For those who came in late, here is a good summary of what went on with the leasing of the Port of Darwin to the Chinese. I tried to find whether any other country on Earth has been so stupid as to lease to a nation which is gearing up for war a strategic port, but found no-one. I guess given that economic efficiency is all that matters, if the CCP decided to put nuclear missiles in war ships in the Port of Darwin, the economic “rationalists” would have no objection? I suppose in the end, it is economically rational to be blasted to atoms by nuclear missiles, as it does save the cost of funerals. Every cent counts in the world of money you know.
“Next century — on November 15, 2114 — the Darwin Port is due to return to Australian hands.
It's been six and a half years since Chinese-owned company Landbridge signed a 99-year lease for the strategically important asset.
From the outset, it was a controversial arrangement: one that's remained in the spotlight amid increasingly fraught tensions between the Australian and Chinese governments, and China's new security pact with Solomon Islands.
Now, with a federal election looming, the political implications of the deal are being tested again, especially in the marginal Darwin-based electorate of Solomon.
Along the city's main commuter routes, corflutes have cropped up bearing the frowning face of the Prime Minister and the words: "MORRISON & THE CLP SOLD THE PORT. VOTE HIM OUT!!".
The placards are in the yellow and black colours usually associated with Clive Palmer's United Australia Party, but a closer inspection of the fine print shows the attack ads have been approved by Labor.
In contrast to Labor's focus on the past, the Coalition has been campaigning on the future, promising more than a billion dollars for new port infrastructure in Darwin that won't be under Landbridge's control.
How did we end up in this situation?
To understand the political battlelines of the present, it's important to step back to 2015, when the Country Liberals decided to privatise the publicly owned facility.
The NT government considered the port a vital part of the region's future economic growth, but its infrastructure was in a state of disrepair, according to Dave Tollner, who was treasurer at the time.
"We were very reluctant to go borrowing a lot of money to put into a port," Mr Tollner told the ABC this week.
"The view was that … the port would be more utilised in private hands.
"To that end, we went seeking a partner to look after that port."
How the port deal went down
Thirty-three private investors expressed interest, and after months of assessment, Landbridge was declared the successful bidder for the long-term lease.
The company's offer of $506 million was "a significant amount more than the next nearest", Mr Tollner said, adding it was hoped Landbridge's involvement in Darwin would open up new trade routes for the NT's cattle, mining and gas industries.
But the decision to hand the port to a firm owned by a billionaire with reported close ties to the Chinese Communist Party prompted claims that national security had been compromised for the sake of economic gain.
Even US President Barack Obama — who had signed off on the annual deployment of US Marines to the Top End in 2011 — was said to have expressed his dissatisfaction to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
So, is there a national security risk?
Despite the furore, the Defence Department said the controversial deal had received its tick of approval following a review of strategic and operational risks, including cyberattacks, intellectual property theft, infrastructure degradation and port shutdowns.
Likewise, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was equally satisfied with the level of due diligence conducted before the lease was approved.
"There was no reason, based on security consideration at any rate, as to why this transaction should not go forward," the then ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis told a parliamentary committee at the time.
Defence analyst Dr John Coyne, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, this week told the ABC that concerns raised about the risk of covert surveillance at the port was less of a national security issue than the possibility that investment in the critical asset might one day be deliberately curtailed at the direction of the Chinese government.
"It's an underdeveloped piece of infrastructure that would be critical in a range of future contingencies, whether those contingencies be in the South China Sea, Taiwan or the Indo Pacific," he said.
"And having the future of that infrastructure — whether additional berthing spaces and the decisions around that — sitting in the hands [that] are under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party, who have a very different set of objectives to our own, I think that's the bigger issue."
Dr Coyne said the geopolitical landscape in 2015 was incomparable to the current climate.
Just a year before the port deal was finalised, the Chinese President Xi Jinping had addressed the Australian parliament and the two nations had agreed to a trade deal.
"There was a great, ambitious, optimistic viewpoint in 2014, and indeed into 2015, about the relationship with China," Dr Coyne said.
"(People) wanted to believe that the rise of China would come without any other pressures, and that we would never have to get in the situation to choose between economics and national security."
Is the port lease under review again?
The Chinese Communist Party's increasing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region in the years since the lease was signed has changed the balance significantly.
Last year, a parliamentary committee recommended the federal government consider reclaiming Australian ownership if the port deal was found to be contrary to the national interest.
The National Security Committee of Cabinet subsequently tasked the Defence Department with providing advice on whether the deal should be revoked.
In response, Landbridge's then managing director Mike Hughes issued a public statement taking aim at "sideline critics [who] have continued to carp about the lease".
"To suggest that we could control the entry of foreign naval vessels into Australian waters is risible," Mr Hughes said.
"So is the suggestion that we would block Australian or US naval vessels entering Darwin.
"In any kind of wartime situation, the Australian government can simply step in and assume control of the port."
Department's advice has not been made public, however late last year, The Australian newspaper reported the review had found no national security grounds sufficient to overturn the lease.
During a visit to Darwin in February, Prime Minister Scott Morrison confirmed he had not received any advice to terminate the arrangement, but added that he would "not hesitate" to act in accordance with any future recommendations from security agencies.
Mr Morrison, who was appointed treasurer shortly before the port deal was finalised in 2015, also reiterated it was the NT government that leased the facility.
"The Australian Government did not authorise it, did not approve it, did not have the power to approve it," he said.
An RMIT ABC Fact Check found this was not the full story.
What's next for Darwin Port?
As far as Landbridge's lease goes, it's status quo for the time being.
But the long-term future of Darwin Harbour and its critical port infrastructure continue to be issues of importance for politicians of all stripes.
Ever since the federal budget, Coalition ministers have been spruiking their plan to spend $1.5 billion over the next decade on a new wharf and loading facility at Middle Arm.
The site, which is across the harbour from Landbridge's East Arm Wharf, has been earmarked by the NT government as a future sustainable development hub.
But the federal government's billion-dollar promise is contingent on an approved business case, and while some ministers have flagged a potential role for Defence at Middle Arm, it's unclear what, if any, involvement it would have there.
Labor has promised to match federal funding for Middle Arm, but its local MP Luke Gosling has been critical of the Coalition's handling of Landbridge's lease.
"They're now not coming clean on what the future of the current Darwin Port is and what the security expert advice is, but they're also coming up with pretend replacements that Defence haven't been properly consulted on," Mr Gosling said.
Whichever party triumphs on election day, security analyst Dr Coyne said a critical question will need to be resolved for the incoming government.
"Are we as a nation happy for the future decisions and investment on our northern-most, strategic, deep-water port … to be made by a company that is, for all intents and purposes, directly linked to the Chinese Communist Party?"
In a war situation, this trade bs will be forgotten and Australian troops will cease control of the Port.