Chalmers hits China-linked companies with landmark lawsuit over crucial military minerals
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has launched an unprecedented lawsuit against China-linked interests to force them to sell their stake in an Australian rare earths miner, whose products are crucial to warplanes, missiles and submarines.
The lawsuit, filed in the Federal Court on Thursday against foreign investors in Northern Minerals, is also seeking financial penalties for allegedly refusing to obey Chalmers' direction to sell out of the company last year.
The Australian-listed company is developing the Browns Range heavy rare earths project in remote northern Western Australia, which could be one of the first non-Chinese sources of the minerals used in military guidance systems, wind turbines and electric vehicles.
Chalmers' court action against an entity called Indian Ocean International Shipping and Service Company Ltd and a former associate follows his order last year for five Chinese-linked groups to sell their shares in Northern Minerals to unconnected buyers by September.
'Foreign investors in Australia are required to follow Australian law,' Chalmers said in a statement. 'We are doing what is necessary to protect the national interest and the integrity of our foreign investment framework.'
China's control of rare earths and critical products is an escalating cause of concern to the United States and countries like Australia, after Donald Trump's trade war prompted Beijing to restrict shipments of the materials. It has made similar moves before, including against Japan in 2010 during a territorial dispute.
China controls nearly all of the world's heavy rare earth production and Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior fellow Ian Satchwell said the global superpower's interests were seeking to exert influence over Northern Minerals.
'Australia, with like-minded partner nations, is seeking to build alternative supply chains for rare earths and other critical minerals, and the Northern Minerals shenanigans are a very obvious example of China-linked bad faith investing to allegedly seek to disrupt those efforts,' Satchwell said.
'In Australia's case those rare earths are used for things such as F35 fighters, missiles attached to them and in the future, nuclear-powered submarines.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Labor's Veteran Affairs Minister Matt Keogh's 'strategically incoherent' naivety on the Middle East war is cause for concern
Neville Shute's haunting Cold War parable On the Beach imagines Australia as the final, fading refuge from a nuclear apocalypse. 'The world will go on just the same,' says naval officer Peter Holmes, 'only we shan't be in it. I dare say it will get along all right without us.' The line captures a persistent illusion in Australian foreign policy: that we can remain untouched by conflicts beyond our shores. This delusion has become dangerously entrenched, reflected most recently in the Albanese government's hesitant response to war in the Middle East. On Wednesday, Veterans Affairs Minister Matt Keogh provided the standard government response to a question on ABC Perth about potential involvement in the Middle East. "It's not our primary focus area," he replied. "We are very much focused on our region." Yet only two days earlier, a Qantas Boeing 787 from Perth to Paris was forced to turn back more than seven hours into its flight, prevented from reaching its destination by the closure of air space over the Gulf. The geographical reality for an open trading nation like ours is that Australia has had a stake in peace in the Middle East since 1869, when the opening of the Suez Canal reduced the journey to Europe by weeks. Australian troops fought and died in the Middle East in two world wars, not just out of imperial loyalty but because it was in our interests. Our trading links have diversified, and freight handling is more sophisticated. Yet, Dubai, Doha, and Abu Dhabi are the first or last ports of call for nearly 400,000 passengers a month arriving or departing from Australia. Last year, more than 100,000 tonnes of air freight came by that route. As Australians, we should understand better than most that the threat to aircraft flying 30,000 feet over a war zone is not merely theoretical. Malaysian Airlines flight MH 17 Is one of three commercial airliners confirmed to have been brought down by surface-to-air missiles. Among the 298 people who died when the plane came down over eastern Ukraine were 38 Australians. What is unfolding in the Middle East is not an isolated conflict - it is part of a broader confrontation between liberal democracies and revisionist regimes. Iran, through its proxies, joins Russia and China in challenging the rules-based order that underpins global security. Australia's security and prosperity depend on that order. We are a trading nation that relies on open sea lanes, established legal norms, and stable regions. The notion that we can "focus on our region" while ignoring wider threats is strategically incoherent. In short, trade routes, military engagements, and energy security irrevocably bind Australia to the region. Far from being a distant or irrelevant conflict zone, the Middle East is - and always has been - part of Australia's geopolitical backyard. The Middle Eastern diaspora in Australia provides a human link to countries across the region and a profound interest in maintaining their sovereignty. Add to that Australia's historic resistance to nuclear proliferation and naivety of the Albanese government's attempts to distance itself from events in the Middle East becomes screamingly clear. Australia was drawn irreversibly into the geopolitics of the Middle East and, more broadly, the global system that binds the liberal democratic world together. The idea that we can stand aside from today's conflicts - whether in Gaza, the Red Sea, or the broader confrontation between open societies and authoritarian powers - is not just naïve. It is dangerous. Yet there is more to Albanese's foreign policy error than cartographic illiteracy and topographical detachment. The insistence of the intellectual Left to view every conflict through a colonial lens has created uncertainty about which side to support. The framing of Israel as a Western colonising force is no longer a fringe position on the Left. The resale to acknowledge the Jewish people's ancient historical ties to the Middle East and brush aside the significance of international involvement in Israel's creation has become mainstream thinking in Labor. Counter-evidence is dismissed through the selective use of colonial framing. The October 7, 2023, atrocities have not tarnished Hamas' reputation as freedom fighters. Open calls for the destruction of Israel, a genocidal objective incompatible with any liberation narrative, are discounted or justified. The narrative ignores genuine colonial regimes like China in Tibet or Russia in Ukraine, where national cultures are actively suppressed. Nick Cater is a senior fellow at Menzies Research Centre and a regular contributor to Sky News Australia
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
More is more: The big idea that's inspired Jim Chalmers (huzzah!)
Canberra has been taken by storm by an i dea. The idea is abundance – the notion that scarcity is artificially created. It is described in a book which Treasurer Jim Chalmers referred to at the National Press Club last week. I rather thought that the treasurer might have given up on ideas after the critical reception of his Monthly Essay in the summer of 2023 on 'values-based capitalism'. Endearingly, he has not. Abundance is the latest from Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson (the prolific 'et al' to his more famous co-author). Klein's books (he's written one other, without an et al) are interesting, in that they offer the kind of excoriation of progressives and progressivism that can only be delivered by someone who passionately wants both to succeed. Chalmers' colleague, the honourable Dr Andrew Leigh, MP, recommended the treasurer read Abundance. This column has been quite fond of Leigh, from afar, ever since he took it in his head to deliver a conference key-note address based on Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiment. Cracker speech, cracker text. Donald Trump was elected for the first time that very afternoon, but this column is not implying any causality. Klein's book has inspired our treasurer. Now 'about half of the federal cabinet has a dog-eared copy on their bed stands', according to Shane Wright's column in this masthead. So obviously I had to read it. The act of a patriot. Abundance is an extraordinary book. But before I begin to describe it, a word from our treasurer. Loading The inspiration he and his team are drawing from Klein (et al) relates to his suggestions on how 'we' (society in general, but the book is specifically aimed at progressives) can get out of 'our' own way and get on with building housing and energy. As Chalmers said at the National Press Club, the vision is to address the supply side of the housing and energy crunches in Australia. That means we need to knock down the obstacles standing in the way of creating more of both. Which is good to know. Because while creating abundance is the overall theme of Abundance, and housing and energy are areas of focus, there is so much more that I wasn't expecting. Klein (et al) deliver a very tidy description of American politics which translates well to the Australian experience. 'Americans,' they write, referring mainly to Republicans, I assume, 'talk like conservatives but want to be governed like liberals.' They 'like both the rhetoric and reality of low taxes, but they also like the programs taxes fund'.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
More is more: The big idea that's inspired Jim Chalmers (huzzah!)
Canberra has been taken by storm by an i dea. The idea is abundance – the notion that scarcity is artificially created. It is described in a book which Treasurer Jim Chalmers referred to at the National Press Club last week. I rather thought that the treasurer might have given up on ideas after the critical reception of his Monthly Essay in the summer of 2023 on 'values-based capitalism'. Endearingly, he has not. Abundance is the latest from Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson (the prolific 'et al' to his more famous co-author). Klein's books (he's written one other, without an et al) are interesting, in that they offer the kind of excoriation of progressives and progressivism that can only be delivered by someone who passionately wants both to succeed. Chalmers' colleague, the honourable Dr Andrew Leigh, MP, recommended the treasurer read Abundance. This column has been quite fond of Leigh, from afar, ever since he took it in his head to deliver a conference key-note address based on Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiment. Cracker speech, cracker text. Donald Trump was elected for the first time that very afternoon, but this column is not implying any causality. Klein's book has inspired our treasurer. Now 'about half of the federal cabinet has a dog-eared copy on their bed stands', according to Shane Wright's column in this masthead. So obviously I had to read it. The act of a patriot. Abundance is an extraordinary book. But before I begin to describe it, a word from our treasurer. Loading The inspiration he and his team are drawing from Klein (et al) relates to his suggestions on how 'we' (society in general, but the book is specifically aimed at progressives) can get out of 'our' own way and get on with building housing and energy. As Chalmers said at the National Press Club, the vision is to address the supply side of the housing and energy crunches in Australia. That means we need to knock down the obstacles standing in the way of creating more of both. Which is good to know. Because while creating abundance is the overall theme of Abundance, and housing and energy are areas of focus, there is so much more that I wasn't expecting. Klein (et al) deliver a very tidy description of American politics which translates well to the Australian experience. 'Americans,' they write, referring mainly to Republicans, I assume, 'talk like conservatives but want to be governed like liberals.' They 'like both the rhetoric and reality of low taxes, but they also like the programs taxes fund'.
