Coalition Criticises Albanese Government’s Plan to Sell 67 Defence Sites

Key Points

• Liberal Senator Jess Collins has publicly criticised the Albanese Labor government’s proposal to sell off 67 historic Australian Defence Force (ADF) properties across the country.
• Victoria Barracks in Paddington, Sydney, is among the prominent military sites listed under the proposed divestment plan.
• Speaking on News24 to host Chris Kenny, Senator Collins argued that military properties like Victoria Barracks represent a “living memory of the ANZAC legacy” rather than merely old sandstone structures.
• Senator Collins stated that the ANZAC spirit existed within Australian men and women prior to their departure for Gallipoli and remains embedded in domestic historic defence sites.
• The opposition’s scrutiny focuses on the cultural, historic, and heritage significance of defence infrastructure slated for sale.

Sydney Now Magazine (SNM) May 15, 2026 – The Albanese Labor government is facing intense scrutiny over its proposal to divest 67 historic Australian Defence Force (ADF) properties across Australia, a initiative that opposition leaders claim undermines national heritage. Liberal Senator Jess Collins has raised strong objections to the plan, specifically highlighting iconic heritage sites such as Victoria Barracks in Paddington, Sydney. Opponents argue that disposing of long-standing military establishments risks erasing tangible links to Australia’s military history and veterans’ legacy.

What Are the Details of Labor’s Plan to Sell Historic ADF Properties?

The controversy centres on the Australian government’s strategy to sell off 67 ADF properties scattered across various states and territories. The portfolio includes operational and heritage infrastructure, most notably Victoria Barracks in Sydney’s eastern suburb of Paddington.

The proposal has drawn sharp resistance from Coalition representatives, who contend that military sites possess cultural value that extends far beyond their monetary real estate valuation. Opponents insist that divestment decisions must account for the historical significance of land and facilities that have supported generations of service personnel.

How Has Opposition Senator Jess Collins Responded to the Divestment Plan?

As reported by host Chris Kenny of News24, Liberal Senator Jess Collins expressed strong criticism regarding the federal government’s decision to liquidate historic military holdings. During an interview on News24, Senator Collins addressed the cultural importance of the Paddington site, cautioning against treating national heritage landmarks as standard government real estate.

As reported by Chris Kenny of News24, Senator Collins stated that “The thing about a place like Victoria Barracks Sydney … it’s not just an old sandstone building as you said, it’s a living memory of the ANZAC legacy.”

Senator Collins further elaborated on the origins and cultural depth of Australia’s military identity during the broadcast. As reported by Chris Kenny of News24, Senator Collins stated that “The ANZAC spirit … wasn’t something that was born on the shores of Gallipoli; it was something within the Australian men and women that went out to fight for us that were here as well in Australia and New Zealand.”

Emphasising the enduring connection between physical infrastructure and Australian history, Senator Collins added during the News24 interview that “A place like Victoria Barracks Sydney … those walls are the living memory of that.”

Background of the ADF Property Divestment Program

The management and rationalisation of Australia’s defence estate have long been subjects of strategic review by successive federal governments. The Australian Defence Force maintains extensive real estate holdings nationwide, ranging from operational military bases, airfields, and training ranges to urban barracks, depot facilities, and administrative headquarters. Over recent years, defence reviews have periodically evaluated whether underutilised or aging urban military sites should be retained, repurposed, or sold to fund modern defence infrastructure and operational capabilities.

Victoria Barracks in Paddington, constructed between 1841 and 1848 using local sandstone, stands as one of Australia’s most prominent military architectural sites. Initially built for British imperial troops, it subsequently served as a central command facility for the Australian Army through major conflicts, including the First and Second World Wars. Similar heritage sites across Australia hold listed status or high local cultural value, making proposals to transfer ownership to private developers or local government entities a subject of significant public debate.

Prediction: How Will This Development Affect Australian Veterans, Local Communities, and Defense Stakeholders?

The proposed sale of 67 ADF properties, particularly high-profile heritage sites like Victoria Barracks, is expected to impact several distinct groups across Australia:

• Veterans and Military Heritage Organisations: Former service personnel and heritage advocates are likely to intensify campaigns to protect historical defence sites. The potential commercialisation of properties associated with Australian military heritage may prompt calls for formal heritage protections, adaptive re-use guarantees, or public access arrangements to ensure historical commemoration is preserved.
• Local Communities and Municipal Councils: Residents in urban areas surrounding listed sites like Paddington, Sydney, face potential shifts in local planning, heritage conservation, and traffic infrastructure if former military lands are redeveloped for residential or commercial use. Municipal authorities will likely push for strict heritage oversight during any zoning or development application processes.
• Federal Government and Defence Authorities: The Albanese government will likely face continued political pressure from parliamentary opposition and crossbench members to justify the financial and strategic rationale behind the sale of each site. Government Ministers may be called upon to detail whether proceeds will be directly ring-fenced for contemporary military modernization and how heritage preservation commitments will be enforced during divestment.