As a port operation project obtained through a normal market-oriented and transparent bidding process – and one that has undergone at least three political and security reviews over the past decade unjustly – the Darwin Port operated by China’s Landbridge Group has repeatedly become a “political football” in Australian domestic politics. Since the current election cycle, it has come under renewed pressure for destroying the contract and forced takeover by the Australian government.
On this issue, Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian recently stated in an interview with Chinese and Australian media that China has maintained communication with Australian federal and local governments over the Darwin port through diplomatic channels. He also noted that “It’s very morally inappropriate to rent out the port when it is in the red and take it back once it is profitable.”
Over the past 10 years, Darwin Port has seen significant transformation. Beyond mutual business benefits, Landbridge Group’s role has been a case of timely assistance to the port and the Northern Territory, especially in a context where the then federal government wasn’t “interested in supporting the Northern Territory with this infrastructure.” From turning the port’s operations from loss to profit and helping ease the Northern Territory government’s debt crisis, to investing more than AUD 83 million (about $ 55 million) and upgrading port facilities – which led to a 95.7 percent increase in the total gross tonnage (GRT) of arriving vessels – and greatly contributing to local economic and social development, Landbridge Group’s involvement has brought systematic and positive changes to Darwin Port. Former Northern Territory minister John Elferink has said the Commonwealth failed to raise any security concerns when it approved the deal at the time.
It is well known that Darwin Port only became linked to so-called “national security” and subjected to a wave of political and security scrutiny after so-called “concerns” were voiced from Washington. However, recent Australian governments’ review have all concluded that there were no so-called “national security risks” associated with the port. The latest review in 2023 even found “not necessary” to cancel or alter the lease. However, the recent surge in rhetoric about tearing up the deal – even being framed during the election campaign as a bipartisan “consensus” – clearly shows that the undercurrents of anti-China sentiment in Australia are once again resurfacing.
However, should the Australian government take the drastic step of forcibly taking back Darwin Port, it will undoubtedly leave behind three major enduring pitfalls for the country.
The operations of Landbridge Group at the Darwin Port are a typical example of Chinese enterprises investing and operating overseas in accordance with laws and regulations. If the Australian government were to unilaterally tear up the agreement without legitimate legal grounds, it would send a dangerous signal to global investors: the Australian government may arbitrarily interfere in commercial contracts for political purposes. Such a practice of “politics taking precedence over the rule of law” would seriously undermine foreign investors’ confidence in Australia’s business environment, especially in sectors like infrastructure and energy that require long-term investment.
Some Australian figures have suggested they would “make sure that there’s a good return on investment for the Chinese owners Landbridge.” This mindset – “pay some money and breach contracts at will” – only proves that the Australian side is guilty at heart when it comes to the so-called “ending lease contract” issue. How much would it take to buy back the spirit of contract and make up for moral integrity Australia has lost in this incident?
In recent years, China-Australia relations have experienced many ups and downs. One of the key reasons is Australia’s excessive politicization and abuses of security in dealing with China affairs.
Recently, with the efforts of both sides in maintaining a pragmatic and cooperative attitude, the bilateral relationship has generally returned to a stable track. However, if the Darwin Port issue is further politicized, or forcibly taken back under the pretext of so-called “national security,” it would become another negative typical case that affects the healthy and stable development of China-Australia relations.
This is bound to impact the currently stabilized and improving bilateral relations, intensify the confrontational sentiments among the people of the two countries, and thereby undermine the mutual trust between the governments and enterprises of the two countries.
Taking back the Port of Darwin from Landbridge Group would also symbolize a dangerous shift from commercial cooperation to military development. In recent years, the US has frequently escalated its military presence in the Port of Darwin, stationing and rotating Marine units and upgrading and expanding military facilities, in an attempt to turning the region into a strategic frontier of the Indo-Pacific strategy.
The move of “de-Sinicization” aims to remove obstacles for the US to advance its militarization in northern Australia. More importantly, once part of, even the whole of the port’s commercial functions is repurposed for military use, the local economy will become hostage to military strategy – normal port logistics will give way to military exercises, fleet resupply, and strategic stockpiling. This will hinder the development of local livelihood and industries and significantly reduce residents’ sense of security.
The operation of Darwin Port is, at its core, a market-driven economic project and should operate within the framework of the rule of law and market principles.
However, when pressure from Washington overrides Australia’s own national interests, and rule-based commercial activities are trampled by political logic, what suffers is not only Australia’s international credibility, but also the fragile foundation of mutual trust and its own strategic autonomy – a space that could have been preserved from external military rivalry. We urge the Australian government to prioritize the broader picture, uphold the spirit of contract, return to the rule of law, and stop distorting economic cooperation with political bias.
Whether the Port of Darwin becomes a hub of prosperous trade or the eye of a geopolitical storm is not a difficult choice, but it does test Canberra’s strategic wisdom.
