Compared to South Africa and India, Australia, is, or can be made safer from, Axis occupation. It also has the potential to be "relevant." This may be more true in the newer versions, such as AA revised, where there are four Asian "victory" cities, How does the introduction of victory cities in Axis & Allies revised change gameplay and strategy? but is somewhat true even in the second edition, with which I am more familiar.
In this variation, I'd move the fighter from India to Australia, and the Indian transport with one of two infantry to Australia. Here, I could make a case for leaving NO infantry in India, in line with a question by another gamer. When retreating from a compromised territory should you always leave one infantry? But I prefer to leave one in India on the theory that it would tie up a Japanese offensive unit (a fighter or battleship) that might attack otherwise be used to attack Australia. Otherwise, the transfer of the UK fighter and infantry more or less safeguards the continent from amphibious attack by Japanese infantry in e.g., the Philippines supported by the battleship located in the Caroline islands.
There are two plausible plans that follow a first turn build of a factory.
Under plan 1, the second turn build would be an aircraft carrier and an infantry, followed by an "island hopping" campaign with the fighter (on the carrier) and amphibious infantry against the East Indies, Borneo, and New Guinea, followed by the Philippines. This increases the UK's IPCS and reduces Japan's.
Under plan 2, I'd build infantry and another transport or two for a shuttle service to Madagascar and ultimately Africa (with one transport as a "bridge" between that island and the continent. This would be a particularly worthwhile strategy if the US builds a factory in Brazil. In Axis and Allies, Should the U.S. Build a "Factory" in Brazil?
If you are the type of UK player that likes to build a factory in South Africa or India, would you build it in Australia instead? If you don't like to build those factories because of the possibility that the Axis can capture them, and make them Axis assets, would Australia's greater safety tip the balance in favor of this strategy? And perhaps the answer does matter from one edition of the game to another?