Community groups have told the Senate that the government has approached the disposal of surplus defence land and buildings with a predetermined outcome in mind, despite claiming it would consult widely before making any decisions.
The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee is conducting an inquiry into the management of defence estate assets.
Following the review, Marles announced that the government had decided to sell all or part of 67 Defence holdings, some of which are high-profile heritage and historic sites.
A Flawed Finance Policy: Former Government Adviser
Related Stories
During the inquiry, Peter Collins, a local resident who said he was a former adviser to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and had worked with Defence for 15 years, raised concerns about the government’s claims to increase defence spending after the sale of the assets.
“The core of this proposal of divestment is a flawed finance policy, absolutely flawed,” he told the Committee.
“There are claims of increased defence spending; those claims are false. There is a 10-year plan, and there is a four-year forward estimates in which our operational capability is cut.
“Nothing in politics counts with 10-year plans unless it is in the forward estimates, and it is not there. The defence investment plan, therefore, is uncosted.”
Collins also argued that the government was failing in its responsibility to protect Australians by committing to sell the assets.
“Selling these properties without any commitment to reinvest in defence, to my mind, is a derogation of a government’s duty of care and its first interest to protect us,” he said.
“I could live with this if we’re going to do something for veterans … but even the fact that the government will not give an extra cent to the veterans tells me this policy sits at the core of a broken defence policy.
“These are national sites of heritage, where people trained, and will continue to train to go into harm’s way to defend us.”
Community Group Claims ‘Systemic Failings’ in Defence Estate Audit
Jane Carnegie, president of the Save Westernport group, said there were “systemic failings” in the audit report, with nothing in the terms of reference covering environmental issues or rights of traditional owners.
While the report recommended immediate divestment of 32 sites, with 36 requiring further investigation, the government’s response was to immediately move to sell all sites, she said.
“We would say there is no rationale, evidence, or justification for the divestment of all the sites,” Carnegie said.
“There was very little information. I know there was some national media given out by Minister Marles, but beyond that, it’s been really left up to communities themselves to try and discover what’s actually going on.”
The president also noted that consultation on the disposal “was very badly handled, provided no detailed information about the process, and really left our community very distrustful of that process.”
Her organisation had to contact the Department of Finance—which is handling the disposal—to find an email address to send submissions.
“The roadmap for divestment, which was provided to people as an A3 sheet at our consultation, provides a really clear indication of what the outcome of this whole process is, and it is commercial sale. It left no room for any other outcome,” she said.
Meanwhile, the Fort Queenscliff Heritage Association and the Queenscliffe Community Association were both concerned about the fate of the historical fort site—which dates back to 1860—despite past reassurances from the Defence Minister.
Firing the 6-inch gun at Fort Queenscliff, circa 1929. Courtesy of the State Library of Victoria
“If it leaves Commonwealth ownership, what protection is there?” asked Heritage Association Secretary Bob Marmion, noting that when Defence sold Crow’s Nest, on the outskirts of Queenscliff, the buildings were demolished because they had no heritage protection.
“Now, Richard Marles said it was 93 percent protected under Commonwealth legislation. That was only partly true. What he didn’t say was that it was only while it was in Commonwealth ownership.”
There had been a “community backlash” against the proposal, he said.
“The Defend Fort Queenscliff Alliance has been formed, and this has local, national, and international support already to keep the fort in heritage protection and open,” Marmion said.
