The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: Kathryn KellyNew Southern Entrance
Introductory comment
This consultation cannot properly be considered a genuine consultation as it comes after significant works have already commenced. This would not have occurred if views of the community were accepted in the ‘early works’ consultation. It was in no way ethical to consider the ‘early works’ separate to the complete project. This project should be rejected.
Commemorative Aspect of the War Memorial
The first function of the Australian War Memorial (Section 5 (1) (a)) is “to maintain and develop the national memorial referred to in subsection 6(1) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 as a national memorial of Australians who have died (i) on or as a result of active service; or (ii) as a result of any war or warlike operations in which Australians have been on active service;…”
It is clear from this that the War Memorial should retain as its essence, respect for and commemoration of our war dead.
The current development proposal does not do this, but rather will change the nature of the Australian War Memorial into a giant exhibition of large military equipment. Aircraft of various kinds including an F111, components from naval ships, Bushmaster vehicles, light armoured vehicles, a helicopter, etc will be displayed. This focus on equipment, particularly large equipment, would change the nature and scale of the War Memorial into perpetuity, from a quiet contemplative, commemorative space into a theme park for the military.
that it aims “…..to tell Australia’s continuing story of service and sacrifice… Through the eyes of those who have served, we will share the experiences of Australians in conflict …This continuing story will connect the spirit of our past, present and future for generations to come.”
This sounds very much like it will become much more a normalisation and a glorification of war, rather than recognising that war represents absolute misery for those who have experienced it. More than 500 Australian soldiers have committed suicide since 2001 and many others experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This evidence of misery would be the case for all earlier conflicts, such as the Vietnam and Korean wars and WW2. That should be in the minds of people who seek to change the function of the building. This aspect of war has recently been recognised by the agreement by the Government into a Royal Commission into veterans’ suicide. This current development proposal does not accord enough respect to the horrific nature of war or to the veterans who have suffered through war.
I don’t believe the proposed development recognises this primary function of the War Memorial and the effects on the people who have served for Australia. The foundation stone was laid for the Memorial in April 1929 when memories of the terrible carnage of the first World War would still have been raw. I doubt that people then would have envisaged the commemorative nature of the War Memorial being inexorably altered as currently proposed.
The new southern entrance will involve destruction of the environment in front of the War Memorial.
The Ecological Impact Assessment undertaken by Capital Ecology states (p.4, Section 2.1 Database searches) that “No ‘Significant Plants and Animals’ are mapped within the study area on the ACT Government’s ACT mapi online mapping tool.” If that is indeed the case, I believe that the ACT Government’s mapping tool is deficient and may have not mapped the trees on the site properly. I applied to have a tree on my property removed and was refused permission, as it was considered a ‘significant tree’. But the tree on my land was nowhere near the Breast High Diameter size of the eucalypt of the eastern foreground. That tree has nesting hollows, as do other trees at the site – nesting hollows which usually take hundreds of years to form and which are of crucial importance for birds.
The Ecological Impact Assessment states (p.12 Section 2.5 Fauna Habitat and Threatened Fauna Occurrence) “A total of 15 native birds were recorded in the study area during field surveys (Appendix A). This included an observation of two rare/threatened species flying over the study area, being the Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii (EPBC Act and NC Act vulnerable) and Gang-Gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum.
“As recorded during the field survey, the study area supports the following fauna habitat features:
Fourteen mature remnant trees (Appendix B and Appendix C), one of which (Tree No. 112) contains a functional hollow currently occupied by nesting Sulphur-crested Cockatoos. All of the mature remnant trees would provide foraging resources for a variety of birds and marsupials, and the hollow bearing tree may provide a nesting resource for a variety of birds, bats, and marsupials.
A variety of planted non-local mature eucalypt trees, consisting primarily of Blue Gum and Maiden’s Gum (Appendix B).
“These species are commonly planted for native landscaping as they grow quickly and have high aesthetic value. Blue Gum and Maiden’s Gum do not occur naturally in the ACT region. Four of the planted trees contain a functional hollow (Tree No. 13, 23, 51, and 93). All of the mature planted trees would provide foraging resources for a variety of birds and marsupials, and the hollow bearing trees may provide a nesting resource for a variety of birds, bats, and marsupials.”
Numerous studies demonstrate that we are seeing the numbers of our birds plummeting and the creeping obliteration of natural habitat for huge numbers of species. This article reports that “Our measure showed that across Victoria, and into South Australia and New South Wales, more than 60% of 262 native birds have each lost more than half of their original natural habitat. The vast majority of these species are not formally recognised as being threatened with extinction.”
We should not wait until species are listed as threatened or endangered, but should be careful that we are not dismissing small areas of habitat loss as of no importance. The over 100 trees, most in good, very good or excellent condition, which are to be destroyed in this project, especially those with nesting hollows, are not insignificant but represent important breeding opportunities for our precious birds.
An enlarged parade ground would be out of scale with the building and be out of scale for the view from Parliament House and up Adelaide Avenue. The massive excavations at the front of the War Memorial will change the look of the front entrance and the essence of it into the future, and make it a huge military parade ground. That is not what a War Memorial should be. Those excavations will also destroy the magnificent eucalypts to the east and west of the entrance forever. Trees that take decades or hundreds of years to reach maturity.
The new southern entrance will destroy the nearby natural environment and destroy the commemorative nature of the War Memorial and should not be approved.
Proposal is not compliant with the National Capital Plan
The proposal is being done under the requirements of the National Capital Plan (NCP), which exists to ensure that 'Canberra and the Territory are planned and developed in accordance with their national significance.' The key matters of national significance include, inter alia:
The pre-eminence of the role of Canberra and the Territory as the centre of National Capital functions, and as the symbol of Australian national life and values..
I believe Australian values of a fair go, compassion and remembering the sacrifices of those who gave their lives for us, are not represented in this move to the glorification of war. The major resources, around $500 million, allocated to the proposal should be directed to assistance to veterans or to other National institutions in need, such as the National Archives and National Film and Sound Archives, for preservation of our history.
The NCP states that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital” (page 17).
The changes to the southern facade of the Memorial, as set out in Main Works Package 1, fail to conserve and enhance the significance of the Memorial site, a matter of significance under the National Capital Plan.
None of these three elements of the development will contribute positively to the overall composition and dignity of the national capital.
This consultation cannot properly be considered a genuine consultation as it comes after significant works have already commenced. This would not have occurred if views of the community were accepted in the ‘early works’ consultation. It was in no way ethical to consider the ‘early works’ separate to the complete project. This project should be rejected.
Commemorative Aspect of the War Memorial
The first function of the Australian War Memorial (Section 5 (1) (a)) is “to maintain and develop the national memorial referred to in subsection 6(1) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 as a national memorial of Australians who have died (i) on or as a result of active service; or (ii) as a result of any war or warlike operations in which Australians have been on active service;…”
It is clear from this that the War Memorial should retain as its essence, respect for and commemoration of our war dead.
The current development proposal does not do this, but rather will change the nature of the Australian War Memorial into a giant exhibition of large military equipment. Aircraft of various kinds including an F111, components from naval ships, Bushmaster vehicles, light armoured vehicles, a helicopter, etc will be displayed. This focus on equipment, particularly large equipment, would change the nature and scale of the War Memorial into perpetuity, from a quiet contemplative, commemorative space into a theme park for the military.
that it aims “…..to tell Australia’s continuing story of service and sacrifice… Through the eyes of those who have served, we will share the experiences of Australians in conflict …This continuing story will connect the spirit of our past, present and future for generations to come.”
This sounds very much like it will become much more a normalisation and a glorification of war, rather than recognising that war represents absolute misery for those who have experienced it. More than 500 Australian soldiers have committed suicide since 2001 and many others experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This evidence of misery would be the case for all earlier conflicts, such as the Vietnam and Korean wars and WW2. That should be in the minds of people who seek to change the function of the building. This aspect of war has recently been recognised by the agreement by the Government into a Royal Commission into veterans’ suicide. This current development proposal does not accord enough respect to the horrific nature of war or to the veterans who have suffered through war.
I don’t believe the proposed development recognises this primary function of the War Memorial and the effects on the people who have served for Australia. The foundation stone was laid for the Memorial in April 1929 when memories of the terrible carnage of the first World War would still have been raw. I doubt that people then would have envisaged the commemorative nature of the War Memorial being inexorably altered as currently proposed.
The new southern entrance will involve destruction of the environment in front of the War Memorial.
The Ecological Impact Assessment undertaken by Capital Ecology states (p.4, Section 2.1 Database searches) that “No ‘Significant Plants and Animals’ are mapped within the study area on the ACT Government’s ACT mapi online mapping tool.” If that is indeed the case, I believe that the ACT Government’s mapping tool is deficient and may have not mapped the trees on the site properly. I applied to have a tree on my property removed and was refused permission, as it was considered a ‘significant tree’. But the tree on my land was nowhere near the Breast High Diameter size of the eucalypt of the eastern foreground. That tree has nesting hollows, as do other trees at the site – nesting hollows which usually take hundreds of years to form and which are of crucial importance for birds.
The Ecological Impact Assessment states (p.12 Section 2.5 Fauna Habitat and Threatened Fauna Occurrence) “A total of 15 native birds were recorded in the study area during field surveys (Appendix A). This included an observation of two rare/threatened species flying over the study area, being the Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii (EPBC Act and NC Act vulnerable) and Gang-Gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum.
“As recorded during the field survey, the study area supports the following fauna habitat features:
Fourteen mature remnant trees (Appendix B and Appendix C), one of which (Tree No. 112) contains a functional hollow currently occupied by nesting Sulphur-crested Cockatoos. All of the mature remnant trees would provide foraging resources for a variety of birds and marsupials, and the hollow bearing tree may provide a nesting resource for a variety of birds, bats, and marsupials.
A variety of planted non-local mature eucalypt trees, consisting primarily of Blue Gum and Maiden’s Gum (Appendix B).
“These species are commonly planted for native landscaping as they grow quickly and have high aesthetic value. Blue Gum and Maiden’s Gum do not occur naturally in the ACT region. Four of the planted trees contain a functional hollow (Tree No. 13, 23, 51, and 93). All of the mature planted trees would provide foraging resources for a variety of birds and marsupials, and the hollow bearing trees may provide a nesting resource for a variety of birds, bats, and marsupials.”
Numerous studies demonstrate that we are seeing the numbers of our birds plummeting and the creeping obliteration of natural habitat for huge numbers of species. This article reports that “Our measure showed that across Victoria, and into South Australia and New South Wales, more than 60% of 262 native birds have each lost more than half of their original natural habitat. The vast majority of these species are not formally recognised as being threatened with extinction.”
We should not wait until species are listed as threatened or endangered, but should be careful that we are not dismissing small areas of habitat loss as of no importance. The over 100 trees, most in good, very good or excellent condition, which are to be destroyed in this project, especially those with nesting hollows, are not insignificant but represent important breeding opportunities for our precious birds.
An enlarged parade ground would be out of scale with the building and be out of scale for the view from Parliament House and up Adelaide Avenue. The massive excavations at the front of the War Memorial will change the look of the front entrance and the essence of it into the future, and make it a huge military parade ground. That is not what a War Memorial should be. Those excavations will also destroy the magnificent eucalypts to the east and west of the entrance forever. Trees that take decades or hundreds of years to reach maturity.
The new southern entrance will destroy the nearby natural environment and destroy the commemorative nature of the War Memorial and should not be approved.
Proposal is not compliant with the National Capital Plan
The proposal is being done under the requirements of the National Capital Plan (NCP), which exists to ensure that 'Canberra and the Territory are planned and developed in accordance with their national significance.' The key matters of national significance include, inter alia:
The pre-eminence of the role of Canberra and the Territory as the centre of National Capital functions, and as the symbol of Australian national life and values..
I believe Australian values of a fair go, compassion and remembering the sacrifices of those who gave their lives for us, are not represented in this move to the glorification of war. The major resources, around $500 million, allocated to the proposal should be directed to assistance to veterans or to other National institutions in need, such as the National Archives and National Film and Sound Archives, for preservation of our history.
The NCP states that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital” (page 17).
The changes to the southern facade of the Memorial, as set out in Main Works Package 1, fail to conserve and enhance the significance of the Memorial site, a matter of significance under the National Capital Plan.
None of these three elements of the development will contribute positively to the overall composition and dignity of the national capital.
Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant
Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant
This consultation cannot properly be considered a genuine consultation as it comes after significant works have already commenced. This would not have occurred if views of the community were accepted in the ‘early works’ consultation. It was in no way ethical to consider the ‘early works’ separate to the complete project. The Bean building extension and Central Energy Plant works should be rejected as they are not in accordance with the National Capital Plan.
Commemorative Aspect of the War Memorial
The first function of the Australian War Memorial (Section 5 (1) (a)) is “to maintain and develop the national memorial referred to in subsection 6(1) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 as a national memorial of Australians who have died: (i) on or as a result of active service; or (ii) as a result of any war or warlike operations in which Australians have been on active service;..”
It is clear from this that the War Memorial should retain as its essence, respect for and commemoration of our war dead.
The current development proposal does not do this, but rather will change the nature of the Australian War Memorial into a giant exhibition of large military equipment. Aircraft of various kinds including an F111, components from naval ships, Bushmaster vehicles, light armoured vehicles, a helicopter, etc will be displayed. This focus on equipment, particularly large equipment, would change the nature and scale of the War Memorial into perpetuity, from a quiet contemplative, commemorative space into a theme park for the military.
The AWM website states it that it aims “…..to tell Australia’s continuing story of service and sacrifice… Through the eyes of those who have served, we will share the experiences of Australians in conflict …This continuing story will connect the spirit of our past, present and future for generations to come.”
This sounds very much like it will become much more a normalisation and a glorification of war, rather than recognising that war represents absolute misery for those who have experienced it. More than 500 Australian soldiers have committed suicide since 2001 and many others experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This evidence of misery would be the case for all earlier conflicts, such as the Vietnam and Korean wars and WW2. That should be in the minds of people who seek to change the function of the building. This aspect of war has recently been recognised by the agreement by the Government into a Royal Commission into veterans’ suicide. This current development proposal does not accord enough respect to the horrific nature of war or to the veterans who have suffered through war.
I don’t believe the proposed development recognises this primary function of the War Memorial and the effects on the people who have served for Australia. The foundation stone was laid for the Memorial in April 1929 when memories of the terrible carnage of the first World War would still have been raw. I doubt that people then would have envisaged the commemorative nature of the War Memorial being inexorably altered as currently proposed.
The proposal is being done under the requirements of the National Capital Plan (NCP), which exists to ensure that 'Canberra and the Territory are planned and developed in accordance with their national significance.' The key matters of national significance include, inter alia:
The pre-eminence of the role of Canberra and the Territory as the centre of National Capital functions, and as the symbol of Australian national life and values..
I believe Australian values of a fair go, compassion and remembering the sacrifices of those who gave their lives for us, are not represented in this move to the glorification of war. The major resources, around $500 million, allocated to the proposal should be directed to assistance to veterans or to other National institutions in need, such as the National Archives and National Film and Sound Archives, for preservation of our history.
The NCP states that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital” (page 17).
None of these three elements of the development will contribute positively to the overall composition and dignity of the national capital.
This consultation cannot properly be considered a genuine consultation as it comes after significant works have already commenced. This would not have occurred if views of the community were accepted in the ‘early works’ consultation. It was in no way ethical to consider the ‘early works’ separate to the complete project. The Bean building extension and Central Energy Plant works should be rejected as they are not in accordance with the National Capital Plan.
Commemorative Aspect of the War Memorial
The first function of the Australian War Memorial (Section 5 (1) (a)) is “to maintain and develop the national memorial referred to in subsection 6(1) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 as a national memorial of Australians who have died: (i) on or as a result of active service; or (ii) as a result of any war or warlike operations in which Australians have been on active service;..”
It is clear from this that the War Memorial should retain as its essence, respect for and commemoration of our war dead.
The current development proposal does not do this, but rather will change the nature of the Australian War Memorial into a giant exhibition of large military equipment. Aircraft of various kinds including an F111, components from naval ships, Bushmaster vehicles, light armoured vehicles, a helicopter, etc will be displayed. This focus on equipment, particularly large equipment, would change the nature and scale of the War Memorial into perpetuity, from a quiet contemplative, commemorative space into a theme park for the military.
The AWM website states it that it aims “…..to tell Australia’s continuing story of service and sacrifice… Through the eyes of those who have served, we will share the experiences of Australians in conflict …This continuing story will connect the spirit of our past, present and future for generations to come.”
This sounds very much like it will become much more a normalisation and a glorification of war, rather than recognising that war represents absolute misery for those who have experienced it. More than 500 Australian soldiers have committed suicide since 2001 and many others experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This evidence of misery would be the case for all earlier conflicts, such as the Vietnam and Korean wars and WW2. That should be in the minds of people who seek to change the function of the building. This aspect of war has recently been recognised by the agreement by the Government into a Royal Commission into veterans’ suicide. This current development proposal does not accord enough respect to the horrific nature of war or to the veterans who have suffered through war.
I don’t believe the proposed development recognises this primary function of the War Memorial and the effects on the people who have served for Australia. The foundation stone was laid for the Memorial in April 1929 when memories of the terrible carnage of the first World War would still have been raw. I doubt that people then would have envisaged the commemorative nature of the War Memorial being inexorably altered as currently proposed.
The proposal is being done under the requirements of the National Capital Plan (NCP), which exists to ensure that 'Canberra and the Territory are planned and developed in accordance with their national significance.' The key matters of national significance include, inter alia:
The pre-eminence of the role of Canberra and the Territory as the centre of National Capital functions, and as the symbol of Australian national life and values..
I believe Australian values of a fair go, compassion and remembering the sacrifices of those who gave their lives for us, are not represented in this move to the glorification of war. The major resources, around $500 million, allocated to the proposal should be directed to assistance to veterans or to other National institutions in need, such as the National Archives and National Film and Sound Archives, for preservation of our history.
The NCP states that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital” (page 17).
None of these three elements of the development will contribute positively to the overall composition and dignity of the national capital.
Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
The proposed Anzac Hall and Glazed Link are not in accordance with the legislative requirements for the War Memorial, neither do they contribute positively to the ACT’s national capital, therefore the proposal is non-compliant with the National Capital Plan.
Canberra’s role as the symbol of Australian national life and values – an important value in the National Capital Plan – is not well served by the destruction of Anzac Hall (Main Works Package 3), and the other works, which will change the commemorative nature of the War Memorial so that it is much more in line with a war museum than a commemorative space.
The heritage approval given to the project by Minister Sussan Ley was given against the advice of the Australian Heritage Council and apparently against the advice of Departmental heritage experts. The Australian War Memorial is on the National Heritage List, the highest listing there is for a site in Australia apart from World Heritage listing. Such a listing should ensure that any proposed development would be approached with the greatest caution, but this has not been the case. The project is being steamrollered against the opposition of many highly respected organisations as well as a great number of Australians (amongst those who know about it at all).
The Australian Heritage Council wrote on 12 December 2019:
“The works to the Southern Entrance of the War Memorial as currently conceived will detrimentally impact both the original fabric of the building and the experience of visitors who now enter the building through the inspiring entrance to the memorial spaces, as designed by the original architects. The addition of the rear glass atrium will also impact on the original fabric of the building…The demolition of Anzac Hall will remove a significant contributory element of the identified heritage values. In combination, and as acknowledged in the referral documentation, there is likely to be a significant negative impact on the heritage values of this outstanding Australian heritage place.”
It doesn’t make sense to demolish Anzac Hall, a heritage listed and award- winning architecturally designed Hall which is a relatively recent addition to the War Memorial. Anzac Hall is a sensitively designed addition to the War Memorial which does not detract from the War Memorial building proper. As mentioned earlier, the Australian Institute of Architects opposes the proposed project. Photos here on the Architecture Australia website demonstrate the sensitivity and appropriateness of the design. The overwhelming consensus of architects is that its destruction is not warranted.
Are we living in an age when buildings less than 20 years old are considered ‘disposable’? To destroy this Hall would be an environmentally and culturally unjustifiable act. Any replacement construction on this site is likely to dominate, and will change the scale of the War Memorial proper, changing it into a war museum that focuses on equipment of war and in effect, glorifies war.
Commemorative Aspect of the War Memorial
The first function of the Australian War Memorial (Section 5 (1) (a)) is “to maintain and develop the national memorial referred to in subsection 6(1) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 as a national memorial of Australians who have died: (i) on or as a result of active service; or (ii) as a result of any war or warlike operations in which Australians have been on active service;…”
It is clear from this that the War Memorial should retain as its essence, respect for and commemoration of our war dead.
The current development proposal does not do this, but rather will change the nature of the Australian War Memorial into a giant exhibition of large military equipment. Aircraft of various kinds including an F111, components from naval ships, Bushmaster vehicles, light armoured vehicles, a helicopter, etc will be displayed. This focus on equipment, particularly large equipment, would change the nature and scale of the War Memorial into perpetuity, from a quiet contemplative, commemorative space into a theme park for the military.
The AWM website states it that it aims “…..to tell Australia’s continuing story of service and sacrifice… Through the eyes of those who have served, we will share the experiences of Australians in conflict …This continuing story will connect the spirit of our past, present and future for generations to come.”
This sounds very much like it will become much more a normalisation and a glorification of war, rather than recognising that war represents absolute misery for those who have experienced it. More than 500 Australian soldiers have committed suicide since 2001 and many others experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This evidence of misery would be the case for all earlier conflicts, such as the Vietnam and Korean wars and WW2. That should be in the minds of people who seek to change the function of the building. This aspect of war has recently been recognised by the agreement by the Government into a Royal Commission into veterans’ suicide. This current development proposal does not accord enough respect to the horrific nature of war or to the veterans who have suffered through war.
I don’t believe the proposed development recognises this primary function of the War Memorial and the effects on the people who have served for Australia. The foundation stone was laid for the Memorial in April 1929 when memories of the terrible carnage of the first World War would still have been raw. I doubt that people then would have envisaged the commemorative nature of the War Memorial being inexorably altered as currently proposed.
Proposal is not compliant with the National Capital Plan
The proposal is being done under the requirements of the National Capital Plan (NCP), which exists to ensure that 'Canberra and the Territory are planned and developed in accordance with their national significance.' The key matters of national significance include, inter alia:
The pre-eminence of the role of Canberra and the Territory as the centre of National Capital functions, and as the symbol of Australian national life and values..
I believe Australian values of a fair go, compassion and remembering the sacrifices of those who gave their lives for us, are not represented in this move to the glorification of war. The major resources, around $500 million, allocated to the proposal should be directed to assistance to veterans or to other National institutions in need, such as the National Archives and National Film and Sound Archives, for preservation of our history.
The NCP states that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital” (page 17).
None of these three elements of the development will contribute positively to the overall composition and dignity of the national capital.
Consultation Process
This consultation cannot properly be considered a genuine consultation as it comes after significant works have already commenced. This would not have occurred if views of the community were accepted in the ‘early works’ consultation. It was in no way ethical to consider the ‘early works’ separate to the complete project. This project should be rejected.
Opposition to the project is extremely widespread as was demonstrated by an open letter in March 2019 from 83 prominent Australians. Two former AWM Directors have expressed opposition as has the former historian for the War Memorial, Prof Peter Stanley, as well as other former senior staff and senior public servants, as well as numerous ordinary Australians, such as myself.
I understand that when the War Memorial consulted people on the heritage aspects of the proposal, that only 38% were in favour of it. The consultation for the Public Works Committee elicited that around 75% of those consulted, opposed the project. The evidence is that consultation on the proposed development has been inadequate and further, that the views which have been expressed in consultations have not been taken into account.
The process of consultation has been seriously flawed and inadequate, as it has not allowed full consideration of other valid options. Treating our war dead with full respect would mean enabling all Australians to have the opportunity to know what is being planned and giving them sufficient opportunity to have their say. I don’t believe that many Australians do know what is destruction planned for the War Memorial site and crucially that the development will also change the commemorative function of the War Memorial.
The Australian War Memorial is an iconic building, as dear to Australians as the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Opera House. The proposed works will destroy the aesthetics of the building as planned by Walter Burley Griffin and as it is seen from Anzac Avenue and from Parliament House. The National Capital Plan states that developments should show ‘Respect for the key elements of the Griffins’ formally adopted plan for Canberra’ – this development does not do this.
It breaks my heart to think that this proposal may take place, destroying the iconic War Memorial and its commemorative function as we and our forebears, have known it.
I consider that the consultation process should be recommenced and planned so that many more Australians can participate and become aware of the plans to change the War Memorial’s function.
I agree that this submission may be made public.
The proposed Anzac Hall and Glazed Link are not in accordance with the legislative requirements for the War Memorial, neither do they contribute positively to the ACT’s national capital, therefore the proposal is non-compliant with the National Capital Plan.
Canberra’s role as the symbol of Australian national life and values – an important value in the National Capital Plan – is not well served by the destruction of Anzac Hall (Main Works Package 3), and the other works, which will change the commemorative nature of the War Memorial so that it is much more in line with a war museum than a commemorative space.
The heritage approval given to the project by Minister Sussan Ley was given against the advice of the Australian Heritage Council and apparently against the advice of Departmental heritage experts. The Australian War Memorial is on the National Heritage List, the highest listing there is for a site in Australia apart from World Heritage listing. Such a listing should ensure that any proposed development would be approached with the greatest caution, but this has not been the case. The project is being steamrollered against the opposition of many highly respected organisations as well as a great number of Australians (amongst those who know about it at all).
The Australian Heritage Council wrote on 12 December 2019:
“The works to the Southern Entrance of the War Memorial as currently conceived will detrimentally impact both the original fabric of the building and the experience of visitors who now enter the building through the inspiring entrance to the memorial spaces, as designed by the original architects. The addition of the rear glass atrium will also impact on the original fabric of the building…The demolition of Anzac Hall will remove a significant contributory element of the identified heritage values. In combination, and as acknowledged in the referral documentation, there is likely to be a significant negative impact on the heritage values of this outstanding Australian heritage place.”
It doesn’t make sense to demolish Anzac Hall, a heritage listed and award- winning architecturally designed Hall which is a relatively recent addition to the War Memorial. Anzac Hall is a sensitively designed addition to the War Memorial which does not detract from the War Memorial building proper. As mentioned earlier, the Australian Institute of Architects opposes the proposed project. Photos here on the Architecture Australia website demonstrate the sensitivity and appropriateness of the design. The overwhelming consensus of architects is that its destruction is not warranted.
Are we living in an age when buildings less than 20 years old are considered ‘disposable’? To destroy this Hall would be an environmentally and culturally unjustifiable act. Any replacement construction on this site is likely to dominate, and will change the scale of the War Memorial proper, changing it into a war museum that focuses on equipment of war and in effect, glorifies war.
Commemorative Aspect of the War Memorial
The first function of the Australian War Memorial (Section 5 (1) (a)) is “to maintain and develop the national memorial referred to in subsection 6(1) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 as a national memorial of Australians who have died: (i) on or as a result of active service; or (ii) as a result of any war or warlike operations in which Australians have been on active service;…”
It is clear from this that the War Memorial should retain as its essence, respect for and commemoration of our war dead.
The current development proposal does not do this, but rather will change the nature of the Australian War Memorial into a giant exhibition of large military equipment. Aircraft of various kinds including an F111, components from naval ships, Bushmaster vehicles, light armoured vehicles, a helicopter, etc will be displayed. This focus on equipment, particularly large equipment, would change the nature and scale of the War Memorial into perpetuity, from a quiet contemplative, commemorative space into a theme park for the military.
The AWM website states it that it aims “…..to tell Australia’s continuing story of service and sacrifice… Through the eyes of those who have served, we will share the experiences of Australians in conflict …This continuing story will connect the spirit of our past, present and future for generations to come.”
This sounds very much like it will become much more a normalisation and a glorification of war, rather than recognising that war represents absolute misery for those who have experienced it. More than 500 Australian soldiers have committed suicide since 2001 and many others experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This evidence of misery would be the case for all earlier conflicts, such as the Vietnam and Korean wars and WW2. That should be in the minds of people who seek to change the function of the building. This aspect of war has recently been recognised by the agreement by the Government into a Royal Commission into veterans’ suicide. This current development proposal does not accord enough respect to the horrific nature of war or to the veterans who have suffered through war.
I don’t believe the proposed development recognises this primary function of the War Memorial and the effects on the people who have served for Australia. The foundation stone was laid for the Memorial in April 1929 when memories of the terrible carnage of the first World War would still have been raw. I doubt that people then would have envisaged the commemorative nature of the War Memorial being inexorably altered as currently proposed.
Proposal is not compliant with the National Capital Plan
The proposal is being done under the requirements of the National Capital Plan (NCP), which exists to ensure that 'Canberra and the Territory are planned and developed in accordance with their national significance.' The key matters of national significance include, inter alia:
The pre-eminence of the role of Canberra and the Territory as the centre of National Capital functions, and as the symbol of Australian national life and values..
I believe Australian values of a fair go, compassion and remembering the sacrifices of those who gave their lives for us, are not represented in this move to the glorification of war. The major resources, around $500 million, allocated to the proposal should be directed to assistance to veterans or to other National institutions in need, such as the National Archives and National Film and Sound Archives, for preservation of our history.
The NCP states that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital” (page 17).
None of these three elements of the development will contribute positively to the overall composition and dignity of the national capital.
Consultation Process
This consultation cannot properly be considered a genuine consultation as it comes after significant works have already commenced. This would not have occurred if views of the community were accepted in the ‘early works’ consultation. It was in no way ethical to consider the ‘early works’ separate to the complete project. This project should be rejected.
Opposition to the project is extremely widespread as was demonstrated by an open letter in March 2019 from 83 prominent Australians. Two former AWM Directors have expressed opposition as has the former historian for the War Memorial, Prof Peter Stanley, as well as other former senior staff and senior public servants, as well as numerous ordinary Australians, such as myself.
I understand that when the War Memorial consulted people on the heritage aspects of the proposal, that only 38% were in favour of it. The consultation for the Public Works Committee elicited that around 75% of those consulted, opposed the project. The evidence is that consultation on the proposed development has been inadequate and further, that the views which have been expressed in consultations have not been taken into account.
The process of consultation has been seriously flawed and inadequate, as it has not allowed full consideration of other valid options. Treating our war dead with full respect would mean enabling all Australians to have the opportunity to know what is being planned and giving them sufficient opportunity to have their say. I don’t believe that many Australians do know what is destruction planned for the War Memorial site and crucially that the development will also change the commemorative function of the War Memorial.
The Australian War Memorial is an iconic building, as dear to Australians as the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Opera House. The proposed works will destroy the aesthetics of the building as planned by Walter Burley Griffin and as it is seen from Anzac Avenue and from Parliament House. The National Capital Plan states that developments should show ‘Respect for the key elements of the Griffins’ formally adopted plan for Canberra’ – this development does not do this.
It breaks my heart to think that this proposal may take place, destroying the iconic War Memorial and its commemorative function as we and our forebears, have known it.
I consider that the consultation process should be recommenced and planned so that many more Australians can participate and become aware of the plans to change the War Memorial’s function.
I agree that this submission may be made public.