The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: rob wesleyNew Southern Entrance
I oppose the excessive re-development of the Australian War Memorial. There has not been proper national debate about it, it will do little to improve veterans’ lives, and it will further glorify war. It should be a place of reflection and commemoration, not a stage for major donors: arms dealers.
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the national war memorial foisted on them without a proper national debate. Submissions are not adequate for this task. Instead, the Australian War Memorial Act should be properly debated, including in the Parliament, as occurred before the 1980 Act came into force.
There were earlier submissions in 2020, most of which opposed the re-development. Two former heads of the Memorial, former ambassadors, several ex-departmental secretaries, 82 historians, former diplomats, public servants, academics, journalists and curators opposed it, among others arguing against the re-development in the list of 600 submissions. It is extraordinary that the plans have gone ahead in the face of so many well-founded arguments against the proposal put forward by such experts.
VETERANS
The number of suicides among returned service personnel and the prevalence of PTSD in veterans indicates that it is the people who served the nation in war who should be be the recipients of as much financial recompense as possible. To spend $500 million on the re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression.
Furthermore, the Memorial is a place for all Australians, not just for the Armed Services and Veterans.
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a War Memorial is to honour the memory of those who died and to serve as a place of reflection on war itself.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death or to have the facilities to house aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles and other such equipment inside galleries. It is disturbing that weapons companies such as Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos are listed among the War Memorials’ donors, and that the amounts they have donated are concealed. The involvement of these arms traders underlines the highly questionable nature of the excessive re-development. The influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict. The association of these companies with the Australian War Memorial takes from the concept of commemoration and adds to the glorification of war and its instruments.
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the national war memorial foisted on them without a proper national debate. Submissions are not adequate for this task. Instead, the Australian War Memorial Act should be properly debated, including in the Parliament, as occurred before the 1980 Act came into force.
There were earlier submissions in 2020, most of which opposed the re-development. Two former heads of the Memorial, former ambassadors, several ex-departmental secretaries, 82 historians, former diplomats, public servants, academics, journalists and curators opposed it, among others arguing against the re-development in the list of 600 submissions. It is extraordinary that the plans have gone ahead in the face of so many well-founded arguments against the proposal put forward by such experts.
VETERANS
The number of suicides among returned service personnel and the prevalence of PTSD in veterans indicates that it is the people who served the nation in war who should be be the recipients of as much financial recompense as possible. To spend $500 million on the re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression.
Furthermore, the Memorial is a place for all Australians, not just for the Armed Services and Veterans.
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a War Memorial is to honour the memory of those who died and to serve as a place of reflection on war itself.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death or to have the facilities to house aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles and other such equipment inside galleries. It is disturbing that weapons companies such as Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos are listed among the War Memorials’ donors, and that the amounts they have donated are concealed. The involvement of these arms traders underlines the highly questionable nature of the excessive re-development. The influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict. The association of these companies with the Australian War Memorial takes from the concept of commemoration and adds to the glorification of war and its instruments.
Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant
I oppose the excessive re-development of the Australian War Memorial. There has not been proper national debate about it, it will do little to improve veterans’ lives, and it will further glorify war. It should be a place of reflection and commemoration, not a stage for major donors: arms dealers.
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the national war memorial foisted on them without a proper national debate. Submissions are not adequate for this task. Instead, the Australian War Memorial Act should be properly debated, including in the Parliament, as occurred before the 1980 Act came into force.
There were earlier submissions in 2020, most of which opposed the re-development. Two former heads of the Memorial, former ambassadors, several ex-departmental secretaries, 82 historians, former diplomats, public servants, academics, journalists and curators opposed it, among others arguing against the re-development in the list of 600 submissions. It is extraordinary that the plans have gone ahead in the face of so many well-founded arguments against the proposal put forward by such experts.
VETERANS
The number of suicides among returned service personnel and the prevalence of PTSD in veterans indicates that it is the people who served the nation in war who should be be the recipients of as much financial recompense as possible. To spend $500 million on the re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression.
Furthermore, the Memorial is a place for all Australians, not just for the Armed Services and Veterans.
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a War Memorial is to honour the memory of those who died and to serve as a place of reflection on war itself.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death or to have the facilities to house aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles and other such equipment inside galleries. It is disturbing that weapons companies such as Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos are listed among the War Memorials’ donors, and that the amounts they have donated are concealed. The involvement of these arms traders underlines the highly questionable nature of the excessive re-development. The influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict. The association of these companies with the Australian War Memorial takes from the concept of commemoration and adds to the glorification of war and its instruments.
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the national war memorial foisted on them without a proper national debate. Submissions are not adequate for this task. Instead, the Australian War Memorial Act should be properly debated, including in the Parliament, as occurred before the 1980 Act came into force.
There were earlier submissions in 2020, most of which opposed the re-development. Two former heads of the Memorial, former ambassadors, several ex-departmental secretaries, 82 historians, former diplomats, public servants, academics, journalists and curators opposed it, among others arguing against the re-development in the list of 600 submissions. It is extraordinary that the plans have gone ahead in the face of so many well-founded arguments against the proposal put forward by such experts.
VETERANS
The number of suicides among returned service personnel and the prevalence of PTSD in veterans indicates that it is the people who served the nation in war who should be be the recipients of as much financial recompense as possible. To spend $500 million on the re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression.
Furthermore, the Memorial is a place for all Australians, not just for the Armed Services and Veterans.
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a War Memorial is to honour the memory of those who died and to serve as a place of reflection on war itself.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death or to have the facilities to house aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles and other such equipment inside galleries. It is disturbing that weapons companies such as Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos are listed among the War Memorials’ donors, and that the amounts they have donated are concealed. The involvement of these arms traders underlines the highly questionable nature of the excessive re-development. The influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict. The association of these companies with the Australian War Memorial takes from the concept of commemoration and adds to the glorification of war and its instruments.
Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
I oppose the excessive re-development of the Australian War Memorial. There has not been proper national debate about it, it will do little to improve veterans’ lives, and it will further glorify war. It should be a place of reflection and commemoration, not a stage for major donors: arms dealers.
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the national war memorial foisted on them without a proper national debate. Submissions are not adequate for this task. Instead, the Australian War Memorial Act should be properly debated, including in the Parliament, as occurred before the 1980 Act came into force.
There were earlier submissions in 2020, most of which opposed the re-development. Two former heads of the Memorial, former ambassadors, several ex-departmental secretaries, 82 historians, former diplomats, public servants, academics, journalists and curators opposed it, among others arguing against the re-development in the list of 600 submissions. It is extraordinary that the plans have gone ahead in the face of so many well-founded arguments against the proposal put forward by such experts.
VETERANS
The number of suicides among returned service personnel and the prevalence of PTSD in veterans indicates that it is the people who served the nation in war who should be be the recipients of as much financial recompense as possible. To spend $500 million on the re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression.
Furthermore, the Memorial is a place for all Australians, not just for the Armed Services and Veterans.
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a War Memorial is to honour the memory of those who died and to serve as a place of reflection on war itself.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death or to have the facilities to house aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles and other such equipment inside galleries. It is disturbing that weapons companies such as Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos are listed among the War Memorials’ donors, and that the amounts they have donated are concealed. The involvement of these arms traders underlines the highly questionable nature of the excessive re-development. The influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict. The association of these companies with the Australian War Memorial takes from the concept of commemoration and adds to the glorification of war and its instruments.
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the national war memorial foisted on them without a proper national debate. Submissions are not adequate for this task. Instead, the Australian War Memorial Act should be properly debated, including in the Parliament, as occurred before the 1980 Act came into force.
There were earlier submissions in 2020, most of which opposed the re-development. Two former heads of the Memorial, former ambassadors, several ex-departmental secretaries, 82 historians, former diplomats, public servants, academics, journalists and curators opposed it, among others arguing against the re-development in the list of 600 submissions. It is extraordinary that the plans have gone ahead in the face of so many well-founded arguments against the proposal put forward by such experts.
VETERANS
The number of suicides among returned service personnel and the prevalence of PTSD in veterans indicates that it is the people who served the nation in war who should be be the recipients of as much financial recompense as possible. To spend $500 million on the re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression.
Furthermore, the Memorial is a place for all Australians, not just for the Armed Services and Veterans.
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a War Memorial is to honour the memory of those who died and to serve as a place of reflection on war itself.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death or to have the facilities to house aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles and other such equipment inside galleries. It is disturbing that weapons companies such as Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos are listed among the War Memorials’ donors, and that the amounts they have donated are concealed. The involvement of these arms traders underlines the highly questionable nature of the excessive re-development. The influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict. The association of these companies with the Australian War Memorial takes from the concept of commemoration and adds to the glorification of war and its instruments.