June 29, 2023
PAUL MURRAY: Let's talk to James Paterson, the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, because there's more conversation about the Darwin Port. And I'm not talking about this just because we're heading to Darwin the next couple of days, but because is there a chance that the Chinese control of that port may well be coming to an end sometime soon? Let's talk to James Paterson now. Senator, lovely to see you, mate. Thank you for being so patient. I had a lot to say, including about Anthony. I won't ask you about what your plan is for him in a second, but I'll ask you about the Port of Darwin. This thing seems to have been a sore that should have been dealt with a long time ago. Is it about to be dealt with and what's your sense of what you can do to make sure it is dealt with?
JAMES PATERSON: Paul, I really hope so, but forgive me for being a little bit cynical. I'm worried that it won't be. You might remember a couple of years ago in Opposition, Anthony Albanese as Opposition Leader was highly critical of the sale of the Port of Darwin, as was I. He was right to be critical. It should never have happened. But fast forward a couple of years and more than one year into his government and he's yet to take any action at all to address this issue. When he was in Opposition, he said it was hard to think of an infrastructure asset more important to Australia's national security than the Port of Darwin. He said it was beyond his comprehension that you wouldn't review the ownership by the Landbridge Group of the Port of Darwin. And he was highly critical and repeatedly attacked the former government for allowing it to be sold. So, we would be forgiven for thinking that now he has the opportunity as Prime Minister to do something about it, that he would do so. But we are still waiting and one year in there's no sign of any action.
MURRAY: Again, we were going to have a COVID inquiry. We were going to reduce the cost of living. But surprise, surprise, that's all the stuff you just say to get the job rather than what you do with the job. Again, it's been now quite a few years since China and a Chinese-controlled company had control of the port. Is our central concern what they're doing or the central concern that if push came to shove, then what that port would be used for would be able to be changed because it would be a private entity that would be able to change. This was the stuff that we used to be worried about what was happening with Pacific Islands and Chinese money.
PATERSON: Anthony Albanese was right when he said in Opposition that it's an incredibly important strategic asset for Australia, and that is because the north of Australia is an incredibly important strategic region for our national security. And because the cooperation that we have with our friends from the United States and the US marine force which rotates there, the upgrades that we're doing across the north to our RAAF bases and facilities, the hardening of those facilities, the investment in diesel storage in that region. This is an incredibly strategically important region and I think it would be fair to say there'd be no other country in the world, certainly not China, which would allow a potential adversary to take a controlling stake in an asset which is needed to facilitate and support all of those very important national security infrastructure and entities in the north of Australia. So, it should not be controlled by a company which has close links to the Chinese government. It should be controlled by Australians and there are a range of options available to the Government to deal with this, including cancelling the lease, which Anthony Albanese certainly implied he would if he had the opportunity. But even options short of that through critical infrastructure legislation, which allows the government to impose conditions on the owner, that would at least give us some comfort, if not total comfort, about what's going on there and what can happen there. So, a failure to deal with this is really a failure to be serious about these issues. He promised he would. He also promised, even when he was Prime Minister almost a year ago, that the review that was underway would be publicly released. So, at the very least, he must publicly release that review because he promised that he would.
MURRAY: Good stuff. Thank you so much, James. Keep at them mate. We appreciate it. Let's have a longer chat soon. James Paterson is the Shadow Home Affairs Minister joining us from Melbourne.
ENDS
