Chinese investor buys land near AUKUS ports, sparking security fears

«Back to Home

Chinese investor buys land near AUKUS ports, sparking security fears

Independent Australia
08 Oct 2025, 10:30 GMT+

As AUKUS subs prepare to dock, Chinese-linked firms quietly buy land nearby and no one in Canberra seems to notice, writesVince Hooper.

HERE WE ARE, pouring billions into theAUKUSsubmarine project a grand plan to make Australia the Indo-Pacifics nuclear-powered pivot. Were told this is about defending our sovereignty and deterring adversaries.

And yet, right under our noses, Chinese-linked investors have been quietly buying up land around some of the very ports likely to host those submarines.

You couldnt make it up.

Reports inThe AustralianandBaird Maritimerevealed that companies tied to Chinese businessman Wang Yongxin who has known links to Chinese state networks have bought big parcels of land near Port Kembla and Newcastle, both shortlisted for future AUKUS infrastructure.

Canberras $1.6B AUKUS gamble risks destabilising the Indo-Pacific

Australias escalating $1.6 billion AUKUS spend promises nuclear submarines but threatens to fuel division and arms racing across the Indo-Pacific.

Were talking hundreds of thousands of square metres of waterfront property and not a peep from Defence, Treasury, or the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) about whether anyone even looked twice before signing off.

Meanwhile, ministers in Canberra keep patting themselves on the back for taking national security seriously.

Strategic? Or Just Sleepwalking?

Lets be blunt: this isnt just a property issue. Its a national security blind spot the size of a dry dock.

Owning land near defence infrastructure means access, visibility and influence. It doesnt take a Cold War spy to see the potential risks surveillance, data interception, or just the simple ability to observe whats going in and out of a port designed to host nuclear-powered subs.

In the old days, even sticking a camera near a naval base would get you a chat with the Australian Federal Police(AFP). Now, apparently, you can buy the land next door if the paperwork looks tidy.

FIRB: The watchdog that sleeps through the night

The FIRB was supposed to be our safety net, the body that makes sure strategic assets dont quietly drift offshore. But when it comes to land near military sites, its still playing catch-up.

The Government did tighten the rules a few years back, but theyre reactive and opaque. FIRB mostly relies on deals being flagged rather than proactively scanning for trouble. If no one rings the bell, the gate stays open.

Its not hard to see how this happens. Property deals move fast, Defence moves slow, and Treasury doesnt want to spook investors. The end result? Everyone looks the other way while the country gets sold off in slices.

The Americans would never tolerate this

Look across the Pacific. In the United States, theyve got the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) a body with real teeth. A few years ago, when a Chinese-owned company bought land near an Air Force base in North Dakota, Washington stepped in and blocked it. No hand-wringing, no case-by-case basis nonsense.

They simply said: Not happening.

Here, we call that sort of decisiveness unfriendly to investment. Wed rather take the cheque, mutter something about balance and hope the intelligence agencies are keeping an eye on things.

Spoiler: theyre not or not enough.

Canberras cognitive dissonance

Whats truly staggering is the mixed messaging.

On one hand, AUKUS is sold as the linchpin of our defence future billions in spending, deep tech sharing, nuclear propulsion, the works. On the other hand, our own system lets foreign buyers purchase land near those same bases with little more than a title search.

Its like buying a top-of-the-range security system, then leaving the front door open because you didnt want to offend the neighbour.

Force Posture, no peace: Calls to cancel Australias U.S. military ties

As the U.S. expands its military footprint across Australia and the Pacific, peace advocates warn that were being dragged into a devastating war not of our making.

AUKUS without anchors

If AUKUS is about defending Australia, then control of the land around those bases has to be part of the plan.

Heres what should happen and shouldve happened yesterday:

Declare strategic buffer zones say, 5 kilometres around any AUKUS-linked site where all foreign purchases trigger automatic review.

Make FIRB publish summary data on whos buying what near defence assets. Sunlight is a deterrent.

Force beneficial ownership disclosure no shell companies, no nominee directors hiding whos really behind a deal.

Give Defence a legal veto, not just an advisory role, on property purchases in critical zones.

Coordinate with AUKUS allies so were all enforcing the same standard, not leaving gaps for adversaries to exploit.

If were serious about sovereignty, we cant have one hand waving the AUKUS flag while the other hands out land titles.

Its not paranoia its common sense

Some will say this is alarmist. Its not. Its called learning from history.

Foreign influence doesnt always arrive with warships; sometimes it comes with lawyers, shell companies and smiling real estate agents.

Australia has a right and an obligation to draw the line between being open for business and being open to exploitation.

Right now, that line looks very blurry.

The bottom line

AUKUS was sold as a once-in-a-generation security guarantee. But unless we wake up to whats happening around those bases literally around them it risks becoming another billion-dollar illusion of safety.

Because sovereignty isnt lost overnight. Its lost deal by deal, port by port, and paddock by paddock, until one day you realise the coastline youre defending doesnt really belong to you anymore.

Vince Hooperis a proud Australian/British citizen and professor of finance and discipline head at SP Jain School of Global Management with campuses in London, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney.