Every seaport, airport or any form of exit & entry should not be privatised, including Sydney airport.
Any form of foreign ownership, whether it is only some shareholders simply allows the possibility of foreign interference of one sort or another.
bgt said
09:00 AM May 4, 2021
This isn't new. Ports have been privatised for years. How do you define ownership? All the small business and fishing moorings? Yes I think the Chinese should be thrown out on their ears. But if you call out Darwin then what about Port Melbourne and Newcastle? Not as easy as it sounds.
Santa said
12:01 PM May 4, 2021
Darwin port is of strategic importance, the Japanese bombing raids during the second world war made us well aware of this fact.
The decision to grant Landbridge a 99 year lease was foolish to say the least, the agreement should be torn up.
This quote sums the situation up pretty well.
" the potential for port disruption by the operator (Landbridge a Chinese owned company) at crucial times remains one of my big concerns."
Santa I agree but what about Newcastle and Port Melbourne?
oldbloke said
05:58 PM May 4, 2021
bgt wrote:
Santa I agree but what about Newcastle and Port Melbourne?
Well who owns them?
bgt said
06:07 PM May 4, 2021
Both Newcastle and the Port of Melbourne have large Chinese interests.
Santa said
06:17 PM May 4, 2021
China Merchants Port Holdings Company Limited (CMPort) is a 50% shareholder of Port of Newcastle.
The Australian state of Victoria has leased the port of Melbourne for $7.3bn (A$9.7bn) to a consortium led by the Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC), which also includes a Chinese sovereign wealth fund which holds 20%.
Courtesy of Google, surprising what you find when you start digging.
oldbloke said
06:50 PM May 4, 2021
bgt wrote:
Both Newcastle and the Port of Melbourne have large Chinese interests.
Then they need to get the big A too. Although perhaps a bit lower risk.
Santa said
07:10 PM May 4, 2021
oldbloke wrote:
bgt wrote:
Both Newcastle and the Port of Melbourne have large Chinese interests.
Then they need to get the big A too. Although perhaps a bit lower risk.
Somewhat different oldbloke, China only has investments in Newcastle and Melbourne, it has total control over the port of Darwin.
Santa said
07:15 PM May 4, 2021
Defence Minister Peter Dutton has asked his department to come back with some advice about the future of the 99-year lease by Chinese company Landbridge of the Port of Darwin. Hopefully, Defence takes this shot at redemption, correcting a dreadful policy error when it concluded in 2015 that the lease was not a problem.
Leave to one side that policy snafu and ask what has happened since 2015 that should force a rethink of the lease. The answer is that strategic change is reshaping our region, raising serious risks to stability and forcing fundamental shifts in our Defence planning.
The CCP is happy ATM to own a % of a strategic company be it ports, energy, water or whatever else. When the time is right they will put up an offer that the other shareholders can't refuse. Much like the purchase of the agricultural properties they already have from the farmers.
peter67 said
08:07 PM May 4, 2021
Perhaps we need to borrow the Malaysian Foreign Minister for a few months...
Warren-Pat_01 said
10:36 PM May 4, 2021
I regretfully voted against the LNP Newman Govt in QLD some 4 years ago purely because they were going to privatize Townsville's port - the largest in Northern Australia. I spoke to my local member on the night before the election & asked if how their plan would work. I was told "Warren, we will pick the best group to buy the rights & we will make it work!"
I said regretfully as we ended up with a govt so soft on regional crime that I wonder whether I made a huge error, but at the time with nothing set in concrete, it was a walking disaster!
Mike Harding said
05:32 AM May 5, 2021
msg wrote:
The CCP is happy ATM to own a % of a strategic company be it ports, energy, water or whatever else. When the time is right they will put up an offer that the other shareholders can't refuse. Much like the purchase of the agricultural properties they already have from the farmers.
And the Foreign Investment Review Board can, and should, stop it.
dorian said
05:45 AM May 5, 2021
I think the Chinese have long memories of being treated as second class peoples, especially by Japanese and Western societies. The "99-year lease" of Hong Kong by the British is particularly pertinent. I think the Chinese could rightfully argue that they are merely exercising the same political strategies that were used against them. They probably see it as sweet revenge. I expect that Putin took great pleasure in dismissing Abbott as an insignificant gnat, and the Chinese no doubt have a similar view of Morrison.
The big difference today is that, whereas the Japanese used swords, and the British used guns, the Chinese are using money.
-- Edited by dorian on Wednesday 5th of May 2021 05:51:53 AM
oldbloke said
08:44 AM May 5, 2021
Santa wrote:
oldbloke wrote:
bgt wrote:
Both Newcastle and the Port of Melbourne have large Chinese interests.
Then they need to get the big A too. Although perhaps a bit lower risk.
Somewhat different oldbloke, China only has investments in Newcastle and Melbourne, it has total control over the port of Darwin.
Didn't see your post. Just the same i would like to see them out.
Craig1 said
11:47 AM May 5, 2021
Dorian, they may be using the profits from our money to do this, but the ever increasing film clips of their defence forces is a big worry to me
dorian said
01:52 PM May 5, 2021
Craig1 wrote:
Dorian, they may be using the profits from our money to do this, but the ever increasing film clips of their defence forces is a big worry to me
I'm worried, too. I'm just trying to understand a potential enemy, not justify his actions.
Santa said
06:12 PM May 5, 2021
Today's cartoon from the Australian explains the situation very well.
"In a local media briefing, Australia's ambassador to the Philippines, Steven Robinson, confirmed Austal was closing in on a takeover of the Hanjin shipyard in the strategically important Subic Bay."
-- Edited by dorian on Thursday 6th of May 2021 04:48:50 AM
msg said
09:33 AM May 8, 2021
msg wrote:
The CCP is happy ATM to own a % of a strategic company be it ports, energy, water or whatever else. When the time is right they will put up an offer that the other shareholders can't refuse. Much like the purchase of the agricultural properties they already have from the farmers.
Does anyone have a good link to summarise exactly what the lease entitles China to do/not do and how it could potentially be used against us? Santa's link to tThe Australian is behind a paywall.
For the relatively small lump sum we received, presumably we must be receiving ongoing income. Will it cost us many times that to cancel it? What about China's business case? If it has no hidden agenda, what do they get out of it?
Santa's comment "it has total control over the port of Darwin" should scare the daylights out of any Aussie. Yet in 2015 some thought it was a good idea. What is the real truth? How much control do they have? What does it really mean? If military conflict arises in the region could we stop them harbouring their navy while it is used against our allies, and then potentially us? How easy would it be for them to block our allies from using the port?
Please .. please don't take my post as meaning in any way that I condone the lease. I don't. I can't think of any scenario where I would support giving the Chinese government a foothold in our country. I have been against most foreign investment for many years, particularly from China, not just recently when our focus has changed from them being a trading partner to an enemy in waiting.
Like Dorian's comment, I just want to understand both sides and not rely on media inuendo.
bgt said
11:27 AM May 8, 2021
Are We Lost I think the worry for many is just their presence. They could have a small fishing boat there and a crew member with a pair of binocular watching US military equipment come and go. Maybe they could alter the port in such away that military ships find it unsuitable. Recently the Chinese have used their so called fishing fleet to make a point. Maybe they could bring those fishing boats in and clog up the harbour.
It's a tin of worms and without seeing the actual contract we are all guessing. Same with the Vic government. Their belts and Road deal was all 'secret'. Have we the right to know these 'confidential' agreements?
I'm at the point now that I would like to see the Chinese "government" to pi$$ off. Yes there will be pain but the consequence may well cause more pain.
Whenarewethere said
11:32 AM May 8, 2021
Santa wrote:
Darwin port is of strategic importance, the Japanese bombing raids during the second world war made us well aware of this fact.
1000 vehicles every day were transporting supplies to Darwin.
-- Edited by Whenarewethere on Saturday 8th of May 2021 11:36:11 AM
Whenarewethere said
11:35 AM May 8, 2021
bgt wrote:
Are We Lost I think the worry for many is just their presence. They could have a small fishing boat there and a crew member with a pair of binocular watching
One of our remote controlled stealth crocodiles could easily disappear that problem.
-- Edited by Whenarewethere on Saturday 8th of May 2021 11:36:41 AM
Santa said
12:06 PM May 8, 2021
Are We Lost wrote:
Does anyone have a good link to summarise exactly what the lease entitles China to do/not do and how it could potentially be used against us? Santa's link to tThe Australian is behind a paywall.
Defence Minister Peter Dutton has asked his department to come back with some advice about the future of the 99-year lease by Chinese company Landbridge of the Port of Darwin. Hopefully, Defence takes this shot at redemption, correcting a dreadful policy error when it concluded in 2015 that the lease was not a problem.
Leave to one side that policy snafu and ask what has happened since 2015 that should force a rethink of the lease. The answer is that strategic change is reshaping our region, raising serious risks to stability and forcing fundamental shifts in our Defence planning.
First and most obviously, Xi Jinpings China is on an aggressive course to dominate the Indo-Pacific, supplant the US as the regions leading military power, weaken its allies and brook no dissent against Beijings wishes.
In 2017 Australias foreign policy white paper said: The government is committed to strong and constructive ties with China. We welcome Chinas greater capacity to share responsibility for supporting regional and global security.
That line could not believably be written today. The truth of the matter is that Beijing has no interest in sharing responsibility for regional security. In the South China Sea, over Taiwan, at the border with India and in its dealing with Australia, Beijing shows its aim is to destroy the international order and replace it with its own authoritarian control.
A second change is that the economic relationship we once welcomed with China is being used by Beijing as an instrument of coercion and punishment. In the view of the Chinese embassy, Australia is responsible for everything negative in the relationship.
theaustralian.com.au9:17
No doubt the Port of Darwin was the next target of the federal government
After the federal government introduced legislation which enabled it to repeal Victorias Belt and Road deal with China, the Port of Darwin was the next target, according to The Australians Dennis Shanahan. The Morrison government has recently ordered a review of the Port of Darwins 99-year lease to More
Chinas deputy ambassador told a Canberra audience recently that those who sabotage the friendship between our two countries will be casted (sic) aside in history. Their children will be ashamed of mentioning their names in the history. In this state of mind any Australian point of difference will be treated as sabotage to be punished.
Third, Xi is consolidating Chinese Communist Party control over Chinese and Hong Kong businesses to ensure they advance the partys priorities. In 2017 Beijing adopted a National Intelligence Law, saying: Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and co-operate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of.
The June 2020 National Security Law for Hong Kong claims to apply the same coercive powers over Hong Kong citizens and businesses. Beijing asserts in article 38 of the law that it can apply to anyone, anywhere in the world.
At the time of the port lease, some Australian commentators dismissed concerns about Landbridges connections to the CCP as paranoia. China Matters director Linda Jakobson wrote in The Australian in November 2015: The existence of armed militias and connections to the party are integral to the way society functions in China. We just need to have a higher degree of comprehension of the way China functions and stop fearmongering. What has become clearer is that the CCP under Xi has significantly reasserted party control of the business sector. As Alibabas Jack Ma has found, displeasing the party can lead to public disappearance and hefty fines.
Not surprisingly, Chinese businesses will go to considerable lengths to please the CCP. Within China, Landbridge markets itself as the nations brand, worlds Landbridge focused on actively responding to the call of the state and contributing to the realisation of the Chinese dream.
theaustralian.com.au0:24
Department of Defence to investigate Darwin Port lease
The Morrison government has asked the Department of Defence to review Darwin Ports 99-year lease by Chinese company Landbridge.
A Landbridge corporate video of August 2019, available on YouTube, makes it clear its head office in Rizhao in southeastern Shandong province sees the Port of Darwin as building an important maritime co-operation pivot for the One Belt and One Road to contribute to China a more powerful port strength.
It would be wrong to dismiss such language as just what Chinese businesses do to curry favour with the CCP. Delivering key Xi objectives results in favourable attention from party leaders and access to financing.
The only sensible national response is to ask what Chinese business support for CCP objectives might mean for Chinese-owned and controlled Australian critical infrastructure ports, the electricity grid, gas pipelines, information technology, agricultural businesses at a time when the CCP is punishing Australia.
Fourth, American strategy is changing. Under Donald Trump and continuing under Joe Biden, the US military is reshaping its strategy for dealing with China, recognising the risk of conflict in the Indo-Pacific is sharply rising.
Washington is rapidly shaping a strategy of dispersal of its forces in times of crisis to reduce the likelihood of successful attacks on places such as Guam and Japan.
In these scenarios, northern Australia takes on added strategic importance to the security of our entire region. This explains in part why the government added $200m to total a $747m spend on defence training ranges in the north. Remember, just about every litre of fuel, every round of ammunition, every piece of military equipment used at those training ranges will be offloaded at the Port of Darwin.
theaustralian.com.au6:46
The sale of the Port of Darwin was a comedy of errors
Australias long-held approach to diplomatic relations with China when it was actively hiding its more authoritarian demeanour is no longer sustainable according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institutes Peter Jennings.
Defences 2015 response to the 99-year Landbridge lease was that it was of no concern because it didnt affect the small navy base, HMAS Coonawarra. The Department of Defence secretary at the time, Dennis Richardson, told a parliamentary committee in October 2015: We can only look at this in terms of our interests. Does it raise national security concerns for us as a department? It does not. If other people have other issues about foreign ownership of whatever, that is not an issue that concerns us unless it impinges on our interests and responsibilities.
Today, Defence must look at our national security interests in the Port of Darwin, not just how many days patrol boats need to access a wharf. Darwin is emerging as a strategic location not just for Australia, but for our allies and partners. Control of the port matters even more now than in 2015.
Because China has launched on a path of regional domination, all Indo-Pacific countries must assess critical infrastructure vulnerabilities inherent in the presence of large Chinese businesses with their obligations to the CCP. This forces an uncomfortable break with past hopes for mutually beneficial business relations, but hard strategic reality must shape what happens from now.
Are We Lost said
12:53 PM May 8, 2021
Thanks Santa. A good read and the link to the Youtube promotional for Landbridge was informative, although the synthetic translation with strong American accent was so annoying I gave up. Darwin is mentioned about the 4 minute mark.
Looking on Google Earth I can see how easy it would be to block our military port within the harbour, either "accidentally" or intentionally. But would cancelling the lease make it less easy?
I can see that a lease probably opens up a host of opportunities to be exploited, but I would still like to understand what the lease entitles and doesn't. And why some thought it a good idea in 2015.
Port of Darwin review
Every seaport, airport or any form of exit & entry should not be privatised, including Sydney airport.
Any form of foreign ownership, whether it is only some shareholders simply allows the possibility of foreign interference of one sort or another.
Darwin port is of strategic importance, the Japanese bombing raids during the second world war made us well aware of this fact.
The decision to grant Landbridge a 99 year lease was foolish to say the least, the agreement should be torn up.
This quote sums the situation up pretty well.
" the potential for port disruption by the operator (Landbridge a Chinese owned company) at crucial times remains one of my big concerns."
Full article here https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-04/port-of-darwin-chinese-lease-us-army-peter-dutton/100112788
Well who owns them?
China Merchants Port Holdings Company Limited (CMPort) is a 50% shareholder of Port of Newcastle.
The Australian state of Victoria has leased the port of Melbourne for $7.3bn (A$9.7bn) to a consortium led by the Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC), which also includes a Chinese sovereign wealth fund which holds 20%.
Courtesy of Google, surprising what you find when you start digging.
Then they need to get the big A too. Although perhaps a bit lower risk.
Somewhat different oldbloke, China only has investments in Newcastle and Melbourne, it has total control over the port of Darwin.
Defence Minister Peter Dutton has asked his department to come back with some advice about the future of the 99-year lease by Chinese company Landbridge of the Port of Darwin. Hopefully, Defence takes this shot at redemption, correcting a dreadful policy error when it concluded in 2015 that the lease was not a problem.
Leave to one side that policy snafu and ask what has happened since 2015 that should force a rethink of the lease. The answer is that strategic change is reshaping our region, raising serious risks to stability and forcing fundamental shifts in our Defence planning.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/we-need-darwin-port-back-in-our-hands/news-story/d289406db780d685fc0b1112b4785475
I said regretfully as we ended up with a govt so soft on regional crime that I wonder whether I made a huge error, but at the time with nothing set in concrete, it was a walking disaster!
And the Foreign Investment Review Board can, and should, stop it.
I think the Chinese have long memories of being treated as second class peoples, especially by Japanese and Western societies. The "99-year lease" of Hong Kong by the British is particularly pertinent. I think the Chinese could rightfully argue that they are merely exercising the same political strategies that were used against them. They probably see it as sweet revenge. I expect that Putin took great pleasure in dismissing Abbott as an insignificant gnat, and the Chinese no doubt have a similar view of Morrison.
The big difference today is that, whereas the Japanese used swords, and the British used guns, the Chinese are using money.
-- Edited by dorian on Wednesday 5th of May 2021 05:51:53 AM
Didn't see your post. Just the same i would like to see them out.
I'm worried, too. I'm just trying to understand a potential enemy, not justify his actions.
Today's cartoon from the Australian explains the situation very well.
Interesting development ...
Australian shipbuilder Austal nears deal on strategic Philippines port while scrapping its China operations:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-06/austal-nears-deal-strategic-philippines-port-china-operations/100115672
"In a local media briefing, Australia's ambassador to the Philippines, Steven Robinson, confirmed Austal was closing in on a takeover of the Hanjin shipyard in the strategically important Subic Bay."
-- Edited by dorian on Thursday 6th of May 2021 04:48:50 AM
Farming family make $100m on sale of Merri Park on Melbourne fringes (msn.com) Like I said...
Does anyone have a good link to summarise exactly what the lease entitles China to do/not do and how it could potentially be used against us? Santa's link to tThe Australian is behind a paywall.
For the relatively small lump sum we received, presumably we must be receiving ongoing income. Will it cost us many times that to cancel it? What about China's business case? If it has no hidden agenda, what do they get out of it?
Santa's comment "it has total control over the port of Darwin" should scare the daylights out of any Aussie. Yet in 2015 some thought it was a good idea. What is the real truth? How much control do they have? What does it really mean? If military conflict arises in the region could we stop them harbouring their navy while it is used against our allies, and then potentially us? How easy would it be for them to block our allies from using the port?
Please .. please don't take my post as meaning in any way that I condone the lease. I don't. I can't think of any scenario where I would support giving the Chinese government a foothold in our country. I have been against most foreign investment for many years, particularly from China, not just recently when our focus has changed from them being a trading partner to an enemy in waiting.
Like Dorian's comment, I just want to understand both sides and not rely on media inuendo.
It's a tin of worms and without seeing the actual contract we are all guessing. Same with the Vic government. Their belts and Road deal was all 'secret'. Have we the right to know these 'confidential' agreements?
I'm at the point now that I would like to see the Chinese "government" to pi$$ off. Yes there will be pain but the consequence may well cause more pain.
1000 vehicles every day were transporting supplies to Darwin.
-- Edited by Whenarewethere on Saturday 8th of May 2021 11:36:11 AM
One of our remote controlled stealth crocodiles could easily disappear that problem.
-- Edited by Whenarewethere on Saturday 8th of May 2021 11:36:41 AM
Here's a copy of the article Are We Lost.
We need Darwin Port back in our hands
Peter Jennings
Defence Minister Peter Dutton has asked his department to come back with some advice about the future of the 99-year lease by Chinese company Landbridge of the Port of Darwin. Hopefully, Defence takes this shot at redemption, correcting a dreadful policy error when it concluded in 2015 that the lease was not a problem.
Leave to one side that policy snafu and ask what has happened since 2015 that should force a rethink of the lease. The answer is that strategic change is reshaping our region, raising serious risks to stability and forcing fundamental shifts in our Defence planning.
First and most obviously, Xi Jinpings China is on an aggressive course to dominate the Indo-Pacific, supplant the US as the regions leading military power, weaken its allies and brook no dissent against Beijings wishes.
In 2017 Australias foreign policy white paper said: The government is committed to strong and constructive ties with China. We welcome Chinas greater capacity to share responsibility for supporting regional and global security.
That line could not believably be written today. The truth of the matter is that Beijing has no interest in sharing responsibility for regional security. In the South China Sea, over Taiwan, at the border with India and in its dealing with Australia, Beijing shows its aim is to destroy the international order and replace it with its own authoritarian control.
A second change is that the economic relationship we once welcomed with China is being used by Beijing as an instrument of coercion and punishment. In the view of the Chinese embassy, Australia is responsible for everything negative in the relationship.
No doubt the Port of Darwin was the next target of the federal government
Chinas deputy ambassador told a Canberra audience recently that those who sabotage the friendship between our two countries will be casted (sic) aside in history. Their children will be ashamed of mentioning their names in the history. In this state of mind any Australian point of difference will be treated as sabotage to be punished.
Third, Xi is consolidating Chinese Communist Party control over Chinese and Hong Kong businesses to ensure they advance the partys priorities. In 2017 Beijing adopted a National Intelligence Law, saying: Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and co-operate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of.
The June 2020 National Security Law for Hong Kong claims to apply the same coercive powers over Hong Kong citizens and businesses. Beijing asserts in article 38 of the law that it can apply to anyone, anywhere in the world.
At the time of the port lease, some Australian commentators dismissed concerns about Landbridges connections to the CCP as paranoia. China Matters director Linda Jakobson wrote in The Australian in November 2015: The existence of armed militias and connections to the party are integral to the way society functions in China. We just need to have a higher degree of comprehension of the way China functions and stop fearmongering. What has become clearer is that the CCP under Xi has significantly reasserted party control of the business sector. As Alibabas Jack Ma has found, displeasing the party can lead to public disappearance and hefty fines.
Not surprisingly, Chinese businesses will go to considerable lengths to please the CCP. Within China, Landbridge markets itself as the nations brand, worlds Landbridge focused on actively responding to the call of the state and contributing to the realisation of the Chinese dream.
Department of Defence to investigate Darwin Port lease
A Landbridge corporate video of August 2019, available on YouTube, makes it clear its head office in Rizhao in southeastern Shandong province sees the Port of Darwin as building an important maritime co-operation pivot for the One Belt and One Road to contribute to China a more powerful port strength.
It would be wrong to dismiss such language as just what Chinese businesses do to curry favour with the CCP. Delivering key Xi objectives results in favourable attention from party leaders and access to financing.
The only sensible national response is to ask what Chinese business support for CCP objectives might mean for Chinese-owned and controlled Australian critical infrastructure ports, the electricity grid, gas pipelines, information technology, agricultural businesses at a time when the CCP is punishing Australia.
Fourth, American strategy is changing. Under Donald Trump and continuing under Joe Biden, the US military is reshaping its strategy for dealing with China, recognising the risk of conflict in the Indo-Pacific is sharply rising.
Washington is rapidly shaping a strategy of dispersal of its forces in times of crisis to reduce the likelihood of successful attacks on places such as Guam and Japan.
In these scenarios, northern Australia takes on added strategic importance to the security of our entire region. This explains in part why the government added $200m to total a $747m spend on defence training ranges in the north. Remember, just about every litre of fuel, every round of ammunition, every piece of military equipment used at those training ranges will be offloaded at the Port of Darwin.
The sale of the Port of Darwin was a comedy of errors
Defences 2015 response to the 99-year Landbridge lease was that it was of no concern because it didnt affect the small navy base, HMAS Coonawarra. The Department of Defence secretary at the time, Dennis Richardson, told a parliamentary committee in October 2015: We can only look at this in terms of our interests. Does it raise national security concerns for us as a department? It does not. If other people have other issues about foreign ownership of whatever, that is not an issue that concerns us unless it impinges on our interests and responsibilities.
Today, Defence must look at our national security interests in the Port of Darwin, not just how many days patrol boats need to access a wharf. Darwin is emerging as a strategic location not just for Australia, but for our allies and partners. Control of the port matters even more now than in 2015.
Because China has launched on a path of regional domination, all Indo-Pacific countries must assess critical infrastructure vulnerabilities inherent in the presence of large Chinese businesses with their obligations to the CCP. This forces an uncomfortable break with past hopes for mutually beneficial business relations, but hard strategic reality must shape what happens from now.
Looking on Google Earth I can see how easy it would be to block our military port within the harbour, either "accidentally" or intentionally. But would cancelling the lease make it less easy?
I can see that a lease probably opens up a host of opportunities to be exploited, but I would still like to understand what the lease entitles and doesn't. And why some thought it a good idea in 2015.