Port of Darwin: This is about more than China's economic interest

[Shotgunner51]

As I said, I have no problem Australian renting out ports to Chinese, if the deal is solely business. Problem is, this particular deal is about Military asset as well as Civilian asset. And by all account, the deal should have been reviewed by FIRB.

As said by the parliament of Australia, the Federal have the say on Defence/Foreign Policy and all strategic asset within Australia is controlled by Commonwealth Government.

The reason behind this dealing is the reason why people suspected this deal, not because of China or the Port itself.

Fair enough, if it's so required by local law then foreign investor should abide to it.

The deal did not went thru FIRB due to NT government exempt it by saying LandBridge is not state own (Non-State Owned company can be exempted by FIRB)

Landbridge is indeed a privately owned, a publicly listed company, so should it be exempted from FIRB by law?

 

[Viet]

As I said, I have no problem Australian renting out ports to Chinese, if the deal is solely business. Problem is, this particular deal is about Military asset as well as Civilian asset. And by all account, the deal should have been reviewed by FIRB.

As said by the parliament of Australia, the Federal have the say on Defence/Foreign Policy and all strategic asset within Australia is controlled by Commonwealth Government.

The reason behind this dealing is the reason why people suspected this deal, not because of China or the Port itself.



The thing is, the deal should not be lie in state jurisdiction from the get go. No State of Australia can preside on commonwealth affair when defence issue is linked

The deal should have been reviewed by FIRB, but the fact that NT government by-passed it just smell fishy....

The deal is fishy. The central government should intervene. What happens to the US Marines? their fate would be at stake if the deal is approved.

 

[jhungary]

Fair enough, if it's so required by local law then foreign investor should abide to it.

Landbridge is indeed a privately owned, a publicly listed company, so should it be exempted from FIRB by law?

The deal was not looked at by the federal government (FIRB) due to the fact that NT government submit the proposal by Private Acquisition (basically is the same as any company renting an office in any state of Australia) as the proposal have not mentioned the defence asset (East Arm Wharf and Fort Hill), the Federal government did not intervene.

However, as Australian law dictate all Defence Asset are controlled by the commonwealth government and not State entity, had the NT government submit the full proposal to the government, they would most likely to have FIRB look at. The reason why NT government did not pass the deal to FIRB is unknown, and this is the reason why people untrusted the deal.

As I said on my post to some other thread (forgot the title) Private deal with Chinese company had happen and I don't mind those deal done by the Aussie government, in fact, one of the shopping mall (Eastwood Shopping Center) I frequent most were just sold to a Chinese Holding company 2 or 3 years ago. But this particular deal seems fishy to the people.

 

[Zsari]

You cannot build the Darwin port.......NT government rented out the Administrative right to the company, the land right remained NT government. Beside as said before, the deal is under investigation by FIRB at the moment as NT government failed to disclose the deal also included fisherman wharf, which can be used to dock Military traffic, so the deal could be back tracked.

You cannot expand the port, but should be able to renovate the existing facilities. Cosco for example has doubled the capacity of the leased Piraeus terminal in Greece, and that's just a single terminal.

 

[jhungary]

The deal is fishy. The central government should intervene. What happens to the US Marines? their fate would be at stake if the deal is approved.

Well, the deal is currently looked at by FIRB and Senate, the fate of this deal is not sealed yet, the company may modified the deal to exclude Fort Hill and Fisherman Wharf. Or they may be rejected if the deal presented as is.

The US marine are located in Robertson Barrack, that's quite a way from HMAS Coonawarra.......

You cannot expand the port, but should be able to renovate the existing facilities. Cosco for example has doubled the capacity of the leased Piraeus terminal in Greece, and that's just a single terminal.

No, the land belong to the state, you can petition to the state to have the port renovated. But you cannot build anything without the State Permission, again, that is if the review gone thru.

Again, the deal is for administrative right and management right. Not land right. Think of it like you rent an office from someone, can you renovate their office without the owner approval?

 

[Zsari]

No, the land belong to the state, you can petition to the state to have the port renovated. But you cannot build anything without the State Permission, again, that is if the review gone thru.

Again, the deal is for administrative right and management right. Not land right. Think of it like you rent an office from someone, can you renovate their office without the owner approval?

Yes, approval is probably necessarily, but I don't see any reason for the state to deny any such renovation in improving the capacity of the port. Isn't that the whole point of leasing out the port?

 

[Viet]

Well, the deal is currently looked at by FIRB and Senate, the fate of this deal is not sealed yet, the company may modified the deal to exclude Fort Hill and Fisherman Wharf. Or they may be rejected if the deal presented as is.

View attachment 274761

The US marine are located in Robertson Barrack, that's quite a way from HMAS Coonawarra.......



No, the land belong to the state, you can petition to the state to have the port renovated. But you cannot build anything without the State Permission, again, that is if the review gone thru.

Again, the deal is for administrative right and management right. Not land right. Think of it like you rent an office from someone, can you renovate their office without the owner approval?

Well, the Marines are not so far away from the port. A stone throwing distance one can say. From the economic perspective, it's hardly understandable how a US ally like Australia sells out a sea port to China for a handful dollars. Only enough for the next beach party. Why not lease to Vietnam? At least we are peaceful

 

[jhungary]

Yes, approval is probably necessarily, but I don't see any reason for the state to deny any such renovation in improving the capacity of the port. Isn't that the whole point of leasing out the port?

There will be environmental factor, disturbance factor, safety and also other factor (I cannot think of at the moment) that will impact the port and/or surrounding area.

As part of city planning, any proposal to renovate have to be approved by local government. It does not relate to how much efficiency can be increase by renovating the port.

So, no, it is not the whole point.

Well, the Marines are not so far away from the port. A stone throwing distance one can say. From the economic perspective, it's hardly understandable how a US ally like Australia sells out a sea port to China for a handful dollars. Only enough for the next beach party. Why not lease to Vietnam? At least we are peaceful

Well, I guess there were probably money involved. For some reason the NT government really want to have this deal go ahead. 506 millions is really not much these day for a 99 year least.

 

[Viet]

There will be environmental factor, disturbance factor, safety and also other factor (I cannot think of at the moment) that will impact the port and/or surrounding area.

As part of city planning, any proposal to renovate have to be approved by local government. It does not relate to how much efficiency can be increase by renovating the port.

So, no, it is not the whole point.



Well, I guess there were probably money involved. For some reason the NT government really want to have this deal go ahead. 506 millions is really not much these day for a 99 year least.

5 million bucks a year is nothing. What can you buy for in Australia? a house with sea view and a yacht. That's it. Too cheap for our Chinese friends with deep pockets. The local government should demand more money. 100 million a year sounds better, if we include and factor in the risk as the Chinese company reportedly has link to the Chinese government.

 

[TaiShang]

I would say, stop the paranoia and do business. Be cool like the Australian partners. China is nothing but inclusive development. US should stop fear-mongering, for it does not sell well over this part of the world.

***

Malcolm Turnbull shrugs off US concern over Darwin port lease to Chinese firm

Australian PM suggests US officials should ‘invest in a subscription to the Northern Territory News’ if the news of the lease caught them by surprise。



@ahojunk

 

[Shotgunner51]

I would say, stop the paranoia and do business. Be cool like the Australian partners. China is nothing but inclusive development. US should stop fear-mongering, for it does not sell well over this part of the world.

***

Malcolm Turnbull shrugs off US concern over Darwin port lease to Chinese firm

Australian PM suggests US officials should ‘invest in a subscription to the Northern Territory News’ if the news of the lease caught them by surprise。



@ahojunk

This supposed to be boring business deal become entertaining ...

Australian PM suggests US officials should invest in a subscription to the Northern Territory News if the news of the lease caught them by surprise Malcolm Turnbull has shrugged off a ?please explain from the US about... :: AD HOC NEWS

Grattan on Friday: Turnbull jokes about communications failure over Darwin port, but no laughing matter to US​

 

[jhungary]

PM Malcolm Turnbull gets it wrong on whether Darwin port is used by military - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

PM Malcolm Turnbull gets it wrong on whether Darwin port is used by military

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has made a significant error in trying to justify the decision to lease Australia's crucial northern port to Chinese interests, by claiming it is not used by the military.

Key points:

• Malcolm Turnbull's statements on Darwin port questioned
• PM previously claimed port was not used by military, but facility is advertised as catering to "frequent naval visits"
• NT Government has leased port to Chinese-owned company

The Northern Territory Government sparked international controversy last month when it decided to lease the Port of Darwin facilities to a Chinese-owned company.

Some defence analysts have warned the company, Landbridge, has strong links to the Chinese Communist Party. They have also warned China will use the lease strategically to secure a presence in the north of Australia.

The ABC has also been told US president Barack Obama raised the sale directly with Mr Turnbull in a face-to-face meeting this week.

On Friday Mr Turnbull was questioned by Darwin radio station MIX 104.9 about the sale of the port.

"The port that is being leased is not being used by the military, it is a commercial port," he said.

But according to an announcement by the Darwin Port Corporation on November 16, the lease includes East Arm Wharf commercial port outside Darwin and the Fort Hill Wharf close to the city's CBD.

Fort Hill Wharf is advertised as a "cruise ship and Defence vessel facility".

The Darwin Port Corporation website promotes the wharf as catering to "frequent naval ship visits" for visiting international and domestic naval ships.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister has since issued a media statement, which said Mr Turnbull was making the point that the Darwin facility "is a commercial port not a military port".

The Prime Minister has repeatedly defended the lease arrangements.

"Naturally Defence has access to the port if required," the statement said.

"Regardless, Defence has made it very clear it has no security concerns about the lease."

The Prime Minister also stressed Defence could step in and take over management of the port for national security reasons.

But Luke Gosling, the Labor candidate for the federal seat of Solomon in Darwin, said the Prime Minister had misunderstood the port lease deal.

"According to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory's release, the facilities that are included in the lease of the port for 99 years — almost a century — includes facilities like Fort Hill Wharf that are used not only by the Australian Navy but also the militaries of other countries as well, so it would be good if the Prime Minister, when coming to the north, knew what he was talking about," Mr Gosling said.

Editorial : As I said last night, nobody really care about whether or not the port is least to the Chinese or Vietnamese or anyone. The deals IS fishy, the suspect falls on the NT government, even PM don't really know what the deal entailed.

And the deal are now under review by FIRB, WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. So we should just leave it at that. This is nobody but Australian Own Business, or is it free for China to have a say on how things work in Australia?

 

[Shotgunner51]

And the deal are now under review by FIRB, WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. So we should just leave it at that. This is nobody but Australian Own Business, or is it ...

Relax, fair enough for Australian be it FIRB or NT or Turnbull to decide whether it's "fishy" or "meaty", of course. The Landbridge offer is on the table, it's entirely upto the Australian to take it or leave it, no crazy government official from China will say a word.

... Australian Own Business, or is it free for China to have a say on how things work in Australia?

ABC is Chinese? How about the Guardian, Chinese as well?

The ABC has also been told US president Barack Obama raised the sale directly with Mr Turnbull in a face-to-face meeting this week.

So much about "Australian Own Business", now concerns a 3rd party?
That guy Barack Obama is a rightful Australian to call the shot, or an evil Chinese poking on other people's business?

 

[jhungary]

Relax, fair enough for Australian be it FIRB or NT or Turnbull to decide whether it's "fishy" or "meaty", of course. The Landbridge offer is on the table, it's entirely upto the Australian to take it or leave it, no crazy government official from China will say a word.

ABC is Chinese? How about the Guardian, Chinese as well?

So much about "Australian Own Business", now concerns a 3rd party?
That guy Barack Obama is a rightful Australian to call the shot, or an evil Chinese poking on other people's business?

I don't understand why you lot still going on about the deal.

The deal hit high tide because of suspected NT government misconduct. But somewhere somehow your buddy @TaiShang talk about as if we have this circus going on because of the company that renting the port is a Chinese company.

Obama, on the other hand, concern about the deal because US have an defence agreement with Australia, if you look at what he said closely, he (Obama) concern about the Military Implication on the deal (The access of West Arm Wharf and Fort Hill) would impact US ship docking in Australia. I don't think Obama care much about the Port of Darwin.

ABC report what they want to report, and again, as I said the deal fall to bits NOT because of Chinese involvement, in fact, most of ABC report are about how power struggle between Labor and Liberal government on the issue. Do you think what would ABC care about more? That deal with China? Or the potential implication and political fall out had NT government found wrong doing.

As I say this, one final time, How to do business with foreign investment is about Australian Own internal affair. This is how it should be done, it does not quite matter would it be about China, Vietnam or US. I do not need to relax, but seems like your buddy here need to CTFD. I am not the one jumping up and down about how US should not fearmongering. This have nothing to do with the US. US is concern because they have a defence agreement with Oz and need clarification if the deal gone thru with Military Asset.

 

[Shotgunner51]

I don't understand why you lot still going on about the deal.

As PDFers, we are just killing time here, it's entertaining to read about that Guardian reports on Turnbull asking US officials to subscribe NT news, real funny, Turnbull rocks my man!

How to do business with foreign investment is about Australian Own internal affair.

No doubt on this line bro, it's a true statement, powerful!
Though officials from a 3rd country may add a few words ".... but nothing above our military interests"