Radio Interview, 2GB Afternoons

Subjects: Defence Estate Audit, Victoria Barracks Sydney 

MICHAEL MCLAREN [HOST]:Well, I'm very grateful that Peter Khalil, who is the Assistant Minister for Defence, has got some time and he's joined us on the program. Once again, very grateful for that, Peter, thank you for your time.

PETER KHALIL [ASSISTANT MINISTER]: G'day, Michael. Thanks for having me on.

MCLAREN: When did the Prime Minister tell Richard Marles that the jig was up and that Vic Barracks wasn't to be sold?

KHALIL: Well, you know, Michael, it's interesting how you characterise this even in your opening, because I was on your program in June and in February, both times made it very clear in the announcement that we were making a decision to divest 67 sites to make sure that the Defence estate is fit for purpose, operational and the capabilities are there for our men and women in uniform, and that there would be a community consultation and due diligence conducted over a period of time and no final decisions have been made. In fact, the quote from my time on your program literally said that no decisions have been made about this, the future use of the site. We were talking about Paddington and that I also said we're ensuring that we protect the heritage of what are historically important sites and that's what exactly we're doing with Paddington. And once we'd gone through that due diligence, that community consultation, by the way, I've gone around the country, I've spoken to thousands of people. I've spoken to all the Heritage Council, local history groups, community members, you know, veterans groups, cadets. I've spoken to every stakeholder the past year around these sites at community town halls, including in Paddington and Mosman and so on, answered their questions. And it just strikes me as strange that the characterisation of this is, oh, we were going to sell off. I said very clearly on your program that once we go through the consultation, there'd be many options for the future use of these sites. It could be public ownership, it could be a state trust or a state handover to state government, which we've done on some sites in Tasmania, with the Premier there and in South Australia. It could be a sale, it could be a federation trust. Many options. And for me, one of the key priorities was ensuring protection of the heritage of these sites. And we made the right call, the decision, after a period of consultation, to announce that those sites that are heritage listed would be in public ownership, so that those protections would pertain and continue. And more importantly, Michael, that those sites, whether it's Victoria Barracks, Melbourne or Sydney, or Point Cook or Queenscliff, which are really significant, would be open to the public in a way they have not been so that people can enjoy our nation's military history and understand it. We're working with Australian War Memorial, with Heritage Council of Australia and other necessary groups and making sure we put funding into the museum so that they're open longer or more regularly. So, I just- and maybe this is not you, but the campaign, for example, against HMAS Penguin, which was very interesting to me because in February I stated very clearly that we are retaining the Navy Diving Clearance Centre. I think I went through that, your program in June. And yet people were campaigning as if we were actually selling off Penguin. That was never the case. It was announced in February that we weren't because it was an operational base. The partial divestment was for the forest up the top of the hill. We undertook community consultation to see what the community wanted. They were very clear. I went did the town hall in Mosman and so on. And that decision yesterday was part of that, where we said we that would go to the Sydney Harbour Trust. 

MCLAREN: All right, I've given you a good, clear run there. All right, I'll give you a good, clear run. 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.

KHALIL: Michael, what I'm telling you is what I said to you in June when I was on your program. 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 is 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 a 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 might be public ownership, some sites might be under a trust arrangement, some sites might be transferred to the state governments.

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. Some of it could be private sale.

MCLAREN: Okay, so what's the point? Okay, we'll take Victoria Barracks. What's the point of that, then? What's the point of divesting, to use your verb, Victoria Barracks from Defence to Department of Finance, when the argument from day one from Richard Marles and the government was that we can't afford to maintain it and it's no longer fit for purpose. Now, the fit for purpose is debated, but the maintenance is still going to be financially covered by the taxpayer. It's just a different department.

KHALIL: I'll answer that question for you. Very happy to. You make a very good point. There is a valid argument being made by some that some of these sites that are historically very valuable should be retained as an operational base. Now, that decision we've made, that is not feasible for a couple of reasons. You talk about the financial side, but there's also the operational side. Those old buildings are very, very expensive to maintain in operational security environment. Right. You have to spend hundreds of- in fact, we know we'll be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on those sites to make them an operational base that is very different than a heritage level of protection. There'll be maintenance and sustainment of the site at an operational level as a base is very different than a heritage maintenance and sustainment. That's the first point. The second point is all of these sites, and I know there's been arguments made, legitimate arguments made about counterterrorism. Now, counterterrorism capabilities come out of Holsworthy. In fact, during the Lindt Cafe siege, they came out of Holsworthy. It is true that VBS is used as a staging area for helicopter landing and so on. That can continue in emergency situations…

MCLAREN: Depends what you do with the site.

KHALIL: Inherent. No.  

MCLAREN: Yes it does.

KHALIL: I'll tell you now, Michael, if we're in a situation of emergency under our laws, whether it's mobilisation, and I hope to God that we're never in that situation, Defence has the power to mobilise from anywhere, including the Royal Showgrounds, SCG, VBS, wherever it might be. But I'm talking more about emergency situations around CT. You'll be able to, or emergency medical situations and things like that. You're able to utilise the site. It's in public hands. We made a very clear decision. The PM and the DPM yesterday announced, or, sorry, Sunday, that the public ownership would be the best possible way forward because of the heritage listing. Now what I'm really, I'm very passionate about is the history and heritage of these sites being protected. Not as a Defence base, as a historical site like Fort Queenscliff for example, has great weaponry there, but it's the top of the range. Cannons from the 19th century. It's not an operational base. The buildings are beautiful. The site is beautiful. Victoria Barracks, Melbourne for example, has the Curtin War Rooms, the cabinet rooms where MacArthur met with John Curtin during World War II. It is closed off because it is a secure Defence site. No one can go in there unless you get permissions and so on. This needs to be opened up to the Australian public.

MCLAREN: Alright, now keep going on this logic, Peter. You'd move Prime Minister Anthony Albanese out of Kirribilli House tomorrow and you'd move him to a new build, very secure, modern. No, don't laugh, it's true. Four bedroom, four bedroom, four bedroom flat in the city, close to where the Prime Minister's office might well be in Sydney, you would then sell off or you would divest Kirribilli House to a developer or to the farmers markets or to whatever crazy idea is going to happen at Victoria Barracks because it's old and it's very expensive to keep secure, as you know. I mean, you'd make that decision. I mean that would be the logical next step.

KHALIL: But it's not a Defence site.

MCLAREN: It doesn't matter. No, no, no, it's the principle. No, I'm not. No, no, no, no, I'm being, I'm being. No, Peter, hang on. I'm being ideologically consistent. I'm being ideologically consistent. The argument here is that old buildings aren't fit for purpose and they're expensive to maintain in the modern secure age. I understand the economic argument, but you'd make the same argument about Kirribilli House and all the Governor's residences around the country and all these other old buildings in good locations and they're oozing history. You could save the taxpayer a motza if you moved all of these important people into new modern digs, that would be nowhere near the upkeep cost. So, why didn't you do it?

KHALIL: All right, so I'll, I'll deal with your apples to oranges example. The difference is first of all, it's not a Defence site.

MCLAREN: I understand that, Peter. Answer the question.

KHALIL: I'm answering it to you. Give me like two seconds, Michael, like radio requires at least five seconds. 

MCLAREN: And a bit of truth.

KHALIL: That’s very true. It is not a Defence site with the same operational requirements that you have a live Defence base which has certain security requirements. That's the first point. The second point, it serves a function as a place where the Prime Minister resides, but also where he meets with visitors and so on. So, it serves a purpose.

MCLAREN: So does Victoria Barracks, funnily enough.

KHALIL: And it will. And the purpose of that, though, that beautiful building, those beautiful buildings in public ownership will be protected, maintained. 

MCLAREN: We could do it with Kirribilli House. That could be the Sydney Museum of Politics. I mean, you could. You could. You could transform it.

KHALIL: It's a different. 

MCLAREN: Well, it doesn't matter.

KHALIL: And look. Well, you can make your argument that way, but the point I'm making is there are very, very different examples, Defence bases have very important functions that require modern technologies and other security requirements. And that is what is at stake here. And I think when I was on the program with you last time, I made it very clear governments of both stripes had avoided making this decision. I know the Libs are running a campaign, so you probably talk to them privately. A lot of them say, oh, there is a real need for this. But the point is governments have not made these tough decisions because it's all too hard. What's really interesting to me is people have taken, cherry picked what they want to hear and say private sale, and then they campaign against that. But the statements and the announcements from the very beginning were very clear. Not all sites will be sold.

MCLAREN: Well, Peter, with respect, I don't think they may have been clear from you, but the guys a little further up I don't think were very clear at all, otherwise we wouldn't be in this position. I mean, if it was so clear, why is the NSW Labor Party against your plan? Why were they concerned about it being sold to developers? Are they all dopes, are they?

KHALIL: Well, I think the Premier welcomed the announcement by the Prime Minister.

MCLAREN: Well, you might want to check the transcript as well, then, Peter. Hey. Mm.

KHALIL: I will. He did say he welcomed the decision.

MCLAREN: Yeah. And then the big caveat. Do you want to leave that bit out?

KHALIL: Now, you say it hasn't been clear. The DPM said very clearly, and I quote, there will take time, time will be taken in order to get the outcome right on iconic places so that we have the best outcome for the people of Sydney and the people of Australia. That was said at the announcement as well. The time that we took over a year of consultations. I went around and met with thousands of people, listened to them, heard their views, whether it was at Mosman, or Paddington, or Wangaratta. I went around the country.

MCLAREN: Overwhelmingly against your idea too, wasn't it?

KHALIL: No.

MCLAREN: Oh, well, you had widespread support, widespread support for all this.

KHALIL: Hold on, hold on, Michael, again, I know you want to do a gotcha. 

MCLAREN: No, I don't know. I've been incredibly polite. I've been incredibly polite. But I mean, you're trying to imply you've gone around and spoken to all these people and everyone say, oh, great idea. I'm saying they don't.

KHALIL: No, I never said that. I never said that. I said that. I heard from them about their views, which was because you're assuming that there was a starting point that the decision had been made about the final proponent use of these sites. That's the whole crux of this. It hadn't. And I made that very clear to people. I want to hear from you about what you think should happen to this site because community benefit matters and that I said that in, for example, when it comes to many sites, I took on board the people that I spoke to their views because they're locals and they live in those areas about what's important for the site and the community benefit and fed that through. That included that that was part of the process of due diligence and consultation that led to a decision around public ownership for these historic sites. It was part of the process that led to the decision to do an arrangement with the Premier of South Australia for Hampstead Barracks for housing. It was part of the decision, the process that led to us making a decision with Premier Rockliff in Tasmania. Now, if you're telling me in modern politics now, just forget about doing consultation, forget about fronting up to hundreds of people and listening to them and just make a decision up front and front loaded, fine. We could have done that. We could have said at the front, you know what, we're selling these over here and we're going to- and we're going to do these in. 

MCLAREN: Well, with respect, Peter, it came across that way up front and that's why there's been such a backlash. Well, I'm telling you, it did it? May not in your world, but in my world it did. I've seen the open line, I've seen the texts. I've been to the rallies. I know what the public thought was happening.

KHALIL: That's because of the campaign that was run. 

MCLAREN: No, no. Well. Well, campaign or not, you only get it. You only get legs on a campaign. If the upfront sales pitch is terrible and it was.

KHALIL: Okay. Did you attend the upfront sales pitch? The announcement that was made in February?

MCLAREN: I listened to it. I'm in the media. I listened to it all. I listened to it all and I heard the same message, Peter, that everybody else heard. Now, it may have been nuanced and massaged since because you're copping a hell of a lot of blowback, but the upfront message was pretty clear. The 67 were to go.

KHALIL: I can stand, hand on heart…

MCLAREN: I mean, Paul Keating heard it and said this was a bad idea. Did he mishear? Did he?

KHALIL: Can I just tell you this? I can stand hand on heart because I've done the right thing and acquitted my responsibilities a minister of the Crown.

MCLAREN: Yes. You have

KHALIL: We’re making sure that we have a fit for purpose infrastructure and base infrastructure. That's what I care about. That's the number one priority. The second priority for me is making sure that the sites that have heritage value are not only protected and sustained into the future, but they are made accessible and open to the Australian people to better understand our nation's military history and the sacrifices made. Right now many of those sites are closed off.

MCLAREN: Yeah. Because they're active military bases.

KHALIL: Correct. They are active military bases that don't need to be active military bases. Not for our strategic challenges right now. Maintaining and sustaining them as military bases does not equate in the calculus of the severe strategic challenges that we are facing. We are investing billions of dollars in base infrastructure for modern kit and modern technologies and capabilities like the Triton, like the Apaches up in Townsville. Like all of these things that are necessary for our men and women to do their job. And I want to also protect the historic sites and open them up.

MCLAREN: All right, now, if you'll forgive me, I've got to clear a break. We've got to go to the news. Time's beaten us again. I appreciate you coming on.

KHALIL: I love coming on with you, Mike.

MCLAREN: And we'll do it again. And we'll do it again. Thanks for fronting up, Peter.

KHALIL: We'll talk about AI, next time.

MCLAREN: Oh, well, there's another topic. All right. There we go. We'll do that. Thanks. Peter. Peter Khalil, the Assistant Minister of Defence. I give him credit. 

ENDS