Clive Palmer’s Mineralogy firm ‘failed’ on port

CLIVE Palmer’s Mineralogy should not have been given control of a new Australian port, its Chinese partners have argued.

CLIVE Palmer’s flagship resources company Mineralogy should not have been given control of a new Australian port because it failed to meet a string of key ­requirements, its Chinese partners have argued.

Lawyers for Sino Iron, a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned Citic Pacific, yesterday told the Federal Court in Sydney that Mr Palmer’s Mineralogy had failed to prove how it would enforce ­security at the port at Cape ­Preston, in Western Australia’s Pilbara region.

Alan Archibald QC, barrister for Sino Iron, told the court Mineralogy had been improperly ­appointed to operate the port by the federal Department of Infrastructure because it had failed to prove how it would operate it,­ ­beyond providing a written plan.

“Writing out a plan does not show an ability to carry out each integer of the plan,” Mr Archibald told the court. “We accept the (Mineralogy) plan sets it out, but does it have the ability to ­address the function?”

Sino Iron and Mineralogy have been embroiled in a fierce dispute over control of the port, which was built and funded by Citic Pacific, which has been using it to export iron ore since late last year.

The Department of Infrastructure in January last year announced Mineralogy would be the port operator “for the security regulated port of Cape Preston”, but later reversed that decision.

The Federal Court in February found in favour of Mineralogy retaining control of the port after Sino Iron took legal ­action.

The Federal Court yesterday heard the appeal against that finding, led by Sino Iron.

Mineralogy lawyer James ­Peters SC rejected the claim that the resource group had been improperly appointed to oversee the security of Cape Preston.

He said Mineralogy had the “blessing of the state” to carry out security operations at the port. The court has yet to make a finding in the case.