The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: Ann KentNew Southern Entrance
It seems that, by dividing up these submissions under three discrete headings, the NCA is seeking to determine the exact nature of the community's interests In a public building, the Australian War Memorial. We, as the public, have an interest in the whole heritage building. Surely the Community itself has that right to determine its precise interests?
The great concern of this submission, one that unites these three important topics, is that, through the whole process of its call for public submissions on a new proposal to enlarge the Australian War Memorial at a cost of considerable destruction and over $500 million, the NCA has undermined its claim to hold legitimate consultations with the public. This is because it hardly missed a beat between receiving just under 600 submissions critical of the new proposal and 3 in favour, to deciding in favour of the project, to then calling for new submissions on three different aspects of the new building-to-be, the New Southern Entrance, the Bean Building Extension and the New Anzac Hall. As a justification for this swift decision to support the new venture, the NCA Chief Executive Officer, Sally Barnes, suggested in an interview with ABC 666 on 2 August, that the Commonwealth government was the proper representative of the Australian people and that, because it had decided on this project, the project had to be accepted. In other words, the NCA representative implied, there had been no point to these submissions in the first place.
The great concern of this submission, one that unites these three important topics, is that, through the whole process of its call for public submissions on a new proposal to enlarge the Australian War Memorial at a cost of considerable destruction and over $500 million, the NCA has undermined its claim to hold legitimate consultations with the public. This is because it hardly missed a beat between receiving just under 600 submissions critical of the new proposal and 3 in favour, to deciding in favour of the project, to then calling for new submissions on three different aspects of the new building-to-be, the New Southern Entrance, the Bean Building Extension and the New Anzac Hall. As a justification for this swift decision to support the new venture, the NCA Chief Executive Officer, Sally Barnes, suggested in an interview with ABC 666 on 2 August, that the Commonwealth government was the proper representative of the Australian people and that, because it had decided on this project, the project had to be accepted. In other words, the NCA representative implied, there had been no point to these submissions in the first place.
Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant
The Bean Building Extension is relevant in this context because it is part of the divide and rule tactics employed by the NCA since the period of genuine, if belated, public consultations that took place over the Albert Hall. Then, citizens met with NCA representatives and debated, often noisily, but face to face in the Albert Hall, the pros and cons of planning decisions for the Albert Hall. Agreements were made, concessions given, and compromises reached. Subsequently, the NCA withdrew from this democratic process and retreated to government offices, where it organised meetings in small groups on different planning topics with a separate NCA group leader. Thus began the 'divide and rule' tactic we see in use today.
Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
The destruction of Anzac Hall, required for the realisation of the new proposal, was the source of much distress in the original 600 submissions. Consequently, this separate heading asking the public to consider the new proposal which so many adamantly opposed, seems another sign of the NCA's inability to win trust from the community, and a distressing example of its bad faith.
It is the genuine fear of this submission that the NCA has thus reached a nadir in its attempt to find planning solutions and reach common ground with the Canberra community. Many of us regret that, unless it can return to a more honest and democratic process, the notion of genuine NCA consultation with the community becomes as 'a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal, signifying nothing'.
It is the genuine fear of this submission that the NCA has thus reached a nadir in its attempt to find planning solutions and reach common ground with the Canberra community. Many of us regret that, unless it can return to a more honest and democratic process, the notion of genuine NCA consultation with the community becomes as 'a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal, signifying nothing'.