Federal election 2025: Chinese firm Landbridge lashes Anthony Albanese, Peter Dutton over Port of Darwin lease

Compulsory acquisition powers could be used by whoever forms the next government to take back the Port of Darwin, as the Chinese-owned asset becomes a major political fight in the election campaign.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said from Darwin on Saturday that the port would be reclaimed from Landbridge within six months if the Coalition won government, leaving Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to follow up in a radio interview that Labor was prepared to “step in”.

Mr Albanese said on Friday that only Labor was looking to reclaim the port.

On Saturday, while campaigning in the regional Queensland town of Longreach, he accused his opponent of “talking on the run”.

Meanwhile, the port’s operator — Australia’s largest and northernmost — said it was “disappointed” it was being used as a “political football” after both parties agreed that the ongoing foreign ownership was not in the national interest.

Mr Dutton did not put a dollar figure on how much the move could cost taxpayers but said he was prepared to pass legislation to secure a deal.

“We’ll negotiate according to the law, obviously, and if new legislation is required in relation to an acquisition, well, we can pass that legislation, but it’ll be on just terms and there will be a cost attached to it,” he said.

Mr Albanese — who on Saturday toured a flood-affected sheep station — said his opponent was “pretending” he had not been defence minister when in 2015 the Turnbull government greenlit the Northern Territory’s $506 million deal to lease the port to Chinese firm Landbridge for 99 years.

A 2021 parliamentary inquiry found the company had “extensive connections to the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army”.

Mr Albanese denied that it had taken an election to reveal that his Government was in discussions about the asset, saying it was no secret that Labor had opposed the original deal and wanted to re-acquire the port.

He could not give a timeframe on when that might happen.

Mr Albanese said that ideally the private sector, such as superannuation firms, would buy the port. But he said a re-elected Labor Government was prepared to step in.

“I want this to go into Australian ownership,” he said.

“But I’d prefer it to be Australian ownership under the private sector. But, if need be, we will purchase as well.”

Pressed on how much it would cost, Mr Albanese would not provide a figure, saying it was a commercial position and he would not engage in “speculation”.

He shrugged off suggestions his announcement that his Government had begun discussions to reclaim the port had been spontaneous and an attempt to gazump Mr Dutton.

“When people have had a look at the comments that we’ve made over a long period of time, they’ll see that there’s nothing spontaneous about this,” he said.

Mr Albanese said that he had foreshadowed a “future announcement” about the port on Thursday.

“We have a clear view, which is that it should be in Australian hands,” he said on Saturday.

“And Peter Dutton was in the cabinet that sold it.”

Mr Dutton slammed Mr Albanese for being late to the party on the pledge, saying the Coalition had been looking at a buyback plan for the Port of Darwin since before January.

He said it was “clear” that a mistake had been made 10 years ago and wanted to rectify it and immediately act to bring the strategic asset back into Australian ownership “or into a model where we have greater assurance about the operator and the way in which the lease operates”.

“We need to deal with the strategic circumstances that we face at the moment,” he said.

“The intelligence briefings that I’ve had over the course of my time as Leader of the Opposition indicate that the position has only deteriorated, and we’ve now seen, of course, the circumnavigating of our country by Chinese naval ships. “So we need to make sure that we recognise the times in which we live and why it’s important for us to take back this particular asset.”

Despite mounting concerns about China’s increasingly aggressive posturing in the Indo-Pacific since the deal was struck, two reviews — one commissioned by Mr Dutton as defence minister and another by Mr Albanese after coming to office — concluded there were no national security grounds to terminate the lease.

Mr Albanese would not say if the advice had changed.

“A political decision has been made, on the basis of advice as well, consistent with the position that we’ve had since 2015 that this is an important national economic asset,” he said.

Mr Albanese insisted that forcing China out would not upset the recently repaired relationship.

“My job is to stand up for the Australian national interest. I’ll continue to do that,” he said.

Mr Dutton denied that he risked antagonising China or sending a bad signal to Chinese investors, saying the relationship was “incredibly important” but ultimately “we have to make sure that Australia stands up for her national interests”.

“An Australian company wouldn’t be able to operate the port in Beijing … I think it’s appropriate that we take the actions that meet the pressures and the concerns and the threats of the time,” he said.

Mr Dutton said that he had spoken to Chinese ambassador Xiao Qian ahead of the announcement.

When asked whether he had done the same, Mr Albanese said Mr Dutton “obviously has got better connections with the Chinese ambassador. That’s a very strange thing for him to say, I’ll just leave that sitting here”.

“We have … engaged very clearly,” he said, repeating that he had made multiple statements in the past 10 years.

Landbridge Group non-executive director Terry O’Connor said the port was not for sale and he had not had discussions with Mr Dutton or Mr Albanese about the lease.

“Landbridge is disappointed that we are being used as a political football in the current election campaign,” he said.

“We are a positive contributor to the Northern Territory economy, an active supporter of community events and employer of almost 100 Darwin-based employees.”

The PM insisted that his Government had “consulted” with the company but would not go into further details of “commercial issues”.