Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also thank the member for Kennedy for raising this important matter in this chamber and the other members responsible for it having been brought here. I don't agree with every single word of the motion and, as the member for Solomon pointed out, there are some details that we can discuss, but I think it is a very important matter to discuss in this chamber, and I certainly agree with the core sentiments that have motivated this issue being raised.

This coalition government has been in power for eight years. The names on the top of the shop might change every now and then, but it's the same mob who have been responsible for decisions over that period of time, and the decision in 2015 to lease the port of Darwin is one of the largest and most significant errors that have taken place during that period of time. This is a litany of failure by both the Country Liberal Northern Territory government and the federal Liberal-National coalition government. It was an avoidable fiasco that was entirely of the making of those two governments.

I want to talk about some aspects of the decision which are highly problematic, both to inform what we do going forward and so that we don't make errors like this in the future. One characteristic of the decision was the entity to which the lease was made. As others have indicated, the Landbridge group is a Chinese owned company which in October 2015 obtained a 99-year lease. The deal resulted in this group obtaining 100 per cent operational control of the port and 80 per cent ownership of the Darwin port land and the facilities of East Arm Wharf, including the marine supply base and Fort Hill Wharf.

The owner of the Landbridge Group, Ye Cheng, was named by the Chinese government in 2013 as one of the top 10 'individuals caring about the development of national defence'. That's a quote of the People's Republic of China. I say that to highlight the fact that there were characteristics of the entity which obtained this lease that should have been scrutinised more closely. As earlier speakers have indicated, the strategic situation and the strategic risks and threats to Australia have changed markedly in the period since this deal. Ninety-nine years is a very long period of time, and we need to ensure that with assets of this nature we pay much closer attention to the entities benefitting from such transactions.

The second characteristic of this transaction that earlier speakers have noted is the fact that it was 99 years. Any transaction of this length of time needs to be vetted much more carefully in future. The third characteristic of this transaction is that it related to such a strategic asset—not just a strategic asset but a monopoly asset. Whenever we deal with assets of that nature, we need to be much more careful in future.

And the fourth characteristic of this deal that I think is important to highlight is the fact that at its heart it is such a non-reciprocal arrangement. Imagine if an Australian entity tried to purchase, lease or take a controlling interest in an asset of this nature in another country and in particular in the People's Republic of China. Would they have any such opportunity? No. When there are non-reciprocal arrangements like that, it should set off alarm bells.

The actions of the Northern Territory government in selling and leasing this critical infrastructure were not opposed by the Turnbull coalition government at the time, and that was a major strategic error. Indeed, Andrew Robb, the Minister for Trade and Investment in the Turnbull government, said:

Landbridge's commitment to the growth of the Port of Darwin will be a huge spur to the development of Australia's north …

So it was not only not vetted; it was naively welcomed at the time. It is worth contrasting that enthusiasm that was expressed by the Northern Territory and also by the Turnbull government with the sentiments expressed by the Northern Territory Labor Party, which identified this transaction as short-sighted and contrary to the territory's long-term interests—prophetic words. You can also contrast it with the views expressed by the federal Labor Party at the time, which highlighted the anxiety within the Australian Defence Force created by the lease of such a critical piece of national infrastructure and the importance of conducting a proper and thorough review to identify the implications of the deal.

There are a number of characteristics of this deal which are highly concerning. One is the entity which benefited from the transaction. Two is the length of the lease. Three is the monopolistic and strategic nature of the asset. Four is the fact that we have to question whether it was a deal that was at all reciprocal. All of these alarm bells should have been looked at at the time. They need to inform better decision-making going forward.

See this speech in context