The decision by the Australian government not to cancel the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company is a concerning development. In 2015, the Northern Territory Country Liberal government leased the port to Landbridge Group for $506 million (US$320 million). This decision came shortly after the United States stationed marines in Darwin, increasing their presence in the region. The Northern Territory, especially Darwin, plays a critical role in Australia’s defense and will become even more crucial as regional tensions rise.
The current Labor government initiated a review of the lease after the 2022 election and has the power to terminate it since it was made by a territory-level jurisdiction. A review conducted by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet concluded that there is a robust regulatory system in place to manage risks to critical infrastructure, including the Port of Darwin. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to cancel or modify the lease. The government has accepted this advice and assured that monitoring of security arrangements around the port will continue to ensure the safety of Australians and maintain Australia’s competitiveness for foreign investment.
However, the security agencies have not disclosed the specific monitoring mechanisms in place or how they will continue to oversee the situation. Questions arise regarding the port’s vulnerability in the event of conflict and the potential compromise of sensitive communications. This decision poses a risk to Australia’s security since Chinese corporations are subject to the directives of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which views all companies and institutions in China as having both civil and military purposes.
The timing of this decision, released just weeks before the prime minister’s visit to Beijing, raises legitimate concerns. It is worth noting that prior to the last election, Opposition Leader Mr. Albanese criticized the Turnbull government’s approval of the lease as a “grave error of judgment.” While we can only hope that the reassurances provided by the prime minister’s department hold true, it is important to recognize and address the potential risks associated with this decision.