The Albanese government seems to think that promising to spend the proceeds of its Defence property sell-off on the military somehow excuses it cashing in on irreplaceable pieces of Australia’s history.
It doesn’t. It merely tells us where the money will go after the damage is done.
The proposed sale of Victoria Barracks in Sydney, alongside dozens of other defence properties, is expected to deliver about $1.8billion.
You get the money once, but you surrender the assets forever.
Once the money is spent, the military will still need funding. The difference is that Australians will no longer own the land.
If the government wants to invest more in our military, or anything else for that matter, it could tighten its belt elsewhere and redirect spending. Government spending is at record highs, reforms to the tax system are long overdue. Fixing these problems would deliver additional defence funding without sacrificing a single hectare of public property.
But apparently selling something irreplaceable is easier than making difficult decisions.
That is not to suggest that every Defence property must be retained. Some sites can sensibly be let go. But Victoria Barracks isn’t some forgettable office block that has reached the end of its useful life. Established in 1840, with the main barracks completed in 1848, it predates Federation by more than half a century.
The Albanese Government seems to think that promising to spend the proceeds of its Defence property sell-off on the military somehow excuses it cashing in on irreplaceable pieces of Australia’s history
The proposed sale of Victoria Barracks in Sydney, alongside dozens of other defence properties, is expected to deliver about $1.8billion
Its sandstone buildings connect Australia’s colonial military history with the Army that serves the nation today.
This government has temporary custody of that inheritance. It should stop behaving as though it’s been given a licence to cash it in.
And let’s be clear about what is being proposed here. The published government materials describe sales, including heritage obligations to be negotiated with future owners. There is no announced 99-year lease arrangement for Victoria Barracks.
Even a lease of that length would deserve serious scrutiny. But at least a properly structured lease could retain public ownership, with possession eventually returning when the term expires.
An outright sale contains no such safeguards.
The reassuring talk about heritage protections misses the point entirely. Requiring a private owner to preserve a sandstone facade is not the same as preserving public ownership of a nationally significant place.
For example, a heritage preserved site gives no guarantees to future public access to the historically significant asset.
A building can remain standing while Australians lose control of, and access to, its future.
A building can remain standing while Australians lose control of, and access to, its future
Nor is this argument confined to heritage, or even to military needs. Land no longer required by Defence isn’t necessarily land no longer required by the public.
That distinction should be obvious, but apparently it needs spelling out.
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.
