Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) in 2015, the Northern Territory Government foolishly awarded a 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to Shandong Landbridge Group, a privately held company with ties to the Chinese Government and Communist Party of China; and

(b) the foreign ownership of the Port of Darwin represents a significant threat to Australia's strategic interests; and

(2) calls on the Commonwealth Government to:

(a) immediately prioritise Australia's sovereignty and strategic interests;

(b) take steps to force the immediate sale of the Port of Darwin to an Australian-owned company; and

(c) ensure that the Port of Darwin stays in the hands of the Australians serving our national interest.

We witnessed on the international internet and other parts of the media the image of an Australian soldier slitting the throat of a baby—an image put up there by the Chinese government, presumably, or other nefarious groups in China. The media in China called for the bombing of Australia. You can say, 'Oh well, that's just craziness.' Well, you ought to read the history books about Adolf Hitler and what he was saying. Because our Prime Minister had the temerity to say that COVID came from where everybody on the planet knows where it came from, because he said that publicly, China has taken $29 billion of trade off us. We were told in this place, again and again and again, how wonderful the free-trade deal was.

And we had the then Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, giving a standing ovation to Andrew Robb, the person who sold the Port of Darwin to China. According to media reports, Andrew Robb was then put on a salary of $999,000 a year—and no-one was punished, no-one was brought to heel, nothing was done about it whatsoever.

Mr Gosling interjecting—

The grains industry has suffered, the beef industry has suffered, the wine industry has suffered, the seafood industry has suffered, the timber industry has suffered and the mainstream of the Australian economy, coal, has suffered. Those are the king hits put in so far.

My colleague on the crossbench referred to Global Switch. It is extraordinary. You couldn't dream this up. All of the information storage and retrieval systems are owned by a Chinese company. At this stage, I'm so shocked that nothing will shock me now. When a young lad at the University of Queensland got up and expressed his opinion about what was going on with the Uighurs and students being put in jail in Hong Kong he was bashed up by four Chinese thugs—and no action was taken. Who gave the orders that no action be taken? We know who gave the orders. When it went on the television the first time, the police force started getting a little bit twitchy. God bless my colleague here from the neighbouring electorate of Dawson, who called for an inquiry into what took place at the University of Queensland. Then and only then, when it went on television a second time, the police, after 13 months, suddenly took action. It's on the television, the bloke being bashed. It is unprovoked assault and battery. The police don't get punished, and there's not the slightest doubt in my mind that instructions came from the Queensland government. There is no other way that those police would not have acted. That's bad enough in itself, but, returning to the young fellow, he was punished vilely. Three years of his life at university were taken off him. He had been elected to the university's senate, but they took the position off him, even though democratically they had no right to do that. But then, I suppose, if China is pulling the puppet strings at the University of Queensland—which brings me back to the port of Darwin.

I simply asked the question in the parliament last week, if you'll give me the indulgence of reading it out: 'Defence minister, wouldn't a China oil embargo, cutting off our sources in Singapore and South Korea'—the vast bulk of our petrol comes from those two places—'combined with regular trading vessels disembarking crews at a Chinese port'—they disembark a crew and the crew turns out to be a Chinese commando unit, so they now have control of the Northern Territory in one hit, and the peripheral mining areas— (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

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

In relation to what, sorry, Deputy Speaker?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: if you don't call it that, what would you call it?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just asking a question.

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

I'll withdraw it to please the Chamber.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will say, regardless of the party that was in power at the time, that it was a very dumb decision—and that is the best thing you could say—to put the port of Darwin into the hands of the Shandong Landbridge Group, a Chinese company, for 99 years. This is a Chinese company that has strategic links to communist China's People's Liberation Army, something that was known and was on the record. It was a very, very dumb decision indeed. I won't say the words that previous members have said that got them into trouble, but it comes very close to it, I would say, because this poses a national security concern for our country.

It wasn't for no reason that the United States was shocked at this decision. One of our closest allies was absolutely shocked to see that port, that strategic port to Asia, to our north—where all of the future conflict and military action is going to be—in the hands of that country, communist China, which has time and time again shown itself not to be a good global citizen. Not only does it persecute its own people—Christians, including Catholics; Falun Dafa practitioners; Tibetans; Uighurs; university students; democracy activists; and the people in Hong Kong, who have had their rights illegally stripped. The list goes on and on, all of that done by that nation. Now, not just against its own citizens does it lash out; it actually lashes out against other nations, in contravention of international maritime law. It has militarised that entire area of reefs in the South China Sea, a territory that is under dispute. Vietnam claims some of that territory and the Philippines claim some of that territory. China, without regard for those countries and their own sovereignty, came in and set up military shop in the middle of that area.

But we have let them come in and lease that port for 99 years, and we don't think that there is going to be some issue with it. Thankfully the view has changed. I'm sure the member for Kennedy will agree with me here. The new defence minister has initiated a review into this. That was actually after a committee that I chaired. The Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth recommended a review into the leasing arrangements with the port of Darwin. Only too well did we recommend that, because I found out some shocking information from Northern Territory Senator Sam McMahon the other day that I want to relay to the House.

She has been informed by a whistleblower insider associated with Landbridge Group. What they have told her is very, very interesting indeed. The Northern Territory government does employ a harbourmaster for that port, but that harbourmaster is entirely administrative in terms of their functionality. They are not operational. They don't look after any of the operational controls. Landbridge runs harbour control. Landbridge runs scheduling. It gives them access to all data on vehicles, including military vessels, that enter or leave that harbour—the sailing time, their time in the port and all historical logs. Where, oh where, is that information going from Landbridge, which has control of it and which has strategic links with Communist China's People's Liberation Army? This is a disgrace. This is a danger to our national security.

My side of politics may have made the decision, but the decision is still bad. I'm sure I'm going to agree with all of the comments that are put forward by those on the opposite side, who will take political pot shots. But at the end of the day I want this ended. The people of Australia want it ended. It needs to be ended for the security of our nation. Ending this doesn't need to cost, either. Once this review has finished, hopefully the Australian government will find that this lease arrangement is not in our national interest and is against national security, and will pull the lever ensuring that Landbridge have to divest into Australian hands. That way it won't cost the taxpayer one dollar, nor should it. This has been a bad decision that could have cost us in the long run that I hope is rectified very soon.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.