iscover
French defence contractor Thales has written to local politicians and officials in NSW to ask for their support in regard to the stalled restoration of the historic Lithgow Small Arms Factory Museum.
Thales Australia, a subsidiary of French defence technology conglomerate Thales Group, is already embroiled in a heated dispute with the museum’s current committee to save the culturally significant military site in Lithgow, NSW.
On 25 August last year, the site sustained significant damage requiring immediate repair after three men broke into the museum and stole 27 historically important handguns (deactivated), including Desert Storm and World War II commemorative pistols.
The individuals were later charged and at least 19 pistols recovered by Drug and Firearms Squad detectives, with assistance from Chifley and South Coast Police districts working under Strike Force Ajo.
Thales Australia chief executive officer Jeff Connolly, in official letters written to local politicians and officials during early January this year (and provided to Defence Connect), said the memos were sent to “address a number of issues raised in the public domain by the museum’s board regarding the future of the museum”.
“Thales Australia, as the owner and proprietor of the Lithgow Small Arms Facility, has proudly hosted the Lithgow Small Arms Museum since 1998 – at no charge to the museum – through lease arrangements that have existed for over two decades,” he said.
“In 1999, Thales Australia donated the firearms collection to the museum by way of a deed of gift … Thales Australia communicated to the museum in November 2024 its willingness to commit to long-term lease arrangement for nominal rent, which will ensure the museum’s enduring presence at the site.
“We have not yet heard back from the museum on our offer of a long-term lease. We are aware that the museum board would like Thales Australia to either gift or sell the site to the museum.
“The Lithgow Small Arms Factory is a critical national security asset and an operational defence industrial facility. Thales Australia must ensure the facility remains able to meet Australia’s strategic needs, including the ability to surge in the future if required by government.
“This means we cannot sell parts of the facility as they may be required for development in the future, noting especially the Commonwealth’s view that Australia is facing a deteriorating security environment, in which the previously assumed 10-year warning time for regional conflict is no longer valid.”
The Lithgow Small Arms Factory Museum is considered historically important because of its expansive collection of Australian and international production firearms, defence industry prototypes and experimental models of rifles, pistols and heavier military equipment.
In addition, the collection has reportedly been used as a resource by the global firearms research community, Australian Crime Commission, police, ballistics and forensics experts to enhance knowledge databases, solve crimes and support court cases.
Museum voluntary organisers have publicly stated that the August break-in damage has resulted in unprecedented challenges, including the ongoing cost of night security patrols and the likely permanent closure of the museum.
“Thales Australia is aware of the necessary security upgrades to the museum proposed and confirmed by NSW Police. A long-term lease will allow for the museum to make not only the necessary security upgrades, but other upgrades that the museum has budgeted for in their funds,” the Thales Australia chief executive said.
“We understand the association itself has over $1 million in cash assets on hand, according to public documentation available via the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. In the unlikely event that the museum would need to be relocated under a lease to another building in the facility precinct, Thales has committed to ensuring the museum is appropriately compensated in respect of its investment for these works.
“On 13 November 2024, NSW authorities confirmed the nature and scope of what security upgrades would be required for the museum to reopen to the public. These will require significant works to the building. At the time of writing, Thales has not been provided with a proposal, compliance information (such as with building codes or permits), contractor details or plans and drawings by the museum.
“This information is necessary for Thales to discharge its lawful obligations as the owner of the facility, but also for responsibilities such as site health, safety and security.
“We also understand that the association has elected to make private security arrangements at the museum following the burglary at cost to themselves. Immediately following the incident, Thales offered to secure the museum’s inventory at no cost. This offer was supported by NSW Police, and meant the museum would not have to pay for private security.
“This offer remains open and we remain happy to store the weapons in our armouries. Our primary concern is the security of the Lithgow community and the Lithgow Small Arms Facility.
“We are committed to working with the museum’s board and volunteers, as well as NSW Police and the Lithgow community to assist them in putting in place appropriate arrangements that will see the museum re-opened as soon as possible.”
The deteriorating situation at the museum has drawn the interest of John Graham, deputy leader of the NSW government in the Legislative Council and Minister for Jobs and Tourism, who, speaking in Legislative Council during November last year, described the museum has “significance not just to the region, but to the state and country”.
In addition, Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party chairman and NSW Legislative Council member Robert Borsak and National Party of Australia politician and NSW Legislative Council member Sam Farraway have also advocated for immediate restoration of the museum.
The current museum committee, speaking to Defence Connect, has alleged that there are a number of inaccuracies and presumptions in Thales’ letters, which further reinforce the museum committee’s view that attempting to operate under a lease agreement is “untenable”.
“The situation for the museum has become dire and we reiterated the issues to Thales multiple times conveying urgency. After no response was received, the committee decided that the Australian public needed to be informed of the risk to this important heritage asset,” the committee responded in a statement provided to Defence Connect.
“The site was originally owned by the Commonwealth government, and the museum’s collection was donated in 1995 by Australian Defence Industries, a government business enterprise.
“In late 1999, the site was purchased by a consortium of Transfield and Thompson CSF, which later rebranded as Thales. At the time, the possibility of 50 per cent foreign ownership raised enough concern to prompt a government inquiry. By 2006, Transfield had withdrawn from the consortium, leaving the factory under full foreign ownership.
“We feel that the words ‘proudly hosted’ reflect a sense of entitlement that the museum volunteers have long observed in their dealings with Thales.
“The museum is an entirely separate and independent entity belonging to the people of Australia. We do not feel that Thales, as our landlord, has the right to involve themselves in the museum’s operations to the extent that they do. Moreover, the volunteers are often treated like unpaid employees of Thales, which they deeply resent.
“The original donation of 770 firearms and 18 machines was made by the Australian government prior to the sale of the facility to Thales. The museum has since received numerous small and very large donations of firearms and other artefacts from Australian and international citizens, including Ron Hayes’ donation in 2006 of 1,500 handguns which are displayed in their own gallery.
“The support we have long requested from Thales is to make good on the 2022 offer to sell the museum its site for a nominal price. Until August last year, we were not aware that this was in question.
“The sale or gift of the site to the museum has been proposed and communicated, by Thales, a number of times over the past decade and this has kept the volunteers committed and hopeful, albeit frustrated by the inconsistency and lack of follow-through by Thales. To renege on this now means that approximately 450,000 hours of volunteer work and $800,000 of museum and government funds have been spent under a false impression which Thales’ actions and communications have contributed to.
“(In regard to the offer of a long-term lease) Thales made it clear that the lease would include the detailed approval process for all works and provision to evict the museum, from its home of 25 years, at any time to repurpose the buildings. These are the two main issues that the museum has been raising with Thales for many years – insecure tenure and the inability to operate and progress the museum.
“(In regard to Thales’ war-time surge capacity) the museum committee appreciates the important work that Thales is doing for Australian defence and hopes that divesting itself of the overheads associated with unnecessarily micromanaging the museum’s operations will further free it up to focus on this.”
The museum committee statement further alleged that quotes for three security upgrades were provided to Thales on 9 September last year and an additional three urgent upgrades were provided and confirmed receipt on 29 September.
“On 20th December, the museum received an email from Thales stating that the museum could proceed with seven of the essential security upgrades at its own expense. This calls the validity of these requirements into question, as they are inconsistent. Thales have requested a detailed approvals process (possibly exceeding their mandate as landlord in some aspects) and waived these requests at their convenience. This demonstrates the impossible working conditions the museum faces under a landlord that can move the goalposts to delay or obstruct the museum at their whim.
“Thales has offered to secure an inventory of weapons, which is different to protecting a museum’s collection of historical artefacts. Safe storage of artefacts involves carefully controlled environmental conditions, transport and handling. Thales has made no indication of such considerations, for example, stating in a meeting that artefacts would be ‘wrapped in bubble wrap’. Such treatment would be destructive. In addition, it was made clear that the collection would be inaccessible to museum officials as a condition of this offer. This is not acceptable to those who hold the licenses guaranteeing their security.
“Access to the collection is essential for ongoing work and to ensure storage methods are effective in preserving every item. Given the delays to date, the museum cannot trust that the artefacts would be returned in a timely manner.
“The museum committee is not seeing evidence of a desire to work with us. The museum is being entirely transparent in their dealings with Thales and all stakeholders. However, our letters and requests to Thales management go unanswered. Thales demands detailed specs for approval, which are then subject to unreasonable delays, with no response to our requests for updates.”
