MATTERS OF URGENCY
Senator WALKER (South Australia) (17:11): I understand why there is a lot of feeling around defence sites, particularly in communities where they've been part of the landscape for generations. People have worked, trained and lived there. Families have connections to the sites.
Some have significant military history attached to them. Those connections deserve to be treated with respect as this process continues, but they also can't be the only consideration when we are deciding what the Australian Defence Force needs for the future. The independent Defence estate audit found more than 50 underutilised sites across Australia.
Maintaining those sites over the next 25 years is estimated to cost more than $2 billion, despite them making no direct contribution to defence capability. Some of the examples in the audit really paint a picture. More than $4 million has been spent over the past four years on Spectacle Island in New South Wales, despite there being no personnel there.
Ten defence sites around Australia are currently— Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): Senator Walker, please resume your seat. This is such an important matter. It's hardly orderly for a conversation to be happening across the chamber in the way that just happened.
I call all senators to order, and I give you the call once again, Senator Walker. Senator WALKER: Ten defence sites around Australia are currently vacant but still require money for upkeep and security. Another 14 are basically vacant or only occasionally used.
The Penrith Training Depot has been vacant since 2016, regularly experiences vandalism and theft and has cost nearly $1 million over six years. At Kowandi North, in the Northern Territory, around $1 million has been spent over two years on repairs and sustainment associated with security incidents. We have to be able to look at that and ask whether continuing to spend Defence money in this way makes sense.
Australia is facing the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War. We are investing in the people, equipment and facilities that our ADF will need in the years ahead. Maintaining empty or obsolete properties can't continue indefinitely because making a decision about them is difficult.
The test used by the audit was straightforward: does continuing to retain and invest in a site best meet Defence's current or future capability needs? There is also a proper process underway before any divestment occurs. Defence and finance departments are engaging with local communities, First Nations stakeholders, state and local governments and other interested parties.
Community town halls, walk-in sessions and stakeholder roundtables have been underway since April. Organisations and existing tenants that use Defence sites are also being consulted about their needs. ADF personnel and their families are obviously a part of that process, too.
Where personnel need to transition to alternative sites, that will be managed on a site-by-site basis and in consultation with the affected workforce. There has also been understandable concern about heritage. Many of these sites carry a great deal of Australian military history.
Heritage protections, including obligations under the EPBC Act, will continue to apply throughout the divestment process. There is also an opportunity to make some of that history more accessible. Defence currently maintains at least 130 museums, history rooms and displays, but 80 per cent of them are not accessible to the public.
At Victoria Barracks in Sydney, for example, the intention is to improve public access to the heritage of the site. It's also worth remembering that governments of all political persuasions have made decisions to divest Defence property where the sites were no longer required for operational or strategic purposes. Bulimba Barracks was sold as a part of a commitment to unlock surplus Commonwealth land in 2020.
That was under the former coalition government. In 2015, the Pontville Small Arms Rifle Range Complex was identified for sale because Defence no longer needed it for training or operations. Leeuwin Barracks was also slated for sale in the same year because there was no ongoing operational or strategic need for the site.
This broader principle is not a new one. Defence needs change. Technology changes.
The way our ADF trains and operates changes. The strategic environment certainly changes. Our Defence estate cannot be frozen in time.
There will be difficult decisions throughout this process, and communities deserve the opportunity to have their say about the sites they have lived alongside for decades.