How did public Defence land come to be channelled into private for-profit residential development through a corporatised and commercialised Commonwealth housing authority?
The transition was facilitated through a series of institutional and policy changes.
One mechanism was the corporatisation of public institutions. Rather than continuing to undertake certain functions directly, governments increasingly created separate corporate bodies to perform them. In the case of Defence housing, the Commonwealth stopped managing Defence housing directly and created DHA as a separate statutory authority to undertake that role.
Corporatisation was followed by commercialisation. Public institutions were increasingly expected to operate according to commercial objectives. In DHA’s case, this occurred when DHA became a Government Business Enterprise expected to add shareholder value, generate commercial returns and pay dividends.
At the same time, the Abbott Government pursued policies aimed at making development easier and faster to approve by reducing environmental and regulatory requirements. These included policies directed towards cutting red tape and green tape, reflected in measures such as the One Stop Shop reforms and bilateral agreements that reduced the need for separate Commonwealth assessment processes.
The Abbott Government also reduced forms of parliamentary scrutiny. In DHA’s case, some projects became exempt from Public Works Committee scrutiny, removing a layer of parliamentary oversight that had previously applied.
By the time DHA moved from Lyons to Muirhead, development was no longer proceeding as one clearly defined project. It was being broken into stages.
The use of staging in the Lee Point project appears to have been another mechanism for accelerating approvals while also fragmenting public scrutiny. Instead of examining one large development, the public was asked to examine a succession of smaller stages over many years, each with its own approvals, permits and conditions.
In the Lee Point project, Special Use zoning was used to facilitate higher yields and greater commercial returns for DHA than would otherwise have been possible under standard zoning controls.
1940s–1970s – Defence acquires and retains extensive formerly NT Crown land holdings in Darwin
Defence land originally held for public Defence purposes started to be classified as “surplus” and directed into DHA-led commercial residential development, rather than being returned to the public estate or first tested against alternative public uses.
Through this process, public land originally held for Defence purposes became part of DHA commercial residential expansion in which the majority of housing was sold into the private market.
1988 – Defence Housing Authority established as a separate statutory authority. The Commonwealth removed Defence housing from direct departmental administration and placed it within a separate statutory authority. The authority’s statutory function was to provide housing and housing-related services to Defence personnel and their families.
Source:
Defence Housing Australia Act 1987
https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03510/latest
1992 – DHA becomes a Government Business Enterprise
Source:
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/management-defence-housing-australia
Management of Defence Housing Australia. Auditor-General Report No. 31 of 2019–20
DHA became a Government Business Enterprise (GBE) in 1992. It was still responsible for providing housing for Defence personnel and their families, but it was now also expected to operate commercially and generate returns for the Commonwealth. The change formed part of wider reforms that encouraged government agencies and authorities to operate more like commercial enterprises.
8 July 2013 Coalition releases red tape reduction policy
Source:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-08/coalition-releases-plans-to-cut-red-tape/4807046
Before entering government, the Coalition publicly committed itself to reducing regulatory burden, environmental “green tape” and approval requirements. The policy established the framework for later reforms directed towards approval streamlining, reduced duplication and deregulation across Commonwealth administration.
September 2013 Abbott Government elected
The Coalition Government was elected on a platform that included deregulation, reduction of regulatory burden and streamlining of approval processes.
December 2013 – Public Works Committee regulations amended
Source:
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg_es/pwcar20132n266o2013534.html
The Abbott Government expanded exemptions applying to Defence Housing Australia housing works from Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works scrutiny. The amendments reduced Parliamentary review requirements applying to DHA developments compared with earlier projects that proceeded through Public Works Committee examination.
2014 – House of Representatives inquiry into the One Stop Shop for Environmental Approvals
Source:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Environment/Green_Tape
The inquiry examined proposals to reduce duplication between Commonwealth and state environmental assessment systems through a “One Stop Shop” for environmental approvals. The inquiry formed part of the Abbott Government’s broader deregulation agenda and consideration of mechanisms for streamlining environmental assessment processes under the EPBC Act.
2014 Commonwealth pursues bilateral assessment agreements under the EPBC Act
Source:
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/epbc/approvals/state-assessments
The bilateral agreement framework provided the mechanism for accrediting state and territory environmental assessment processes under the EPBC Act. The framework was designed to reduce the need for separate Commonwealth assessment processes where accredited state and territory systems were in place.
11 December 2014 – Northern Territory Assessment Bilateral Agreement commences
Source:
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/env/pages/4aaf2c7e-3043-4b50-b0f9-9d7647ae51ca/files/nt-bliateral-agreement-assessment-2014.pdf
The Commonwealth and Northern Territory entered into an Assessment Bilateral Agreement under section 45 of the EPBC Act. The agreement implemented in the Northern Territory the broader Commonwealth policy of accrediting state and territory environmental assessment processes.
30 October 2018 – NT EPA Assessment Report 88
Source:
https://ntepa.nt.gov.au/_resources/documents/eia/lee-point-urban-development/assessment_report_lee_point_urban_dev.PDF
Assessment Report 88 stated that the Assessment Bilateral Agreement did not apply to the Lee Point proposal because Defence Housing Australia was a Commonwealth entity. While the bilateral agreement framework was intended to reduce separate Commonwealth assessment requirements, Lee Point remained subject to separate Commonwealth assessment under the EPBC Act.
Current
11 March 2026 – Senate inquiry into the management of Defence estate assets. The release of the Report has now been delayed till September 2026.
Source:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/DefenceEstates
Most of the Terms of Reference treat Defence land as an estate asset to be utilised, divested and disposed of.
However, one term of reference challenges that view by directing the inquiry to consider:
“an amended policy framework for the use of surplus Defence land that prioritises alternative public uses over private development”
More than three decades after DHA became a Government Business Enterprise, the Senate inquiry explicitly reopens the question of whether surplus Defence land should continue to be directed towards private development or whether alternative public uses should be given priority.