Defence Minister Richard Marles recently announced that, following an ‘independent’ review, Defence would divest itself of assets it no longer needs. Among them are Sydney’s and Melbourne’s Victoria Barracks and Hobart’s Anglesea Barracks.
Sydney’s Victoria Barracks were constructed between 1841 and 1849 and are considered among the best examples of military barracks in the world. Today, Sydney is home to the Headquarters of Forces Command. Melbourne’s Victoria Barracks have existed since the 1850s and played a crucial role during both world wars, especially during the second world war when the War Cabinet met within its precincts.
Hobart’s Anglesea Barracks are Australia’s oldest, continuously occupied military establishment and one of its most important historical precincts. All are tangible reminders of the critical role Australia’s military has played in our national development and have a cultural value which extends way beyond their utility.
No doubt some Defence properties are without merit. However, this asset sale has all the hallmarks of a cynical accounting exercise rushed to look like an increase in Australia’s pitifully inadequate defence budget. It will raise a one-off, net $1.8 billion, with the annual outgoings on some new premises likely to exceed those being sold.
That cultural icons should even be slated for sale says much about the current Defence leadership which seems intent on rejecting old ideas, old customs and abiding traditions.
After four years in the role, Mr Marles seems similarly minded. He says, ‘We’re not a heritage organisation, we’re a defence organisation.’ He echoes today’s woke military leaders who apparently see Australia’s proud military history as rooted in wicked colonialism and white supremacy.
For a modest, one-off increase in the Defence Department’s income, Mr Marles has approved these sales. It’s as though ‘creating a culture of excellence, making sure that procurement is happening as quickly as it can’ and, recognising the role tradition, patriotism and a sense of duty play in building and supporting a military ethos, are mutually exclusive.
Culture aside, hopefully the Minister is aware that most Army reservists train in cities. They rely on local depots and facilities to balance military service with their civilian work, and family commitments.
Being a believer in big government, Mr Marles rejects irrefutable evidence that smaller bureaucracies are more transparent, and accountable and less self-serving than large ones. Accordingly, he has approved a new delivery organisation which brings together a number of Defence agencies.
The Minister boasts this ideological move is the biggest overhaul of Defence in 50 years, merging three major branches with 6,500 personnel into a new Defence Delivery Agency, which will be responsible for about 40 per cent of defence spending.
Headline-grabbing maybe, but nowhere is there mention of an increase in defence spending beyond the forecast rise to 2.4 per cent of GDP by 2033-34. At the current 2 per cent, Australia lags the world’s 2.4 per cent and is way below Washington’s urging of 3.5 per cent.
Whatever the number, the new agency won’t address how three live-firing Chinese warships exercised undetected close to the east coast of Australia.
Nor will severing important historical links resolve why the ADF is having to recruit non-resident Pacific Islanders (mercenaries) to fill a chronic shortfall.
Clearly Defence’s problems go right to the top. A recent internal survey revealed nearly one-third of respondents are planning to leave while a low-to-mid-30 per cent have a positive view of senior leadership. Something for Mr Marles to consider, perhaps?
While pondering, he should also ask how prioritising a gentler, more caring defence personnel prepares potential front-line combatants. Is a ‘Workplace Behaviour Adviser Network’ to prevent bullying behaviour, (like being shouted at), appropriate for the military where politeness may have lethal consequences? And how does observing ‘Wear It Purple’ day to support and celebrate the LGBTIQ+ community make ADF personnel more battle-ready? Or, for that matter, prioritising female recruitment by lowering minimum physical requirements to meet diversity, equity and inclusion targets?
The message is clear. Anzac stereotypes need not apply.
But is Australia’s national security really compromised by calling someone ‘bloke’, or referring to drones as ‘unmanned’?
Surely the Minister concedes that rather than fretting about gender-triggering language, ADF’s top brass would have served the nation better by ceasing to use Chinese DJI drones after US intelligence determined they are a security risk.
Still, even when satellites record hundreds of islands in the Pacific growing in land size, Defence sees climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’ and the greatest threat to the ‘Blue Pacific Continent’. It published a guide to infrastructure upgrades to withstand rising sea levels and extreme temperatures. It set net zero and Future Energy Strategy targets aimed at achieving a 43-per-cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Large-scale solar and battery storage projects were identified as well as plans to electrify its ‘white fleet’ support vehicles and to recycle uniforms into biofuel.
Unsurprisingly and blinded by ideology, Mr Marles and his colleagues also ignore recent US reports that removing DEI initiatives and emphasising merit and a return to a ‘warrior ethos’, have averted a ‘recruitment crisis’ in their military. Also politically ignored is the Trump administration’s renewed emphasis on mission readiness and its retreat from climate change mitigation.
Retired Major General Greg Mellick in his prescient Remembrance Day address warned, ‘Without a Grand Strategy to inform it and, without sufficient funding, our defence strategy risks becoming a matter of what we can afford, and not what we need’. Put less politely, Australia’s defence and foreign policy is governed by short-term domestic political considerations, not national security priorities.
As Winston Churchill said just prior to the outbreak of the second world war, ‘Now is the time at last to rouse the nation. Perhaps it is the last time it can be roused.… We should lay aside every hindrance to endeavour by uniting the whole force and spirit of our people.’ Point taken.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first month for free, then just $2 a week for the remainder of your first year.






