The government’s decision to divest 68 surplus or underutilised Defence sites is one part of a broader shift towards consolidating Defence activities, modernising ageing facilities and strengthening bases considered increasingly important to Australia’s future strategic posture.
For an estate spanning approximately 3.5 million hectares and incorporating barracks, training areas, airfields and specialist facilities, that presents an enormous infrastructure challenge.
It also raises a more fundamental question: what should Australia’s Defence basing network look like for the strategic environment ahead?
Stantec Australia defence market leader Tony Rogers says the divestment program provides an opportunity to move Defence functions away from facilities that no longer suit contemporary requirements and consolidate them elsewhere.
“It’s not just about selling land, it’s about identifying the right functions to be in the right place at the right time and being done using the right elements of the estate,” Rogers tells Defence Connect.
“Using a troop barracks facility that was built 150 years ago as office accommodation utilising high-security IT networks … it just doesn’t work.
“The defence disposals activity or defence divestment activity is important from the Department of Defence perspective of identifying and remediating the estate to get to the point where it’s more manageable.
“This order has identified 68 different properties that are underutilised or surplus to Defence’s requirements going forward ... These facilities have been identified as being surplus to Defence’s requirements and the functions that are on them will be transferred to other parts of the defence estate. So, for example, Navy Cadet facilities will be moved to another suitable facility within close proximity, therefore allowing that surplus facility to be divested, either the lease to be terminated, the facility to be handed from one government department to another or to be sold on the public market.
“It’s all about identifying savings that the Department of Defence can make in running their defence estate. It’s not about the capital value and what funds will be brought back into the Defence portfolio.”
A changing Defence footprint
For much of Australia’s military history, Defence infrastructure has reflected population centres, historical requirements and basing decisions made under vastly different strategic circumstances and at vastly different points in the country’s history.
We now see that Australia is strengthening its northern Defence infrastructure while preparing for increasingly sophisticated aircraft, warships, autonomous systems, long-range weapons and information capabilities.
However, at the same time, Defence continues to operate a sprawling collection of properties, including some sites that are expensive to maintain despite no longer being central to operational requirements. The current divestment program attempts to address that imbalance.
The government has identified 68 sites considered underutilised or surplus to future requirements, ranging from major metropolitan properties to smaller training, cadet and range facilities. Functions currently located at those sites are expected to be transferred elsewhere in the Defence estate.
According to Rogers, the financial logic is therefore less about generating a windfall through property sales and more about reducing the long-term cost of maintaining infrastructure Defence no longer needs to meet current force disposition arrangements.
“The quicker they can divest themselves of some of the particularly more major sites, the more money they’ll save,” he says.
Proceeds from the divestments are expected to remain within the Defence portfolio and contribute to National Defence Strategy priorities, including investment in Australia’s northern bases.
That creates a connection between rationalising the Defence footprint inherited from the past and building the infrastructure required for the future.
Consolidating capability
The changes also present an opportunity to reconsider the traditional concept of an Australian military base.
Rather than maintaining functions across numerous ageing facilities, Defence can potentially consolidate personnel and capabilities into fewer, more modern sites designed around contemporary operational, security and technological requirements.
Some smaller properties can be relatively easily relinquished. Major barracks and partially divested facilities are considerably more complicated.
Partial divestments create their own security requirements because civilian, commercial or industrial activities could ultimately operate immediately alongside functioning Defence facilities.
Rogers confirms that sites such as RAAF Williams – Laverton, which has been identified for partial divestment, demonstrate the potential for defence industry to become part of that equation.
Locating defence companies alongside retained Commonwealth facilities could provide industry with close physical access to Defence while allowing land no longer required directly by the ADF to remain connected to national defence capability, according to Rogers.
“Putting defence industry on there and access to the Defence elements literally on the other side of the fence; yes definitely (beneficial),” he says.
Former Defence facilities with workshops, training infrastructure or industrial characteristics could similarly be repurposed for defence industry, skills development or other related activities.
Such arrangements could ultimately create a Defence estate that is smaller in overall footprint but more concentrated around operational capability, industry and supporting infrastructure.
Divestment isn’t straightforward
Decades or, in some cases, more than a century of military activity can leave significant environmental, planning and heritage complications behind at some of these sites identified by the Defence Estate Audit.
Leigh McDonald, Stantec Australia business leader of environment and geosciences, says former Defence properties may contain soil and groundwater contamination, fuel infrastructure, PFAS, discarded materials and potentially unexploded ordnance.
“I think PFAS is a high-profile contaminant in the news with regards to Defence and there’s plenty of sites that may have these issues; however, there will be properties that won’t be impacted by PFAS in the Defence estate. Areas of the estate are likely to be impacted by other contaminants outside of the PFAS group as well,” he says.
Heritage buildings, mature landscapes and sensitive ecosystems can further restrict redevelopment; however, there is likely to be a balance between continued industrial or defence industry use appropriate for some properties while others may be better suited to housing, community infrastructure or environmental restoration.
“The successful transition is not necessarily about the site that generates the highest price, but what’s the most sustainable long-term value that it can create,” McDonald says.
“First and foremost, the Defence capability needs to be maintained.”
The successful transition is not necessarily about the site that generates the highest price, but what’s the most sustainable long-term value that it can create.”
- Leigh McDonald
What happens to the old bases?
The future of the Defence estate will likely be determined by more than military requirements alone.
Stantec Australia project director of land development Nick Glasson said there should not be a predetermined answer for every surplus site.
Major metropolitan barracks could potentially unlock housing or community infrastructure, while environmentally sensitive sites could be restored and industrial properties repurposed for commercial or defence-related activity.
Early consultation between Defence, developers, industry, local communities and different levels of government will be essential.
“If you don’t do it early, you end up with a master plan or development proposal that really doesn’t respond to the issues on site, whether they’re contamination, heritage, ecology (or) infrastructure constraints,” Glasson says.
“There’s a large variety of sites and they’ll each have to be considered in terms of their local context. But obviously additional housing, that’s a big focus of governments at all levels and continually identified as a need.
“I think it’s important not to begin with a predetermined answer. You’ve got to really understand the site, And its specific opportunities and constraints.
“It’s got to stack up from a market point of view, something that you know is financially viable and meets what the market wants. If it’s housing or if it’s commercial development, what sits in local context.”
Defence estate transition takes time
As Defence intends to relocate personnel and functions from identified sites, the subsequent processes of remediation, consultation, government transfer or commercial sale could continue for years depending on individual properties.
“It’s a little bit like ‘how long is a piece of string’ (for how long this will take). Defence has undertaken that they will have all of their people off of each site being divested by the end of 2027 at the latest,” Rogers says.
“The cadet units in Victoria, in Tasmania and the rifle ranges and things like that will all be vacated from a defence user perspective by the end of 2027. Then how long it will take to move through the remainder of the process run by the Department of Defence or the Department of Finance to identify the other land uses which could be the potential purchasers or transferees within government. That will take some period of time.
“Some of these sites are well advanced along that way … Other sites are newly identified and they’re going to take a little while to work their way through.
“Defence is committed to doing this. Defence is determined that these sites will be divested because they’ve identified they are surplus to their requirements and they can save some serious money going forward. But as to whether they’ll achieve all of their goals on their particular timeline, yet to be determined.”
Building the estate for the next generation
Ultimately, the significance of the divestment program extends beyond the future of 68 individual properties. It provides Defence with an opportunity to refresh a basing network accumulated over generations and shape a network that reflects Australia’s strategic geography, operational requirements and future force, while still retaining Defence historical links to some important sites.
Some sites will disappear from the Defence estate and become housing, commercial precincts, community facilities or environmental reserves. Some could retain a connection to national security through defence industry and training, or as ongoing historical precincts in a manner that is more open and accessible to the public that it was as an operational Defence site.
Personnel and capabilities will increasingly need to be concentrated in facilities capable of supporting the technology, security requirements and operational demands of the modern ADF.
In an increasingly contested strategic environment, the objective will be to ensure it is located in the right places, equipped with the right infrastructure and capable of supporting the force Australia expects to field.
The challenge is not simply deciding which bases Australia can afford to sell. It’s deciding which bases Australia needs to keep, strengthen and build to meet the strategic challenges for the decades ahead.
