Albanese Government Wants to Cash In on History Lost Forever: PVO

The Albanese government appears to believe that directing proceeds from its Defence property sell-off back into the military somehow justifies selling irreplaceable parts of Australia’s history.

It does not. It only determines where the money goes after the loss has occurred.

The proposed sale of Sydney’s Victoria Barracks, along with dozens of other Defence properties, is expected to raise about $1.8 billion.

The government receives that money once, but gives up the assets permanently.

When the money has been spent, the military will still require ongoing funding. The crucial difference is that Australians will no longer own the land.

If the government wants to spend more on defence—or on any other priority—it could reduce expenditure elsewhere and redirect the savings. With government spending at record highs and long-overdue tax reform still needed, there are ways to provide additional military funding without surrendering a single hectare of public property.

Instead, selling something that cannot be replaced appears easier than making the difficult choices.

That does not mean every Defence property must remain in public hands. Some sites may reasonably be sold. Victoria Barracks, however, is not an unremarkable office complex that has outlived its purpose. Established in 1840, with its main barracks completed in 1848, it predates Federation by more than 50 years.

Its sandstone buildings link Australia’s colonial military past with 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 it has been granted permission to sell it off.

The proposal also needs to be described accurately. Published government material refers to sales, with heritage obligations to be negotiated with future owners. No 99-year lease arrangement for Victoria Barracks has been announced.

A lease lasting that long would still warrant close examination. However, a carefully structured lease could preserve public ownership, allowing the property to return to public possession when the term ended.

An outright sale offers no equivalent protection.

Claims that heritage safeguards will protect the site overlook the central issue. Requiring a private owner to retain a sandstone facade is not the same as maintaining public ownership of a place of national significance.

A heritage-listed site also provides no guarantee that the public will continue to access the historically significant property in the future.

The building may survive, but Australians could lose control over—and access to—what happens to it next.

Nor is the issue limited to heritage or military requirements. Land that Defence no longer needs is not automatically land that the public no longer needs.

That distinction should be obvious, but apparently it needs spelling out.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Pair Arrested Fleeing Officers After Homeless Man Allegedly Stole Meat

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.

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.