Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 2:34:09 to 3:25:28
A heated debate occurs regarding the security implications of selling land near Swan Island and the preservation of heritage sites like Fort Queenscliff.
Topics: National security, Infrastructure, Land management
Speakers: Hon Sarah Henderson, Celia Perkins, Hon Jenny McAllister, Ellie Whiteaker, Admiral David Johnston AC RAN, Peter West, Raff Ciccone, Varun Ghosh
>> Chair, thank you very much. I want to pick up one of my questions about the defense property fire sale. And Admiral, I wanted to ask you uh I raised serious concerns about this appalling sale of 67 properties, but I want to focus on the sale firstly of Swan Island. Uh, was this how on earth can the facility at Swan Island continue to do the job that it does when the government is proposing to sell off and minister if you could just sorry I know you the the admiral does not need assistance because I'm asking him this question as the head of the ADF. Uh, Admiral, how
>> wonder if you could simply ask your question rather than providing commentary.
>> Uh, I will provide commentary as I see fit. Minister, uh, Admiral, how on earth can this facility be protected? How can it be contemplated that this be sold off under circumstances where we have a very high secure facility on Swan Island when people cannot even access Swan Island without going through security gates getting ADF permission? It is not a publicly accessible place without consent in advance. Sorry, I'm asking the admiral this question, Minister. So, could I ask you to address the concerns that I have in relation to Swan Island?
>> Sorry, I think the minister wanted to add add something, minister.
>> Uh, thank you, chair. Um, Senator, you characterized this again as did Senator Cash as a fire sale. This is not a serious approach to a serious policy question and I'd encourage you to think about uh the stated objectives of the reform, the clear advice that the government has received about the need to align the defense estate with our strategic objectives and the clear reasons why the government's proceeding in the way that we are. you are now inviting um >> or asking officials to provide you advice and I'll pass to CDF shortly uh about specific sites. I would just gently encourage you Senator to think carefully about what is appropriate for discussion in forums of this kind. It is not it is not always the case that our national security is assisted by detailed discussion about sensitive security capabilities in a public forum. And as you know and I understand your party supports this. We are attempting to establish a committee where we can have more detailed discussion in a classified environment. But I'm just gently encouraging you to think about what officials may say in this forum. Um but I'll pass now to CDF to answer your specific
>> question. Minister, just if I can respond and just move to the admiral in terms of the question that I asked the admiral. I if this is such a sensitive manner, if this is such a sensitive sale, why are you proceeding with it and I do not need to be lectured in relation to the importance of Swan Island. So Admiral, if I could and the admiral does not need your assistance in ask answering this question, Minister Senator
discussions going on. Can we just go back to questions and answers, please?
>> I could ask you to address my deep concerns about the safety and security implications of selling off land adjacent to this facility on Swan Island, which I condemn in the strongest possible terms. And I absolutely condemn Richard Miles, Mr. Miles, for this decision.
>> You know, Sky News is just upstairs. If you want to condemn parliamentarians or you could ask questions. Is there a
running a protection racket correct? >> Yeah. This is a very serious issue.
>> Senator Henderson. >> Thank you. Stop with the yelling everyone. If >> No, no, no, no. Hang on. Hang on. >> If I could ask you to address >> Senator Henderson, can I ask you to withdraw the comment you made to the minister, please?
>> What comment?
>> Uh just withdraw what you said to
>> No, I'm not going to withdraw that
comment. We're going to suspend. We're going to suspend briefly. Have a private meeting. Thanks everyone. >> Now, Senator Henderson, you'll have the call again.
And I'm just going to revise what I put to the minister, and I just say, Minister, obviously, I raised concerns about uh the way in which you intervene when I was asking. Let's just get back
to asking the question.
>> The admiral the admiral the question. So if we could just return admiral to the concerns that I've raised about the sell off of this land adjacent to the facility on Swan Island. Uh what is being done to pro to protect that facility in light of how it may possibly be severely compromised.
But Senator Henderson, I won't speak as I know you don't anticipate I will to the functioning of Swan Island and the less said about it, frankly, the better >> Each site as part of the disposal plan of course will have a its unique characteristics. There are different buildings. They're different types of facilities. They exist in different communities. So there will be a bespoke plan that accommodates the key interests including local community feedback and that of stakeholders. If I might ask Miss Perkins of course is the appropriate expert about how that will occur but I'm confident that will occur in this facility as it will in other facilities all have particular requirements that are going to be a core component of the way they are disposed.
Admiral, before we just go to Miss Perkins, just on in relation to the 67 properties, was this a recommendation of defense to
think M. Perkins has outlined that the conduct of the state audit arose from the defense strategic review. uh and that task was given to an independent audit team who provided a report direct to government or to
>> so the recommendation was made by the independent team. Uh was this recommendation supported by defense? Have defense provided government with advice in relation to these these sales in terms of has it been supported this
Miss Perkins talk to that particularly. She has managed the process, but that certainly there was consultation through stakeholders inside both the ADF and the Department of Defense as part of that
process. So you're not able to say whether this what I would call a fire sale which has caused deep upset of course right across this country which has alarmed so many serving ADF men and women and veterans. You're not able to say whether that was a recommendation of defense that
>> Senator what I would say is that making sure we have a fitforpurpose estate that is able to support ADF people in the mission that the government has prioritized for it is our absolute priority. There are some difficult decisions that need to be made to make sure that we can expend the best uh funding support and enhance the facilities that we need. uh and we're very much behind making sure our people have what they need.
>> Miss Perkins, do you want to add to that just briefly because I've got a few
questions. >> I think just to back uh up the CDF's comments there, the independent order recommended in their report to government devestment of 68 sites. The analysis defense undertook and our advice to government was what has led to the decision to devest 67 sites and partially divest three to maintain capability. So defense did provide that advice to government based on our analysis of the capabilities at site.
>> So I want to table a number of documents. So I refer to the defense minister's post on his social media. We're selling defense sites like this where he's depicted a dilapated building. And I would say that that's highly misleading because I'm also going to table Victoria and I'm just holding this up just so we can see what's been tabled. This is Victoria Barracks in Sydney. And I'll table this. This is Victoria Barracks in Melbourne. Another magnificent historical building or you shown it as props. >> And this is No, no, I'm just tableing
this. I think we got a point of order. I
know, but this is Fort Queens. >> Sorry, Deputy Chair. I've got a point of order.
>> Sorry, just Deputy Chair. We got a point of order.
>> Sorry. Can I just clarify >> the documents are able to be tabled because I understand that we're not allowed to hold things up as props in in these hearings.
>> I'm just tableing the documents so that they can be seen.
>> I think that might be right, but let's just keep moving conversations along and
So, so amongst those properties being sold are some of the most significant historical sites in this country. I'm also going to table an advertisement that I'm running for an urgent community meeting to save Fort Queens Cliff.
>> Well, we didn't just get to your
>> No, it's not a social. It's actually an advertisement which is being run in the local Ballerin Times. Uh so this is advertising a community meeting, an urgent meeting this coming Sunday at the Queens Recreation Reserve. Uh I'm calling on all local residents to attend. Anyone who cares copy of that, Senator. >> Yes, I've got a copy. I'm very happy. Here it is.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We don't
this is a community meeting that I am holding because Admiral I will put on the record again when I was the member for Kurangamite under our government defense also came to our government wanting to sell off for Queens Cliff. So this is nothing new. This is nothing new. But our government withstood the pressure to sell off this historic site. And as the former local member and of course as a jalong based Victorian senator, I am appalled by this proposal. [snorts] How can the history of our country, how can the respect for our veterans be preserved when we sell off so many of these sites that can never be replaced? So I will table that community meeting. Again, I'd love as many people as possible and I will be posting it on my socials shortly. chair. So, as many people as possible to attend the community meeting in Queens Cliff this Sunday. I'm also tableabling an article in the Herald Sun. Veterans furious as defense bases and historic golf courses put on the market in government fire sale. And this article which uh was published online that are
tabing that it just helps witnesses if
they've got copies of um >> and this article refers to
>> bigger pardon minister.
>> Yes. I'm well I'm tailling documents which I'm sure there's >> a preamble to a question but let's >> I'm wanting to also raise concerns and I'll direct this again to you Admiral. Um, RSL Australia is urging the federal government to pump the brakes on the devastating sale of defense land which puts our defense heritage and many critical sites at risk and that article I have tabled. Uh so Minister I I would say to you, do you understand how devastating this fire sale is for our veterans, for our serving ADF men and women, for our her for our defense heritage, for our history? Do you have any understanding of how shortsighted this is? And in the region that I represent, which of course is also represented by the defense minister, Mr. Miles, I would I would say very loudly and clearly, how could Mr. Miles do this? This must go down as one of the worst decisions made by the Albanesei government since you were
Uh, Senator, I will do my best to respond to what's been quite a an extended uh preamble that's run over many minutes now. Um, I'll start with a point I've made a number of times today. I think to characterize this as a fire sale cheapens what ought to be a serious discussion about national security and national defense interests and the steps that need to be taken to secure those. Uh I have made the point in this committee previously. Ministers regularly make the point that the previous coalition government was warned about the deteriorating strategic environment and yet did not do the necessary work to stabilize and establish the the arrangements that were necessary to respond to that. And those shortcomings in the previous government extended to workforce, to capability, uh to a range of things, but they also extended to a proper examination of the extent to which the estate was fit for purpose. This is one of many things we are doing as a response to the defense strategic review, which was a incredibly important piece of work and laid the foundations for the national defense strategy. that in turn lays provides the groundwork for a rebuilt IIP and a range of other interventions to ensure that we have a focused force that is able to respond to our strategic circumstances. >> Okay, thank you. >> That is the context for the work that is being undertaken. Um, if I could, >> of course, we understand that these places are of significance to people, but we are very clear that these are necessary decisions to set defense up for the future and we intend to proceed through this transition with
sensitivity. Uh, I'm not sure the best person to answer this question. How many reservists do you expect will leave the ADF due to difficulty to access nearby bases particularly during a cost of living crisis? Further travel means further pressure on families. So if I could seek that question, answer to that question.
>> Thank you, Senator. As I've um said earlier, in the people currently serving on the site's plan for devestment, um it's a little over 3,200 reserves. One of the principles in the transition planning for moving sites is to relocate to sites within a geographic area. We are conscious that for some of those sites uh those distances will need to be managed and that will be part of the transition planning that we do. We don't have an estimate at this point. uh but we will be working very closely in the consultations that occur in the weeks to come on how we replicate um uh the service uh that those colleagues render uh at additional or or
>> So in other words, all these sites are being sold off and there is no solution in sight. Senator, >> you've got so defense has no concept about how these cadetses, these reserveists, these serving ADF men and women are going to be relocated. It it is pie in the sky. I would put to you, Miss Perkins.
>> Senator, as I've said earlier, there is quite detailed planning already uh taken and published in the materials u made available uh last week on the identified location uh for the majority of those sites. um and that is the start point uh for some of those sites. There is also identified uh future investment. One of the recommendations of the independent auditors was maximizing use of um existing estate and more joint and multi will provide a large part of the planning that we're doing. But for every site listed for devestment in the published materials, the transition plan and the proposed alternate site is
listed. So what's the what's the actual cost of of relocating nearly 10,000 personnel?
>> Uh as I said uh earlier this morning um uh our estimate for uh transition and devestment which includes many things including uh uh relocation uh replication of capabilities on alternate sites is in the order of $1.2 billion across the 67 sites.
Sorry, just say that figure again.
>> $1.2 billion.
>> And does that include the remediation of every site? Yes, it does. >> It does. And so what's the cost of remediation?
>> Uh I took on notice earlier today that we would break down that 1.2 billion into the categories of um estimated spend.
>> So you haven't have you done that work?
>> Yes. Um I would describe the analysis that defense has undertaken u as uh detailed uh and sight by sight. Um uh and as we now move into the implementation and transition phase, I've got a headline number for you, but to break them down into the categories, uh we we'll do that on notice, but also I would stress that um the Department of Finance as they undertake uh the devestment process, we'll be working together on the due diligence that is necessary to go to the market for sale. Um and uh uh we we will be testing our preliminary assumptions around particularly environmental um assessment and remediation work as
>> So can I ask just to be clear what is the cost of losing reserveists because of the fact that they lose their home. This has not been estimated at this point. But do you have any idea what that cost is and how many reserveists
will be lost? Senator, as I've already said, our uh transition planning uh will be designed around relocating all members to an alternate location within a broader regional or metro area.
>> Senator, >> and so where are the air cadets in
air cadets in Julong is a new um multi-user dep depot that is planned um uh uh in Julong um and that will colllocate both the uh cadetses um uh currently parading at Newland barracks and training ship Bwin and the uh Air Force cadets.
>> Sorry, I think Admiral I think Admiral um Senator I think Admiral was trying to
Henderson, I just wanted to take the opportunity to reinforce the importance that we have on ADF reserves and cadetses. You talked to some of the potential consequences of what might happen from the closing of some facilities. I think you'd recognize there are also benefits to both of those communities by making sure the facilities that they are working in are fit for purpose contemporary do not have some of the security and safety risks that we have in the current estate because of the scale that we are managing. So I think by making sure our facilities suit the needs of the contemp contemporary cadets and reser I would hope there's an attraction outcome from
it as well. And how many cadetses do you expect to lose because they can't access [clears throat] their local facility and often they will require their parents to drive them? I mean, this is devastating for cadetses as well.
>> Senator, as I um uh gave evidence earlier this morning, we've already started outreach to uh cadets and we'll work very closely with units and their families. It is our intention to retain them all. Uh as I described this morning, there are a number of planned um pathways for relocating cadetses to other sites. I've just described a multi-user depot solution. And
>> so where sorry just in Julong, where is that multi-user?
>> So we will be working through the plan of um developing uh multi-user depot. This has been a model we've been developing around the country. We also have one planned in North LC. Um but the
only have you have you got a location for the multi-user depot
>> that will be part of the transition
planning that happens >> that's just a an idea but there's nothing in concrete
>> that will be part of the planning that we work through in the normal ways more broadly for cadets though as I've mentioned earlier today we will be exploring um and and have already identified uh within um close geographic location to current locations uh opportunity unities for community and school-based leases. This has been a very uh successful transition we've made in a number of locations.
>> Okay. So, if people are the most important asset to defense, how have you not estimated how many might leave the service? A and to be clear, has this prospect of service members withdrawing even being considered? So, for instance, cadets at Queens Cliff, where are they going to
As I said, we will start the consultation with all cadetses, but including that. So, I understand there's in the order of 32 cadetses that parade at Queens Cliff, uh, and work with that community to, um, uh, find them a new location to
>> M. Perkins, you have made this decision without consulting with anyone. That is the key point here. No one has been consulted. You haven't even done the work to establish how many reserveists and cadets you might lose at a time when recruitment into the defense forces is critical. >> There's been no consultation. Miss
>> Senator, your question assumes the loss of cadetses. I think Miss Perkins has indicated that the approach seeks to retain cadetses and indeed a CDF has indicated through the development of more fitforpurpose facilities. Uh it may be that we are able to provide a more attractive um offering for people who may be considering uh becoming part of cadetses or indeed um participating in reserves. I think that the government entirely understands the significance of both [snorts] uh cadetses and reserves and this plan is consistent with supporting those continuing activities.
>> Last minute Senator thanks very much chair Minister Marles said on Sunday agenda on Sky last week last Sunday that of the 67 sites three had already been sold. so much for consultation. Can you explain to me how those three sites were sold uh in [snorts] apparently four days between the announcement of this policy and his interview with Andrew Clell?
>> Um thank you Senator for your question.
>> And which sites are they how much were they sold for?
>> Terrific.
>> If you could give all details in relation to those three properties that have been sold in a miraculous time of
just 4 days. Um uh as I I think we've made clear earlier today, of the 67 sites agreed for devestment and the three that have already been sold, many of those sites were already on the devestment uh register prior to the independent estate audit. And as we implement, as uh we've said earlier today, uh those sites that were already underway for devestment defense will continue to devest and the Department of Finance will take the rest.
>> Just to the three cuz I've only got this last question. the three sites please.
>> So working with the government we we continued investments in train the three are um the Habfield training depot in Sydney that sold uh in 2025 for 44.54 million
>> what what date did it sell and to whom
did it go? >> We I can take that on notice. It was in the early part of 2025. Uh was a public auction. That material will be available online. Uh Raph Garbett in Duckworth Street was a small um warehousing facility that sold for $2.1 million in uh the 2023 24 financial year. Uh and we concluded the sale of um the Emeral apartment site on Magnetic Island for $859,000 uh in uh financial year 202425.
>> And and just just to complete my question, uh who purchased those sites? When did the biders find out they were for sale? Were they open to public tender? Uh how can they be part of the 67 sites sold when in fact they were sold prior to the announcement? Uh it just seems extraordinary that they were included in the 67 properties if
importantly uh in accepting um the independent reviewers report to government they recommended the 68 sites which included these. So they've sold after um the independent reviewers finalized their work but before defense's analysis and the government decision. Um there are another six uh sites that we've been working on devestment uh that are listed in the independent uh uh audit report.
>> And what sites are they please?
>> Uh the additional six that we are continuing to devest. Um just give me a moment and we'll find that uh for you. Um they include uh often quite small um sites but the Mera Bernong site in um uh Melbourne would be a good example and we might just take that on notice. I'm sure
>> well could you come back to us perhaps? Have >> to come back. Could you come back on because we would like to know that information
>> as to the um nature of the sales. Um Magnetic Island occurred in two parts. Um the the rear uh part of the site defense had owned was rather pristine bush land. The Queensland state government um uh we transitioned that site to the Queensland state government. The uh Emeral apartment site was an open market approach and was purchased um uh as a real estate transaction. Um the Habfield training depot was an open market uh sale of 21 residential lots uh and they were mostly bought by uh people seeking to build homes on those lots. I don't have the details of the purchaser for the Raphgaret site, but we could provide that on notice.
>> Come back to us on that today. >> Thank you. All right. Uh now, Senator
>> Yes. Thank you very much, Chair. Um I uh also ha uh have some more questions on uh the defense estate audit and the devestment of properties relating to heritage. So uh according to the defense estate audit, defense maintains at least 130 known museums, history rooms and displays. Can you confirm according to the audit what proportion of those are currently accessible to the public?
>> Uh thank you Senator. Yes. Uh 80% are not easily accessible to the public. 20% have some level of public accessibility.
>> Only 20%. Okay. Uh it's been noted that some of these sites contain historic landmarks and in some cases um significant history um for our defense force. And so I'm interested in how um the government, the department plans on protecting this this heritage and this really important history for our defense personnel and veterans.
>> Thank you, Senator. Um we'll be attending to history and heritage in in in two key ways. Um obviously uh for many of these sites there are um heritage designations uh at a commonwealth and state level. We have mapped all of those and as um uh we transition the sites to the department of finance, we would anticipate um that uh those things must be honored and and there are existing protections in commonwealth and state legislation for um those heritage designated places. Beyond that, um the government has directed that defense develop a detailed history and heritage plan to support the devestment activities. We've started that work and it will include a number of important elements. um we we will be working with those 130 known museums, rooms and collections you've described um to provide some ex expert support around um uh curating and supporting managing those collections. Uh we'll be working with the Australian War Memorial um and other important institutions like the Shrine of Remembrance uh for support around um those important collections. There'll be an important body of work with large collections. Some sites have, you'll notice when you visit defense sites, large pieces of retired u equipment, um planes, uh tanks, things of that nature, how we treat those. Uh and we'll be working um on implementing a plan um that commemorates >> um those sites. when you go through the transition plan, there is for instance important um descriptions of the Point Cook Museum um and how that is both heritage listed and important display. So um we're working uh as I said with important national institutions and with um the defense history and heritage committee so that we have a sightby-sight plan uh and the a plan to manage the existing collections. Mhm.
And so just to be really clear, sites like the Victoria Barracks in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, Fort Queens, Cliff, Point Cook that have some of these heritage listed buildings, those buildings won't be knocked down. The these these sites are not at risk of
>> Um they have long-standing heritage listings and very clear treatment under the legislation of how um they must [snorts] be preserved. M I think it's
really important that uh we be clear about that that those sites will be preserved because I think there's quite a bit of misinformation um around uh being pedled in these communities um as a bit of a scare campaign and I think it's really important that uh we be upfront with people about what the intention of this is. Um, do you think that there will be a chance for the public to access these sites further with these sites being um being divested? Senator, I've listened to you in silence, so I would appreciate the same courtesy. Um, noting what we in your answer to my first question that, you know, the vast majority of these sites are currently inaccessible to the public. Do you see that this is an opportunity for the public actually to see this really important heritage and this really important history um
earlier the the the process by which the devestment will occur and the future use will be largely managed by the department of finance. Um uh those heritage overlays are important. The work that we're going to do on the history and heritage plan to support uh our movement from these sites and to hand the sites over will will guide that. We're working very closely with the Department of Finance, but um these are important sites and it is important for um the Australian community, the veterans community. We understand that connection. I've certainly spent most of my adult life in and around the defense estate and preserving that history and heritage. Commemorating the service on those sites will be an important part of the way forward.
>> I'm really pleased to hear that. Do you uh expect that there will be some engagement with local heritage
that's already started. Uh and I might ask Mr. Wis to talk to that. So, um we're going to do community engagements, but we've already started the outreach particularly um to those most of these um museums are run by um uh veterans um and interested community members who operate on those sites. But you've um been doing uh uh that work already.
>> Yes. This is uh Peter West, first
assistant secretary of state
transformation. As part of the consultation process following the announcement, we have been reaching out to um museums and organizations. I have spoken to the organization at land barracks for Queens Cliff um and a number of other organizations as well. um we're going to be engaging with them and we're going to be retaining um working with them and retaining some expertise to ensure that we appropriately catalog the collections, ensure that we understand the heritage values that we need to protect um and work with them. Obviously, as Miss Perkins has already mentioned, a number of these buildings where these organizations are situated are heritage listed. Um there may not be alternative um better uses for them. So we will certainly with those organizations explore whether there's an option to keep those organizations operating on the site as part of the sale process.
>> That's great. Uh and to some of those um kind of the collection of items that you mentioned, Miss Perkins, um in a lot of these sites, um I imagine there might be an opportunity to work with the war memorial and the shrine of remembrance, that kind of thing to to find new homes
for them. Yes, that's absolutely part of the history and heritage plan is uh what in those collections uh is significant and and might transition to another collection I would add to your list um maritime museum. So >> Oh yeah, sure. >> Um that will absolutely be part of the plan. Yeah,
>> great. Thank you. That's it from me
>> Excellent. Now Senator Waters, I'll come to you.