Keeping Victoria Barracks public was right — now fix how heritage sales are decided

When the Albanese government quietly moved to dispose of parts of the defence estate it provoked a swift and effective public reaction. The decision to preserve four heritage-listed sites, including Sydney’s Victoria Barracks, and to keep them in public hands is the right outcome. But the episode should not end with a relieved press release and a return to business as usual. It must prompt a rethink of how we decide what gets sold, why, and who gets a say. An independent audit identified a long list of defence properties described as underutilised, costly to maintain and not fit for purpose. Sixty-seven sites were flagged for potential disposal, and the sales were pitched as a way to help recoup about $3 billion for the federal budget. Those are sensible objectives in the abstract — the Australian Defence Force should not be lumbered with avoidable maintenance bills and governments must balance books — but treating heritage precincts and community assets as just another line item underestimates their value. Heritage-listed defence sites are more than buildings. They hold stories and civic functions. They anchor neighbourhoods, host commemorations and, in many cases, remain important working defence sites. The backlash from veterans, former prime ministers and communities over proposals to transfer Sydney’s Victoria Barracks out of public ownership was not merely NIMBYism. It reflected a widely held view that some assets should be preserved for public use rather than handed to the market in pursuit of a tidy sale figure. The government’s partial backtrack — safeguarding four heritage properties while continuing to examine others — is sensible but incomplete. If the audit process is to continue, it must come with clearer criteria about what counts as ‘underutilised’ or ‘not fit for purpose’. Those judgments cannot be left to internal reviews alone. Heritage value, community use and the symbolic role of sites used by veterans and serving personnel must be explicitly weighed against balance-sheet gains. Transparency and consultation need to be front and centre. The speed of the public reaction showed how disconnected sale plans can appear when they land without meaningful prior engagement. Defence estate management involves specialist knowledge, but it also involves civic values. Local communities, veteran groups and heritage bodies should have structured input long before decisions are announced in a budget statement. There is also a broader lesson for public asset management. Selling land to meet short-term fiscal targets risks transferring long-term community benefits into private hands. Once sold, returning such sites to public use is difficult and costly. If government finances genuinely require asset recycling, the process must be surgical — targeted at genuinely surplus, non-heritage, high-maintenance holdings — not broad-brush. The reversal over Victoria Barracks should be welcomed. But let it be the start of a better process, not a one-off concession. Publish the audit criteria, set out a clear plan for consultation, and commit to preserving sites where heritage, commemoration and community use outweigh the marginal fiscal gain. Generations inherit both our balance sheets and our public places. We should be careful not to prioritise the former at the expense of the latter.