Media
|
Transcripts
November 10, 2026
MICHAEL MCLAREN: As you know, we spoke just a moment ago, about an hour ago now with Peter Khalil. Peter, the Assistant Minister for Defence and again, I give Peter some kudos. This is now the second time he has come on, and we had a polite conversation around it. We had an argument, but you know, it was respectful, and that's a debate, and that's reflecting the public position on this. Now I can't get Richard Marles on for a conversation, believe me, we have tried for months, and months, and months, and months, at different occasions, with a lot of forewarning and with little bits of forewarning doesn't matter what you try Richard Marles, just, never available, never available. But listening was James Paterson. James is the Shadow Minister for Defence. And he, I know, is very, very keen that a lot of these sites are not sold, but not just that, denuded of their military presence. He's with me on the line, he has phoned in, James, good to speak
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Great to be with you, Michael.
MCLAREN: What did you make of the conversation? Because I was sort of left with the impression that everybody had got this all wrong, that somehow the government weren't really from day one being pretty explicit that a sale was going to occur, for example, at Victoria Barracks but really at 66 other sites, and that really all options were on the table and that we all just jumped to the wrong conclusion.
PATERSON: That was a masterclass in gaslighting by Peter Khalil. I'm sorry to say I think he believes that your listeners are fools and that he can tell them that black is white and white is black and they will believe him. But of course, the big problem for Peter is the government commissioned a review, the review made a recommendation, and the government accepted that recommendation. And what did the recommendation say? It said that these sites should be divested at "market value." It did not say these sites should be transferred to the Department of Finance, it did not say these sites should stay in public hands, it said they should be divested at market value, and it went on to estimate that 20 or so of the largest inner-urban bases and facilities, like Victoria Barracks Sydney, but also Melbourne and HMAS Penguin, would represent the lion's share of the proceeds of these divestments, which were estimated at between $2.2 and $2.4 billion for these 26 high-value sites. So if the review said they should be divested at market value, it estimated the market value very clearly - the government never planned for it to remain in public hands, never planned to simply transfer it to the Department of Finance.
MCLAREN: Well, you're sure about that, because Peter Khalil was suggesting we all got it wrong. In fact, let me just, for those that missed it, James, let me just play about a minute from the conversation. And this is the point in focus here.
[CLIP START]
MCLAREN: Let me put this to you. You're trying to tell me that there weren't really considerations among the federal government to sell Victoria Barracks.
HON PETER KHALIL MP: Michael, what I'm telling you is what I said to you in June when I was on your programme, what we said, or what I said, we said with the Deputy Prime Minister when we made the announcement about divestment, check the transcript, get your producers to check the transcript. It's very clear. We said clearly, our decision, based on the audit, the state audit, based on the Defence Strategic Review authored by eminent people like Angus Houston, which were explicit in the recommendations that we need to make sure that our defence bases and our defence estate is fit for purpose. That there are certain sites that are no longer operationally capable to meet those strategic challenges, and we made the tough decision to divest those sites. We hadn't, however, and we're very clear in those statements, we hadn't said what the final use of those sites, we said some sites might be sold, some sites may be public ownership, some might be under a trust arrangement, some may be transferred to the state government, and that was independent, Michael.
MCLAREN: But divestiture implies a sale, right? Divestiture implies a sale. You're not really, you're not divesting if you take it from the Department of Defence and hand it over to the Department of Finance. I mean, that's just a paper shuffle.
KHALIL: Sorry, Michael, to disagree with you, with all due respect, divestment, the word was used specifically because, if you look it up in the dictionary, it means that you are transferring the ownership from defence to another ownership structure, and that was always open.
[CLIP END]
MCLAREN: I don't have a dictionary that's specific, James, maybe you do in Parliament House, I don't know. But what do you make of it?
PATERSON: Michael, if we take Peter at his word, why did they wait until this week to tell everybody that they never planned to sell Victoria Barracks Sydney or Melbourne or Penguin or any of the other sites? Why didn't they tell us months ago, given all the political damage this was doing to the government, given the rally that you had at Victoria Barracks Sydney a couple of weeks ago, given the 125,000 people who've now signed my petition against these base sales, given the legislation I introduced a few weeks ago, given the Senate Committee report by Senator Jess Collins a few months ago? There were many points at which the government could have clarified that they didn't plan to sell Victoria Barracks Sydney, or the other sites, and they never did so. They only did so when the Prime Minister intervened. The Prime Minister has humiliated Richard Marles by publicly forcing him to backtrack on what was very clearly the government's plan. I think the most extraordinary thing now is that the government is saying it will still raise proceeds in the order of $1.8 billion for the federal government from selling these sites even though five of the most valuable properties are no longer going to be sold.
MCLAREN: Yeah, so the Crown is missing all its main jewels, but they're still going to get market value. I mean, the whole thing is absurd. But just on that, there is still no guarantee, James, as you know, that now it's gone from the Department of Defence into the Department of Finance, which apparently is a much better Institution to manage heritage, that somehow we're still going to have no doubt end up with some sort of development on the site we're going to have these farmers' markets, and artists' collectives, and, I don't know, fire twirlers on a Sunday night, all the usual sort of thing and somehow that's going to raise millions and millions and millions of dollars in rent of it. How else are they going to balance this financial equation?
PATERSON: Well, I am pleased that they've done this backflip for two reasons. One is they have conceded that public ownership is the only guarantee of preserving the heritage. They've never conceded that argument before. It's a really important concession. And secondly, because it will remain in public hands, a future Liberal and National government can return defence to these sites, can return these to being operational bases in the future. But I'm still incredibly concerned that in the meantime, the government plans to evict the ADF from their sites. And who knows what they will do with it in the meantime. And as you say, it's absurd to think that a farmer's market once a month is going to raise sufficient revenue to cover the costs of maintaining these bases. Why don't we just keep them in their original purpose? Serving the ADF, having uniformed members turn up to work there every single day because this is not just our heritage, it's also an ongoing important military capability.
MCLAREN: Just finally, I did make the comment yesterday that I thought there was political Machiavellian thought behind this announcement on Sunday. In part, the Prime Minister knows he's facing a tidal wave of unified opposition here, including the State Labor Party in New South Wales, but Greens, Independents, Teals, Liberals, the whole lot, right, One Nation, everyone was there. And so, by saying we will keep this in public hands, although we will evict the military, he knows. That part of that unified alliance will now splinter off, and I was reading in the Sydney Morning Herald today that one or two of the people that were part of the broader movement not to sell the barracks are now saying, oh well, look ,now it's going to remain in Commonwealth hands. Okay, I think the alliance should all sort of break up and, we can now look at what we can do with the site now it remains in public hands, you know, they're talking about housing, and someone's talking about turning it into the Louvre or some ridiculous idea like that. So do you think there is, I know it's almost a Dorothy Dixie, but there is political machinations at play with this move by this Prime Minister?
PATERSON: Well, Michael, I don't want to add to your cynicism, but let me just go through three of the sites in Victoria, which they have backflipped on. Victoria Barracks Melbourne, just happens to be in the Labor-held seat of Albert Park in the upcoming state election, which I understand the Labor Party is worried about. We've got RAAF Base Point Cook, again, another Labor seat that Labor is worried about. And we've got Fort Queenscliff in the seat of Bellarine, again another seat that the Labor Party is worried about in the state election. Now, who is Richard Marles incredibly close to? Labor Premier for Victoria, Ben Carroll. I think this is not just political in the way you say, but it's a political attempt to bail out a Labor government in Victoria, which is seriously on the nose because of its corruption, and incompetence, and mismanagement after 12 years, and they're doing everything they can to try and save the furniture for Labor here in Victoria.
MCLAREN: I'm glad you jumped on. Thanks, James. We'll keep the fight up. I know you will as well. Thank you for your time.
PATERSON: Thanks, for having me, cheers.
ENDS