Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has downplayed fears of potential repercussions from China regarding his government’s move to reclaim the Port of Darwin from Chinese ownership, notably from the company Landbridge, which has held a 99-year lease. This stance comes as he prepares to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping during his official week-long visit to China, where he aims to enhance tourism and trade relations, while emphasising the establishment of stable connections.
Albanese’s election pledge to terminate the lease has raised concerns, particularly in light of other contentious topics such as Australia’s position on Taiwan and recent Chinese military exercises near Australian waters. Despite these issues, the Prime Minister stated that he does not anticipate significant backlash, asserting, “We had a very clear position that we want the port to go into Australian ownership.”
He expressed confidence in a transparent and orderly transition process regarding the port and reinforced that his government’s position on the matter has been consistent. This assertion was echoed by international relations expert Professor James Curran, who dismissed the likelihood of China retaliating economically against key Australian exports, such as iron ore. Curran reminded observers that past attempts by China to exert economic pressure had backfired.
He remarked, “I really don’t think the Chinese will take that step,” referring to the backlash suffered by China after previously targeting six Australian industries under the former Morrison administration. He added that some of those trade restrictions have since been lifted, suggesting that a return to punitive economic measures would not be in China’s best interest at this time.
Curran also raised questions regarding the motivations behind the government’s decision to address the lease, noting that prior reviews had deemed the Landbridge lease as not posing strategic risks. He highlighted that the main sensitivity revolves around Australia’s commitment to maintaining critical infrastructure under local control, further complicated by the proximity of the port to U.S. military operations that rotate through Darwin annually.
In conclusion, while concerns linger about the implications of Albanese’s actions toward the Port of Darwin, both he and experts believe that the potential for significant adverse reactions from China remains low, predominantly considering the historical context and current geopolitical landscape.