Labor ire at Darwin port lease review

Labor has demanded a full briefing on the Defence review of the Port of Darwin.

The Port of Darwin has been leased for 99 years by Chinese company Landbridge. Picture: Che Chorley

Labor has demanded a full briefing on the Defence review of the Port of Darwin after it found there were no national security grounds that would justify a government intervention overturning the 99-year lease of the asset to Chinese company Landbridge.

Anthony Albanese on Wednesday attacked the 2015 decision to release the Port of Darwin from public hands, arguing Labor would not have made that decision had it been in government.

“Of course an asset like the Port of Darwin, I believe, should have stayed in public hands,” the Opposition Leader said. “That’s the issue here. It is a national security asset.”

“And I, at the time, as the shadow infrastructure minister in Bill Shorten’s team, argued against the sale of the Port of Darwin.”

Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong said the Port of Darwin had been “privatised into foreign hands on Scott Morrison’s watch” and that Labor was seeking a “full briefing on the review”.

The Australian revealed on Wednesday that a review by the Defence Department to the National Security Committee of cabinet had provided no formal recommendation for a government intervention.

The review was pushed by Defence Minister Peter Dutton, who has taken a stronger stand against China than his predecessors, warning it was “inconceivable” for Australia not to join the US if there was a conflict with Beijing over Taiwan.

However, the Defence review is understood to have disappointed China hawks, who were hoping it would trigger a reversal of the 2015 decision to grant the lease to Landbridge.

The Australian also confirmed the NSC had already met to consider the review and taken no action to this point. While the NSC is still reviewing the matter, the position of the Defence Department will make any decision to overturn the port lease more politically challenging for the government.

Speaking on Sky News, Nationals deputy leader David Littleproud – who is not a member of the NSC – said that “no decision has been made yet”.

“It’s still under consideration and obviously we will work through this,” he said. “You’ve got to appreciate that the government did put in place legislation to protect our sovereignty.”

Mr Littleproud said state and territory governments could no longer make similar transactions without the federal government having oversight under changes enacted by the Coalition.

Opposition defence spokesman Brendan O’Connor on Wednesday also called for Labor to be given a “full briefing on this review, including on whether Defence also sought the views of the visiting allies and partners who use this port”.

He advised the government not to act against the advice it had received by Defence.

“If the government acts unilaterally beyond Defence’s advice and intervenes on the Port of Darwin contract, the associated costs and fallout are on the Prime Minister’s lap,” he said. “The Port of Darwin was privatised on his watch.”

Some observers have raised sovereign risk concerns in the event of any government decision to unpick the lease arrangement, with Warwick Smith, chair of the international engagement committee of the Business Council of Australia, telling The Australian it would be a “totally gratuitous step”.

If the Port of Darwin were to come on the market, there could also be some hope for the government to fan the interest of industry super funds. For example, Mark Delaney, chief investment officer at Australian Super, has said the fund would be prepared to look at it. Mr Delaney said he “would be surprised” if the current situation of Chinese ownership remained in place in “five or 10 years’ time”.

“I don’t know what they are going to do,” he said. “We would look at it if the asset came on the market but I am not sure it is up for sale yet.”