Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank the member for Kennedy for raising this motion around the leasing arrangements of the port of Darwin. Of course, we don't always agree—in fact, probably more often than not—but there's no denying his passion for our country, for our sovereignty and for our future. Of course, it will be no surprise to anyone here that I care deeply about this issue. This issue obviously highlights the strategic importance of Darwin to Australia and the wider Indo-Pacific, particularly in these days.

Even before I was in this place, I was speaking up about this issue and about the disgraceful decision that was made by the Country Liberal Party. Our colleague from the other side says we shouldn't take political pot shots, but let's just call a spade a spade. There is a thing called responsibility. When you make a decision that's wrong, you take responsibility for it. We cannot forget that that deal was also enabled by the federal coalition when they were in government in 2015. My colleague also alluded to some of the ministers and former ministers who, whilst in this place and then immediately after leaving this place, enabled this travesty.

Last month it was announced that the Department of Defence would conduct a review into security implications for the leasing arrangements for the port. Of course, I welcome that. I've been calling for it for a long time. It comes six years after Mr Dennis Richardson, the then Secretary of the Department of Defence, said in 2015:

… Defence does not have any security concerns about the sale of the port to Chinese interests … No part of Defence had a concern from a security perspective in respect of the sale.

Ninety-nine years is a very long time. We do not know when the review will be finished, but I trust that it will be a serious review this time and not just another political fig leaf to protect this government, those opposite, from its past mistakes.

I thank the member for Kennedy for this motion, and I share his frustration about this issue, but I disagree with the motion of the member for Kennedy in its call to ensure that the Port of Darwin is sold only to an Australian company. I don't think we should limit ourselves in that regard. There are ongoing tensions in our region, and we must consider carefully how the port is divested, should the federal government make that decision based on the advice from the Department of Defence, but we've long relied on international capital, so we shouldn't be making decisions based solely on the national origin of companies that want to do business here. So let's keep an open mind.

But it would be a mistake, obviously, to ignore the security risks presented from specific companies seeking to make specific investments, particularly when it comes to critical infrastructure. In this instance, obviously, it's a no-brainer that Landbridge was an inappropriate company to lease such an important piece of infrastructure to, let alone for 99 years. As we've seen, geostrategic situations can move quickly, and they have.

I just want to quickly mention some former Royal Australian Navy officers that went to work for Landbridge. They are honourable men and patriots, and they really took that into their role. But, of course, we can't always depend on Landbridge or any other company employing former Australian Defence Force personnel in these roles.

So I'm pleased that the member for Kennedy has raised this issue, I agree that the lease should not have been approved and that the Port of Darwin deal was a bad deal for the Territory and for the country. Ensuring national security is a primary responsibility of a federal government. We live in an era of increasing complexity, so protecting our national security is multifaceted, but the Port of Darwin deal is not and has never been a complex issue. It is indeed a no-brainer. It wasn't in our interests. It shouldn't have been made. The government must not kick this Defence review, with the input of other important agencies, down the road. Once that national security advice is received, the federal government must act.

See this speech in context