The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: Ann KentNew Southern Entrance
SUBMISSION ON AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL MAIN WORKS, 9 September
ANN KENT
I am rewriting my submission made on 8 September because my submission then was misconstrued as withdrawing my consent for publication. I hereby freely give my consent to the publication of the submission that follows:
My great concern in this submission is that the whole process of the NCA's call for public submissions on a new proposal to enlarge the Australian War Memorial, at a cost of both considerable material destruction and over $500 million, has undermined its claim to hold meaningful and open consultations with the public. One reason for this is the speed with which the NCA moved from 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. Moreover, 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 Parliament was the proper decision- making body representing the Australian people and that, in view of its decision to proceed with the new proposal, the project had to be accepted. In other words, she implied, there had been little point to providing the submissions in the first place.
A further reason for concern is that the form of consultation this second time is divided into three dicrete areas, thereby controlling the way in which the public responds to the invitation to consult. The call for an analysis of the New Southern Entrance exemplifies this approach.
ANN KENT
I am rewriting my submission made on 8 September because my submission then was misconstrued as withdrawing my consent for publication. I hereby freely give my consent to the publication of the submission that follows:
My great concern in this submission is that the whole process of the NCA's call for public submissions on a new proposal to enlarge the Australian War Memorial, at a cost of both considerable material destruction and over $500 million, has undermined its claim to hold meaningful and open consultations with the public. One reason for this is the speed with which the NCA moved from 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. Moreover, 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 Parliament was the proper decision- making body representing the Australian people and that, in view of its decision to proceed with the new proposal, the project had to be accepted. In other words, she implied, there had been little point to providing the submissions in the first place.
A further reason for concern is that the form of consultation this second time is divided into three dicrete areas, thereby controlling the way in which the public responds to the invitation to consult. The call for an analysis of the New Southern Entrance exemplifies this approach.
Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant
Likewise, discussion of the Bean Building Extension reflects these divide-and-rule tactics. They are quite different from the period of genuine, if belated, public consultations that took place between the NCA and the Canberra Community many years ago over the Albert Hall. Then, citizens met with NCA representatives and debated, often noisily, but face to face in the Albert Hall itself, the pros and cons of planning decisions that were being made for the Albert Hall and surrounds. Agreements were made, concessions given, and compromises reached.
Subsequently, however, the NCA withdrew from this democratic process and retreated to government offices, where it organized meetings in small groups on different planning topics, with separate NCA group leaders. Thus began the divide and rule approach we see adopted today.
Subsequently, however, the NCA withdrew from this democratic process and retreated to government offices, where it organized meetings in small groups on different planning topics, with separate NCA group leaders. Thus began the divide and rule approach we see adopted 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 for the authors of the original 600 submissions. Consequently, this separate heading for the new Anzac Hall, inviting the public to appraise a proposal which many had so vehemently opposed, appears to be another reflection of the NCA's inability to win trust from the community and, for the public, an apparent example of bad faith.
It is thus the genuine concern of this submission that, through this complex process of submissions on the Australian War Memorial, the NCA is undermining its attempt to reach common ground with the Canberra community on planning problems. A solution to this apparent impasse can only be found by returning to more open and democratic consultation processes.
Please Note: I wish this Submission to be published and give my full consent
It is thus the genuine concern of this submission that, through this complex process of submissions on the Australian War Memorial, the NCA is undermining its attempt to reach common ground with the Canberra community on planning problems. A solution to this apparent impasse can only be found by returning to more open and democratic consultation processes.
Please Note: I wish this Submission to be published and give my full consent