Latest news with #Landbridge
AU Financial Review
24-07-2025
- Business
- AU Financial Review
Labor tipped to step up Darwin Port sale after PM's China visit
Potential buyers circling Darwin Port expect the Albanese government to ramp up plans to force the Chinese owner to relinquish the key infrastructure asset following the prime minister's well-received trip to China last week. Industry players say there had been a bureaucratic go-slow over making the port's owner, Landbridge, divest the asset despite Anthony Albanese and the Coalition promising in April during the election campaign to bring the port back into Australian hands.
ABC News
20-07-2025
- Business
- ABC News
The fight with China over the Darwin port
Sam Hawley: A decade ago, a Chinese company was given the green light to take control of a key Australian port, the Port of Darwin. Now, the Albanese government is scrambling to take it back in a move that the US has long encouraged, but China has warned against. Today, veteran defence analyst Alan Dupont on why the deal was allowed in the first place and the risks of letting it continue. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. News report: Alongside the inevitable Panda diplomacy, Albanese will likely be tough on China, albeit behind closed doors. News report: If there is one issue Australia could try to leverage with China, it is the Port of Darwin. A Chinese company called Landbridge has a 99 year lease over the port and the Albanese government wants to tear that up. News report: China's also likely to press the prime minister to ditch his election promise, something that Treasurer Jim Chalmers says won't happen. Jim Chalmers, Treasurer: We've made it very clear that we will see the Port of Darwin returned to Australian hands. That's what we committed to during the election. Sam Hawley: Alan, the Port of Darwin, it's become a big issue in our diplomatic relationship with China, although Anthony Albanese says it wasn't discussed during a meeting with the Chinese president during his trip to Beijing last week. Reporter: Did the president express any objection to your plans about bringing the Port of Darwin back into Australian hands or any potential response that China might take to that? Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: No, it wasn't raised. Sam Hawley: Is that surprising to you, given it's a rather big issue? Alan Dupont: Well, it's not surprising to me in the sense that it's not a sort of issue that the president of China is going to discuss with the prime minister. But it's not to say it's not an insignificant issue, because it certainly was taken up by Chinese Premier Li Qiang in the follow up meeting. And he made it quite clear that China would not be happy if Australia was to take the lease back from the Landbridge company. Li Qiang, Chinese Premier: I trust that Australia will also treat Chinese enterprises fairly and also properly resolve the issues they encounter in terms of market access and investment review. Sam Hawley: All right, well, Alan, to understand what's actually going on, I think we should just step back to 2015, because that's when Landbridge, this Chinese company, signed a very long lease to control the port. Just remind me of what happened back then. Alan Dupont: Yes, well, I think the first thing to remember is just a totally different era in Australia's relations with China, when China was essentially seen as a benign trade partner. Everybody was in sort of in the China basket. More China was good. And in 2015, the Northern Territory government decided to put the lease of the port out to tender and Landbridge won the bid by a substantial margin. It bid far more than the other competitors, which is interesting in itself. And it was granted the lease. News report: A deal worth $506 million has won Chinese company Landbridge Group the bid for Darwin's 99-year lease. The government hopes the company's connections will open doors to greater territory trade in Asia, particularly China. Alan Dupont: Now, when Adam Giles, who was the Northern Territory Chief Minister at the time who made the decision, was asked whether he had consulted with the Commonwealth government, the federal government, he said, yes, we've run it past Defence and they've given it a clean bill of health, which is actually correct. Adam Giles, then-NT Chief Minister: Defence as an agency signed off on that, and we're quite happy with the approval process on that. It didn't need formal approval. Alan Dupont: So he ran it past Defence. Defence said no problems from a security point of view. And so the Northern Territory government went ahead with it. And the reason they did that is because they wanted to have the money from the lease, from the successful tenderer, which is over half a billion dollars, so that they could develop the harbour as the main gateway into Northern Australia. So it's quite an important economic sort of fillip, if you like, for the Northern Territory government. Sam Hawley: OK, and just to make clear, Darwin, of course, is a gateway to Asia. The port is the nearest port from Australia to Asia. So it is actually a really important Australian infrastructure, isn't it? Alan Dupont: No, absolutely. It was then and is now, even more so now. But you're absolutely right. It is the major port in Northern Australia. And unfortunately, at the time, it was pretty moribund. It just wasn't making money. So I think the Northern Territory government saw an opportunity here to beef up the infrastructure and they put some of the money into a shiplift, which was going to be an added attraction to the port so they could lift large ships up and repair them. So that was another offering they could get out of the actual money from the lease. Sam Hawley: All right. So Landbridge, this Chinese company, it receives a 99 year lease. Just tell me, what sort of links does this company actually have to the Chinese government? Alan Dupont: Well, Landbridge is owned by a gentleman called Ye Cheng, who is a billionaire and has very direct and specific links to the Chinese government, as most businesses do in China. And the bottom line is that if the Chinese government wants Landbridge to do something, it will have to do it, have to comply, because that's spelled out in the national security law that governs all commercial businesses in China. Sam Hawley: Well, as you say, back then the federal government at the time did agree that this should go ahead. But there were people who were raising objections, including Anthony Albanese and the then president of the United States, Barack Obama. Alan Dupont: Yes. Well, not everybody was happy with the decision even back then in 2015. News report: The US president, Barack Obama, has told Mr Turnbull his country would have appreciated being consulted about the deal before it was announced. Alan Dupont: I know that Bill Shorten, who was the leader of the Labor Party at the time, did ask for details of why the decision had been made. Bill Shorten, then-Labor leader: We would like them to explain whether or not they've done all the foreign investment review processes. We want to hear from our security and defence experts. Alan Dupont: And I think the local Labor opposition in the Northern Territory did criticise the decision at the time. So it's fair to say that Labor generally weren't particularly happy or supportive of it. But I don't think they made too big a deal about it at the time. It's only later on that it's become a controversial issue. Sam Hawley: All right. OK. So, Alan, we know this lease is now at the centre of a geopolitical storm. And ahead of the last election, Anthony Albanese pledged to return the port of Darwin to Australian hands. But what do we know when it comes to national security risks? Are there any risks to the security of the port of Darwin? Are there legitimate concerns, in your view, regarding the Chinese ownership of this port? It's not like Chinese warships can pull up to it, right? Alan Dupont: Yeah, that's correct. I mean, look, there's been a bit of hyperbole about it at both ends of the spectrum here. I do think there are national security implications, but they're not quite what people would think. I don't think the Chinese Landbridge is going to suddenly start spying on Australian Navy ships. I mean, why would it need to do that? I mean, their satellites are quite capable of monitoring what goes on in Darwin Harbour. Sam Hawley: They can do it anyway. Alan Dupont: That's right. So it's not so much that from a technical espionage point of view. It's really about the fact that you have to see the lease in terms of China's broader strategic ambitions in the region. And also, they saw it useful as making it more difficult for the US to actually beef up its capabilities in northern Australia if the US saw this as a problem and the US did see it as a problem. So China is quite happy to see that happen, because obviously it would like to decouple Australia from the US alliance if it can possibly do so. So you have to see it in terms of that broad strategic context rather than just a commercial decision. Sam Hawley: Yeah, right. And as you said, the world is a different place than it was 10 years ago. And China spent that decade building up influence in the region, right? So there is, what, more reason for concern now? Alan Dupont: Yes, I think that's right. I mean, it's a totally different environment now, obviously, than it was back in 2015. And as you're aware, now it's become a political issue here in Australia at two levels. One is that the China hawks see this as a big problem. It's a perception problem as much as a real problem. The US is not happy with it. But the other thing is it's become politicised too. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: What we will do is negotiate in the interests of Australian taxpayers, in the national interest. It will come back under Australian control. We would never have flogged this off. Alan Dupont: Both parties have committed to taking the lease back, preferably in commercial grounds. But if necessary, they will play the national security card through the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act, which it's set up and designed to protect Australian critical infrastructure, of which Darwin Port would be considered an important part of that. So that's where we are at the moment. Sam Hawley: What sort of influence do you think the Americans are playing in this decision, if any at all? As you've said, the Americans do not want Chinese ownership of this port, and they've been pushing for a long time for that to end. Alan Dupont: Yeah, look, I mean, the Americans have been actually tiptoeing around this rather than coming in strongly about it. I mean, clearly they're not happy to have the Chinese, a Chinese company in charge of the port. But I wouldn't overestimate the US pressure side of this. I think it's probably much more an Australian internal decision. I think there was some embarrassment on the part of Defence that this was given a clean bill of health, when later on, I think if it had gone back up to Defence two years later, there's no way that the lease would have been approved now. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, of course, as we've mentioned, the Chinese are not happy about this at all. What has the company Landbridge actually had to say in response to this? Alan Dupont: So the Australian CEO of Landbridge, Terry O'Connor, I mean, he's a straight commercial guy. And he's saying, look, you know, I'm just running a port here. Terry O'Connor, Landbridge non-executive director for Australia: What we've seen is the port continue to be used as a political football in an election cycle. We've seen a bit of hysteria around the fact that it's owned by a private Chinese individual. I call them myths and mistruths often being said around the port. One that continues to amuse me is the perception that we're somehow connected with the People's Liberation Army in China. We're not. Alan Dupont: But, you know, there are broader considerations here. And the point is that the government is now committed to doing it. And the issue is how they do it. Right. And I think I don't think the government has fully understood the complexity of this. So it's looking to engineer a commercial buyout, preferably by an Australian provider of port management. But it's going to be difficult to find one to take that on board because it's not an easy thing to do. They're not companies with the expertise. If we can't get a commercial buyout, if, for example, Landbridge doesn't sell regardless of the offer, then we only have no alternative but to play the national security card. In which case China is going to say, well, what is the legitimacy of taking this lease back? When we complied, when the Landbridge complied with all the provisions of it? In fact, the Chinese ambassador has talked about I think his term was a ethically questionable decision. So you can see that there's a lot of obstacles ahead to actually engineer this. And how Albanese does it is going to determine how China responds. Sam Hawley: Yeah. OK, well, let's then look, Alan, at how China could actually respond to this. We know it's a volatile relationship. Regardless of the way it happens, will there be a backlash from China, do you think? Alan Dupont: Yeah, well, look, they could do a number of things. They could just make a pro forma protest and let it go through to the keeper, so to speak, in the interest of the broader relationship. Or if they really wanted to go to town, they could actually do something quite serious in terms of our trade relationship, for example. So I think, you know, there's a lot of different outcomes here. It could be a relatively minor thing and easily dealt with, but I suspect it's going to be somewhere in between. And it's going to be fascinating to see how it plays out. Sam Hawley: Sure is. So will Anthony Albanese stick to his guns on this? He's not going to back out amid threats from China, is he? I mean, this could get ugly. Alan Dupont: Well, so now he's made that decision, it would be very difficult for him not to see it through. So I think he's got to now engineer an outcome where the lease is taken back from Landbridge, but not in a way that really offends China. And I'm not entirely sure how he's going to do that. Sam Hawley: Alan Dupont is the chief executive of geopolitical risk consultancy, the Cognoscenti Group, who until recently advised the Northern Territory government on boosting defence investment. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
Sydney Morning Herald
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
China gibes prove Coalition is out of step with diplomatic reality
The accusations of Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie that Anthony Albanese's trip to China has just been a shallow photo opportunity shows how little the Coalition has learnt from its own failures in the Morrison years (' Great photo ops, not a lot of tangible outcomes ', July 17). Julie Bishop, one of Australia's most successful foreign affairs ministers, realised that diplomacy involved both the establishment of warm relationships as well as engaging in hard negotiations. Under Bishop, our relationship with China prospered. It was no surprise that when Bishop was replaced by the less subtle Marise Payne, serving under the self-confessed 'bulldozer' Scott Morrison, our relations with China (as well as France) fell apart. The proof that a charm offensive works is evidenced by the fact that Australia's exports to China are booming again thanks to the expert way Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong and Don Farrell have played the diplomatic game. Mike Reddy, Vincentia No matter what we may think or report about China, history shows you do not get a reception like the one received by our PM unless you are highly regarded and respected (' China and Xi give Albanese a warm welcome ', July 16). Anthony Albanese has done his research and hit just the right behavioural and responsive notes to Chinese cultural sensitivities and expectations. No one since Whitlam has blazed this trail, and no one could have done better and accomplished more to recalibrate our relationship with the Middle Kingdom. Frederick Jansohn, Rose Bay After a rare private dinner with Xi Jinping, I see some media outlets going on and on about how Anthony Albanese has not met Donald Trump, as if this is a bad thing. What upside is there for him to meet Trump? Like other world leaders who have met him, Albanese is likely to be confronted with a series of questions and questionable facts from Trump, leaving him to accept what is said and be humiliated, or confront Trump and end up doing more harm than good. The next best time for an Australian PM to meet a US president will be in February 2029, after the next election. Christopher Noel, Cremorne Point Portly dispositions I am intrigued at how the federal opposition recently pressed Anthony Albanese to be transparent in his discussions with China's Xi Jinping when negotiating the return of the Port of Darwin, now in the hands of Chinese company Landbridge (' Albanese says Taiwan 'status quo' remains ', July 17). As it turned out, the issue was not raised between the two leaders. China's Premier Li Qiang, however, has expressed concerns about Albanese's commitment to end Landbridge's ownership of the port. It was Tony Abbott's government that set the ball rolling a few days before he was toppled by his own party in September 2015. The Northern Territory was encouraged to proceed with a 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to Landbridge, owned by billionaire Ye Cheng, who has close links to the Chinese Communist Party, for the sum of $506 million. This agreement was strongly opposed by the Labor Party at that time. Neil James, a former executive director of the Australia Defence Association, called it 'an inexcusable stuff-up'. It is therefore clear that we would not be even having this conversation if the Coalition had not gotten us into this mess in the first place. The upshot is that there is no doubt the Chinese leadership will side with Ye Cheng, who has expressly stated the port is not for sale. Frank Carroll, Moorooka (Qld) Defence is theft In the argument about defence (Letters, July 17), President Dwight Eisenhower's speech about defence expenditure is often quoted. Perhaps we might reflect on his comments, made in 1953: 'Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.' Says it all, really. John Crowe, Cherrybrook Friends with PBS benefits I never thought I'd see the day when I'd appreciate something Donald Trump has done. But now, thanks to him, we have a rare moment of what I've long hoped for: both sides of parliament working consensually on an issue (' Trump's pharma threats unite Labor and Coalition ', July 17). It is so good to see the opposition shifting from its standard operating procedure of bagging the government to one of bipartisanship in defence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, resulting in a rare moment of public unity. Of course, at the same time the opposition spokesman couldn't resist bagging the prime minister. And since that was for still not having secured a meeting with President Trump, we'd have to ask what on earth would that achieve for Australia, in light of all that we've seen about the outcomes of such meetings when other world leaders have met him, cap in hand. Anne Ring, Coogee Card sharks Your correspondent Stein Boddington makes good points about surcharges added to card users at point of sale (Letters, July 17). As a matter of principle, I do not apply card surcharge in my business (more than 95 per cent of turnover is paid by card). I regard the cost as a business expense and price my product accordingly. However, I have never understood why the alleged card service cost imposed by the bank is levied as a commission, or percentage on the sale. In what way is their cost tenfold for a $200 transaction compared with a $20 transaction? As for cash, clearly there are substantial costs in handling cash, with Armaguard being extended a further large lifeline to transport cash. Now we are also charged to deal with tellers at a bank. Card transactions or cash transactions, banks should just do their job, charge their customers appropriately and stop extorting them by charging commissions on card sales. John Affleck, Sydney Housing solution While Premier Chris Minns searches for new housing solutions following the Rosehill Metro collapse, developers' enthusiasm for Woollahra's potential as a transit-oriented development proves that stations attract investment (' Developers circle Woollahra ghost station ', July 17). As a qualified planner, I've repeatedly urged the Minns Cabinet (since opposition) to follow what became their own Metro West Review's recommendation to reopen the case for Lilyfield. As it stands, the completed Metro West tunnel now passes just north of Leichhardt Oval, and while that iconic ground shouldn't be sold, the surrounding suburb is ripe for a strategic upscale to medium and high-density apartments, as well as a new local centre, connected to neighbouring areas. A Lilyfield Metro West station could support such development, greatly increasing the chance of meeting inner Sydney housing targets. If a mere fraction of that $5 billion previously offered to Racing NSW for Rosehill were put toward completing and backfilling a basic station cavity in Lilyfield by the line's projected opening in 2032, then like Woollahra now, developers could handle the rest whenever the city was ready. One thing I'm sure of – in a century, no one will question such a decision. But the existing 4.5-kilometre gap between new stations in Five Dock and The Bays? The fact this was left unaddressed so close to the CBD in still low-rise, car-dependent suburbs will no doubt be condemned. Nathan English, Balmain Considering that all Chris Minns has achieved with his housing projects is to raise current house prices around all proposed 'transport orientated development' sites by 10 per cent, I don't know why the current residents of Woollahra would object to opening a train station and the subsequent developments that follow. Todd Hillsley, Homebush Tiny home, big potential While I applaud the effort to produce approval-ready plans for the state government's Housing Pattern Book, they completely missed a trick by not coming up with a proper definition of a 'tiny home' so that people could apply to build them legally, instead of having to work around the issue of non-approval by building them as a 'caravan' on a trailer. This method compromises the height and the room width, making them less habitable under National Construction Code standards. A carefully considered tiny home standard that would provide certainty for both DIY and factory builders of these gems would put affordable housing at the fingertips of many more people than the government's plan book ever will, and enable local councils to approve them as dwellings, not just as caravans. Then they could be used for permanent accommodation, not just temporary, which is the restriction for normal caravans. If you've never seen one, understand that tiny homes are nothing like a caravan, except they sometimes have wheels under them. Affordable? Yep! A really nice tiny home could be built for less than $150,000 on your own land or in a factory and towed to your land. Mark Walker, Kempsey Your correspondent David Rohr makes an excellent point regarding residential housing block infill in light of the state government's Housing Pattern Book initiative (Letters, July 17). Utilising even modest backyard space for granny flat-style homes would immediately add to the housing supply rather than sacrificing perfectly adequate structures in the name of newness. Many a backyard could benefit from such additions – it would just take a similar design initiative for modest one- and two-bedroom dwellings with the corresponding streamlining of the local government approvals process. Macquarie Street might also consider what incentives might be offered to homeowners and builders to encourage this repurposing of the traditional housing block — even in space-deprived inner-city suburbs. Mid- and high-rise projects should not be the only glittering answer to the housing crisis. Bradley Wynne, Croydon Credit to Husic Ed Husic deserves credit for joining the growing chorus of lawyers, academics and civil society voices warning against the overreach of the special envoy's report on antisemitism (' Former minister breaks ranks on antisemitism report ', July 17). By calling the report 'heavy-handed' and questioning the push to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, Husic gives voice to a real concern: that this approach could narrow the space for legitimate criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. We don't need laws that confuse moral clarity with hate. Fernanda Trecenti, Fitzroy (Vic) Lessons unlearned Dennis Bluth's suggestion regarding the final result for the seat of Bradfield, that 'we should leave it up to the court', is a fair one (Letters, July 17). However, this in no way proves that 'the usual pundits' who suggest the Liberal Party has a born-to-rule attitude are wrong. The born-to-rule attitude has always stained the Liberal and the National parties, and the current stances, for instance, of Angus Taylor and Michaelia Cash, who demand that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese follows their directions on relations with China and the crumbling USA, proves that their drubbing at the recent election has not altered this in the slightest. Ian Usman Lewis, Armidale Terror not the truth Ever since the awful Wolf Cree k movies, I have decried their contribution to the brutalisation of the beautiful outback, where the isolation is rendered as threatening, whereas in reality it is very affirming. Peter Falconio's murder in 2001 contributed to this fearful perception, but such events are very rare, especially when compared to our cities (' Killer's death brings no solace to victim's family ', July 17). Cinematic history is littered with examples of the fear of the wild unknown, of terror at the hands of redneck lunatics, with 1971's Wake in Fright setting the scene for many others. Walkabout, David Gulpilil's first movie in the same year, took a different tack, starting out with the fear factor dominating the young wanderers, who then discover its beauty and affirmation. I was at the real Wolfe Creek Crater a couple of weeks ago, and I am sitting on the Kimberley coast as I write this. The reality of the outback is that it is serenely beautiful, but any mention of Wolfe Creek Crater almost always brings out the sniggers and derogatory comments. The outback is also home to many First Nations people, who take umbrage at the brutalisation of their country. I, for one, won't be going to see Wolf Creek 3. Dick Clarke, Elanora Heights
West Australian
16-07-2025
- Business
- West Australian
Anthony Albanese defends Darwin Port stance from Great Wall of China, Australian businesses won't be iced out
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has dismissed suggestions Australian businesses could be iced out of the Chinese market over the Government's decision to put the strategic port of Darwin back into Australia's hands. Chinese objections to Labor's election promise to overturn the awarding of a 99-year lease of the port to the Beijing-owned Landbridge group have loomed over Mr Albanese's red carpet reception in China this week, with state media repeatedly highlighting the controversy. Mr Albanese on Wednesday confirmed that the sale of the port had not been raised directly with him in talks with Premier Li Qiang or Chinese President Xi Jinping, who offered a rare lunch invitation to the Prime Minister and fiancee Jodie Haydon. Mr Li continued the charm offensive at a roundtable of Chinese and Australian business leaders in the imposing Great Hall of the People on Tuesday but alluded to the point of contention by urging Australia to create a 'non-discriminatory business environment.' 'We hope that the Australian side will treat Chinese enterprises visiting Australia fairly and properly solve the problems encountered by enterprises in market access, investment review, and other aspects,' Mr Li said. The Global Times, a state-run media outlet, was more direct. 'At present, there are specific issues between China and Australia that need to be discussed, such as the lease of Darwin Port and the expansion of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement,' it said. 'There are also practical obstacles, especially the tendencies toward 'pan-politicisation' and 'pan-securitisation,' as well as interference from third parties,' it continued in an otherwise glowing account of Mr Albanese's trip so far. Asked during a press conference on the Great Wall of China on Wednesday if he was prepared for Australia to be put back into the deep freeze on the issue, Mr Albanese responded with a straight, 'the answer is no.' The Prime Minister's six-day trip has been centred on repairing business and trade ties after a diplomatic spat under the Morrison government triggered a series of damaging import bans on key commodities, which have since been lifted. Labor has stressed, however, that it will not budge over the cancelling of the Landbridge lease for national security reasons. Mr Albanese told reporters that this was a long held position 'shouldn't come as any surprise.' However, Chinese officials have long protested over changes made to the Foreign Investment Review Board under the previous Government after the port lease was awarded to a Chinese-state owned operator by the Northern Territory authorities. That decision was viewed by many at the time, including in Washington, as a strategic mistake that compromised national security. The Government has rejected Beijing's suggestions that Chinese companies are now being unfairly targeted by rules requiring greater scrutiny in sensitive investment areas. Ahead of Mr Albanese's trip, the Government indicated it would not be prepared to ease restrictions or to accede to Chinese requests for greater cooperation on artificial intelligence capabilities. 'We have a case by case issue when it comes to foreign investment,' said Mr Albanese. 'It is viewed not on the basis of any one country, but on the basis of an objective assessment of our national interest.' He added, 'One of the things that I emphasise - I say the same thing in Beijing as I say in Bankstown, which is that the Australian Government supports free and fair trade. It's in the interests of the world to have free and fair trade, and we'll continue to engage that way.' The Prime Minister also revealed Communist Party Chairman Zhao Leji had agreed to an invitation to lead a National People's Congress delegation to Australia. 'It is very clear that it is in our national interest for us to have a positive relationship with China, where there are differences, to talk about them, but not be defined by them,' he said.
Sky News AU
15-07-2025
- Business
- Sky News AU
Chinese Premier Li Qiang issues veiled warning on Chinese business treatment as Albanese says Darwin Port not discussed with President Xi
Chinese Premier Li Qiang has sent a thinly veiled warning to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese after he held back from raising the politically charged Darwin Port issue with President Xi Jinping. Chinese Premier Li Qiang has delivered a thinly veiled warning to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese over treatment of Chinese businesses in Australia. His comments come after the Albanese government committed to reviewing Chinese firm Landbridge's 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin. At a meeting attended by Mr Albanese and business leaders, Premier Li urged Australia to 'treat Chinese enterprises fairly' and 'properly resolve the issues of market access'. 'I trust Australia will treat Chinese enterprise fairly and properly resolve issues regarding market access and investment review,' he said. 'Economic globalisation has encountered headwinds. Trade frictions continue to increase. 'We hope that you will embrace openness and co-operation, no matter how the world changes. 'You should be promoters of economic and trade co-operation so that our two countries will better draw on each other's strengths and grow together.' Mr Albanese declared during the federal election campaign that Landbridge must sell the port voluntarily or it would be forcibly acquired by government. The issue has upset the Chinese government—and Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian said it would be an 'ethically questionable' move by the Albanese government. However, Mr Albanese confirmed during his press conference that the Port of Darwin issue was not raised during his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. 'No, it wasn't raised. I can't be clearer than that… I don't need to (raise it),' Mr Albanese told reporters in Beijing. 'I've had the same position for a decade, since the Liberal Government chose to provide an incentive to the Northern Territory Liberal Government to flog off an asset.' The Prime Minister's blunt response came amid sustained domestic pressure over whether the federal government intends to intervene in the lease. The lease was granted by the NT government to Landbridge in 2015, but has remained politically sensitive over the past decade due to concerns about Chinese influence. — Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) July 15, 2025 Australia, which regards the United States as its major security ally, has pursued a China policy of 'cooperate where we can, disagree where we must' under Mr Albanese. Mr Albanese's six-day, three-city visit comes as a major test case for Beijing's attempts to capitalise on US President Donald Trump's global trade war. China has since sought to respond to President Trump's tariffs by presenting itself as a stable and reliable partner. President Xi called on both countries to safeguard free trade in a readout of his meeting with Mr Albanese published by state media. While Mr Albanese repeatedly voiced his support for free trade and more dialogue with China, the first day of senior meetings ended without any new major trade deals. 'Dialogue is how we advance our interests, how we manage our differences and we guard against misunderstanding,' Mr Albanese said on Tuesday night. He also said a decade-old free trade agreement with China, Australia's largest trade partner, would be reviewed. The two countries agreed to a new Policy Dialogue on Steel Decarbonisation that will give Australia insight into Chinese government planning. They also signed agreements on tourism, customs inspections, and agriculture, the statement said.
