Australia’s changing strategic environment is driving a broader reassessment of how Defence resources, personnel, and infrastructure are positioned to support future operations. As the Australian Defence Force modernises its force posture, decisions about the future of military bases are becoming increasingly significant for national security, local communities, heritage, and Defence capability. The debate reflects the challenge of balancing historical legacy with the operational requirements of a rapidly evolving security landscape.
The Department of Defence defended its planned estate overhaul in Senate Estimates, saying the proposed divestment of military sites is to prepare the Australian Defence Force (ADF) for future strategic challenges rather than a cost-cutting exercise targeting aging infrastructure.
The Defence Estate Audit, announced earlier this year, was commissioned following the 2023 Defence Strategic Review to assess whether the estate was fit-for-purpose and provided the ADF with the facilities and capabilities the government said it needed to keep Australians safe.
Following the release of the proposed changes, there has been backlash from veterans, former military leaders and local communities concerned about the loss of historic Defence sites such as Victoria Barracks in Sydney. Those critics raised questions about heritage and operational capability over a potential windfall of up to $3 billion (gross) for the 68 sites that were identified.
Optimising Defence assets
The audit’s first recommendation, which the Government accepted, called for Defence to “reduce its property holdings through focussed divestment of sites at market value in areas not aligned with current or future capability priorities.”
Appearing at Senate Estimates, Department of Defence Secretary Meghan Quinn PSM, defended the decision, saying the estate audit was a key part of implementing the 2026 National Defence Strategy and its accompanying Integrated Investment Program.
“There’s been a comprehensive review and discussion in government about the need to look at the assets that we have and a reorientating of them to meet the capabilities that we need,” Ms Quinn told the committee.
“It’s broader than just funding; it’s also the location and the services they offer, and it’s broader than just the proceeds of sale; it’s also the opportunity cost of maintaining or further investing in these assets. It is a decision to optimise the footprint of the Defence assets to deliver capability for our national security.”
During further questioning about the proposed divestments, Ms Quinn said the National Defence Strategy required Defence to rethink not only what it should invest in, but where those capabilities should be located. She said the decision was more than about reducing maintenance costs or generating proceeds from the sales.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge sought detailed maintenance costs for Victoria Barracks in Melbourne and Sydney, HMAS Penguin and Lancer Barracks, quipping that one of the justifications for the estate sell-off appeared to be that it cost Defence “too much to mow the lawns”. Defence rejected that characterisation and said the review considered much broader strategic factors.
Deputy Secretary, Security and Estate Group Celia Perkins, said she would take those costs on notice, but reinforced the position to the committee that the purpose of the audit was broader than just sustainment savings.
“The Defence Estate Audit … is reorienting the Defence estate in order to support the integrated and focused force and to reorient our force posture and those investments around the current and the future ADF that we are delivering,” Ms Perkins said.
In military terms, force posture refers to the positioning of Defence assets and personnel to respond most effectively to emerging threats and changing strategic priorities.
Liberal Senator Jessica Collins said former Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie AC, DSC, CSM had publicly expressed concern about the loss of important metropolitan sites, including Victoria Barracks Sydney.
“That’s an important base for many reasons, including that they conduct counterterrorism operations there, on a metropolitan site,” Senator Collins said.
Chief of the Defence Force Admiral David Johnston AC rejected those concerns, saying he could not go into detail but reassuring the committee that Defence had the facilities it needed to provide a counterterrorism response in Sydney, including the nearby Randwick Barracks.
“In our counterterrorism posture, we are accomplished at using non-Defence sites, where they’re appropriate, depending on the nature of the incident,” he said. “I am confident that we have the facilities that we need to be able to provide a counterterrorism response in Sydney, in the absence of Victoria Barracks, if that was required.”
While debate over the proposed sell-offs is likely to continue, Defence maintained the estate overhaul is intended to align its infrastructure with future capability requirements, to ensure the ADF is positioned to meet Australia’s evolving strategic environment rather than simply reducing maintenance costs for existing sites.
