cook Islands. Featuring local political opposition, New Zealand Maori politicians and a heavy presence of western media, with much of the protest footage provided to news agencies by TVNZ and it’s cameras present at the event.

The NSDA 2020+: A Century-Long Vision

Central to Minister Elikana’s argument is the NSDA 2020+, which seeks to transition the Cook Islands from “quantity to quality growth.” This includes diversifying into blue economy sectors like deep-sea minerals (under strict environmental safeguards) and digital services. The plan’s success hinges on partnerships that respect “sovereignty and mutual benefit”—a subtle contrast to New Zealand’s aid conditionalities.

Charting a Sovereign Course

Minister Elikana’s address publicly marks a stance that clearly has been politicly building for some time in the Cook Islands. By invoking ancestral voyaging traditions and the ANZAC sacrifices of Cook Islanders, he framed the China partnership as an extension of the nation’s self-determination legacy—not a rejection of New Zealand. Yet, the subtext is clear: the Cook Islands will no longer let Wellington’s geopolitical anxieties dictate its economic survival.

Given the Pacific has become a region for great-power rivalry, the Cook Islands’ moves toward full sovereignty underscores a regional truth: small states are leveraging strategic ambiguity to secure their futures.

FAQs:

Question: Why is the Cook Islands pursuing a partnership with China despite its free association with New Zealand?
Answer: The Cook Islands seeks economic diversification to reduce reliance on tourism and fisheries. China’s infrastructure investments align with its National Sustainable Development Agenda, whereas New Zealand’s aid model is seen as insufficient for addressing inflation and economic growth challenges.

Question: What is the New Zealand–Cook Islands Free Association Agreement?
Answer: Established in 1965, it grants the Cook Islands self-governance while maintaining New Zealand citizenship for its people. However, critics argue it limits economic sovereignty by tying the archipelago closely to Wellington’s policies.

Question: How has New Zealand responded to the China partnership?
Answer: New Zealand leaders have expressed concern over regional security, with comments from the Minister of Foreign Affairs for New Zealand, Winston Peters, stating on February 19th that “we are going to need to reset the government-to-government relationship.”

Question: What colonial dynamics persist in NZ-Cook Islands relations?
Answer: Despite the Cook Islands’ self-governance, New Zealand often treats it as a “realm country” within its sphere of influence, influencing policies through aid conditionalities and diplomatic pressure.

Question: What is the NSDA 2020+?
Answer: The National Sustainable Development Agenda 2020+ is a 100-year plan focusing on climate resilience, economic diversification, and improving human capital. It prioritises partnerships that offer “transformative outcomes” over short-term aid.

Author Analysis—5 March 2025: On the 30th of January, the new United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio was interviewed by commentator Megyn Kelly. During the interview, Secretary Rubio made many statements that Marco Rubio from many years ago, particularly when his now boss President Trump called him “Little Marco”, would have not made. When I heard these statements being initially reported, I had to check the video to be sure, simply because it seemed so out of character for Marco Rubio. Here is the section of the conversation that had many people talking:

“Secretary of State Marco Rubio: Well, I think we spend a lot of time in American politics debating tactics, like what we’re going to do, who we’re going to sanction, what letter we’re going to send or whatever. I think it really has to start with strategy: What is the strategic objective? What’s the purpose, the mission? And I think the mission of American foreign policy – and this may sound sort of obvious, but I think it’s been lost. The interest of American foreign policy is to further the national interest of the United States of America, right? I mean, every —

Megyn Kelly: America first.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: Well, and that’s the way the world has always worked. The way the world has always worked is that the Chinese will do what’s in the best interests of China, the Russians will do what’s in the best interest of Russia, the Chileans are going to do what’s in the best interest of Chile, and the United States needs to do what’s in the best interest of the United States. Where our interests align, that’s where you have partnerships and alliances; where our differences are not aligned, that is where the job of diplomacy is to prevent conflict while still furthering our national interests and understanding they’re going to further theirs. And that’s been lost.

And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War, because we were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem. And there are terrible things happening in the world. There are. And then there are things that are terrible that impact our national interest directly, and we need to prioritise those again. So it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet. We face that now with China and to some extent Russia, and then you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea you have to deal with.

So now more than ever we need to remember that foreign policy should always be about furthering the national interest of the United States and doing so, to the extent possible, avoiding war and armed conflict, which we have seen two times in the last century be very costly.” (US Department of State and The Megyn Kelly Show)

That statement was complemented by this statement later in the interview when Secretary Rubio made this comment, whilst answering a question about the early 2025 verbal poking from President Trump regarding the Danish dominion, Greenland.

“I think we’re going to have a Western Hemisphere that’s more secure and our national interests in all parts of the world – that’s the goal – are going to be more secure, from the Arctic, to Central America, to even Africa, and certainly the Indo-Pacific.” (US Department of State and The Megyn Kelly Show)

These statements reminded me of the recent analysis on the 9th of January from geopolitical analyst Alexander Mercouris which discussed the revival of “spheres of influence” and “spheres of interest” in international relations. This is particularly relevant in light of comments made by US President Donald Trump, and his Cabinet, such as the one above. The concept of spheres amongst those practising western international relations, once a cornerstone of western great power politics, appears to be making a comeback, albeit in a context of forced circumstances and unipolarity.

What are Spheres of Influence?

A sphere of influence is a geographical area within which a powerful nation exerts significant political, economic, and military influence over smaller countries. This concept has deep roots in diplomatic history, with examples including the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which asserted US dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

Mercouris explains that in a sphere of influence, the dominant power often has a degree of control over the governments and policies of the countries within its sphere. This can include dictating foreign policy alignments, economic arrangements, and even internal political structures.

What are Spheres of Interest?

A related but distinct concept is the “sphere of interest”. According to Mercouris, this is a more nuanced approach where the dominant power sets certain “red lines” or rules for countries within its sphere, rather than exerting direct control. These rules might include prohibitions on joining rival alliances or developing military capabilities that could threaten the dominant power.

Mercouris uses Russia's current view of the Arctic as a sphere of interest as an example, where they aim to protect their strategic and economic interests without necessarily seeking to control the internal affairs of every Arctic nation. TASS, the Russian news agency, explicitly referred to the Arctic as being within Russia's “sphere of interests”.

The Historical Moments of Spheres

Throughout the ages, powerful empires and nations have carved out areas where their influence reigned supreme. As Mercouris notes, American intellectuals like Walter Lippmann, recognised spheres of influence as a natural and potentially stabilising element of international relations, provided they were managed intelligently. The key was for great powers to acknowledge each other's spheres and respect those boundaries.

The concept of spheres of influence reached its zenith during the Cold War, with the world largely divided between US and Soviet spheres. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of US unipolarity in the 1990s led many to believe that such divisions were a thing of the past.

Now, as the world transitions towards a multipolar order, great powers are once again asserting their regional dominance. Trump's recent comments about potentially expanding US influence over Greenland, Canada, and parts of Latin America suggest a return to this older model of international relations.

Mercouris mentions this marks a departure from the “neocon vision” of the US as a global hegemon, with “the entire world effectively its sphere”. And believes Trump’s rhetoric signals a return to a more traditional great power approach, where the US focuses on its immediate neighbourhood.

Will Spheres with the New Trump Administration be as they were in the Past?

Don't expect this new era of international relations, including a modern concept of spheres, to be a consistent concept a Mercouris described. Given, the globalist-imperialist current in the United States is strong, practiced by many and supported by the largest economic institutions in the country. President Trump holds onto many globalist-imperialist or unipolar world tendencies. One such tendency was on display when the US President demanded US Dollar dominance from BRICS countries on the 31st of January.

Such a demand effectively requires the entire world to be at a base level a USA sphere of interest, thereby defeating the general concept of spheres being applied in a specific manner. It also neglects the actual financial initiatives from BRICS countries as stated in the financial sections 57 to 68 in the Kazan Declaration of 2024. Where amongst many initiatives, BRICS countries agree to create a multipolar financial system using peer to peer currency transactions, not a single currency.

Here are some quotes from the Kazan Declaration of 2024 regarding peer to peer currency transactions:

Section 63: “We welcome the BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism (ICM) focus on facilitating and expanding innovative financial practices and approaches for projects and programmes, including finding acceptable mechanisms of financing in local Currencies.”

Section 65: “We reiterate our commitment to enhancing financial cooperation within BRICS. We recognise the widespread benefits of faster, low cost, more efficient, transparent, safe and inclusive cross-border payment instruments built upon the principle of minimizing trade barriers and non-discriminatory access. We welcome the use of local currencies in financial transactions between BRICS countries and their trading partners. We encourage strengthening of correspondent banking networks within BRICS and enabling settlements in local currencies in line with BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative (BCBPI), which is voluntary and non-binding, and look forward to further discussions in this area, including in the BRICS Payment Task Force.”

The current tendencies of the Trump Administration clearly continue concepts from the 1990s Golden Age of the unipolar world, but they will be challenged by the rest of the world, as reflected in the sentiment of the Kazan Declaration.

During the aforementioned interview with Secretary Rubio, he displayed many of these unipolar world tendencies, including with this quote:

“What’s been horrifying is that for 25 or 30 years, we’ve treated China as a developing country, and we allowed them to continue to do things that were unfair. We said, go ahead, let them cheat on trade, let them steal our technology, because when they get rich they’ll become just like us. They became rich, they did not become like us, and now they want to continue to have these unfair benefits. That has to stop.”

Regarding the claim, “let them steal our technology”. In line with the Reform and Opening Up concepts implemented during the presidency of Deng Xiaoping, and continuously revisited after his presidency, China allowed foreign investment into the country. But many of these investments were done under the concept of a joint venture, where both foreign investors and Chinese investors would operate institutions where foreign investment was involved. Subsequently, in the course of business, technology transfer between western companies and the Chinese joint venture occurred. A practice that was fully understood by all partners in the venture, with western companies often seeing it as a cost of doing business in the People's Republic of China. So no, there wasn't any technical theft en masse, other than select instances perpetrated by individuals that are relatively small given China’s economic size. They learnt from the technology that was legally imported into the People’s Republic of China. They eventually began to innovate upon it, and today we now see many of these innovations in the products, services, research, or open source software that is produced in the People’s Republic of China.

Also, the claim “when they get rich they’ll become just like us. They became rich, they did not become like us”. What Chinese leader substantiated that concept? Today’s western leaders, like Secretary Rubio, regularly make statements saying similar claims. These claims usually point to a crude justification that the western leaders of the 1970s used to accept China’s Reform and Opening Up initiative within their ideal concept of the world. This theory seems to be based upon a bastardisation of Convergence Theory from Professor of Economics Clark Kerr. The bastardisation creating the interpretation that China will become a Capitalist Market Economy, they made no such promises at the time. China’s Reform and Opening Up initiatives eventually created the modern Socialist Market Economy.

Implications for the Post-Unipolar World

The re-emergence of spheres of influence suggests a significant shift from the post-Cold War era of US unipolarity. During that period, the US and its allies promoted a vision of a globalised, interconnected world with universal norms and institutions.

Now, the growth in the economic and military capability of China, Russia, and growing multipolarity are challenging this paradigm. The United States are being forced into creating multiple geopolitical spheres of both influence and interest, involuntary. They would rather the post-Cold War era of US unipolarity, but given that growth of capability by other major countries, US unipolarity as we once knew it is over, and it has been for some time now. Only now we are seeing a new US administration that is realising this to some extent, whilst trying to hold on to what it can of US unipolarity. Expanding perceived US international dominance where possible, using its spheres as a tool in doing so.

We have seen this behaviour on display at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, where the new US Vice President James David Vance spoke regarding Europe being forced to implement an “America First” US foreign policy. NATO expansion at the financial expense of European members, whilst remaining a major geopolitical tool of the United States of America.

As The Duran’s Alexander Mercouris points out, even traditional US allies in Europe may find themselves caught between competing spheres of influence, potentially leading to a restructuring of long-standing alliances and institutions.

The recent shift in understanding on the part of the US could have implications for smaller nations, particularly within US spheres, potentially limiting their autonomy in foreign policy and economic decisions. It may also lead to increased regional tensions as great powers compete for influence in overlapping areas of interest.

One area of complexity is our region, Indonesia and Oceania. Where we fit will be complicated given our geographic location and countries like Australia and New Zealand having cultural, colonial and economic ties to the Anglo-USA sphere. Though it should be noted that both Australia and New Zealand largely trade with Asia. It is in my view that countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia, could create their own sphere. This sphere should be a Sphere of Mutuality, because we ultimately rely on each other in all respects to be prosperous countries. But this Sphere of Mutuality can only exist if Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia can cooperatively assert it from unfriendly countries to the concept. Currently, from my perspective it seems Australia and New Zealand to be some of the biggest blockers in creating a Sphere of Mutuality, due to their tendency to be the local enforcers of the Anglo-USA sphere.

But as the world understands the new age of spheres, learning about the modern applications of spheres of influence and interest will be crucial educational tool for policymakers, diplomats, and citizens alike.

FAQs:

Question: How does the concept of spheres of influence differ from imperialism?

Answer: In many situations they may not differ at all, particularly if we understand imperialism as stated by Vladimir Lenin. Chapter 5 of Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, explains spheres of influence in great detail. But if we apply the concept to the People's Republic of China, we need to acknowledge it is not an imperialist country, based on its actions. But they assert a sphere of interest over the south and east china seas, in order to allow for mutually agreed trade between countries through those seas. Protecting their capacity to participate in the world, where some countries wish to limit their participation with the rest of the world.

Question: Are spheres of influence legal under international law?

Answer: There is no explicit recognition of spheres of influence in international law. However, nations have historically asserted such spheres through a combination of diplomatic, economic, and military means. The legality of specific actions within these spheres would depend on the nature of the action and relevant international agreements.

Question: How might the return of spheres of influence affect global trade?

Answer: The re-emergence of spheres of influence could lead to more regionalised trade blocs and potentially disrupt global supply chains. Countries within a sphere might be pressured to prioritise trade with the dominant power, potentially at the expense of broader global economic integration.

Question: Can a country be part of multiple spheres of influence?

Answer: While it's theoretically possible, being part of multiple spheres of influence is often challenging and can lead to conflicts. Countries in such positions frequently try to balance between competing powers, a strategy known as “hedging”, according to Mercouris. However, as tensions between major powers increase, this balancing act becomes more difficult.

Question: How might the concept of spheres of influence impact international organisations like the UN?

Answer: The return of spheres of influence could potentially weaken global institutions like the UN by prioritising regional power dynamics over universal norms and cooperation. It might lead to more deadlocks in the Security Council and reduce the effectiveness of global governance mechanisms. However, it could also potentially lead to more stable regional orders if managed carefully by major powers.

Question: Do Eurasian countries acknowledge the concepts of spheres?

Answer: It should be noted that what is being mentioned in this article regarding spheres of influence and interest is reflecting discussions by people within the collective west. And much of the discussion of spheres that we see at the GSDC is from collective west sources. As far as we can tell, many Eurasian countries do acknowledge spheres, but their conceptualisation and practices may differ then from those presented here or by others from the collective west. If you are from a Eurasian country, please provide us with your perspective via a comment below. Though, the Eurasian concept of multipolarity seems to be heavily based upon nations mutual respect, sovereignty, allowing for all nations to economically grow based on their unique circumstances. Also, a high respect for International Law, based upon the UN Charter not the western rules-based-order.

Watch the Alexander Mercouris Lecture on Spheres:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/8O8GM7E3esY

Alexander Mercouris, is a London-based commentator on international affairs with a special interest in the day-to-day manoeuvrings of international relations and comparing them with long term trends. He does this daily with his friend and business partner Alex Christoforou on their video media outlet The Duran and both of their own Video on Demand channels presented individually. Mercouris worked for 12 years in the Royal Courts of Justice in London as a lawyer, specialising in human rights and constitutional law.

Key Takeaways:

• This article examines the resurgence of historical spheres of influence in today’s multipolar geopolitical landscape.

• It clearly distinguishes between “spheres of influence” (direct control over regional policies) and “spheres of interest” (setting guidelines and red lines).

• U.S. foreign policy is portrayed as shifting from a unipolar, globalist approach to one that reasserts regional dominance in response to rising powers like China and Russia.

• The analysis challenges conventional narratives around technology transfer, emphasising that China’s innovations were built on legal, mutually beneficial investments.

• Smaller nations face complex challenges as they navigate overlapping spheres of influence, with the article suggesting potential for a “Sphere of Mutuality” in regions like Oceania and Southeast Asia.

• Contemporary events and documents, such as high-profile interviews and the Kazan Declaration, are used to frame and support these arguments.

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.

Ben Chifley paid uttermost importance to Public Banking as the key cornerstone of the post-war economy & the building of Australia’s industries, such as, manufacturing and infrastructure, as the basis of a strong domestic economy. This was, of course, met with hostile opposition by Anglo-American Finance, with the sole aim to dominate and control Australia, through which it financed the Liberal National Coalition & the Democratic Labour Party (DLP).

The DLP was formed by reactionary sources to create a split in the Labour Movement, by accusing the Labor Government of Communism, which eventually led to the defeat of the Chifley Government in the 1949 elections. It is acknowledged the Chifley Government’s decision to send Troops to operate the Coal Mines during the Great Coal Strike of 1949 was also a major contributing factor.

The Miners Union, led by members of the Communist Party of Australia, were at loggerheads with the Commonwealth Government in their fight for improved pay, conditions and a shorter work week. Keep in mind, this was the period of the early Cold War, which started soon after the end of the Second World War. Geopolitics were played out on a world scale in a bipolar manner, between the United States and the Soviet Union. A bipolar contest that greatly impacted Australia socially and politically.

It was in this context that Chifley facilitated Australia's policy of Full Employment. He made this clear in an interview with the Australian Worker about Post War Reconstruction in March 1944, detailing “His yardstick by which he measures all reconstruction plans:”

1. An economic policy that will provide a high & stable level of Government

2. Work must be available to all, must be adequately rewarded & directed towards rising living standards

3. Improvement of everyone’s environment by decent housing, town & country planning, modern transport

4. A permanent freedom from economic worries for everyone

5. Freedom of opportunity to bring up happy healthy & well-educated families

“That, he says, is what he understands by a policy of full employment, and by what he measures reconstruction plans.” (The Australian Worker, Sydney, 15th March 1944)

Chifley’s Government could clearly see that Nationalising the Banks, would allow Australia to truly develop its economy and sovereignty to meet these five demands. If this did go ahead, the potential benefits for the Australian population would have been beyond some of our wildest dreams. Not only would our standard of living be the highest in the world, but would have guaranteed future generations economic security and stability.

We should look to this period of Chifley’s roles as Treasurer then Prime Minister, to learn from both the mistakes and achievements. To provide us an understanding for how Australia can develop its economy and sovereignty, as a truly independent Nation free from the dictates of Wall Street, Washington, and London.

Report: February 5, 2025 — In a rare and provocative line of questioning during Senate proceedings, Senator Gerard Rennick (Queensland) directed a series of pointed inquiries to Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong regarding Australia's foreign policy in Syria and the broader implications of Western involvement in the Middle East. The exchange, which took place during Questions Without Notice, touched on sensitive topics including human rights abuses, the role of intelligence agencies, and the legacy of the "War on Terror."

Unusual Questioning of Imperialism

Senator Rennick's questions were notable for their direct challenge to the narrative of Western interventionism, a topic rarely broached in Australian parliamentary debates. He referenced historical events, including the 2012 email from former US Deputy Secretary of State Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton, which stated, "Al-Qaeda is on our side in Syria," and a 2016 Los Angeles Times report alleging that Pentagon-funded terrorists were fighting CIA-funded terrorists in Syria. Rennick questioned whether Australian foreign policy is influenced by "deep state Western intelligence agencies more interested in imperialism than in upholding human rights and democratic values."

Foreign Minister Wong firmly rejected the assertion, stating that Australia "always should and continues to support international law and human rights." She emphasised that Australia's approach to human rights varies, including through bilateral consultations, public statements, and private diplomacy.

HTS: A Terrorist Organisation Now Running Syria

Wong acknowledged the overthrow of the Assad government by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group Australia designated as a terrorist organisation in 2022. She expressed that the end of Assad's government could mark the beginning of a new chapter for Syria but stressed the importance of HTS and other armed groups now in control protecting Syrian civilians. "We will be watching the actions of HTS in the period ahead," Wong said.

Senator Gerard Rennick: A Vocal Critic

Senator Gerard Rennick, an Independent Senator for Queensland, has been a vocal critic of government policies on various issues, including COVID-19 mandates and foreign intervention. His questioning in the Senate reflects his broader scepticism of Western intelligence agencies and their influence on global conflicts. Rennick's inquiries also touched on the experiences of Australian veterans, asking how the government reconciles their sacrifices with the contested justifications for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wong's Response to Veterans' Concerns

In response to Rennick's question about Australian veterans, Wong acknowledged the "problematic nature" of past government decisions, particularly regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She expressed gratitude for the service of Australian Defence Force personnel, stating, "We always stand with the men and women in the ADF who serve the government of the day... and we always thank them for their service."

A Broader Critique of the "War on Terror"

Rennick's second supplementary question went further, asking whether the "War on Terror" over the past two decades was a "Western intelligence PSYOP campaign designed to advance Western imperial interests in the Middle East." He also questioned whether Hamas, like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, was part of this campaign. Wong responded by emphasising the real threat of terrorism but declined to engage with Rennick's characterisation of past events, stating, "I don't agree with how you are articulating some of the past history."

Notable Quotes from Senator Gerard Rennick

1. "Why has [the Australian government] said nothing about the human rights abuses in Syria committed by the current regime, and is this because Australian foreign policy is controlled by deep state Western intelligence agencies more interested in imperialism than in upholding human rights and democratic values?"

2. "What does the Australian government have to say to Australian veterans who served and died for their country in Iraq and Afghanistan only to find out that they were fighting for imperialist organisations lying to them?"

3. "Will the minister please ask our intelligence agencies if the entire war on terror over the last two decades has been nothing but a Western intelligence PSYOP campaign designed to advance Western imperial interests in the Middle East?"

4. "Does this campaign include Hamas, given the deep state has funded other Islamic terrorist organisations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda through programs such as Timber Sycamore?"

5. "Al-Qaeda is on our side in Syria." (Referencing Jake Sullivan's 2012 email to Hillary Clinton)

Speech FAQs:

Question: What is Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)?
Answer: HTS is a Syrian Islamist group that was designated as a terrorist organisation by Australia in 2022. It played a key role in overthrowing the Assad government and is now part of the current Syrian government.

Question: Why is Senator Rennick's questioning considered unusual?
Answer: It is rare for Australian parliamentarians to openly question the role of Western imperialism and intelligence agencies in shaping foreign policy, particularly in the context of the Middle East.

Question: How did Foreign Minister Wong respond to concerns about Australian veterans?
Answer: Wong acknowledged the controversial nature of past decisions, particularly regarding Iraq, but expressed unwavering support for Australian veterans, thanking them for their service and sacrifice.

This exchange highlights the ongoing debate over Australia's role in global conflicts and the ethical implications of foreign intervention, a topic that continues to resonate with both policymakers and the public.