MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The war in Iran has become the third major economic crisis in the last 20 years, with fuel prices jumping and inflation once again starting to pick up. Australians are feeling worsening economic pain.

While the government has offered some relief on fuel prices, and ensured the immediate supply of Australia’s fuel shipments, there remains massive uncertainty about the future.

Amid the crisis the government is preparing for the May 12 budget, and is forecasting ambitious reform.

To discuss how the Australian economy is faring and its prospects, we’re joined by independent economist Chris Richardson.

On what the Reserve Bank might do, given rising inflation, at its May 4-5 meeting, Richardson says that will depend how bad it sees the crisis getting,

This refinery fire [at a Corio refinery] we’ve just had might actually be the thing that stops the Reserve Bank from raising rates.

If it’s really quite worried that it’s losing the trust of families and businesses, it will raise rates. If it started to be really quite worried that the pain in Australia’s economy could be notable, then – not immediately, but a little down the track – they could even be cutting rates.

While Richardson and other forecasters are predicting an economic slowdown and not a recession, he says risks are high.

It is a much bigger risk than it’s been for some time, and again we hit recession off the back of two potential things. One is actually running out of fuel and some industries are incredibly dependent on that. [Two] is through fear, if you like. The key measures of consumer confidence, how families are feeling, they are at truly terrible levels. Families are really, really worried about this and if they take those worries and decide to cut back on their spending, you could see that show up as a notable slowdown in the Australian economy.

Now, for what it’s worth, most forecasters, including myself, only have a fairly modest slowdown in the world [and] the Australian economies off the back of this so far.

On whether the government should be looking to tax gas exports more, given the increased price for Australia’s LNG, Richardson says reforms to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) are needed but he’s opposed to an export tax.

[The PRRT] is something we’ve needed to change for decades. […] We just don’t earn enough by way of tax and we won’t by way of tax on this key national resource. So it has to change. I would much, much prefer that they fix the tax that we have.

The more likely thing, if it happens, is some sort of an export tax. I’d prefer my solution because you don’t add to prices on world markets at a tricky time. You simply change which shares of the pie go to the big companies that get out our gas and sell it to the world and the share that goes to taxpayers. I really don’t love the idea of the export tax. Think of Donald Trump’s tariffs.

On what more the government could be doing, Richardson says it should be bringing more fuel into Australia and should be looking at rationing.

So the major thing that the government can do for Australia right now is to get fuel to Australia in the first place. It is the, if you think back to COVID, it’s the essential equivalent of getting us vaccinated. The more fuel we get into Australia, then the greater the chance that we get through this with pretty modest damage.

The other thing the government can do and may have to do is be a bit more active around rationing one way or another. And again, it’s been very wary of that. The politics of that are tricky.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Economist Chris Richardson on next steps in fuel crisis – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-economist-chris-richardson-on-next-steps-in-fuel-crisis-280706

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/16/politics-with-michelle-grattan-economist-chris-richardson-on-next-steps-in-fuel-crisis-280706/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

An effective opposition is good at policy. Last term and so far this term, the Coalition has been very poor at policy formulation.

Remember Peter Dutton’s defence policy? If you don’t, it’s probably because it was just a commitment to spend a lot more. No flesh on that bone. On the controversial nuclear policy, Liberals will admit they erred in not having costings much earlier.

Now the opposition is at high risk of making a hash of producing an immigration policy, an issue it’s putting at the centre of its (still to come) suite of offerings to voters.

“We are a serious party that needs to provide serious policy alternatives,” home affairs spokesman Jonno Duniam said on Wednesday when trying to defend Opposition Leader Angus Taylor’s Tuesday announcement of a get-tough-on-values sliver of the policy.

Taylor’s speech has been widely seen as a bid to attract voters back from One Nation, especially with the Farrer byelection looming. Clearly, as a first instalment of the Coalition’s immigration blueprint, it has been driven primarily by politics.

So what should be the approach to crafting and presenting a sound policy on immigration which, despite Labor’s 2023 Review of the Migration System report, requires reform?

Such a policy should be multi-tiered, and all of it should be released together because in immigration, as the old saying goes, everything is connected to everything else.

The first tier is the desirable overall intake. The latest net overseas migration (NOM) number was 311,000 in the year to the end of September, which the government is committed to reducing. The opposition wants a lower, as yet unspecified, number.

What would be the best level is contested among experts and stakeholders, with debate about the implications for economic growth and pressures on infrastructure, housing and services.

In deciding the appropriate level of temporary migration, the importance of our education export industry and the implications of cuts for the higher education sector, as well as the needs of agriculture, must be considered.

Having decided on numbers, the next tier should look at how to get the best out of our skilled intake.

Former treasury secretary Martin Parkinson, who led the government’s review, recently highlighted the economic waste we are allowing by failing to properly use the skills of people coming at present. Parkinson said almost half of all permanent migrants were working below their skill level.

He argued for an independent skills and qualifications commissioner to oversee an end-to-end recognition system, from visas to occupational licences to employment.

Another issue that should be addressed is the composition of the skilled intake, to tilt further towards people qualified in occupations we require. There is also the question of shortages in unskilled and semiskilled labour for the care economy.

The third tier goes to Taylor’s concerns regarding “values”. At one level this is about specifics: making sure the security checks are rigorous enough, and dealing more toughly with lawbreakers who are on visas.

But at another level, coming to grips with the “values” debate is wrestling with a puff of smoke.

How does one judge whether someone really believes in democracy and free speech, let alone “a fair go for all” – some of the commitments set out in the Australian Values Statement that immigrants sign, which the opposition now wants to make legally binding. What would breaches look like? Anyway, what precisely are some of these values in practice? For instance, the political class is currently debating the concept of “free speech” in the context of anti-hate laws.

As for Taylor’s point that people from liberal democracies are more likely to share or accept our values than those from “places ruled by fundamentalists, extremists and dictators”: this is a sweeping generalisation. Exceptions spring readily to mind. One of the Bondi gunmen came from India, the world’s largest democracy. We have admirable migrants from Russia.

Taylor is preoccupied with the cohort who arrived from Palestine after the start of the Middle East conflict, and wants them all reassessed. But does ASIO have current concerns that these people pose a threat? If not, calling for comprehensive reassessment is just stirring.

The issue of values merges into the fourth tier of a comprehensive immigration policy: better tending our multicultural garden. This means improving migrants’ integration into the wider community, while recognising they will continue to value their heritages and maintain their links to their individual communities.

Assistant Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs Minister Julian Hill, in a February speech, highlighted the important balance that must be sought.

Hill said people’s right to express their cultural identities was not absolute. “Obligations for everyone include: one, a shared and unifying commitment to Australia first and foremost; two, acceptance of the basic structures and principles of Australian society including the constitution, tolerance, parliamentary democracy, equality and English as the national language; and three, accepting the right of others to express their views and values.”

Hill, from Labor left and with a message for the left generally, said, “One challenge for the progressive Left with our instinctive values-based focus on rights, is to remember that there are limits to cultural expression, and to champion the obligations that come with being Australian”.

“Successful multiculturalism means cherishing communal identities, building bridges between diverse groups and celebrating things we all have in common,” Hill said.

Labor has fallen down in reinforcing Australian multiculturalism, the Liberals are divided about multiculturalism itself, while One Nation rejects it.

As they finalise the rest of their immigration policy, the Liberals need to resolve the internal ambiguities they have on macro questions, including the value of migration in general and whether the opposition is committed to sticking by and improving multiculturalism, as well as myriad details such as how to make better use of the skills of migrants.

As things stand, the Liberals sound like they are primarily about exploiting the inflammatory politics of migration rather than doing the grunt work to produce a policy that attacks the obvious problems in the present system.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Migration debate deserves better policy approach and less politicking from Liberals – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-migration-debate-deserves-better-policy-approach-and-less-politicking-from-liberals-280586

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/16/grattan-on-friday-migration-debate-deserves-better-policy-approach-and-less-politicking-from-liberals-280586/

COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

I don’t mind admitting that I hope the US and Israel suffer a crushing, devastating defeat in Iran.

I hope this war collapses the entire US empire. My only loyalty is to humanity, and being on Team Human in today’s world means being against the US empire and against Israel.

I hope the empire falls. I hope the apartheid state of Israel is dismantled.

I hope humanity is able to pry the steering wheel from the fingers of the ghouls who currently rule our world, so that we can create a healthy planet and a harmonious future together.

[embedded content]
I hope the US loses and other notes              Video: Caitlin Johnstone

YouTube has banned the channel that’s been creating viral AI Lego music videos criticising the US war on Iran. The Google-owned platform claims the Lego videos somehow constituted “violent content”, but we all know it was to facilitate the US propaganda effort by shutting down effective propaganda for the other side.

Silicon Valley is a crucial arm of US imperial control.

It chooses to advance the interests of the empire at every significant juncture. It’s a branch of imperial soft power in the same way the military is a branch of imperial hard power.

🎶 Iran-linked accounts are circulating a new LEGO-style propaganda video portraying U.S. and Israeli leaders as corrupt elites tied to the “Epstein files,” part of a broader online campaign aimed at undermining support for the war.

The animation depicts President Donald Trump… pic.twitter.com/PdjcJGrjuy

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) April 9, 2026

❖

The US and Israel have so normalised the assassination of national leaders that the mainstream press now discuss it as a standard military tactic. The other day The Washington Post ran an article by Marc Thiessen arguing that the US should “carry out a final barrage of leadership strikes, eliminating the Iranian officials who had been spared for the purpose of negotiations”.

“Iran’s leaders must be made to understand that their lives literally depend on reaching a negotiated settlement to Trump’s liking. If they refuse to do so, they will be killed,” Thiessen writes.

At some point one of America’s enemies is going to assassinate a US official and my replies are going to be full of shrieking, outraged Americans acting like I’m the bad guy when I say Washington had it coming.

❖

Even if the US wasn’t directly responsible for the Strait of Hormuz situation, it would still be the last country on earth with any business whining about it. They’re openly imposing a fuel blockade on Cuba while complaining that nobody should be allowed to block shipping lanes, for Christ’s sake.

❖

The Democratic National Committee voted to reject a resolution denouncing the influence of AIPAC in US politics. Eighty percent of Democrats have a negative view of Israel today. The DNC’s main function is to keep the Democratic Party and its representation on the ballot from reflecting the will of the public.

❖

pic.twitter.com/K0kNiJYbKs

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) April 14, 2026

Dear Trump supporters, send me all of your money. I have a plan to make America great again. I will end all the wars and drain the swamp. Don’t worry if it looks like I’m not doing any of those things, I’m playing 4d chess, trust the plan. Send me your life savings right now.

❖

It’s important not to let them pin this all on Trump, in the same way it’s important not to let them pin Israel’s crimes on Netanyahu. Everything we are seeing with this disastrous Iran war is the product of the entire power structure which gave rise to it, not one guy’s dopey decisions.

The warmongers in the DC swamp have been pushing war with Iran for decades. Trump is just the guy who was chosen by Zionist oligarchs and bloodthirsty empire managers to carry out the deed. He happens to be the face on the operation, but if it wasn’t him it would have been someone else.

American warmongering insanity didn’t start with Trump, and it isn’t going to end with him either. Don’t direct your rage merely at the fleeting puppets who come and go from the imperial stage as the US murder machine trudges onward. Direct it at the empire itself.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/16/caitlin-johnstone-i-hope-the-us-loses-and-the-empire-collapses/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Layton, Visiting Fellow, Strategic Studies, Griffith University

Sometimes new government strategies really aren’t newsworthy. The 2026 National Defence Strategy (NDS) is like that.

The biggest headline from the document is the additional defence spending of $53 billion over the next decade, which the government claims (with some accounting sleights of hand) will reach 3% of GDP.

While this technically meets US President Donald Trump’s demands for America’s allies in NATO and elsewhere to spend more on their militaries, there’s more to it than that. In particular, NATO measures are based on how much cash is spent annually, rather than the future spending laid out in long-term plans.

In terms of actual strategy, though, the main takeaway appears rather muted: there’s been “significant progress in implementing the 2024 National Defence Strategy”. That’s reassuring but surely that was the intent of that earlier document – to be implemented.

In being a warmed-up version of the 2024 strategy, the 2026 document seems to ignore what’s happened since – and that’s been considerable.

Over the last two years, there’s been a worsening war in Ukraine, an expanded conflict in the Middle East that has encompassed the entire region and sent shockwaves through the global economy, and many unpredictable American military adventures.

At times, the strategy is backward-looking to a bygone era, lacking courage and confidence.

What does the strategy promise?

The 2026 NDS keeps in place Australia’s strategy of denial, that is, a defensive strategy that seeks to prevent an adversary from taking military action against Australia.

Even though the funding provided to Defence is somewhat increased, we will likely see higher inflation as a result of the US-Israel war against Iran. The planned allocations for operating and crewing the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) current ships, aircraft and vehicles is unlikely to be enough.

Money to make up this shortfall may mean less is spent than planned on buying new equipment. What matters is what you get for your money, not how much is spent.

However, there are two notable investments mentioned in the strategy, even if they are relatively small compared to many other Defence projects.

The ADF will finally be getting a medium-range surface-to-air missile system able to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles.

Such threats might once have seemed remote, but missile attacks have become routine. In the last year, ballistic missiles have been fired by Russia, Iran and the Houthis in Yemen.

However, the ADF’s defensive missiles probably won’t enter into service for several years, as other nations are already in the shopping queue ahead of Australia.

The ADF will also be getting a range of autonomous uncrewed systems (drones in the air and water), such as the Air Force’s Ghost Bat and the Navy’s Ghost Shark and Speartooth. And in a boost to our national resilience, these are manufactured in Australia even if some of the parts are imported.

Read more: What Australia must learn from Ukraine about drone technology and the future of warfare

The recent wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have highlighted the importance of these systems, the strategy notes. And it adds, the future of warfare will involve both autonomous uncrewed systems and artificial intelligence (AI).

Disappointingly, though, compared to the huge spends on traditional crewed warships, submarines and armoured vehicles, there hasn’t been much allocated to these systems or the AI wave of the future.

Where else is missed?

Because this is a steady-as-she-goes document, it misses an important opportunity to convince an increasingly doubtful public of the wisdom of the hugely expensive purchases of nuclear submarines under the AUKUS program.

Dennis Richardson, a former secretary of the Defence Department, recently argued these vessels “are only worth having if they’re a net addition to defence capability.” The implication is the submarines are nice to have, but not essential, unlike other equipment.

The 2026 NDS could have placed the submarines into a coherent strategic framework, alongside the rest of Defence, and provided a clear and compelling reason for acquiring them. Or, as they say in defence speak: a strategic narrative. It didn’t.

The absence of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who is in Asia securing fuel shipments for Australia, from the strategy’s launch highlights another big miss.

The strategy’s title includes the word “national”, yet the nation is largely missing in it. This document, and the previous NDS, rightly declare that defending Australia involves a whole-of-nation approach that goes far beyond just the defence forces. But how this is approach is meant to work is only briefly noted.

The current fuel crisis suggests there is much to be done. Spending money on military hardware may be pointless if there is insufficient fuel to operate it. This was made clear in 2018 when a major air exercise in Darwin was apparently disrupted due to a tanker from Singapore being delayed.

The NDS does note the investments Defence has made in recent years to improve fuel security to remediate shortfalls. It has done trials on low-carbon, sustainable aviation fuels, but there are no plans yet to produce these on a large-scale for military use.

So far, it seems Defence is just nibbling at the edges of fuel security and resilience.

A changed America

Lastly, there is an elephant in the room: the Americans.

One can sympathise with the government wanting to keep a low profile when it comes to Australia’s major alliance partner. However, this alliance in an increasingly unstable world is arguably of overriding importance.

Earlier this year, the US released its own National Defence Strategy that called on regional allies to help defend the “first island chain”, running from the Philippines to Taiwan to the Japanese islands.

Through this America First, commonsense lens, America’s alliances and partners have an essential role to play – but not as the dependencies of the last generation. […] For too long, allies and partners have been content to let us subsidise their defence.

The Australian NDS discusses the alliance in the pre-Trump language of shared strategic interests, with just a nod to the importance of “upholding Australian sovereignty and increasing our self-reliance”.

The 2026 NDS needed to explain where an unreliable and unruly America now fits into Australian defence thinking, or does not.

– ref. The new National Defence Strategy feels written for a bygone era – and ignores the elephant in the room – https://theconversation.com/the-new-national-defence-strategy-feels-written-for-a-bygone-era-and-ignores-the-elephant-in-the-room-280727

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/16/the-new-national-defence-strategy-feels-written-for-a-bygone-era-and-ignores-the-elephant-in-the-room-280727/