Mark Levy:
Well, I alluded to a terrific piece written today by Peter Jennings, who’s an adjunct fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, former deputy secretary for strategy with the Defence Department. And he writes today why this is a bad idea to be selling off our defence properties across Australia. And the open line, the text line, the emails, they’ve been going off this morning. People just cannot believe that we are selling off defence sites when we should be investing more and more in our national security to stave off the threat of, for instance, China and to also protect ourselves in the midst of an uncertain future in the Indo-Pacific. I thought we’d catch up with Peter Jennings. I’m delighted to say I’ve got him on the line with me now. Peter, good morning to you.
Peter Jennings:
Hi there, Mark.
Mark Levy:
Wonderful to catch up. My listeners are white-hot with anger at the moment. They just cannot believe this. They think it flies in the face of what this country should be proud of, and that’s our military history. Talk me through why the defence minister would be doing this and your response as somebody who has an expert expertise in this field.
Peter Jennings:
Well, I think Richard Marles is doing it because frankly, the rest of his government is not lifting defence spending. And so what they’re doing is they’re kind of scraping the barrel to see if there’s any resources inside defence that can add to the huge pile of expenses which the department has to meet. And unfortunately, although this government is sort of afflicted with the thought that they’re the smartest people that ever were in charge of the defence organisation, the truth is this has been done before. Kim Beazley, when he was defence minister in the ’80s, did a huge amount of privatising of Australian defence industry. The Howard government created something called Defence Efficiency Review. I was very closely involved in this in the 1990s, which attempted to sell off property. And what that showed is that there is no big money in it, Mark. There may be some properties that can be sold off, but heritage restrictions prevent properties from being redeveloped into flats, for example.
And industrial contamination in some cases also means that the expense of getting these properties ready to go to the market is greater than the actual value of what we realised. So the savings are just not there. And this is something that Richard Marles will discover over the next few years. But there’s another issue too, which is to say a lot of the property they want to sell off is reserve depots or areas where cadets train. And when you sell these properties off, what you’re also doing is really reducing the links that the defence organisation has with the community that it tries to recruit members from. And so I think it’s very ill-considered from that perspective as well. This is about cutting even more defence ties to the community where our military comes from. And that is long-term a recipe for disaster and for weakening the defence force. As you say, at precisely the time, we should actually be getting stronger.
Mark Levy:
Yeah. We can’t sort of single out all of these particular properties and sites, but I just wanted to focus in on Victoria Barracks here in Sydney, Peter, if we can. I think a lot of listeners will be familiar with it. It’s in a very populated area of Sydney. It’s in the CBD. Maybe you can talk to the importance of Victoria Barracks and why that should remain.
Peter Jennings:
Well, of course, it has a significant historical connection. It just so happens that the way modern Australia was founded, the military were often at the best sites first. And some of these iconic buildings really go back to pre-federation and the earliest stages of our defence history. Vic Barracks, of course, is still used. It’s a very actively used defence facility now. And another thing that this current report doesn’t really contemplate is, well, we’re going to have to move defence people. In a lot of cases, what the report says is that defence should sell the buildings and then just lease spaces in order to make use of them. And that’s going to cost a lot of money long term. And as for the dollar value of Vic Barracks, well, it already has significant heritage constraints on it. I don’t see a situation where they can keep the facade and then put a massive block of apartments behind it or something like that.
That would just be opposed by every group and entity that you could think of in the city. So it’s not going to happen. I mean, it’s just an illusion to imagine that there’s hundreds of millions of dollars of value tied up in that, which defence can realise.
Mark Levy:
The really upsetting and angry, well, what’s making a lot of people angry this morning is that once these sites are sold off to property developers or whoever, they’re gone. They don’t return.
And a lot of people have made the point this morning, and these aren’t properties on a spreadsheet. These properties, these defence sites are a part of our national story. And I’ve received messages this morning, Peter, from veterans who have been through some of these sites, whether it be Vic Barracks, whether it be others around Australia. And they just say it feels like it’s the ultimate slap in the face. Rather than using these properties to our advantage, holding onto them for what is an uncertain future, especially in Indo-Pacific, this just looks like a political stunt from the government to say, “Oh, look, we’re going to recoup some money. We’re going to reinvest it into defence just to cover the fact that they aren’t willing to lift defence spending.” Is that a fair comment, Peter?
Peter Jennings:
I think it is. I mean, look, I wouldn’t attribute this to Richard Marles personally, but I’m sure there are people inside his party who think there is some value in getting rid of this old military establishment, the same sorts of people that like to pull down our statues and say, “Disestablish the colony.” Well, here is the historical origins of the colony still being used by the defence force. So I think it’s offensive and I know it will upset a great number of people. I don’t think the government’s factored that into their calculations, but I’m also about the modern defence force. I think this is the wrong moment for us to be pushing defence into an ever smaller number of larger bases. They’re difficult to protect. They remove defence from the Australian community. This is the wrong strategy. And I think the flaw here is that the government has kind of thought about this through the point of how much money can we make?
They’ve not bothered to consider the details because every one of these properties will have a particular story that will make it harder to sell. And they’re not thinking about how do we strengthen our military’s combat capability. That seems to be their last priority.
Mark Levy:
You’re a very close observer of international tensions and the like. And well, you and I have spoken in the past, Peter, about how closely China watches what we do in this country. What does this decision say to the Chinese Communist Party, the fact that the Australian government is willing to sell off in excess of 60 defence properties?
Peter Jennings:
I think their assessment would be that we’re not serious about defence. The one thing which has kind of alarmed China in the last decade, say, has been AUKUS and the plan to acquire nuclear submarines. That has really bothered the Chinese, but they would be, on the other hand, quite happy with the fact that in spite of doing things like circumnavigating the Australian continent with their ships, engaging in wholesale, cyber espionage, in spite of those things, our government is still not minded to lift defence spending. And so I think China would conclude that this is part of the picture. The picture is that the Albanese government is not serious about defence. And from the point of view of Beijing’s interests, they’ll be quite happy with that.
Mark Levy:
Is it time for Australia to stop relying on the United States, Peter? I mean, if I’m to think of where we’re located, who we are, the wide brown land that we inhabit and live on, is it time that we really need to start getting serious about all of this given what’s happening in the world at the moment? And like I say, what’s happening in the Indo-Pacific, because it seems like, okay, we’ve got AUKUS coming, but that’s a number of years away. I’ve spoken to Andrew Hastie, who’s a former SAS soldier about the vulnerabilities of Australia. Have we left ourselves vulnerable?
Peter Jennings:
Yes, we have. And I think that the way we can extract the best value from our relationship with the Americans is that we need to get stronger ourselves. What the Trump administration shows, but really this has been true of Biden and Obama and Trump’s predecessors as well, is that they will help allies that help themselves. They present Israel as being the model ally because Israel’s prepared to fight for its own interests. Australia has for way too long been riding on the coattails mark of American security guarantees. And I think we’ll continue to do that, but we’ve got to try and strengthen our own military capabilities to really make it clear to China that we’re not a walkover, that we will look after our own interests. And I just don’t see an appetite on the part of the government to do that. And in a lot of cases, I think Australians kind of turn off.
I don’t know, the message is too difficult. It’s too unpleasant to think about what the consequences of conflict might look like in our region. So in some respects, Australians I think are tuning out on this issue, and that’s a real problem because frankly, we’re facing some really difficult strategic times over the next few years.
Mark Levy:
Well, I just had a message through from a listener, Glenn, who says, “Mark, finally someone telling the truth. Peter, you’ve hit the nail on the head.” Peter Jennings, we really appreciate your expertise and for telling it how it is and look forward to catching up again in the not too distant future. Appreciate your time as always.
Peter Jennings:
Thanks so much, Mark.
Mark Levy:
Good on you, mate. Peter Jennings, adjunct fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, former deputy secretary for strategy with the Defence Department. He knows what he’s talking about. So while the government will be there today, again, following on from the Dorothy Dixer questions, and Richard Marles will be saying, “Oh, this is why we’re doing it. We’re going to raise $1.8 billion.” Well, how do you hope to raise $1.8 billion when you’ve got heritage listed sites, when you’ve got potentially contaminated sites with PFAS chemicals, and how do you raise money from sites that were once considered for being put up to sale? But were quickly realised under the Howard government that the saleability of them was just not there. Hopefully that gives you some clarity and cuts through the spin from the Albanese Labour government. So there you are. He’s a brilliant man, Peter Jennings, and I really enjoy talking to him, especially about defence and now national security.
And when a national security expert and a former deputy secretary for strategy with the Defence Department says, “We have left ourselves vulnerable,” the question needs to be asked, “What’s the government-“
This transcript of Peter Jennings speaking on The Mark Levy Morning Show 2GB from 5 February 2026 has been edited for clarity.
