The Albanese government appears to believe that directing proceeds from Defence property sales back into the military somehow justifies disposing of irreplaceable pieces of Australia’s history.
It does not. It only explains where the money will be spent after the loss has occurred.
The proposed sale of Victoria Barracks in Sydney, along with dozens of other Defence properties, is expected to raise about $1.8 billion.
The government receives the money once. Australians give up the assets permanently.
When that revenue has been exhausted, the military will still require ongoing funding. The crucial difference is that the public will no longer own the land used to generate it.
If the government wants to strengthen the military—or increase spending elsewhere—it can reduce waste, reprioritise existing programs and redirect funds. With government expenditure at record levels and long-overdue tax reform still unresolved, there are ways to provide more money for Defence without surrendering a single hectare of public land.
Instead, selling something that can never be recovered seems to have become the easier option than making unpopular choices.
That is not to say every Defence property must remain in public hands. Some sites may reasonably be sold. Victoria Barracks, however, is not an obsolete office complex with no wider significance. Established in 1840 and with its main barracks completed in 1848, it predates Australian Federation by more than 50 years.
The Albanese government appears to believe that funding Defence with property-sale proceeds justifies selling irreplaceable pieces of Australia’s history
The proposed sale of Sydney’s Victoria Barracks, together with dozens of other Defence properties, is expected to raise about $1.8 billion
Its sandstone buildings provide a direct link between Australia’s colonial military past and the Army that continues to serve the nation.
The current government is only the temporary custodian of that inheritance. It should not act as though custody gives it permission to sell it off.
The details of the proposal also need to be stated plainly. The government’s published material refers to sales, with heritage requirements to be negotiated with future owners. No 99-year lease arrangement for Victoria Barracks has been announced.
A lease lasting that long would still require close examination. However, a carefully designed lease could preserve public ownership and allow the property to return to government control when the term ended.
An outright sale offers no equivalent protection.
Assurances about heritage safeguards also fail to address the central issue. Obligating a private owner to protect a sandstone facade is not the same as preserving public ownership of a place with national significance.
A heritage listing or preservation agreement does not guarantee that future generations will retain meaningful public access to the historically important site.
The buildings may survive, yet Australians could lose control over—and access to—their future.
The buildings may remain, but Australians could lose control of and access to their future
Nor is the case against these sales limited to heritage concerns or immediate military requirements. Land Defence no longer needs is not automatically land the public no longer needs.
That distinction should be obvious, but apparently it needs spelling out.
MORE ON THIS: Democrats Build Early Lead in Mail-In Votes Ahead of Midterms
Victoria Barracks occupies 13 hectares in Paddington. Governments can’t manufacture another equivalent parcel of land in an established inner-city suburb whenever a future need arises.
Across the wider Defence estate, land might be suitable for schools, health facilities, parks, open space or other public infrastructure needed as cities get more congested courtesy of more high-rise developments.
Not every site will suit every purpose, but declaring a property unnecessary for military operations certainly doesn’t settle its value to the community.
As populations grow, those possibilities become more important, not less.
Our cities need to grow upwards as well as outwards. Greater density is unavoidable. But more people living closer together increases the need for public facilities and places where they can get outside.
Selling the land today, then discovering tomorrow that we need some of it back, is exactly the sort of lack of forethought you’d expect from short term minded politicians.
Peter Van Onselen (pictured) writes governments of either persuasion are capable of confusing stewardship with a chance to cash in
A future government could attempt to repurchase it or compulsorily acquire it, but at what price? After what developments have taken place? And with how many of the original opportunities already lost?
I have a personal reason for finding this thinking so infuriating.
My mother was the last matron of Strickland House nursing home in Sydney’s Vaucluse. I grew up with her working there, with our family living in a separate house on the site. It was 14 acres of prime waterfront land at the heart of which was the magnificent main building, built in 1856.
A state Liberal government (proving this is a bipartisan problem) tried to sell it off. Community pressure helped defeat those ambitions, thankfully. Today the site is publicly accessible, giving access to views and grounds that otherwise would have been denied to all but the super wealthy capable of buying into it.
Just as importantly, the historical Strickland House main building remains in public hands, even if it’s under utilised and rundown in a way that it really shouldn’t be.
The historical significance of Victoria Barracks is infinitely greater. Yet the same impoverished thinking is being applied to its future.
Governments of either persuasion are capable of confusing stewardship with a chance to cash in.
Nor should anyone pretend this is simply another argument about privatising utilities.
There is at least a philosophical case that a private operator, subject to regulation, might deliver a service more efficiently. Whether that promise is fulfilled is another debate, of course.
What real or imagined efficiency is achieved by permanently surrendering ownership of historic public land?
If Defence shouldn’t carry the cost burden of maintaining sites that matter to our national heritage, hand the sites over to other public custodians.
If the buildings need new uses, explore that. If leases can fund upkeep while preserving public ownership, examine that option too.
Just don’t sell something that you can never get back. Not when it’s finite land.
