Big bases in far away places

There is an old temptation in comfortable countries to imagine that defence is something best kept out of sight. Put the uniforms on the periphery. Move the bases away from the cities. Sell the old barracks. Cash in the land. Build apartments, office towers, entertainment precincts, anything more immediately legible to a commercial age than soldiers, stores, drill halls and war rooms.

It is an understandable temptation. It is also, in strategic and civic terms, a dangerous one.

Australia is again speaking the language of danger. Ministers tell us the world is deteriorating. Defence spending is rising. Northern posture matters. Readiness matters. Deterrence matters. Sovereign capability matters. Yet at the same time, the Commonwealth has accepted the Defence Estate Audit’s recommendation for a targeted divestment program, including the whole or partial sale of 67 Defence holdings said not to align with current or future capability priorities. Among the most controversial are Victoria Barracks Sydney, Victoria Barracks Melbourne, Victoria Barracks Brisbane, HMAS Penguin and Spectacle Island. The government’s argument is that Defence is carrying too much legacy estate, much of it decaying, underused and costly to maintain, and that proceeds can be redirected to priority capabilities and northern infrastructure.

That case deserves to be taken seriously. Not every parcel of Defence land is sacred. Not every historic structure remains fit for operational purpose. No serious person argues that sentiment alone should determine force posture. But the present debate risks collapsing several distinct questions into one. A government can quite properly ask whether parts of the estate are inefficient without concluding that visible, historic, centrally located military infrastructure has no enduring national value beyond its sale price.
That is where the argument over places like Victoria Barracks becomes larger than a property story.

A nation’s defence estate is not merely a collection of assets. It is a physical expression of the relationship between the soldier and the state. Barracks in capital cities remind the public that freedom is not self-sustaining. They say, quietly but unmistakably, that the defence of the realm is not an abstract departmental function conducted somewhere far away by someone else. It is part of the life of the nation. It belongs in view.