I present an interim report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the management of Defence estate assets, together with accompanying documents, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On 11 March 2026, the Senate referred the inquiry into the management of Defence estate assets to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, and, as chair, I present the interim report today. This inquiry examined the planning, management, utilisation and disposal of Defence estate assets, with reference to the alignment of Defence estate planning with defence requirements; the processes for planning and conducting the disposal; the impact on the permanent forces, reserve forces and cadet units; the financial assumptions underpinning the divestment; the impact on the veteran and community connections to sites of military service; and the validity of the audit's findings. I can tell you that the government absolutely abysmally failed on all accounts.

The committee conducted diligent research and witness questioning. We heard from hundreds of witnesses and numerous community, defence and veterans organisations from all around the Australia. We did the consultations that the government wouldn't do. The committee has visited Defence sites in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania and we have more planned in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. We have received overwhelming evidence pointing at three very clear conclusions: the divestment does not make sense, the work has not been done and the case has not been made. The committee did not hear from one witness who would recommend the full or partial divestment of the 68 sites listed in the Defence estate audit. The committee did not hear that the divestment would enhance Australia's security and it did not hear evidence that the divestment will help Labor's budget deficits.

The Defence estate audit on which this divestment was predicated suffered from political interference to predetermine an outcome. The Deputy Prime Minister reached a conclusion and then instructed an audit to take place so that it would reach that same conclusion. That audit was undertaken by persons unqualified to audit a corner store, let alone Australia's entire defence posture, so it of course reached un-Australian and illogical conclusions. They were not auditors—they admitted that—and they were not independent—we proved that—so it was not a real review.

The Defence Strategic Review was also manipulated as a justification for this audit, and in fact it did not even recommend it. The Defence Strategic Review said 'invest', not 'divest'. It said to remember the importance of the foundational estate. Yet, the government did the opposite and said, 'Flog it all off.'

The auditors also went beyond the terms of reference in this independent audit review of the defence estate. They started a cultural assault on the Australian Defence Force. They put business process improvements—consultants and bureaucracy are taking over Defence. They recommended in the audit report to change the defence base names so there was no longer any reference to history or the identities underpinning these wonderful units of ours, these bases, and instead homogenising all the bases to geographic locations. This is the socialist scrubbing of military history and links to His Majesty.

Part of the defence minister's rationale for selling bases like Victoria Barracks Sydney was that they were not open enough to the community. I can tell you that I have been on their tours at Victoria Barracks Sydney. They are open every single week, giving amazing two-hour tours. I was there on Saturday night at Beats at the Barracks, along with about a thousand other people. It was an amazing night. I'll tell you what: you can walk and chew gum at the same time. These bases are open to the community while remaining fully operational and strategic bases.

The financials do not stack up. There is a false claim that Victoria Barracks Sydney is more expensive to run than Defence Plaza Sydney, where they're trying to cram in all of our serving personnel. They have not done the numbers on the costing of selling the bases or on consolidating, and they will not give us those numbers. They also haven't done the logistics. We heard evidence time and time again. There is no plan. There is no plan for a plan. They haven't done the work. They don't know where they're going to put all these people.

Tasmania, we heard, is being abandoned—absolutely abandoned—by this government. Cadets are being abandoned by this government. This government knows what it's going to do to those young people. Cadets has given some of these kids a second chance at life, and they're taking that away from them. Reserves—they're going to kill reserves and the access to reserves right across the country.

There were no consultations whatsoever with the RSLs, with the serving personnel, with the communities attached to these bases or with the veterans either. They gagged the Defence Force. We went around to the consultations the government wouldn't do, and I'm here to send a very loud message to this government on behalf of all of those people. We say 'no'. These are fully operational, highly strategic and nationally significant bases, and this is nothing more than a short-sighted cash grab by a government addicted to spending your money on all the wrong things. The committee did not hear that divestment would enhance Australia's security, and it heard no evidence that the divestment will help Labor's budget deficits.

This is an egregious and dangerous undertaking by the Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles. He chose to sell the spiritual home of the Army, Victoria Barracks, and the spiritual home of the Air Force, RAAF Base Point Cook. He will crush the cadet corps around the country. He will remove reserves from accessible locations—all of this, as I said, with no consultation, no plan and no respect. With this government's track record on veterans this year, we should expect no less.

This 'cart before the horse' approach exposes the defence of Australia to severe strategic vulnerabilities, and that vulnerability is of this Deputy Prime Minister's making. The committee found that a significant number of the properties listed for divestment still hold strategic value. Of course they do—the Department of Defence did not recommend their sale for very good reason. The government, the minister, made the decision to put places like Victoria Barracks up for sale and on the chopping block.

As I said, many of these sites are fully operational, highly strategic and nationally significant. They enhance Australia's counterterrorism security posture and provide assistance in natural disasters and major event management. This interim report makes very clear that, by selling all these bases, the government will irreparably damage our Anzac legacy and heritage. These buildings, these parade grounds, these runways and these training fields are the living link to Australia's military prestige, built by our forebears and made sacred by the legendary Anzac generation that came before us, yet the Deputy Prime Minister would see these places go to ruin.

The committee heard compelling evidence that, once these sites are transferred from government ownership, they are often completely destroyed, at best covered in graffiti, or we'll see apartment blocks built on top of these parade grounds right across Australia—our sacred parade grounds. The committee heard no compelling evidence that the government has a plan for this transitional management nor any assurances that places like Victoria Barracks, Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane, would be protected from foreign property developers or ruin.

Prime Minister Albanese's own cultural revolution will be the cultural destruction and the darkest stain on his already poor legacy. The divestment of our active military bases will reduce Australia's resilience in peacetime for counterterrorism and disaster recovery operations and leaves us exposed in the future with less liability to counter growing strategic threats. The committee heard evidence that the real reason the government's selling off our bases is not investment in the northern security of Australia, as the Defence Strategic Review recommended. Instead, this committee heard that the gross goal of the sales is to fix a problem not found in defence but at the Expenditure Review Committee. The failure of the Deputy Prime Minister at that committee to get the money he needs for defence capability and investment must not come at the cost of Australia's security nor spit in the face of Australia's connection to fallen Australian war heroes.

The government, throughout the committee's inquiry, has failed time and time again to provide departmental evidence in a concise, timely and respectful manner. Financial evidence has been hidden, strategic rationales have been declined, and the most simple of inquiries have been stonewalled for no good reason. Obstruction is a very good word to describe their participation in this inquiry, and the interim report I tabled today has 11 recommendations, but, most importantly, the committee adopted recommendation No. 1 number one, demanding that the Australian government immediately halt the mass divestment program of Australia's foundational defence estate.

I call on the government today, for the first time throughout their campaign to sell off our strategic assets, to listen. Listen to the Australian people as we have done. Do not sell these defence assets. We must protect them from the government that is hell bent on ripping out— (Time expired)

():  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.

I'd just like to note the report and seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.