ABC RADIO SYDNEY
MONDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2026
SUBJECT: ABC Radio Sydney Mornings: Defence Estate; Digital Duty of Care; AI
HAMISH MACDONALD, HOST: Let's talk about the defence sites. The government's walked back its sale of four defence sites, including Victoria Barracks here in Sydney. Here's what the Shadow Defence Minister James Paterson has had to say about it:
“The Prime Minister has humiliated Richard Marles today because he let Richard Marles spend months going on the public record defending these sales.”
What do you think, Sam Maiden? Is it a humiliation for Richard Marles?
SAMANTHA MAIDEN: Oh, probably. But I mean, like, not for the first time, really. I mean, I'm sure that Richard Marles has had more humiliations than this, and he's probably got more to come. But look, $1.8 billion down the gurgler, though. Look, I think that there was a widespread and understandable backlash to flogging Victoria Barracks. The bottom line, though, was it was one of you know 67 defence sites that were marked under this independent estate audit in a bid to generate $1.8 billion. Lord knows the budget needs the money, but understandably there was a cavalcade of greats, including everyone from the John Howard, I think Paul Keating, saying that we shouldn't be selling it. So now the finance department is going to take over it, and they're going to open it in some way to the public, and we'll probably spend more money instead of saving it. What an outcome!
MACDONALD: Susan Templeman, is this outcome worst of all worlds? Defence doesn't really have it anymore. Public still has to pay for it. Like this is quite an outcome.
SUSAN TEMPLEMAN: Listening to the feedback that people give, you get criticised in government for not listening. You get criticised when you do listen and say, "Okay, we've been able to rethink given the strong feelings about stuff." So I think it's probably a win-win in a bunch of ways. But it obviously does have budgetary implications, and that's the thing we have to do as government: is manage what people want, try and make that work as best we can. What I think’s been quite ridiculous is the allegations that somehow this affects our ability to activate counterterrorism. Richard Marles on Sunday, that was just yesterday, wasn't it? Was making it very clear that our operations come out of Holsworthy for that, and that there is this brand new Defence Plaza in Sydney, a state-of-the-art facility, only a kilometre from Paddington, which the former Coalition government established, and we think it was the right decision. But it's 60% empty. So, this is also about making sure Defence can work more efficiently, more effectively. And so, I think there'll be a whole lot of positives out of it.
MACDONALD: So, can you just be clear and categorical about this? Is Victoria Barracks used in any way for Sydney's counter-terrorism response?
TEMPLEMAN: What I can tell you is what Richard Marles said yesterday, which is that Holsworthy is where the key Defence preparation and training. It's where the commandos are based. It's where the urban warfare centre is. It's where all the scenario planning is in respect of any event that would occur here, or, in fact anywhere on the east coast. And Holsworthy is the centre of our counter-terrorism effort in respect of the ADF and that's I'm pretty much just quoting from his press conference yesterday, but it is very consistent with my understanding of things, and I've done a lot around Defence. I'm fortunate to be one of the members of the newly established Defence Committee, so it's something I've taken an interest in over many years.
MACDONALD: It's twenty minutes past nine. Susan Templeman is here, the member for Macquarie. Sam Maiden is the political editor for news.com.au. There's a bit in the papers this morning, Sam Maiden, about the digital duty of care. The Herald's reporting that both Jewish and Muslim community groups are calling for the federal government to allow people to sue the tech giants for not policing race or religion-based hate. Before we get to the specifics of that, where is the bill at? Because it has gone before the parliament now. Are there negotiations happening? I know at one point it was being reported the Coalition was refusing to negotiate on the digital duty of care. Can you give us a snapshot of where things stand?
MAIDEN: Yeah, I mean, like I think the negotiations are continuing. There's a bit of a Senate, you know, Inquiry that's going on. So the government is still kind of pushing the barrow, and we'll see what happens.
MACDONALD: And so, what would be? Can you help us understand why you why these groups, for example, can't sue tech platforms at the moment for not playing any role on this? Like, obviously, if a broadcaster or a publisher did that sort of thing, you'd get in a lot of trouble.
MAIDEN: Well, yeah, I mean, Josh Bornstein has been—he's a lawyer who's working now with the Australia Institute. He's been saying that the duty of care bill in its current form makes explicit reference only to harm based on gendered violence. Presumably, there would be other legal ways that you could approach this, but they obviously want to expand the scope of the bill to include broader categories. So, you know, I think that that's what is basically being pursued there.
MACDONALD: Okay. And in terms of our relationship with big tech, I noticed Susan Templeman, a lot of the Prime Minister's favourite artists this morning, Jimmy Barnes, Paul Kelly, Peter Garrett, basically taking a very different position to your government on AI and copyright, and are saying things like the tech companies should go f- themselves, that the government should tell them where to go. Have you got it wrong on this? Are you losing the very people that you say you support?
TEMPLEMAN: Well, I think there's two conversations here. The digital duty of care is one thing, but the discussions around AI and what the tech companies should have access to they're separate conversations. But I think - I can see why they'd be linked. As Special Envoy for the Arts, I'm a very firm advocate for artists being able to retain control of their copyright and their intellectual property. They should. I know they want consent. They want to be able to say yes or no to something, and I completely support them in that. They also - you've got to recognise that there have already been things stolen from artists, and this goes back a really long way. They should be compensated for that.
MACDONALD: But can I just clarify, though? The artists want more than the ability to say yes or no. Like they want the presumption to be no, rather than the presumption to be yes.
TEMPLEMAN: Indeed, that is exactly what they want. Consent to be really key—that I have the choice to say yes or no—and that is under discussion. And it is different to what the tech companies would want. So this is a really active discussion, and I welcome the engagement by artists. Their voices are really key.
MACDONALD: Susan Templeman, Sam Maiden, thank you very much.
END
