Latest news with #LandbridgeGroup
Japan Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Japan Times
With Port of Darwin, Australia hopes to avoid a repeat of Panama Canal
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is confronting a fresh diplomatic dilemma with China: How to fulfill a pledge to regain control of a strategic port without jeopardizing improved relations with his country's largest trading partner. Ahead of an election earlier this month, Albanese promised to return to Australian control the Port of Darwin from Chinese company Landbridge Group. It was awarded a 99-year lease in 2015 by the Northern Territory government in a move that sparked criticism from an array of politicians in Australia and in the U.S., which uses a nearby military training facility. China is Australia's biggest trading partner by far and previously expressed anger over pressure from the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump concerning the Panama Canal, which resulted in a potential sale by a Hong Kong-based conglomerate of its two Panama port operations — a deal Beijing has said it will review.
Herald Sun
4 days ago
- Business
- Herald Sun
China's chilling warning for one Aussie city
Don't miss out on the headlines from National. Followed categories will be added to My News. China has again warned Australia against plans to take back its strategic Port of Darwin, threatening the move would result in 'enduring pitfalls for the country.' 'If the Darwin Port issue is further politicised, or forcibly taken back under the pretext of so-called 'national security,' it would become another negative typical case that affects the healthy and stable development of China-Australia relations,' an anonymous editorial in the Chinese Communist Party-controlled Global Times states. The strategic economic and defence facility was leased in 2015 for $506 million to the Australian subsidiary of a privately owned Chinese company, the Landbridge Group. The 99-year deal was cemented by the then Country Liberal Northern Territory Government. The geopolitical fallout was immediate. The White House complained it had not been consulted. After all, its freshly committed US Marine presence in the Northern Territory relied on the port for support. Australia's regional neighbours raised their eyebrows: Hadn't Canberra been pressuring them to reject significant Chinese infrastructure money? Ten years later, both Labor and the Coalition went to the May 2025 Federal Election promising to take back Military facilities across the Top End are being upgraded 'to enhance the ability of the Australian Defence Force to project force,' Brigadier Matthew Quinn said at a sod-turning ceremony earlier this month. The Port of Darwin is owened by a Chinese company. Picture: ASCO 'These critical upgrades follow recent works to enhance the main runway and taxiways, improving the capacity, security and resilience of RAAF Base Darwin.' It was just one $160 million piece of a massive international defence buildup across northern Australia. The cause: China's assertive territorial ambitions. 'Taking back the Port of Darwin from Landbridge Group would also symbolise a dangerous shift from commercial cooperation to military development,' the Global Times warns. 'The move of 'de-Sinicisation' aims to remove obstacles for the US to advance its militarisation in northern Australia.' The lease of Darwin Port to China's Landbridge Group has become a contentious issue. Picture:Strategic and economic security 'It is well known that Darwin Port only became linked to so-called 'national security' and subjected to a wave of political and security scrutiny after so-called 'concerns' were voiced from Washington,' the Global Times editorial insists. All China-based and owned companies must have Communist Party Commissars on their boards. They must also readily hand over any and all information on their customers and deals to any government agency upon demand. US President Barack Obama broke the news of potential problems directly with then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull during an APEC meeting in November 2015. He asked that Washington be given a 'heads-up' over similar deals in future. Obama's cause for concern was obvious. Chairman Xi was, at the time, deeply engaged in building illegal island fortresses on sand banks claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan. His government was vocally asserting ownership over Japan and South Korea's islands in the East China Sea. Threats of invading Taiwan had already become commonplace. Darwin was even then a significant stepping stone for rapidly expanding US and allied military activities in northern Australia. 'As the Indo-Pacific becomes increasingly contested, supply chains become more vulnerable and coercive statecraft becomes more common,' argues Australian Strategic Policy Institute national security analyst John Coyne. 'Darwin's proximity to key maritime routes and regional partners makes it an indispensable asset.' Chinese President Xi Jinping. Picture: Florence Lo-Pool/Getty Images Follow the money The purchase of the Darwin Port was touted as part of Chairman Xi Jinping's grand 'Belt and Road' vision of a Chinese-controlled trade network spanning the Pacific, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe. The natural deep-water harbour is strategically positioned as a hub between the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. And about 4.5 million tonnes of cargo and significant quantities of oil and gas pass over its piers each year. In 2015, the Foreign Investment Review Board headed by then federal treasurer Scott Morrison, decided against examining the proposed deal. The Defence Department, undergoing one of many ministerial transitions, had no objections. And the then minister for trade and investment, Andrew Robb, was ecstatic. '(It is) a powerful sign of the enhanced commercial relationship between Australia and China flowing from the China-Australia free trade agreement,' Robb declared in October 2015. Robb resigned from Parliament four months later and immediately took up a position as 'advisor' to the Landbridge Group. Now, both sides of politics are firmly in agreement: Make Darwin Australian again. During the 2025 election campaign, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised the port would be sold to an Australian operator. This is despite reports US equity firm Cerberus Capital, which has close ties to President Donald Trump's White House administration, is preparing to make a bid. Former opposition leader Peter Dutton went further, promising his Liberal-National Coalition would nationalise the asset under government ownership. But Beijing is biting back. The Global Times warned Tuesday that 'should the Australian government take the drastic step of forcibly taking back Darwin Port', this would 'undoubtedly' produce 'enduring pitfalls for the country'. Russia's President Vladimir Putin greets Chinese President Xi Jinping. Picture: Mikhail METZEL / POOL / AFP Investor returns 'Whether the Port of Darwin becomes a hub of prosperous trade or the eye of a geopolitical storm is not a difficult choice, but it does test Canberra's strategic wisdom,' the Global Times editorial reads. The Communist Party editorial says its 2015 purchase had been 'timely assistance' to the Northern Territory at a time when Canberra 'wasn't interested'. 'From turning the port's operations from loss to profit and helping ease the Northern Territory government's debt crisis, to investing more than $A83 million and upgrading port facilities … and greatly contributing to local economic and social development, Landbridge Group's involvement has brought systematic and positive changes to Darwin Port,' it states. But concern over possible financial difficulties contributed to the port's prominence in the recent Federal Election. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised the port would be sold to an Australian company. Picture: NewsWire / Richard Gosling Landbridge Australia non-executive director Terry O'Connor said this week that the company had 'not yet received any offers or engagement from the (Australian) government at any level.' But he 'welcomed' comments by Beijing's envoy to Australia, Xiao Qian. Xiao issued a statement on Sunday after touring the port's operations. He insisted the lease had been purchased through 'an open and transparent bidding process, fully compliant with Australian laws and market principles'. 'It's very morally inappropriate to rent out the port when it is in the red and take it back once it is profitable,' he argues. Tuesday's Global Times editorial went one step further, warning that placing 'politics over the rule of law' sent a 'dangerous signal to global investors … especially in sectors like infrastructure and energy that require long-term investment'. NT Chief Minister Michael Gunner speaking with Landbridge Group chairman Ye Cheng. Picture: Lauren Roberts 'The operation of Darwin Port is, at its core, a market-driven economic project and should operate within the framework of the rule of law and market principles,' it adds. But the world economic and security order has been upended since 2015, with Chairman Xi securing an unconstitutional third term and US President Trump vigorously pursuing an 'America First' agenda in the opening months of his second term. 'Darwin's development has long been framed as a national opportunity. It is now a strategic obligation,' Coyne argues. 'Australia cannot afford to leave its north underdone or underutilised. 'A sovereign, commercially viable, and strategically aligned marine industry in Darwin is no longer aspirational.' Jamie Seidel is a freelance writer | @ Originally published as 'Enduring pitfalls': China's chilling warning over controversial Darwin Port deal
News.com.au
4 days ago
- Business
- News.com.au
‘Enduring pitfalls': China's chilling warning over controversial Darwin Port deal
China has again warned Australia against plans to take back its strategic Port of Darwin, threatening the move would result in 'enduring pitfalls for the country.' 'If the Darwin Port issue is further politicised, or forcibly taken back under the pretext of so-called 'national security,' it would become another negative typical case that affects the healthy and stable development of China-Australia relations,' an anonymous editorial in the Chinese Communist Party-controlled Global Times states. The strategic economic and defence facility was leased in 2015 for $506 million to the Australian subsidiary of a privately owned Chinese company, the Landbridge Group. The 99-year deal was cemented by the then Country Liberal Northern Territory Government. The geopolitical fallout was immediate. The White House complained it had not been consulted. After all, its freshly committed US Marine presence in the Northern Territory relied on the port for support. Australia's regional neighbours raised their eyebrows: Hadn't Canberra been pressuring them to reject significant Chinese infrastructure money? Ten years later, both Labor and the Coalition went to the May 2025 Federal Election promising to take back Military facilities across the Top End are being upgraded 'to enhance the ability of the Australian Defence Force to project force,' Brigadier Matthew Quinn said at a sod-turning ceremony earlier this month. 'These critical upgrades follow recent works to enhance the main runway and taxiways, improving the capacity, security and resilience of RAAF Base Darwin.' It was just one $160 million piece of a massive international defence buildup across northern Australia. The cause: China's assertive territorial ambitions. 'Taking back the Port of Darwin from Landbridge Group would also symbolise a dangerous shift from commercial cooperation to military development,' the Global Times warns. 'The move of 'de-Sinicisation' aims to remove obstacles for the US to advance its militarisation in northern Australia.' Strategic and economic security 'It is well known that Darwin Port only became linked to so-called 'national security' and subjected to a wave of political and security scrutiny after so-called 'concerns' were voiced from Washington,' the Global Times editorial insists. All China-based and owned companies must have Communist Party Commissars on their boards. They must also readily hand over any and all information on their customers and deals to any government agency upon demand. US President Barack Obama broke the news of potential problems directly with then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull during an APEC meeting in November 2015. He asked that Washington be given a 'heads-up' over similar deals in future. Obama's cause for concern was obvious. Chairman Xi was, at the time, deeply engaged in building illegal island fortresses on sand banks claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan. His government was vocally asserting ownership over Japan and South Korea's islands in the East China Sea. Threats of invading Taiwan had already become commonplace. Darwin was even then a significant stepping stone for rapidly expanding US and allied military activities in northern Australia. 'As the Indo-Pacific becomes increasingly contested, supply chains become more vulnerable and coercive statecraft becomes more common,' argues Australian Strategic Policy Institute national security analyst John Coyne. 'Darwin's proximity to key maritime routes and regional partners makes it an indispensable asset.' Follow the money The purchase of the Darwin Port was touted as part of Chairman Xi Jinping's grand 'Belt and Road' vision of a Chinese-controlled trade network spanning the Pacific, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe. The natural deep-water harbour is strategically positioned as a hub between the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. And about 4.5 million tonnes of cargo and significant quantities of oil and gas pass over its piers each year. In 2015, the Foreign Investment Review Board headed by then federal treasurer Scott Morrison, decided against examining the proposed deal. The Defence Department, undergoing one of many ministerial transitions, had no objections. And the then minister for trade and investment, Andrew Robb, was ecstatic. '(It is) a powerful sign of the enhanced commercial relationship between Australia and China flowing from the China-Australia free trade agreement,' Robb declared in October 2015. Robb resigned from Parliament four months later and immediately took up a position as 'advisor' to the Landbridge Group. Now, both sides of politics are firmly in agreement: Make Darwin Australian again. During the 2025 election campaign, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised the port would be sold to an Australian operator. This is despite reports US equity firm Cerberus Capital, which has close ties to President Donald Trump's White House administration, is preparing to make a bid. Former opposition leader Peter Dutton went further, promising his Liberal-National Coalition would nationalise the asset under government ownership. But Beijing is biting back. The Global Times warned Tuesday that 'should the Australian government take the drastic step of forcibly taking back Darwin Port', this would 'undoubtedly' produce 'enduring pitfalls for the country'. Investor returns 'Whether the Port of Darwin becomes a hub of prosperous trade or the eye of a geopolitical storm is not a difficult choice, but it does test Canberra's strategic wisdom,' the Global Times editorial reads. The Communist Party editorial says its 2015 purchase had been 'timely assistance' to the Northern Territory at a time when Canberra 'wasn't interested'. 'From turning the port's operations from loss to profit and helping ease the Northern Territory government's debt crisis, to investing more than $A83 million and upgrading port facilities … and greatly contributing to local economic and social development, Landbridge Group's involvement has brought systematic and positive changes to Darwin Port,' it states. But concern over possible financial difficulties contributed to the port's prominence in the recent Federal Election. Landbridge Australia non-executive director Terry O'Connor said this week that the company had 'not yet received any offers or engagement from the (Australian) government at any level.' But he 'welcomed' comments by Beijing's envoy to Australia, Xiao Qian. Xiao issued a statement on Sunday after touring the port's operations. He insisted the lease had been purchased through 'an open and transparent bidding process, fully compliant with Australian laws and market principles'. 'It's very morally inappropriate to rent out the port when it is in the red and take it back once it is profitable,' he argues. Tuesday's Global Times editorial went one step further, warning that placing 'politics over the rule of law' sent a 'dangerous signal to global investors … especially in sectors like infrastructure and energy that require long-term investment'. 'The operation of Darwin Port is, at its core, a market-driven economic project and should operate within the framework of the rule of law and market principles,' it adds. But the world economic and security order has been upended since 2015, with Chairman Xi securing an unconstitutional third term and US President Trump vigorously pursuing an 'America First' agenda in the opening months of his second term. 'Darwin's development has long been framed as a national opportunity. It is now a strategic obligation,' Coyne argues. 'Australia cannot afford to leave its north underdone or underutilised. 'A sovereign, commercially viable, and strategically aligned marine industry in Darwin is no longer aspirational.'
Business Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Times
Australia aims to avoid Panama repeat in China port showdown
[CANBERRA] Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is confronting a fresh diplomatic dilemma with China: How to fulfil a pledge to regain control of a strategic port without jeopardising improved relations with his country's largest trading partner. Ahead of an election earlier this month, Albanese promised to return to Australian control the Port of Darwin from Chinese company Landbridge Group. It was awarded a 99-year lease in 2015 by the Northern Territory government in a move that sparked criticism from an array of politicians in Australia and in the US, which uses a nearby military training facility. China is Australia's biggest trading partner by far and previously expressed anger over pressure from the Trump administration concerning the Panama Canal, which resulted in a potential sale by a Hong Kong-based conglomerate of its two Panama port operations – a deal Beijing has said it will review. Albanese potentially faces a similar backlash from the Chinese government if Beijing perceives it's being treated unfairly at the Port of Darwin. 'The key is whether it's a commercial or ostensibly a commercial transaction or not,' said Richard McGregor, a senior fellow at Sydney-based Lowy Institute, who serves on the board of a government body advising on relations with China. A simple buyout of Landbridge by an Australian company would be significantly less controversial than a sale to a US business or an attempt to cancel the lease and nationalise it, he said. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Speaking on Wednesday, Albanese appeared to pour some cold water on the idea of an acquisition by a US company while restating his desire to get the port back under Australian control. 'It's in the national interest for it to be in Australian hands,' Albanese said at a press conference in Darwin. 'But if there are other proposals, we'll work those through. But we'll work those through on a commercial basis.' Terry O'Connor, a non-executive director for Landbridge in Australia, said on Wednesday there's been interest among investors in Australia and abroad on whether the port is for sale. They have also received calls from international investors, some of whom are in talks with the local administration, about whether the national government's plan to acquire the port is real, he said. Like many countries in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia is caught in a bind. The US is the largest single investor in Australia and the country's main security ally, but China is by far its biggest export market. High stakes China's government would like for its firms to be able to invest more into Australia, especially in the minerals sector, but Canberra has blocked a series of investment proposals since the two signed a free-trade agreement more than a decade ago. That raises the stakes for how Albanese manages the port dispute. Bilateral relations collapsed during the pandemic, when China imposed tariffs and trade barriers on Australian goods, but have gradually improved since Albanese first took power in 2022. Xiao Qian, China's ambassador to Australia, has warned Canberra to proceed cautiously in its handling of the lease, which he said was awarded to Landbridge 'through an open and transparent bidding process'. He made the point of personally visiting Darwin in the past week to press Beijing's request for Landbridge to be treated fairly. While Landbridge has been reported to be having financial difficulties, Chinese state media also cautioned against forcing Landbridge to give up the lease. A Global Times editorial this week said the Australian government should 'prioritise the broader picture, uphold the spirit of contract, return to the rule of law, and stop distorting economic cooperation with political bias.' The port is Australia's northernmost maritime facility, positioned close to South-east Asia. During the election campaign, Albanese raised the possibility of nationalising the facility in case a private owner couldn't be found. US private equity company Cerberus held an initial meeting with the Port of Darwin to discuss taking over the lease, while other Australian entities including large pension funds are also running a ruler over the numbers. 'Far from ideal' Since 2001, Chinese firms have increasingly invested in overseas ports. That's often been portrayed as part of President Xi Jinping's 'Belt and Road Initiative' to build up trade links between China and the rest of the world, according to Zongyuan Zoe Liu at the Council at Foreign Relations, who tracks such investments. Some of those investments have become controversial or been criticised as a vehicle for greater Chinese influence, although some, such as the purchase of Piraeus Port in Greece by Chinese shipping giant Cosco Shipping Holdings, can be seen as a success, she said in a recent interview. While the Port of Darwin has not attracted the same level of attention from Washington as the Panama Canal, that does not mean that the US is not watching closely 'For many of our allies and partners, the current status quo is far from ideal,' said Luke Gosling, a military veteran and lawmaker for Darwin in Albanese's Labor government. 'That has fed into obviously our decision-making around making that commitment that the Port of Darwin come back into Australian hands.' BLOOMBERG
South China Morning Post
4 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
Port in storm threat to China-Australia ties
Just when frayed relations between Beijing and Canberra are on the mend, Australia's efforts to balance a security relationship with the United States and its trading relationship with China have hit a snag. China has intervened in a move to unwind Chinese control of a strategic asset – Darwin port on Australia's northern border. The case has the potential for another flare-up similar to that over the proposal by Hong Kong's CK Hutchison Holdings to sell off container ports including two strategically and politically sensitive operations on the Panama Canal. Chinese firm Landbridge Group was awarded a 99-year lease of the Darwin facility in 2015, under a deal approved by the Northern Territory government, but criticised by the then US president, Barack Obama. The port is not far from where US marines conduct exercises. Investment and management by Landbridge have since turned the port into a profitable operation. Facing criticism ahead of a recent election, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government was working on a plan to buy back the port on national interest grounds, saying it needed to be 'in Australian hands'. Xiao Qian, China's ambassador to Canberra, said: 'Such an enterprise deserves encouragement, not punishment. It is ethically questionable to lease the port when it was unprofitable and then seek to reclaim it once it becomes profitable.' Xiao urged the Australian government to create a fair, transparent and predictable business environment for Chinese companies in Australia. From China's perspective, this case may serve as a cautionary tale about investing abroad, particularly in certain countries. Australia, after all, is a US ally. But if the port is returned to Australian hands, there would be doubts whether Australia could stand up to US pressure in future. That is why China has spoken up. There is likely to be a much tougher geopolitical environment ahead. Canberra should be mindful of warming bilateral relations, with China having lifted trade bans on Australian exports in December. That is thanks in part to a more pragmatic approach from Canberra to relations with Beijing since ties were damaged years ago by security reforms targeting China and a call for an independent inquiry into the origins of Covid-19.
