Submission to the Australian War Memorial

I am supportive of the new southern entrance changes as I can see how they tie into the overall AWM development package that is designed to future-proof the AWM for the foreseeable future. I believe the design is sympathetic to the AWM's frontage and I understand how this new entrance is central to the expansion envisaged. I like the idea of it being where a visit to the AWM will begin and end.

I have one criticism; which is that this fine building is first and foremost a memorial. It is unique that it is also a museum but this is secondary to its chief purpose. My criticism is the use of the front of the original building for the purpose of advertising new gallery displays (banners etc). This, in my opinion, does more to detract from the building than any future structural enhancements. The AWM should be immune from being used to advertise new museum exhibits. There are other means of doing that. I have no issue with the images of former service personnel being projected on the building on the eve of special occasions such as ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day which has always been done in good taste.

The Australian War Memorial is, for want of a better description, a growth industry. Whether it is receiving donations of imagery, records, artifacts or ephemeral items, they all need to be received, registered, conserved, stored and cared for. The volume of donations following the passing of the World War I, World War II, Korean War and even Vietnam War generations has seen many families keen to pass on items associated with their loved one's service resulting in an influx. All of that material needs to processed and housed somewhere by a team of committed individuals. The AWM's workforce requires dedicated work areas to achieve that and it is not unreasonable to think that since the Bean Building was first constructed that it has reached its capacity to house collection items and its workforce.

The research role facilitated by the AWM is a key plank of what it enables Australians interested in their family's military history to do when visiting the site. The AWM's reputation is such that most Australian's have an expectation that it is guarding the past by collecting not only artifacts but the records that enable individual stories to be associated with, or wrapped around them. The archive of records held in the AWM has been available to the public for decades and suitable research rooms equipped with appropriate IT support mechanisms is not an unrealistic expectation if the AWM is to keep in step with the public's expectations.

The destruction of the ANZAC Hall has drawn a good deal of criticism from a cost conscious public who ultimately foot the bill. The building has now been removed and I believe that once the new additions begin to take shape most will be able to view it as a far-sighted, if not popular, decision. I understand that at any one time only seven percent of the AWM's collection is on display at the main building. Big ticket items such as aircraft, military vehicles and artillery pieces have always been popular with the public and that is unlikely to change. Similarly there are specific exhibits such as G-for George (Lancaster bomber) and the midget Japanese submarine that the public expect to always see on display. They alone take up a great deal of real estate and if the AWM is indeed to expand to encompass more recent operations and display big ticket items from them, then it needs to expand. The Glazed link will enable that to happen and the video of what is envisaged appears to be very sensitive to not detracting from the original building, right down to the use of the same type of sandstone.

To not proceed at this point would seem foolhardy noting that the old ANZAC Hall is demolished and bearing in mind the public's expectations concerning the big ticket items they want to see on display. The Glazed link offers a means of giving the public what it wants and and providing an additional large space in which large technology items might be displayed. I suspect when it is all said and done it boils down to 'build it and they will come'. There are naysayers a plenty in Australia to day, as there were in 1973 when the National Gallery of Australia purchased the Jackson Pollock painting Blue Poles - the most controversial art acquisition made by this country. Today, however, few would argue that it was not worthwhile in spite of the misgivings at the time by many.

I am in favour of each of the developments and will be happy to see them come to fruition in the future.