The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: Adrienne ShillingNew 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. The existing Memorial should be a place of reflection and commemoration of the brutality of war, not a stage for major donors notably arms dealers.
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the National War Memorial foisted on them without a widespread and full national debate. Submissions, while useful, are insufficient. 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 the recipients of as much financial and psychological support as possible. To spend $500 million on the proposed re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the continuing suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression. Or to give pause to the general populace that the effects of war are not only immediate but intergenerational, causing severe disruption in the lives of those who serve, their families and their descendants.
The recent shadow cast over this country by the behaviour of some (though obviously not the majority) of the SAS troops in Afghanistan – in a war Australia should never have entered as that country posed no threat to us – should give pause to those who would glorify war activity.
I agree with Paul Daley who, in referring to the increasing mythology and jingoism around Anzac Day and its attendant sentiments, said in 2013:
"There is a lot of money to be made from all of this "Anzackery", as some of Australia's most esteemed, though dissenting, historians and researchers have already named what they fear will be a festival of mythology…" (Word watch: Anzackery - ANU)
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a war memorial should surely be to honour the memory of those who served their country and who died in that service. Most of all it should offer a place of calm reflection on the futility and brutality of war.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death including aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles, drones 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 planned excessive re-development. And as Richard Denniss has observed, these weapons manufacturers “receive acknowledgement in type far bigger and more prominent than those who died for their country….” (Quarterly Essay – Dead right, how neoliberalism ate itself and what comes Next, P 5).
Importantly, the influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict – and leads to massive increases in the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees. And I take this opportunity to note that in the last twenty years, Australian Government policy has generally been opposed to generously accepting and settling a greater number of those asylum seekers and refugees who have fled from some of the countries in whose wars Australia has participated.
IN SUMMARY
I believe this proposed extension to the existing Memorial is nothing more than a “theme park” of war and if allowed to proceed, might as well be advertised thus: “brought to you by our sponsors Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos, proud manufacturers of weapons and logistics for war”. Alternatively, you might label the new extension “Anzackery Hall”.
In light of the above, I cannot understand how the planned expansion will fit within the requirements of Principal Objective One of the National Capital authority, which states:
“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.”
The extension as currently intended should be rejected, re-designed and the new design debated publicly including in the Federal Parliament.
Adrienne Shilling
10 September 2021
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the National War Memorial foisted on them without a widespread and full national debate. Submissions, while useful, are insufficient. 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 the recipients of as much financial and psychological support as possible. To spend $500 million on the proposed re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the continuing suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression. Or to give pause to the general populace that the effects of war are not only immediate but intergenerational, causing severe disruption in the lives of those who serve, their families and their descendants.
The recent shadow cast over this country by the behaviour of some (though obviously not the majority) of the SAS troops in Afghanistan – in a war Australia should never have entered as that country posed no threat to us – should give pause to those who would glorify war activity.
I agree with Paul Daley who, in referring to the increasing mythology and jingoism around Anzac Day and its attendant sentiments, said in 2013:
"There is a lot of money to be made from all of this "Anzackery", as some of Australia's most esteemed, though dissenting, historians and researchers have already named what they fear will be a festival of mythology…" (Word watch: Anzackery - ANU)
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a war memorial should surely be to honour the memory of those who served their country and who died in that service. Most of all it should offer a place of calm reflection on the futility and brutality of war.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death including aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles, drones 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 planned excessive re-development. And as Richard Denniss has observed, these weapons manufacturers “receive acknowledgement in type far bigger and more prominent than those who died for their country….” (Quarterly Essay – Dead right, how neoliberalism ate itself and what comes Next, P 5).
Importantly, the influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict – and leads to massive increases in the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees. And I take this opportunity to note that in the last twenty years, Australian Government policy has generally been opposed to generously accepting and settling a greater number of those asylum seekers and refugees who have fled from some of the countries in whose wars Australia has participated.
IN SUMMARY
I believe this proposed extension to the existing Memorial is nothing more than a “theme park” of war and if allowed to proceed, might as well be advertised thus: “brought to you by our sponsors Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos, proud manufacturers of weapons and logistics for war”. Alternatively, you might label the new extension “Anzackery Hall”.
In light of the above, I cannot understand how the planned expansion will fit within the requirements of Principal Objective One of the National Capital authority, which states:
“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.”
The extension as currently intended should be rejected, re-designed and the new design debated publicly including in the Federal Parliament.
Adrienne Shilling
10 September 2021
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. The existing Memorial should be a place of reflection and commemoration of the brutality of war, not a stage for major donors notably arms dealers.
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the National War Memorial foisted on them without a widespread and full national debate. Submissions, while useful, are insufficient. 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 the recipients of as much financial and psychological support as possible. To spend $500 million on the proposed re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the continuing suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression. Or to give pause to the general populace that the effects of war are not only immediate but intergenerational, causing severe disruption in the lives of those who serve, their families and their descendants.
The recent shadow cast over this country by the behaviour of some (though obviously not the majority) of the SAS troops in Afghanistan – in a war Australia should never have entered as that country posed no threat to us – should give pause to those who would glorify war activity.
I agree with Paul Daley who, in referring to the increasing mythology and jingoism around Anzac Day and its attendant sentiments, said in 2013:
"There is a lot of money to be made from all of this "Anzackery", as some of Australia's most esteemed, though dissenting, historians and researchers have already named what they fear will be a festival of mythology…" (Word watch: Anzackery - ANU)
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a war memorial should surely be to honour the memory of those who served their country and who died in that service. Most of all it should offer a place of calm reflection on the futility and brutality of war.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death including aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles, drones 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 planned excessive re-development. And as Richard Denniss has observed, these weapons manufacturers “receive acknowledgement in type far bigger and more prominent than those who died for their country….” (Quarterly Essay – Dead right, how neoliberalism ate itself and what comes Next, P 5).
Importantly, the influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict – and leads to massive increases in the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees. And I take this opportunity to note that in the last twenty years, Australian Government policy has generally been opposed to generously accepting and settling a greater number of those asylum seekers and refugees who have fled from some of the countries in whose wars Australia has participated.
IN SUMMARY
I believe this proposed extension to the existing Memorial is nothing more than a “theme park” of war and if allowed to proceed, might as well be advertised thus: “brought to you by our sponsors Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos, proud manufacturers of weapons and logistics for war”. Alternatively, you might label the new extension “Anzackery Hall”.
In light of the above, I cannot understand how the planned expansion will fit within the requirements of Principal Objective One of the National Capital authority, which states:
“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.”
The extension as currently intended should be rejected, re-designed and the new design debated publicly including in the Federal Parliament.
Adrienne Shilling
10 September 2021
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the National War Memorial foisted on them without a widespread and full national debate. Submissions, while useful, are insufficient. 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 the recipients of as much financial and psychological support as possible. To spend $500 million on the proposed re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the continuing suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression. Or to give pause to the general populace that the effects of war are not only immediate but intergenerational, causing severe disruption in the lives of those who serve, their families and their descendants.
The recent shadow cast over this country by the behaviour of some (though obviously not the majority) of the SAS troops in Afghanistan – in a war Australia should never have entered as that country posed no threat to us – should give pause to those who would glorify war activity.
I agree with Paul Daley who, in referring to the increasing mythology and jingoism around Anzac Day and its attendant sentiments, said in 2013:
"There is a lot of money to be made from all of this "Anzackery", as some of Australia's most esteemed, though dissenting, historians and researchers have already named what they fear will be a festival of mythology…" (Word watch: Anzackery - ANU)
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a war memorial should surely be to honour the memory of those who served their country and who died in that service. Most of all it should offer a place of calm reflection on the futility and brutality of war.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death including aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles, drones 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 planned excessive re-development. And as Richard Denniss has observed, these weapons manufacturers “receive acknowledgement in type far bigger and more prominent than those who died for their country….” (Quarterly Essay – Dead right, how neoliberalism ate itself and what comes Next, P 5).
Importantly, the influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict – and leads to massive increases in the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees. And I take this opportunity to note that in the last twenty years, Australian Government policy has generally been opposed to generously accepting and settling a greater number of those asylum seekers and refugees who have fled from some of the countries in whose wars Australia has participated.
IN SUMMARY
I believe this proposed extension to the existing Memorial is nothing more than a “theme park” of war and if allowed to proceed, might as well be advertised thus: “brought to you by our sponsors Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos, proud manufacturers of weapons and logistics for war”. Alternatively, you might label the new extension “Anzackery Hall”.
In light of the above, I cannot understand how the planned expansion will fit within the requirements of Principal Objective One of the National Capital authority, which states:
“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.”
The extension as currently intended should be rejected, re-designed and the new design debated publicly including in the Federal Parliament.
Adrienne Shilling
10 September 2021
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. The existing Memorial should be a place of reflection and commemoration of the brutality of war, not a stage for major donors notably arms dealers.
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the National War Memorial foisted on them without a widespread and full national debate. Submissions, while useful, are insufficient. 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 the recipients of as much financial and psychological support as possible. To spend $500 million on the proposed re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the continuing suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression. Or to give pause to the general populace that the effects of war are not only immediate but intergenerational, causing severe disruption in the lives of those who serve, their families and their descendants.
The recent shadow cast over this country by the behaviour of some (though obviously not the majority) of the SAS troops in Afghanistan – in a war Australia should never have entered as that country posed no threat to us – should give pause to those who would glorify war activity.
I agree with Paul Daley who, in referring to the increasing mythology and jingoism around Anzac Day and its attendant sentiments, said in 2013:
"There is a lot of money to be made from all of this "Anzackery", as some of Australia's most esteemed, though dissenting, historians and researchers have already named what they fear will be a festival of mythology…" (Word watch: Anzackery - ANU)
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a war memorial should surely be to honour the memory of those who served their country and who died in that service. Most of all it should offer a place of calm reflection on the futility and brutality of war.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death including aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles, drones 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 planned excessive re-development. And as Richard Denniss has observed, these weapons manufacturers “receive acknowledgement in type far bigger and more prominent than those who died for their country….” (Quarterly Essay – Dead right, how neoliberalism ate itself and what comes Next, P 5).
Importantly, the influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict – and leads to massive increases in the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees. And I take this opportunity to note that in the last twenty years, Australian Government policy has generally been opposed to generously accepting and settling a greater number of those asylum seekers and refugees who have fled from some of the countries in whose wars Australia has participated.
IN SUMMARY
I believe this proposed extension to the existing Memorial is nothing more than a “theme park” of war and if allowed to proceed, might as well be advertised thus: “brought to you by our sponsors Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos, proud manufacturers of weapons and logistics for war”. Alternatively, you might label the new extension “Anzackery Hall”.
In light of the above, I cannot understand how the planned expansion will fit within the requirements of Principal Objective One of the National Capital authority, which states:
“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.”
The extension as currently intended should be rejected, re-designed and the new design debated publicly including in the Federal Parliament.
Adrienne Shilling
10 September 2021
DEBATE
Australians are having an unnecessary expansion of the National War Memorial foisted on them without a widespread and full national debate. Submissions, while useful, are insufficient. 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 the recipients of as much financial and psychological support as possible. To spend $500 million on the proposed re-development is a waste of money. Any “therapeutic role” provided by the Memorial is minimal relative to the continuing suffering of veterans. Visits to the Memorial – or the knowledge that it exists – are unlikely to save lives or dispel depression. Or to give pause to the general populace that the effects of war are not only immediate but intergenerational, causing severe disruption in the lives of those who serve, their families and their descendants.
The recent shadow cast over this country by the behaviour of some (though obviously not the majority) of the SAS troops in Afghanistan – in a war Australia should never have entered as that country posed no threat to us – should give pause to those who would glorify war activity.
I agree with Paul Daley who, in referring to the increasing mythology and jingoism around Anzac Day and its attendant sentiments, said in 2013:
"There is a lot of money to be made from all of this "Anzackery", as some of Australia's most esteemed, though dissenting, historians and researchers have already named what they fear will be a festival of mythology…" (Word watch: Anzackery - ANU)
A SHOWCASE OF ARMS for ARMS TRADERS
The purpose of a war memorial should surely be to honour the memory of those who served their country and who died in that service. Most of all it should offer a place of calm reflection on the futility and brutality of war.
It should not be a place to showcase instruments of death including aeroplanes, helicopters, armoured vehicles, drones 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 planned excessive re-development. And as Richard Denniss has observed, these weapons manufacturers “receive acknowledgement in type far bigger and more prominent than those who died for their country….” (Quarterly Essay – Dead right, how neoliberalism ate itself and what comes Next, P 5).
Importantly, the influence of arms dealers the world over supports the continuation and increase of violent conflict – and leads to massive increases in the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees. And I take this opportunity to note that in the last twenty years, Australian Government policy has generally been opposed to generously accepting and settling a greater number of those asylum seekers and refugees who have fled from some of the countries in whose wars Australia has participated.
IN SUMMARY
I believe this proposed extension to the existing Memorial is nothing more than a “theme park” of war and if allowed to proceed, might as well be advertised thus: “brought to you by our sponsors Lockheed Martin, Thales, BAE Systems, Boeing and Leidos, proud manufacturers of weapons and logistics for war”. Alternatively, you might label the new extension “Anzackery Hall”.
In light of the above, I cannot understand how the planned expansion will fit within the requirements of Principal Objective One of the National Capital authority, which states:
“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.”
The extension as currently intended should be rejected, re-designed and the new design debated publicly including in the Federal Parliament.
Adrienne Shilling
10 September 2021