View from The Hill: ‘we must disagree with this action’ Albanese tells Beijing

On various measures, the Albanese government has been a lot more successful than its Morrison predecessor in dealing with Beijing, although this has partly been because it’s in China’s interests to

be more accommodating.

The trade relationship has been normalised, with China progressively lifting all those restrictions it had imposed when the Coalition was in power.

The Chinese government had been furious with Scott Morrison’s pressing for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID; earlier, it hated Malcolm Turnbull’s introduction of legislation to combat foreign interference.

The Labor government has also done a much better job than the Coalition in shoring up Australia’s relationships in the Pacific, a point reinforced this week with Anthony Albanese’s Pacific tour that included announcing an alliance with Fiji.

In the Pacific, Australia’s diplomacy is in direct competition with China’s, to boost our influence and keep theirs at bay, to the extent possible.

There is always a wall the Australia-China relationship will hit, as each country is fully aware. China is a great power, intent on doing what great powers do – asserting itself (as that other great power, the United States, has been doing conspicuously under the Trump presidency).

We can’t know where, in the long run, Chinese assertiveness will take that country, or leave us. For Australia, this means pursuing the positives but preparing for possible (or, if you are a pessimist, likely) negatives.

This week, China put its assertiveness on display, with its missile test in the Pacific.

The test came on the day Albanese and Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka were unveiling the new alliance.

There’s been speculation about the Chinese timing - deliberate or coincidental? Defence Minister Richard Marles said on Tuesday, “I doubt that it’s about the Prime Minister being in the Pacific”, although China expert John Garnaut notes, “There is very little in Chinese statecraft that happens by chance”.

When the Chinese had a live firing exercise in the Pacific in early 2025, it was first spotted by a commercial airline pilot. This time Australia received just minimal notice. The Chinese said the missile test was part of routine military training.

Neither Australia nor other countries saw it that way. The Australian government quickly settled on the description “destabilising”. The term that went into the ministerial talking points.

Albanese delivered a strong rebuke to China on Tuesday.

At a news conference in the Solomon Islands, the prime minister said: “We have made clear our concerns to China in both Beijing and in Canberra. We don’t want to see any action that is destabilising or which undermines the peace, security and stability of the Pacific and the region. And there is no doubt that this is a provocative act by China which does destabilise the region.”

We have said consistently that we want to cooperate with China where we can, we’ll disagree where we must and we’ll engage in our national interests. This is one of those occasions where we must disagree with this action. And in particular we point out that it is standard procedure for tests such as this for there to be given 48 hours notice. This was not done on this occasion.

Part of our concern here isn’t just the lack of notice that occurred. It is the fact that this was a test of a nuclear capable intercontinental ballistic missile fired from a nuclear-powered submarine. That is of real concern because what we need is less nuclear weapons, certainly not more. And the fact that this test took place yesterday with very little notice is of real concern.

Behind the scenes in the relationship, there is an intense, unrelenting test of strength between China and Australia at the intelligence level. Call it a game of cat-and-mouse or an arm wrestle.

ASIO chief Mike Burgess is highly focused on Chinese (and other foreign) interference in Australia, in everything from politics to the attempted penetration of critical infrastructure.

At his annual threat assessment speech last month, he showed a video that referenced alleged spying by Chinese nationals.

The presentation was attended by the Chinese ambassador, Xiao Qian, who then produced a remarkable spray in reply in an opinion piece submitted to the media.

(The ambassador, incidentally, had been forewarned about the video, and offered a prior viewing, an offer he didn’t take up.)

Xiao suggested the video would compromise ongoing legal proceedings. He also asked, “What impact will it have on China-Australia relations?” And he added the brazen claim that China had “no intention of, nor has it ever engaged in, so-called interference in Australia”.

That claim must have brought a hoot at coffee time in ASIO.

On another front, the Chinese-owned company Landbridge is making even harder the already difficult task of returning the Port of Darwin to Australian hands. Landbridge has a 99-year lease on the Port, but at the election both government and opposition promised to end that.

But Landbridge claims the government is breaching its obligations under the free trade agreement between the two countries. It lodged an action with the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, asking for arbitration.

Asked on Tuesday where things were at with the Port, Marles was singularly uninformative.

“We want to see the Port of Darwin return to Australian hands, and that process is being pursued, ” he told Sky.

Did the government have a buyer? “We need to go through the processes that are underway and we’ll work through all of that. But the important point to make is that we’ve made clear we want to see the Port of Darwin in Australian hands”.

Pressed further in relation to a buyer, he said: “We’re confident that this can be put into Australian hands, but there is a process which we need to work through”.

It would be more than embarrassing if the government did not secure a deal by the next election.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.