COMMITTEES

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (18:52): This has been an important inquiry, and the Greens support the interim report from the committee, and we're glad that we initiated this inquiry with the support of a majority in the Senate. Given what we heard in the inquiry, we can now see more clearly why the Albanese Labor government opposed the establishment of this inquiry.

This government has a lot to hide and a lot to be ashamed of in this sorry and grubby plan to privatise 67 defence sites. One critical point that came clearly from the overwhelming majority of witnesses and submissions is this land should not be sold. Witness after witness said we should keep public land in public hands.

While the interim report notes the many negative and real impacts of this privatisation push on defence capability, what probably could do with more highlighting is the impact on the broader community of the loss of so much important public land, whether it's the historic Victoria Barracks in the heart of my beautiful hometown of Sydney, the much loved Lancer Barracks out at Parramatta, again, nestled right in the heart of Sydney, the bluestone Victoria Barracks on St Kilda Road in Melbourne, or the delightful HMAS Penguin at Middle Head in Sydney or any of the sites in Tasmania, Queensland or WA.

These sites mean something to the community. There's a connection with them, and we heard that time after time. Neighbours, local councils and the defence community all told us what a tragedy it would be to privatise these sites.

To sell these incredible sites just to the highest bidder in some kind of real estate fire sale to, no doubt, a well-connected Labor mate would be a national disgrace. We've all seen this before—where the spivs win and the community pays the price—and we do not want history to repeat. If Defence really has no credible use for any of these sites, the answer isn't selling them to the highest bidder, as the Deputy Prime Minister and those raft after raft of senior bureaucrats inside Defence have said is the plan.

The answer is to look to see what other public outcomes these sites could provide. If Defence vacates, there's scope, on many sites, for well-thought-out public housing. Others have delightful green open space that could be opened up to the surrounding community.

Others have incredible heritage assets that need to be preserved, and you could repurpose them for libraries, community centres or other important public uses. We've heard, throughout this inquiry, various groups and individuals highlight the possible alternative community use for this land. This has included keeping the buildings for veterans' support services while protecting heritage, such as the amazing proposal from the Australian National Veterans Arts Museum, which has a longstanding plan to take the repatriation clinic at Victoria Barracks in St Kilda and turn it into a veteran arts and wellbeing hub to keep the defence connection and make this an incredibly important site for veterans and not just flog it off to a developer.

There have also been calls for the protection of an endangered coastal forest and the beautiful marine environment at HMAS Penguin in Middle Harbour. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust told us how, in 2005, HMAS Platypus in North Sydney was transferred to the trust as a public park. Multiple other submissions raised the need for more public housing, community spaces and more on these defence sites and to not flog them off.

But, of course, there is none of that—not protecting the sites for key ongoing defence uses, not protecting the forests, not protecting the heritage assets and not protecting the green open space. None of that's possible if Labor flog it off to private developers, and that's their proposal. It is an extraordinary betrayal.

Throughout the inquiry, the committee has had to fight for the most basic information from Defence, such as when the so-called Defence audit—and we know it's not an audit, because the so-called auditors said it wasn't an audit. They weren't auditors, and it isn't an audit, but we keep being told by Labor it's an audit. We wanted to know when the so-called Defence audit was first provided to the government, and we still haven't been told.

How is that some kind of national defence secret? Other information, including when important external stakeholders, like police or councils or state governments, were told had to be prised out of Defence over rounds and rounds of repeated questioning. The answer normally was that they weren't told until the decision had been made.

In fact, I think that was the universal answer. No-one outside of Defence was consulted or engaged until they decided to flog it off. That is not how any public agency should respond to parliamentary scrutiny.

We're asking these questions on behalf of the Australian people, and Defence may not like it, but they're responsible to the Australian people through this parliament, and their behaviour in this inquiry was scandalous. While the initial defence estate audit noted that the divestment of the 67 properties could generate $3 billion in gross revenue, apparently, with associated divestment and relocation costs, the net return is something like $1.8 billion.

We said: 'Well, tell us about how these figures came up. How did you get $1.2 billion on divestment and relocation? Where does the $3 billion come from?' They continued to hide.

Defence routinely refuses to provide this information on even the ranges of potential sale prices of the properties or any information on the maintenance costs or the remediation costs. They hide behind commercial in confidence or some kind of national security smokescreen. That lack of information fuels distrust in the government.

It fuels distrust in Defence, and it doesn't allow the parliament or the public to make any clear decisions or to have clarity on what this so-called cost benefit is of flogging off the land. I can't help but note the extraordinary request from Defence that information from the inquiry, in a public hearing broadcast through the parliament, and the images of officials should not be shared on social media.

Rarely do you see a moment of such damage between public officials, the government of the day and the public. This is worth repeating. The following statement was made by a very senior Defence official who is, last time I checked, paid twice what the senators are paid.

Celia Perkins, Deputy Secretary of Security and Estate in the Department of Defence, during the committee hearings, said: In closing, I would note for the record that the Defence witnesses appearing before the committee today are pleased to take your questions but do not consent to the reposting of our evidence to social media sites or the reproduction of our likenesses for purposes outside the framework of the parliament and the transparent public proceedings of this committee.

Acting Deputy President Ciccone, I think you were there, and this request was swiftly rejected on the advice from the Senate clerk. What it shows is a deep hostility within Defence to public scrutiny, and that was pervasive throughout the inquiry. Even more disturbing, we now see it seems to be backed in by the secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

There is a deep, deep problem on public scrutiny in this government. Finally, much of the land slated for sale has a deep connection to veterans and local communities, and the government's failure to engage with communities—to talk with them—or even genuinely work with the three services inside Defence before committing to the sale of this land is hard to comprehend.

Defence have undertaken what is known as a 'decide and defend' approach, and that is always a breach of trust. The public's frustration at Labor and Defence's handling of the sale and their behaviour in this inquiry is real, and it's founded in the decisions taken by the government and their repeated and arrogant failure to justify them. I commend the report and each of the recommendations.

I commend them to the Senate and the Australian people.