Nearly a decade ago, Australia leased Darwin Port in its Northern Territory to a Chinese company, Landbridge Group for 99 years. Recently, however, the Australian government has announced intentions to reclaim operational rights from the Chinese enterprise. In response, China’s Ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, remarked in a recent media interview that such a move would be morally questionable.

The issue has sparked widespread discussion in China. Looking back at the evolution of Darwin Port over the past ten years, the lease arrangement, fundamentally a commercial transaction, has yielded mutually beneficial outcomes. At the time of the lease, the Australian federal government showed little interest in supporting infrastructure development in the region. In this context, Landbridge Group’s investment was considered timely and valuable. The company turned around the port’s financial performance, helped ease the Northern Territory government’s debt pressures, and invested over AUD 83 million in port maintenance and upgrades, resulting in a 95.7% increase in gross tonnage. In addition, it actively fulfilled its corporate social responsibilities and significantly contributed to local economic and social development. Former Northern Territory Attorney-General John Elferink noted that the federal government had raised no national security concerns when it approved the deal.

Many in China believe that the port only became entangled with so-called “national security” concerns due to Washington’s persistent “attention” to the issue. Despite multiple security reviews by successive Australian governments, none have found evidence of national security risks. The most recent review in 2023 concluded there was no need to cancel or alter the lease. Nevertheless, calls to renege on the agreement have resurfaced in political discourse and even become part of a bipartisan “consensus” during election campaigns. This resurgence reflects a lingering anti-China undercurrent within Australian politics. If Australia proceeds with forcibly reclaiming Darwin Port, it risks triggering lasting consequences in at least three key areas.

First, Landbridge Group’s operation of Darwin Port is a textbook case of Chinese enterprises investing and operating overseas in compliance with local laws. If the Australian government were to unilaterally tear up the agreement without legal justification, it would send a dangerous message to global investors: that Australia is willing to interfere with commercial contracts for political reasons. Such a move, prioritizing politics over the rule of law, would severely undermine confidence in Australia’s business environment, particularly in capital-intensive sectors such as infrastructure and energy. Suggestions that the Australian government would ensure Landbridge receives “fair compensation” only underscore the lack of moral conviction behind the potential reversal. But can monetary compensation truly redeem a loss of contractual integrity or repair a reputational deficit?

Second, China–Australia relations have experienced considerable turbulence in recent years, much of it stemming from the Australian side’s tendency to politicize and securitize issues related to China. Recently, both countries have made efforts to steer bilateral relations back toward pragmatic cooperation and greater stability. If the Darwin Port issue is further politicized and the lease revoked under the pretext of national security, it will become another negative case study undermining the stable development of China–Australia relations. Such a move would likely erode current progress, intensify public mistrust between the two nations, and damage mutual confidence between their governments and business communities.

Third, reclaiming Darwin Port from Landbridge would symbolize a shift away from commercial cooperation toward military-oriented development. In recent years, the U.S. has significantly ramped up its military presence in Darwin, with permanent deployments, base expansions, and efforts to position the region as a frontline of its Indo-Pacific strategy. The push to “de-China” the port appears aligned with U.S. efforts to clear the way for its strategic footprint in northern Australia. More critically, if the port’s functions are partially or fully converted for military use, local economic development could become hostage to military imperatives. Commercial shipping and port logistics may be displaced by military exercises, fleet replenishment, and strategic storage. This would likely undermine regional industries, reduce public safety, and compromise the well-being of local communities.

Darwin Port’s operation was originally a matter of market-based economic behavior and should continue to function within the framework of rule of law and commercial norms. When pressure from Washington overrides Australia’s national interests, and political motives trample on lawful business conduct, what is lost is not only Australia’s international credibility, but also the trust it has painstakingly built—and its strategic autonomy to remain outside of external power competition. Chinese experts have called on the Australian government to act with long-term vision, uphold the sanctity of contracts, return to the rule of law, and stop allowing political bias to erode economic cooperation. The choice between making Darwin Port a hub of prosperity or a flashpoint of crisis is not a difficult one—but it is a test of Canberra’s strategic wisdom.

Editor: LQQ