Submission to the Australian War Memorial

I cannot see how this proposal can possibly be allowed under the National Capital Plan. Contrary to the Memorial's claims, the proposed changes will fundamentally change the character of the Memorial's heritage building and will alter irrevocably the relationship of visitors to the Memorial - and for no clear purpose. (Increased visitation is not a valid argument - the Memorial's visitation has been essentially static for a decade or more.) The proposed changes involve making visitors approach the building in a very different way - by what is effectively an underground mall, eliminating the sense of anticipation which visitors have traditionally experienced. It replaces the original modest entrance - one perfectly serviceable - by an inappropriately grandiose entrance, one out of keeping with the humility of the original conception. The proposed new design removes the emphasis from the memorial and directs it to a grand entrance - this is wrong. The National Capital Plan is intended to preserve the recognisable and defining features of the capital, not to simply allow them to be changed at the whim of anyone - especially when no good reason has been advanced.
The changes this proposal will make to the Memorial's facade are not minor, as the proponents claim. As can easily be seen even on its deceptive artist's impressions, the changes radically change the building's appearance. (The fact that in order to make this change the NCA has - in defiance of overwhelming public opposition - approved digging a deep and wide excavation and the destruction of stands of mature trees should alert any organisation sensitive to public opinion that the proponents' plan is undesirable and should be stopped and at least re-considered. That the deceptively named 'preliminary works' were approved at all was a travesty of process - at least this round of consultation could partly retrieve that grave error.
I write with a deep knowledge and appreciation of the Memorial, its history and its significance in and beyond Canberra. I worked for the Memorial from 1980 to 2007, becoming its Principal Historian, and have published on both the Memorial's history and its founder, Charles Bean. I can assure you that this plan does not accord with the intentions of the Memorial's founder, as expressed in his various writings and his testimony to the 1925 Public Works Committee in which he spoke of the Memorial as a 'gem'. This proposal - which you have the power and the opportunity to halt, if you discharge your functions responsibly - will bequeath a garish jewel of Trumpian proportions. It will detract from the Memorial's intentions and destroy its character forever. Those who have proposed it have little understanding of the Memorial's purposes or the ways it achieves them, and have no interest in heeding the expressed wishes of a majority of all independent surveys conducted to test public responses to it. (The Australia Institute's recent independent, representative poll disclosed that just 13% of respondents approved of the expansion, suggesting yet again that the Memorial's own surveys have been skewed or even presented misleadingly.) As an agency responsible to the public you must surely be obliged to take into account that well-documented feeling. That the proposal was instigated by two unelected officials must be counted by the clear opposition expressed to their view. To again dismiss the public opposition to this profound change is to declare that in effect, in our Australia the wishes of a small group of powerful people count for more than the expressed views of many of their fellow citizens, I ask, is that the Australia that the NCA wants to create?
The Memorial is a cherished national institution. In the centenary year of its formal establishment, I implore the NCA to take the opportunity to halt the disastrous and irrevocable changes being made to it, and to enable a proper national debate to occur to decide after widespread consultation whether changes are merited and if so, how they should best be made.

That the NCA has already approved the destruction of a prize-winning building only 20 years old under the deceptively named 'preliminary works' makes this aspect of the consultation a sick joke, like considering a reprieve only after execution. It suggests a staggering contempt for and cynicism toward public consultation which is surely out of keeping with the tenor of public administration as it is or ought to be practised in Australia. (Your website enjoins those lodging submissions to be 'respectful' in our language but the NCA and the Memorial have not been 'respectful' in their conduct, not toward a building supposedly protected by the Memorial's own heritage plan.) Approving the demolition of a building and then opening consultation about it strikes me as about as disrespectful as you could be.) Clearly, it is not feasible to simply re-build Anzac Hall: you may wonder why I describe this process as cynical and contemptuous.
Clearly, the only aspect open to comment is the proposed erection of the otiose 'glazed link' proposed to be erected between the heritage building and the proposed 'new' Anzac Hall. This is an aspect of the proposal which has also been the subject of vociferous opposition. It enables the Memorial to vastly increase display and 'circulation' space, though by doing so it appears likely to transform the character of the Memorial's exhibitions, which presently exist in a complementary relationship to the institution's commemorative areas and function.
Hitherto, the Memorial has, more by accident than intention, got right the balance between its three major functions - commemoration, research and exhibition, fulfilling the founders' aim that enabling research and offering exhibitions fulfils a commemorative purpose. The presence in the original building of these three functions expressed very well that unified approach. The 'glazed link' (and the vast new Anzac Hall) seems highly likely to unbalance that tri-partite balance. The research centre will be separated from the Memorial building, while the display function will become grossly disproportionate, by outweighing the commemorative area, which will not alter. It is as if one leg of a three-legged stool has been lengthened - the stool becomes unstable and will topple.)
The problem is worse because the only viable displays able to be exhibited in the large glazed area will be large technology items - as shown on the architects' impressions. (Conventional museum displays cannot be installed in it for conservation reasons.) This means that for the first time, large technology items - which by themselves tell no strong 'personal stories' - will profoundly change the scale and nature of the Memorial's displays, and for the worse. (The Memorial has always displayed large items, but hitherto in scale and proportion.) This change, which is inherent in the very design proposed, will dramatically alter that balance. Ithas rightly been described as turning the Memorial into a theme park, in which - sadly contrary to the sincere motivations of the proponents - its commemorative character will be compromised.
This is not a matter of detail or emphasis. Australians' identification with their national capital arises from, among other things, the way national institutions reflect and embody national experience and memory - in this case of war. The profound changes which the proposed design for the Memorial's expansion will unwittingly precipitate (though the proponents have been told enough) will inevitably over time dilute that feeling. This will in turn erode the nation's identification with the capital and what it represents. At present, the Memorial expresses an historical experience which resonates with a large minority of the population (that is, the minority with 'Anzac' connections). When the Memorial is increasingly perceived as a theme park with attached memorial - as it increasingly will be if the designs are to be read correctly - then that sense of its relevance and its being cherished will also diminish. This would be a sad and ironic outcome given that the proponents profess to want to enhance the Memorial's relevance.
The unduly large, overwhelming glazed link is not needed. Even in its own terms, it only enables visitors to 'circulate'. (But to where? Presumably back into the two large buildings it sits between.) Its only other possible use is to display pieces of military technology (reportedly multiple examples of them), disrupting the traditional display philosophy, and in a quantity which will not enhance the emotional experience of the great majority of visitors. Those who visit in order to see examples of aircraft or vehicles are actually a minority; likewise, the veterans supposedly to be 'healed' by seeing this equipment may be balanced by those who fear renewed trauma by encountering them: but we don't know the actual balance, because the proponents have only expressed the views of vocal veterans who do think they'd like to see Bushmasters etc..
This is no basis on which to make such major changes to a revered national institution, and those responsible for the interpretation and implementation of the National Capital Plan have the opportunity to heed the grave public reservations expressed over this proposed change and at the very least call a halt to the progress of the main works program.
It is possible that despite having worked in this very institution for 27 years, developing a deep understanding the nature of its collection and the display and interpretation of it that I am wrong. In that case, stopping and having a sensible discussion, involving representatives of the Australian community as a whole and its representatives, will do no harm. But if I am right - and I stand upon the authority my experience confers - then approving this proposal, with all of its consequences for the nation which will ensue, will place the NCA in the position of having abrogated its responsibilities. I know what I'd decide - I'd decide to have a think before committing such an irrevocable step. At the very least, halting the main works will demonstrate that the NCA has learned from the debacle of its failure to heed the expressed views of the overwhelming proportion of respondents who opposed the preliminary works. That failure raised grave concerns about whether the NCA was now even capable of exercising its responsibilities adequately. Please don't make that mistake again. Please halt this disastrous expansion before it is too late.
I am very happy to see the NCA make public this submission in the interests of informed and wide-ranging public debate.
Prof. Peter Stanley, FAHA
UNSW Canberra
Served Australian War Memorial 1980-2007
Member, Heritage Guardians, 2018-21