Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I want to raise the issue of the Defence announcement around the partial divestment of HMAS Penguin. HMAS Penguin is far more than a line in the Defence property portfolio. First and foremost, it continues to deliver critical navy capabilities to Australia. It is also public land with significant environmental, military and cultural heritage, and it forms part of the living fabric of Warringah and the broader Sydney Harbour. On Friday 8 May, our community came together at Mosman Art Gallery to raise our views and get some further information from the department.

I thank them for coming and for this public consultation, but it felt very much like too little, too late, as what was made clear was that the decision to partially divest had already been made. The question around this government's decision to partially divest the site and its use raises many concerns. There is a huge lack of clarity around what assessment has genuinely been done and the cost-benefit assessment that has been undertaken in relation to HMAS Penguin's existing Defence capabilities. Some capabilities have been assessed as critical and are proposed to remain on the site. That includes Navy clearance diver training and an underwater medicine unit. Others that have always been co-located in this site for a very good reason have been determined as 'not being critical' and can be relocated. But there has been no transparency under the alleged actual cost-benefit assessment of that relocation. What is suspected is that there is very little cost-benefit; it's actually a convenience for Defence, and other costs will be incurred in other places.

I've submitted a freedom of information request to see greater transparency about the assessments underpinning this proposal. The community deserves to know how the real costs, the operational impact and the rationale behind breaking up capabilities that have been co-located at HMAS Penguin for a reason. These assets are also not held by Defence just as an asset to be sold off to the highest bidder. These are held in trust for the Australian people. That has occurred over a very long period of time, and any decision to partially divest or divest in full has to be really justified. Before any divestment proceeds, Defence and the government must clearly explain what capabilities are being retained, what capabilities will be impacted, what is being moved and what the cost-benefit will, in fact, be.

The site includes some bushland—an Angophora forest that has not been utilised and is not considered critical. But that doesn't mean it lacks public value. It's remnant bushland, part of the ecological character of Sydney Harbour, and must be protected and conserved. It cannot just be divested and sold to the highest bidder to ensure we have luxury accommodation. There is a strong view in the community that that Angophora forest should either be put into the care of New South Wales national parks or into the Sydney Harbour Trust for conservation. There are many, many questions in relation to this partial divestment, and I urge the government to provide transparency.

See this speech in context