Labor moves to reverse controversial Chinese lease, branding the CLP (Country Liberal Party) deal a “strategic failure” while vowing to prioritise Australian security and sovereignty.
The potential buyback of Darwin Port’s lease from Chinese company Landbridge has emerged as a significant political and strategic issue in Australia, driven by evolving geopolitical concerns and domestic criticism of the original 2015 lease agreement. Below is a detailed analysis of the situation:
Current Developments and Government Stance
Prime Minister Albanese has signaled that the federal government is actively considering options to regain control of Darwin Port, stating, “We opposed the sale of the port of Darwin [in 2015]… I will have more to say over the course of this campaign.” This follows a 2023 government review that initially declined to cancel the lease but left the door open for future action, particularly amid revelations of financial instability at Landbridge, which reported a $34 million net loss in 2023–24. A federal buyback is now under discussion, with Labor MP Luke Gosling advocating for a public-private partnership to fund the acquisition.
Geopolitical and Security Concerns
The port’s strategic location near U.S. military installations in Darwin and its role in regional trade routes have amplified security anxieties. Recent U.S. nuclear submarine visits to Darwin Harbour – proximate to Landbridge-owned infrastructure – highlight these tensions. Critics, including security analysts, argue that Chinese control of the port creates vulnerabilities, especially given China’s naval activities near Australia and its broader Belt and Road Initiative ambitions. The 2015 lease – supported by the federal Coalition – has been retrospectively criticised as shortsighted.
Financial and Political Challenges
Cost of Buyback: Landbridge initially acquired the 99-year lease for $506 million in 2015 but has reportedly demanded $1.3 billion to relinquish it – a 157% markup. While Gosling claims a “willing seller” could negotiate a lower price, Landbridge insists the port is “not for sale” and emphasises its “record operational performance.”
Political Hypocrisy: The maritime union and Labor MPs have criticised the CLP (now in opposition) for “hypocrisy,” as current NT Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro was part of the government that approved the original sale. Meanwhile, the federal Coalition, which initially defended the lease, now urges Labor to expedite a buyback, reflecting shifting political dynamics.
Broader Implications
National Security vs. Economic Interests: The debate pits economic gains from foreign investment against strategic autonomy. While the port is critical for Northern Australia’s economy (handling livestock, minerals, and energy exports), its proximity to defense assets has intensified calls for re-nationalisation.
U.S.-Australia Relations: American officials have reportedly pressured Australia to address the lease, aligning with broader efforts to counter Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific.
Path Forward
The Albanese government faces pressure to act before the election, balancing fiscal prudence with national security demands. Options include:
- Invoking the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) to reassess the lease due to Landbridge’s financial troubles.
- Negotiating a buyback, potentially funded through federal-territory partnerships.
- Developing alternative infrastructure, such as the proposed Glyde Point port, to reduce reliance on Landbridge-controlled facilities.
Conclusion
Reclaiming Darwin Port aligns with Labor’s historical opposition to the lease and addresses bipartisan concerns over sovereignty and security. However, the financial and diplomatic complexities – including potential backlash from China, Australia’s largest trading partner – require careful navigation. As Albanese prepares to announce his stance during the election campaign, the port’s fate remains a litmus test for Australia’s balancing act between economic pragmatism and strategic independence.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Could we reclaim our sovereignty from the US, please?
What a nice little post politics quid pro for LNP patriot Andrew Robb!
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/31/andrew-robb-did-not-tell-prime-minister-about-role-with-chinese-company
Jen, well said.
That was my first thought also.
“Recent U.S. nuclear submarine visits to Darwin Harbour – proximate to Landbridge-owned infrastructure – highlight these tensions.”
What tensions?
The yanks don’t have to use the port. It’s their choice.
Nothing to do with us.
Why are we letting paranoia control our political thinking?
The day that China allows Australia to independently operate port facilities in Shanghai will be the day that I might consider allowing China to continue to operate its leased facilities in Darwin Harbour.
The author Lachlan McKenzie, says he’s “channeling that same drive to foster a more inclusive Australia – and world – where every voice is heard, every barrier dismantled, and every community thrives.”
We do not see much of that in this article.
The three options he outlined for Labor to act on all involve harm to China.
With no valid reasons given.
This article is just a US State Dept wish-list.
Landbridge Co was in the red for $34M last year. Give them a $1B and call it quits. That’s a bargain compared to $368B to buy drone targets, aka submarines.
Peter Gumley, in the interests of transparency, what position do you hold per your written comment that you have authority over the allowing or disallowing of a Chinese business its management lease on the Darwin Port, and given no Australian business currently operates port facilities in Shanghai, when may we see your executive behaviour in this matter become apparent?
Steve, I’ve know Lachlan for many years and I am familiar with his views. I can assure you he’s not channeling the U.S. State Department.
Lachlan has many views – as we all do – but when he writes he stands in the middle.
@ Herbert:
Not to mention weasel words from Turnbull in praise of his man (Bishop not deserving of comment).
This is not a simple case of ministerial conflict or even corruption within government.
It’s the LNP corporate culture of venality, mendacity, and treachery laced with nods, smiles and handshakes as they shaft the country they were elected to serve.
Seems lesser evil voting time is once more upon us.
Thanks for that Michael, that’s reassuring.
I was genuinely concerned.
I see that it isn’t the Chinese that own the lease on the port, it is only a Chinese company. The issue is one of private enterprise and the problems associated with dealing with the privileges granted to the private sector and not as implied one of international sovereignty. It is not as though China has established a naval base there. The US would never allow that to happen, not while they still hold sovereignty over Australia.
It’s odd that Australia doesn’t refer to Rio Tinto’s activities as Spanish exploitation of Australia’s minerals. Perhaps it is no longer Spanish, but I understand that Rio Tinto started off in Spain as a private mining business named after a river that had been discoloured by mineral pollution. Would Australia make such a fuss if a foreign mining company from Spain leased a port? Or any other foreign company picking up the shortage in private investment funds that Australia complains it suffers from? Or is this just compulsory discrimination against Chinese companies because of the power that the US has over Australia?
Actually, wouldn’t it have made more sense if Australia had encouraged Chinese businesses to use their incredible technical savvy to build a state of the art transport hub all powered by the vast potential of Northern Territory solar energy. With electrified rail systems radiating out to all parts of the continent. If it had, then when the US is ready to give Australia the order to attack China all those assets could be seized under US Opportunistic New World Order Law.