tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/port-of-darwin-22727/articlesPort of Darwin – The Conversation2021-05-07T04:00:12Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1605332021-05-07T04:00:12Z2021-05-07T04:00:12ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the Port of Darwin, India’s second wave, and next week’s budget<p>Michelle Grattan discusses the week in politics with University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher.</p>
<p>This week the pair discuss India’s second coronavirus wave - and the Australian citizens stranded there. Also discussed is the defence review into the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin by Chinese company Landbridge, and how it will be viewed in light of the Foreign Relations Act, recently used to tear up the “Belt and Road” agreement between the Victoria and Chinese governments. Lastly, Michelle provides insight into what we can expect from next week’s budget.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oF892Xxhh3w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160533/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1602882021-05-04T09:47:58Z2021-05-04T09:47:58ZView from The Hill: Port of Darwin review opens a Pandora’s box<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/398632/original/file-20210504-23-te0x40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C7360%2C4912&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/darwin-nt-australiafebruary-202019-border-patrol-1895116162">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How hard is Scott Morrison willing to poke the panda? That’s a question posed by the government’s review of the Chinese company Landbridge’s 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin.</p>
<p>The defence department is to advise on the security implications of the lease, granted by the Northern Territory government in a $500 million highly controversial deal in 2015.</p>
<p>At the time, then-United States president Barack Obama chided prime minister Malcolm Turnbull for not giving the Americans a heads up about the deal.</p>
<p>Turnbull added insult to injury by suggesting the president should subscribe to the NT News, where it was reported.</p>
<p>Although the federal government had no formal part in the lease at the time, the NT government sought federal advice. The defence department, ASIO and others in the national security establishment were not fazed by it. Neither was the national security committee of the Coalition cabinet.</p>
<p>The defence department secretary at the time, Dennis Richardson, and Duncan Lewis, who headed ASIO, both defended the arrangement when questioned by a senate committee.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the deal had many critics and subsequently the federal government acted to ensure that in future such proposals would go before the Foreign Investment Review Board.</p>
<p>Fast forward to the present, and this week the new and hairy-chested defence minister Peter Dutton told the Sydney Morning Herald cabinet’s national security committee had asked his department to review the lease and “come back with some advice”. The work was already under way, Dutton said.</p>
<p>Last week Morrison had flagged the move, saying if the government received any advice from the defence department or intelligence agencies suggesting “there are national security risks there then you’d expect the government to take action”.</p>
<p>The Port of Darwin came into the frame after Foreign Minister Marise Payne cancelled two Victorian government agreements with China that were under that country’s Belt and Road Initiative.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-scrap-victorias-meaningless-belt-and-road-deal-because-it-sends-a-powerful-message-to-beijing-159536">Why scrap Victoria’s ‘meaningless’ Belt and Road deal? Because it sends a powerful message to Beijing</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>She was implementing the recent legislation for the examination of agreements state and territory governments and public universities have (or propose) with foreign governments.</p>
<p>The Port of Darwin lease, being with a commercial company, does not fall within that legislation, but the segue to discussion of its future was inevitable.</p>
<p>Despite its defenders at the time, it is clear the deal should never have been concluded. But it is less clear what should be done about it now.</p>
<p>The increasing assertive and aggressive stands by China seem to argue for the lease to be broken.</p>
<p>While the lease is only over the commercial port, the Chinese presence sits somewhat uneasily with the growing US military footprint in northern Australia.</p>
<p>Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) think tank, says: “I do think this is probably the moment that the government needs to step in”. He believes the government should buy out the lease and then sell it to a less problematic owner.</p>
<p>If the judgement is that a time of reckoning will come in relation to the port, a case can be put for not delaying that time.</p>
<p>On the other hand, does the government want to make the present difficult relationship with China significantly worse?</p>
<p>Overturning a major commercial deal is a big step (much bigger than killing the Victorian BRI agreements) and the government would have to give substantial reasons. The action would cause offence to China and probably invite more trade retaliation.</p>
<p>The decision would turn the focus onto other Chinese investments in Australian infrastructure, including the 50% stake in the Port of Newcastle, and stakes in the power grid.</p>
<p>It would be taken as implying a more general signal about Australia’s attitude to Chinese investment and perhaps about investment from some other countries.</p>
<p>Managing both the diplomatic and foreign investment messages would be tricky, to say the least.</p>
<p>Asked on Tuesday about the various complications, Morrison told Seven “we’ll just take this one step at a time”.</p>
<p>He said he wasn’t presuming anything about the advice to come, and he was sure it would include “many options”. He also noted the commercial port area was separate from “where our military and defence facilities are”.</p>
<p>Now that the future of the Port of Darwin has been put on the table, a significant factor in the mix is domestic public opinion, which is very distrustful of China. The government has raised expectations of action, which it will have to deal with if it decides not to act.</p>
<p>One way out of a vexed situation could be to seek a middle course – for example putting in place certain conditions (on reporting, governance and the like) for this and other relevant ports under the revised security of critical infrastructure legislation that is now going through the parliament.</p>
<p>Whatever is decided will be a revealing test of the power of the China hawks in and around the government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160288/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How hard is Scott Morrison willing to poke the panda? That’s a question posed by the government’s review of the Chinese company Landbridge’s 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1082542018-12-06T18:55:01Z2018-12-06T18:55:01ZDarwin port’s sale is a blueprint for China’s future economic expansion<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249139/original/file-20181206-186085-1rjr608.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Darwin Port, leased to Landbridge Industry Australia, a subsidiary of Shandong Landbridge, for 99 years.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">John Garrick</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>An agreement between Darwin’s city council and an overseas municipal counterpart normally wouldn’t attract much attention. Local government officials love signing such deals. Darwin already has no less than six “<a href="https://www.darwin.nt.gov.au/community/programs/sister-cities-program/overview">sister city</a>” arrangements, including with the Chinese city of Haikou.</p>
<p>But attention has been drawn to Darwin’s newly minted “friendship” deal with Yuexiu District, in Guangzhou, due to Chinese media describing it as part of President Xi Jinping’s signature <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/darwin-deal-touted-by-china-as-part-of-xis-bri/news-story/ed3356920763f98a890a78547d913fc9">Belt and Road Initiative</a>. </p>
<p>This suggests Chinese authorities regard Darwin as having strategic significance.</p>
<p>It invites reflection on the wisdom, three years ago, of the Northern Territory government deciding to lease the Port of Darwin (now known as Darwin Port) to a Chinese company for 99 years – and of the federal government going along with it.</p>
<p>At the time the new owner, billionaire Ye Cheng, claimed the Darwin port deal was “our involvement in One Belt, One Road”. This was discounted by some commentators as hyperbole, an attempt to <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/world/asia/how-landbridges-purchase-of-the-darwin-port-killed-perceived-wisdom-on-china-20170706-gx66r8">curry favour</a> with the Chinese government.</p>
<p>But now, by design or not, the Darwin port deal increasingly looks like a blueprint for how Chinese interests can take control of foreign ports – as it is doing by <a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2165341/why-china-buying-ports-worrying-europe">various means around the world</a> – without arousing local opposition. Quite the reverse. All levels of Australian government have encouraged it. </p>
<p>It makes Darwin an interesting case study – a point of contest between the strategies of the US and China. Darwin’s port is under Chinese control, while thousands of US marines are based in the city, as part of the US “Pacific pivot” seen by many as an effort to contain China’s influence in the region.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240770/original/file-20181016-165921-jtd1jf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240770/original/file-20181016-165921-jtd1jf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240770/original/file-20181016-165921-jtd1jf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=575&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240770/original/file-20181016-165921-jtd1jf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=575&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240770/original/file-20181016-165921-jtd1jf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=575&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240770/original/file-20181016-165921-jtd1jf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=722&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240770/original/file-20181016-165921-jtd1jf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=722&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240770/original/file-20181016-165921-jtd1jf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=722&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How the port deal was done</h2>
<p>The deal to lease parts of the port followed successive federal governments refusing to fund necessary upgrading of the port’s infrastructure to meet growing demand. </p>
<p>Infrastucture Australia advised privatisation. Rather than sell outright, the territory government decided to lease the port, and sell a controlling stake in the port’s operator. </p>
<p>Landbridge Australia, a subsidiary of Shandong Landbridge, won the 99-year lease with its bid of A$506 million in November 2015.</p>
<p>Shandong Landbridge has substantial and varied interests including port logistics and petrochemicals. Though privately owned, like many Chinese companies it has strong ties to the ruling Chinese Communist Party.</p>
<p>The company knows how to cultivate political connections. In Australia it gave influential Liberal Party figure and former trade minister <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-31/andrew-robb-landbridge-role-criticised-by-defence-association/7981832"> Andrew Robb</a> an $880,000 job just months after he retired from parliament. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/chinese-influence-compromises-the-integrity-of-our-politics-78961">Chinese influence compromises the integrity of our politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The bid for the port was examined and approved by the Foreign Investments Review Board, the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Foreign_Investment_Review/Interim%20Report/c02">Defence Department</a> and <a href="https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-darwin-port-lease-setting-the-record-straight/">ASIO</a>.</p>
<h2>Strategic importance</h2>
<p>But the deal put Darwin directly in the crossfire between US and Chinese interests. Then US president Barack Obama expressed concern about the lack of consultation. Former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage said he was “stunned” that Australia had “<a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/us-stunned-by-port-of-darwin-sale-to-chinese-20151116-gl0omf">blind-sided</a>” its ally. </p>
<p>While the centre of US-Chinese tensions is the South China Sea – where China has militarised reefs in disputed waters – Darwin is important because it is the southern flank of US operations in the Pacific. </p>
<h2>Managing the tensions</h2>
<p>Zhang Jie, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, wrote in 2015 about the concept of “<a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2165341/why-china-buying-ports-worrying-europe">first civilian, later military</a>” – in which commercial ports are to be built with the goal of slowly being developed into “strategic support points” – to assist China defending maritime channel security and control key waterways.</p>
<p>Military-civilian integration was among the goals China set in its 13th five-year plan for 2016-20. President Xi subsequently established an integration committee to oversee civilian and military investment in technology. </p>
<p>As with other Chinese port acquisitions, such as in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html">Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Greece and Djibouti</a>, Landbridge is interested in acquiring and developing not only Darwin’s port facilities but nearby waterfront property.</p>
<p>But the Darwin port deal differs in significant ways to other port acquisitions.</p>
<p>It is a far cry from the “debt-trap colonialism” China stands accused of using to gain leverage over other foreign governments, such as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html">Sri Lanka</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-an-ambitious-chinese-built-rail-line-through-the-himalayas-lead-to-a-debt-trap-for-nepal-100377">Nepal</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/soft-power-goes-hard-chinas-economic-interest-in-the-pacific-comes-with-strings-attached-103765">Soft power goes hard: China's economic interest in the Pacific comes with strings attached</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Landbridge has bought the lease, rather than a Chinese bank lending funds to the Northern Territory government to develop the port. If Landbridge was to default, it would lose its money. Any attempt by Landbridge to use the port as security to borrow money from a Chinese bank would trigger renegotiation of the lease. </p>
<p>The territory government <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-04/nt-retains-small-stake-in-darwin-port/8678198">retains a 20% stake</a> in the port operator and has a say in key appointments such as the chief executive and chief financial officer. But it will not share any profit that Landbridge may eventually make.</p>
<p>That potential is a long way off. Landbridge Australia reported a <a href="https://www.afr.com/business/infrastructure/chineseowned-darwin-port-struggling-to-pay-back-debts-20180615-h11gcr">loss of A$31 million</a> for the 2017 financial year, with its total borrowings rising to A$463 million. If the deal falls over, the government will need to seek new equity partners. But its immediate commercial risks are relatively contained. </p>
<h2>Other risks</h2>
<p>Yet risk exposure may take other forms. China’s strategy is very long-term. Darwin is now on the front line in managing tensions between Australia’s most important strategic ally and partner and its major trading partner. Balancing between powerful friends with competing interests may not prove easy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-risks-of-a-new-cold-war-between-the-us-and-china-are-real-heres-why-103772">The risks of a new Cold War between the US and China are real: here's why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are indications of some recognition of this at the federal level. Australia’s foreign investment review processes have been tightened. A Critical Infrastructure Centre has been created to give extra national security advice. There has been some tweaking of rules about political parties accepting foreign donations. </p>
<p>But others may have learnt valuable lessons too.</p>
<p>Weaknesses in Australian governments at all levels have been revealed. They have been reactive, readily accepting the lure of pearls cast on our shores without considering longer-term currents. Foreign and strategic policy has effectively been left to the local level. While the federal government now seeks to shore up its interests in the Pacific with cash for infrastructure, similar commitments to investing in local infrastructure are essential. </p>
<p>Clumsiness and indecision do not serve Australian interests well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108254/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Garrick does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Darwin is now on the front line in managing tensions between Australia’s most important strategic ally and partner and its major trading partner.John Garrick, Senior Lecturer, Business Law, Charles Darwin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/789612017-06-06T13:18:06Z2017-06-06T13:18:06ZChinese influence compromises the integrity of our politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172484/original/file-20170606-3674-1jdxpk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former trade minister Andrew Robb walked from parliament into a high-paying post with a Chinese company.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week’s ABC Four Corners/Fairfax expose of Chinese activities in Australia is alarming not just for its revelations about a multi-fronted pattern of influence-seeking but also for what it says about our political elite.</p>
<p>Are its members – on both sides of politics - naive, stupid, or just greedy for either their parties or themselves?</p>
<p>Why did they think Chau Chak Wing and Huang Xiangmo - two billionaires with apparently close links to the Chinese Communist Party - and their associated entities would want to pour millions of dollars into their parties?
Did they believe that, in the absence of democracy in the land of their birth, these businessmen were just anxious to subsidise it abroad? Hardly.</p>
<p>Even worse, after ASIO had explicitly warned the Coalition parties and Labor in 2015 about the business figures and their links to the Chinese regime, how could the Liberals, Nationals and ALP keep accepting more of their money? Seemingly, their voracious desire for funds overcame ethics and common sense.</p>
<p>And why would former trade minister Andrew Robb not see a problem in walking straight from parliament into a highly lucrative position with a Chinese company?</p>
<p>The spotlight is back on the ALP’s senator Sam Dastyari who last year stepped down from the frontbench in a controversy over Chinese payments for bills. Monday’s program reported that Dastyari’s office and he personally lobbied intensively to try to facilitate the citizenship application of Huang. The application had stalled – it was being scrutinised by ASIO.</p>
<p>While the Liberals will, quite legitimately, renew their attacks on Dastyari, the case of Robb, also highlighted in the program, raises a more complex question.</p>
<p>Robb brought to fruition Australia’s free trade deal with China. He announced his retirement late in the last parliament, stepping down as minister but seeing out the term as special trade envoy. He was one of the government’s most successful performers.</p>
<p>On September 2 last year Robb’s appointment as a senior economic adviser to the Landbridge Group - the Chinese company which had gained a 99-year lease to the Port of Darwin - was announced on the company’s website.</p>
<p>Landbridge’s acquisition of the Port of Darwin was highly controversial, despite being given the okay by the Defence department. The Americans were angry they were not accorded notice, with President Barack Obama chipping Malcolm Turnbull about it.</p>
<p>Monday’s expose revealed that Robb was put on the Landbridge payroll from July 1 last year, the day before the election, and that his renumeration was $73,000 a month - $880,000 a year – plus expenses.</p>
<p>Robb was touchy last year when his new position was questioned, saying “I’ve been a senior cabinet minister - I know the responsibilities that I’ve got. I’ve got no intention of breaching those responsibilities”.</p>
<p>He did not give an interview to Monday’s program, but told it in a statement, “I can confirm that I fully understand my responsibilities as a former member of cabinet, and I can also confirm that I have, at all times, acted in accordance with those responsibilities”.</p>
<p>The formal responsibilities for post-separation employment are set out in the “Statement of Ministerial Standards”, dated November 20, 2015.</p>
<p>This says: “Ministers are required to undertake that, for an eighteen month period after ceasing to be a Minister, they will not lobby, advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force on any matters on which they have had official dealings as Minister in their last eighteen months in office.” </p>
<p>“Ministers are also required to undertake that, on leaving office, they will not take personal advantage of information to which they have had access as a Minister, where that information is not generally available to the public.”</p>
<p>“Ministers shall ensure that their personal conduct is consistent with the dignity, reputation and integrity of the Parliament.”</p>
<p>While Robb is not a lobbyist, and would argue that he has not contravened the letter of this code, it is hard to see how quickly taking such a position does not bring him into conflict with its spirit.</p>
<p>Why would this company be willing to pay a very large amount of money for his services? The obvious answer is because of who he is, his background, his name, his knowledge, and his contacts.</p>
<p>Robb surely would have done better to steer right away from the offer.</p>
<p>Both government and opposition, having for years been caught napping or worse about Chinese penetration, have started scrambling to be seen to be acting.</p>
<p>Turnbull last month asked Attorney-General George Brandis to lead a review of the espionage laws. Brandis says he will take a submission to cabinet “with a view to introducing legislation before the end of the year”.</p>
<p>The government is planning to bring in legislation in the spring parliamentary session to ban foreign donations, a complex exercise when, for example, a figure such a Chau, an Australian citizen, is involved.</p>
<p>In an attempt at one-upmanship Bill Shorten, again on the back foot over Dastyari, says Labor won’t accept donations from the two businessmen featured in Monday’s program, and challenges Turnbull to do the same.</p>
<p>Shorten already has a private member’s bill before Parliament to ban foreign donations, and on Tuesday wrote to Turnbull calling for a parliamentary inquiry “on possible measures to address the risk posed by foreign governments and their agents seeking to improperly interfere in Australia’s domestic political and electoral affairs”.</p>
<p>Out of it all will come action on foreign donations and perhaps tighter espionage laws. But it is to the politicians’ deep discredit that they have been so cavalier about the integrity of our political system for so long.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78961/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
This week’s ABC Four Corners/Fairfax expose of Chinese activities in Australia is alarming not just for its revelations about a multi-fronted pattern of influence-seeking but also for what it says about…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/569072016-03-30T03:10:54Z2016-03-30T03:10:54ZWA port sales the latest privatisations to hit political hurdles<p>The Western Australian Nationals recently <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-18/wa-nationals-demand-fremantle-port-sale-answers-from-liberals/7258310">announced</a> they will no longer support the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/port-of-fremantle-to-hit-the-market-for-15-billion-as-privatisation-wave-continues-20150515-gh2hy5.html">government’s plan to privatise Fremantle Ports</a>. Last week, the WA Nationals also <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-23/utah-point-port-sale-stalls-as-nationals-defer-legislation/7268582">halted passage of the Pilbara Port Privatisation Bill</a>, which deals with the sale of the Port Hedland Utah Point Bulk Handling Facility. They have asked a parliamentary committee to investigate the proposed sale.</p>
<p>A number of junior minors such as Atlas Iron, Mineral Resources and Consolidated Minerals use the Utah Point facility to export their iron ore. These miners have expressed concern about a potential increase in handling charges if the new owner was looking to improve their return on investment.</p>
<p>The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) says the <a href="http://www.miningnews.net/operations/infrastructure/pilbara-port-sale-threatens-regions-miners/">privatisation plan is creating uncertainty for the junior miners</a>. AMEC also says an increase in costs could jeopardise their operations and viability.</p>
<p>The asset sales agenda is <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/policy/budget/wa-debt-spirals-towards-unprecedented-39b-20151220-glsabf">driven by the state’s large debt and budget deficits</a> in the forward estimates. The Barnett Liberal government had flagged its <a href="https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/latest/a/31147316/voters-reject-wa-government-asset-sell-offs/">intention to sell a number of public assets</a>, including Fremantle Ports, the government-owned manager of the state’s biggest general cargo port and Australia’s fourth-largest container port. </p>
<p>The WA Nationals’ decision comes soon after political posturing <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-09/victorian-opposition-reaches-agreement-with-port-privatisation/7232428">delayed the privatisation of the Port of Melbourne</a> in Victoria. After a Legislative Council select committee inquiry, Victoria’s Labor government had to water down the proposed legislation to secure the support of the opposition to pass the bill. The changes resulted in more regulatory oversight, a shorter period of potential compensation payments to the new owners if a competing port was built during the lease period and control measures in port pricing regimes. </p>
<p>Whether the delay in timing (the sale is now scheduled for late this year or early next year) and the legislative changes will affect the sale price of the port remains to be seen. Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas is still hopeful of hitting the A$6 billion-plus mark.</p>
<h2>Privatisations prompt strategic concerns</h2>
<p>Another obstacle in the way of privatising critical infrastructure (and achieving bigger proceeds) is federal Treasurer Scott Morrison’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-18/scott-morrison-tightens-foreign-investment-rules/7257624">announcement of tighter foreign investment rules</a> in the wake of the controversial sale of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company. From next month the Foreign Investment Review Board will need to approve the sale of critical infrastructure, such as ports and airports, belonging to the states and territories. </p>
<p>The 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to an <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/china/new-darwin-port-owners-militia-links-to-chinas-military-20151117-gl1b4y.html">entity with alleged links to the Chinese government and military</a> did not please the US government. Washington considers Darwin’s port a strategic asset in view of the presence of a large contingent of the US Navy, which uses the port for its supply chains.</p>
<p>WA Premier Colin Barnett told Parliament <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-23/fremantle-port-sale-fail-as-nationals-withdraw-support/7270868">his government still intended to introduce legislation</a>, probably in the next sitting week, to support the sale of the port. He hoped for a change of mind by the Nationals and/or support from Labor and the Greens. If the sale was stalled, Mr Barnett said he would take it to the next election.</p>
<p>Labor seems to be hedging its bets with no publicly declared position on the sale of the port. But given Labor’s strong links to the Fremantle electorate (federal and state) and the maritime union (MUA organiser Chris Brown is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-11/mua-candidate-gets-labor-preselection-nod-for-fremantle/7241144">favoured to be preselected for the seat of Fremantle</a> for this year’s federal election) the opposition would be hard pressed to support the sale.</p>
<h2>What changed the Nationals’ mind?</h2>
<p>Nationals leader Terry Redman previously supported the sale. His change of heart comes after likely pressure from provincial backbenchers who still recall the sale of the WA government-owned country rail network to Brookfield, a global infrastructure company based in Canada. That left grain farmers with failing infrastructure and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-04/cbh-and-brookfield-come-to-interim-rail-deal-in-wa/6441336">rising costs to get their grain to global markets</a>. </p>
<p>Some of those fears were also played out in the proposed takeover of Asciano where Brookfield intended to have control over Pacific National, a rail provider and part of Asciano, which hauls grain to ports on the Australian eastern seaboard. Now that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/from-foes-to-friends-how-qube-and-brookfield-teamed-up-to-bid-for-asciano-20160225-gn3pdx.html">Qube Logistics and Brookfield have joined in a bid for Asciano</a>, a revised split-up of Asciano businesses has ensured Pacific National will no longer be under the control of Brookfield. This seems to have eased the concerns of grain growers across the country.</p>
<p>Fremantle Ports is the last capital city port to be privatised. However, a lot of water will probably have flowed under the Stirling Highway Bridge (a vital link to the port of Fremantle across the Swan River) before a deal can be done.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56907/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter van Duyn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Barnett government’s plans to sell ports, including the last capital city port slated for privatisation, appear to have been torpedoed by the WA Nationals’ change of heart.Peter van Duyn, Maritime Logistics Expert, Institute for Supply Chain and Logistics, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/541932016-02-04T11:48:53Z2016-02-04T11:48:53ZPolitics podcast: Nick Xenophon on launching a political party<p>At the start of a frenetic year for independent Nick Xenophon, the South Australian senator tells Michelle Grattan his new national political party, the Nick Xenophon Team, will fill a vacuum.</p>
<p>“People want a genuine choice from the political centre. I think they’re sick of the left and right skirmishes we see in politics – the red team, blue team approach where even if one side acknowledges that the other side has a good idea, it needs to tear it down,” he says. </p>
<p>Xenophon talks about the preselection process for his candidates, the difficulty of operating on a “dental floss budget”, and his views on how to create a fairer Senate voting system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54193/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>At the start of a frenetic year for independent Nick Xenophon, the South Australian senator says his new national political party, the Nick Xenophon Team, will fill a vacuum.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/510302015-11-20T01:19:37Z2015-11-20T01:19:37ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the Port of Darwin<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VQxlWVDpY28?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Stephen Parker and Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan cast an eye over co-ordinated international efforts to achieve a political solution to the Syrian conflict, the fight against Islamic State and the fledgling political relationship between Malcolm Turnbull and his US counterpart. </p>
<p>Closer to home, they examine the circumstances of two cases of Chinese foreign investment – the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin, which was approved without consultation with the US – and the attempted purchase of the vast Kidman pastoral empire, which was blocked by Treasurer Scott Morrison earlier this week.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51030/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Stephen Parker and Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan cast an eye over the fledgling political relationship between Malcolm Turnbull and his US counterpart.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraStephen Parker, Vice-Chancellor, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/509802015-11-19T19:06:38Z2015-11-19T19:06:38ZGrattan on Friday: Turnbull jokes about communications failure over Darwin port, but no laughing matter to US<p>One can only speculate how the discussion would have gone if Tony Abbott had survived as prime minister long enough to meet Barack Obama during this week’s summit circuit.</p>
<p>Obviously Abbott would not have pre-emptively published an op-ed in The Australian <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/paris-attacks-we-must-boost-military-role-in-middle-east/story-e6frg6zo-1227611328781">outlining his views</a> on what should be done next in the fight against Islamic State. But he might have put those opinions to Obama, making it less a meeting of minds between Australian and American leaders than we saw when Malcolm Turnbull spent 90 minutes with Obama in Manila.</p>
<p>Abbott urges ground troops and a greater Australian contribution to the conflict. But Obama doesn’t favour more “boots on the ground”, and Turnbull’s theme has become the need for a political solution, involving pragmatism and compromise.</p>
<p>Abbott and Obama were never an easy fit; Obama and Turnbull look a better one.</p>
<p>Nevertheless the Americans have one current gripe with Australia – over not being forewarned that a Chinese company, Landbridge Group, was about to be given a 99-year lease on the Port of Darwin.</p>
<p>This deal, announced more than a month ago, has turned into a slow burn issue.</p>
<p>The leasing was in the hands of the Northern Territory government. The bid did not have to formally go to the Foreign Investment Review Board. However, the Department of Defence was consulted and had no problem.</p>
<p>Defence Secretary Dennis Richardson points out that he, chief of the Defence Force Mark Binskin, ASIO head Duncan Lewis and Navy chief Admiral Tim Barrett all agree that leasing what is a commercial port to a Chinese company “does not impinge on our defence and security interests”. To the extent any issues might arise, “they can be mitigated quite readily”. If it came to that, the lease could be overridden.</p>
<p>Critics have a very different take. Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, argues the decision was “a deep strategic mistake”.</p>
<p>He notes this is “our only large scale port really between Broome and Cairns”, and observes that the lease’s length means we are as far from its end as we are, in the other direction, from the Gallipoli landings. “It’s a long period of time – during which I think it’s impossible for anyone to say precisely how China will evolve and whether our interests will coincide or clash.”</p>
<p>While the security issues are being hotly contested, there can be little argument over the proposition that the Americans should have been notified ahead of an announcement. American officials were angry when they learned of the decision immediately after the AUSMIN talks in Boston, attended by Defence Minister Marise Payne and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. And this week Obama chipped Turnbull about the lack of notice.</p>
<p>At Thursday’s news conference Turnbull made a joke of the oversight, saying when American officials raised the matter with him some weeks ago “it was put to me that the first thing they had read about it was in The Wall Street Journal. And my observation was … they should invest in a subscription to the Northern Territory News, because it was not a secret.”</p>
<p>The Americans take such things seriously. A comment from a US embassy spokesperson on Thursday could be read between the lines: “Australia alone determines its criteria for foreign investment projects related to its infrastructure. As strategic allies, the United States and Australia discuss a wide range of topics.” </p>
<p>Turnbull’s trivialisation mightn’t go down so well.</p>
<p>The decision about the port is and should be Australia’s alone. But given the US’s deepening military engagement in northern Australia, involving troop rotations and aircraft movements, the Americans had an interest in being told what was planned. This would have been diplomatic courtesy and proper process, not any compromise of Australian sovereignty.</p>
<p>Richardson concedes the timing issue. “We should have advised them. It would have been the sensible thing to do – but it would not have made any difference to the substance of the issue.”</p>
<p>But he says there was only a few hours notice of the NT October 13 announcement and within 24 hours of it he – in Washington after the AUSMIN meeting – had briefed the deputy secretary of the US Defence department, Robert Work.</p>
<p>Independent senator Nick Xenophon proposes next week to move for an inquiry into the Port of Darwin deal. His suggested terms of reference include “best practice for Commonwealth consideration of the strategic implications of potential foreign control of critical infrastructure”.</p>
<p>Crucial to the chance of the inquiry getting up will be the attitude of Labor. Bill Shorten next week will be briefed, together with Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen, by Richardson and Lewis.</p>
<p>While Chinese buyers have had success in securing the Port of Darwin lease, Treasurer Scott Morrison on Thursday dashed the immediate hopes of Chinese bidders aspiring to purchase the vast Kidman pastoral empire – 1.3% of Australia’s total land area. </p>
<p>Ruling out a foreign acquisition on national interest grounds, Morrison cited as a factor national security. Half of the largest station, Anna Creek, is in the Woomera Prohibited Area (WPA) military testing range. But he indicated he could favourably consider a re-calibrated proposal – which no doubt would need to exclude the Woomera land. </p>
<p>Kidman’s managing director Greg Campbell had his own view on the security issue. “Cyber espionage around the world seems to operate quite successfully in its own right without the need to acquire an outback cattle property like Anna Creek,” he said.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/jxur9-5a4eac?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/jxur9-5a4eac?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50980/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One can only speculate how the discussion would have gone if Tony Abbott had survived as prime minister long enough to meet Barack Obama during this week’s summit circuit.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/509182015-11-18T07:38:44Z2015-11-18T07:38:44ZPolitics podcast: the danger of leasing the Port of Darwin to the Chinese<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102294/original/image-20151118-14202-2o824q.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C40%2C1280%2C1103&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">ASPI executive director Peter Jennings.</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings has strongly criticised the decision to lease the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company, saying it is a deep strategic mistake after a flawed policy process. </p>
<p>Speaking to Michelle Grattan, Jennings also canvasses the difficulties of co-ordinating Russian and American military action in the Syrian conflict, and warns Australia could “in time” get a request for more special forces assistance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50918/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings has strongly criticised the decision to lease the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.