The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: Kirsten AnkerNew Southern Entrance
The works proposed here will improve disability access to the War Memorial and may improve seating arrangements for large events such as ANZAC Day dawn service.
Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant
It was always the intention that the War Memorial would include a research centre and place to house written records, to be accessed by students, researchers or family members of soldiers. It’s appropriate that these records be housed in a purpose-built site.
The construction of the CEP creates an opportunity for generation of renewable energy to provide for the energy needs of the AWM. It therefore “respects environmental values and reflects national concern with the sustainability of Australia’s urban areas” as required by the National Capital Plan.
The construction of the CEP creates an opportunity for generation of renewable energy to provide for the energy needs of the AWM. It therefore “respects environmental values and reflects national concern with the sustainability of Australia’s urban areas” as required by the National Capital Plan.
Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
3. New ANZAC Hall and Glazed Link
The main purpose of this area is to double the area for display of large objects “currently unable to be viewed by the public” . (In fact, the public is currently able to view large objects at the display in Mitchell.) It also provides “a more visitor-friendly connection between the existing main building and the new ANZAC Hall.”
a) Part 3 of the proposed work is inconsistent with the Territory Plan
The National Capital Plan establishes 5 matters of national significance in the planning and development of Canberra and the territory, including:
• 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.
Part 3 of the proposed works is inconsistent with the Territory Plan because the stated purpose for which they are designed does not reflect Australian values.
b) Australians value honouring and revering the war dead
The AWM is primarily a memorial: a place to remember the sacrifice of those who served and the reasons for that sacrifice: our democratic institutions and our beautiful land.
That this was the original intention of parliamentarians, historians and soldiers for whom the Great War had ended just 10 years previously and who therefore had a clear memory of it. It’s clear from the Minutes of Evidence of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Works in 1928, that the War Memorial was to be a place of remembrance and to inspire reverence:
“[Including a library in the design] will have the effect of inducing people to view the place with reverence and will curb any tendency to glorify war…The purpose in our design is to provide that centre of reverence that does not exist elsewhere in Australia...” Charles Edwin Woodrow Beau, Official Historian of the AIF
“…it is not the purpose of this memorial to glorify war in any way. We have set out with the definite intention…to depict, as far as possible, the sufferings and misery of war. I have taken many hundreds of people around the memorial, and that has been the chief impression that most of them have drawn from the display.” Sir Neville Reginald Howes VC, KCB, KCMG Minister for Home and Territories, Minister for Health, Minister in Charge of Repatriation and Chairman of the Board of Management of the Australian War Memorial
The desire that the AWM continue to be primarily a place of remembrance and a background for ceremonial occasions is reflected in the response the Authority has already received in relation to this project. Although a consultation focussed on members and former members of the armed services agreed with a gallery expansion, and a survey asking AWM visitors if they’d like to see more gallery space to cover humanitarian and peacekeeping missions received majority support, neither of these results is a mandate for the large and costly work being proposed.
A more accurate measure of public opinion is derived from the response the Authority received to the Early Works, submissions made to the parliamentary Committee for Public Works (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Public_Works/AustralianWarMemorial/Submissions) , an open letter from the distinguished members of the Medical Association for the Prevention of War (Australia) (https://www.mapw.org.au/australian-militarism/opposition-to-war-memorials-498-million-extension-grows/) , public comments from senior military figures such as Admiral Chris Barrie and former directors of the AWM (https://www.mandurahmail.com.au/story/7326105/one-in-two-australians-think-the-500m-war-memorial-funds-could-be-better-spent/, https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/shameful-ex-directors-oppose-war-memorial-redevelopment-20200713-p55bid) as well as a recent survey by the Australia Institute. The vast majority of these comments strongly oppose the proposed works.
These objections are an accurate reflection of the values of a diverse range of Australians. They strongly oppose the change from a place of reflection and tribute to one of entertainment for tourists.
c) Australians value cultural diversity
During the 10th anniversary of WW1, I was impressed by the beautiful display of hand-knitted poppies in the garden of the AWM. But I was saddened that the project implicitly (though not intentionally) excluded so many Australians. My grandfather died in WW1, leaving a widow and a boy of 5 who suffered that loss deeply and struggled over the ensuing years to live without him. But there was no poppy for my grandfather – he was a German who died in 1918 on the Russian front.
Millions of Australians have relatives who have served in or suffered as the result of war. The AWM, as a symbol of Australian national life and values can no longer tell the story of combat from a single perspective. It cannot display weapons used in recent conflict by the Australian Army, because those weapons are deeply disturbing to people who have returned from service with PTSD or other mental health issues. They are deeply disturbing to people – like the Afghanis we saw in recent weeks flocking to the airport in Kabul – who have fled war-torn countries where weapons such as these were patrolling the streets.
The AWM would no doubt protest that it can’t cater to the whole world in its collection. But the members of the 1928 Parliamentary Committee would have a response: this building is not a war museum. It should be empty of trophies, because they glorify war. It should be empty of all weapons, so that people from Japan and America, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany – all countries can come to one place to mourn for and remember their dead.
The memorials around the world judged the most effective are simple – the Holocaust memorial, The 9/11 memorial, the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC, the Tjentiste Monument, the Neue Wache. Artists struggle to portray the horror and tragedy of war. It’s in our imaginations that we best recall the dead, imagine their suffering and mourn our loss, whatever their country of origin. This was the intention of the designers of the AWM, and these are the values Australians wish to see enshrined in our national building.
d) The proposed works glorify war.
Currently, Australians are interested in a lot of stories about military engagement in recent conflicts. We are deeply concerned by the contents of the Brereton Report; by Australian soldiers who are facing criminal trials for war crimes; by politicians who are interfering with decisions of military command about discipline in the forces; by the chaos and death Australian troops leave behind in Afghanistan as they withdraw. Australians are sceptical of the need for soldiers to “tell their story”. This scepticism deepens when we hear that they need a half-billion-dollar building housing large pieces of military equipment to do it. The tanks, helicopters and planes planned for the space in ANZAC Hall and the Glazed Link won’t tell these stories we need to hear in order to grow as a nation and move towards the ideal of a peaceful world imagined in 1928 by those men who had just been through an horrific war. They are purely a showcase for manufacturers of weapons, and make the AWM into an institution that glorifies war, not one that depicts the sufferings and misery of soldiers and civilians or the complexity of military decision-making.
e) The Proposed Works promote the work of arms manufacturers
The careful design and construction of a museum space tailored to display large military materiel and items of war converts it to a space to glorify war and its instruments and therefore runs counter to deeply held Australian values.
There has been a sustained public outcry at the sponsorship of the AWM and its exhibits by weapons manufacturers. The Biden administration has cancelled arms contract to Saudi Arabia by Boeing and Raytheon because of civilian deaths and humanitarian disaster in Yemen. Australians who are aware of this connection would be deeply distressed by their inclusion in a public display.
f) The proposed works don’t respect people who have been victims of war
The absence of concern for those with psychological injuries from war is counter to the ANZAC spirit and contrary to Australian values.
The AWM is intended to be a place of reverence and contemplation for all Australians. The planned display of weapons excludes large numbers of the population with direct experience of war who re-experience trauma in the presence of these weapons. A memorial that is solely a place of contemplation would, by contrast, be healing and beneficial.
g) Australians value frugality
The greatest part of the discussion of the Parliamentary Committee of 1928 was around cost. The members, reflecting the will of the parliament of the day, were concerned that the cost of the building not exceed £250,000: around $20.7 million in today’s money. Australians continue to value frugality in the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, especially during this time when national debt is at unprecedented levels, businesses are failing due to lockdowns and employment is uncertain.
Australians do not support spending $500,000,000 on a museum. A recent poll by the Australia Institute found that only 13% of respondents supported spending this amount on the AWM expansion.( https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Polling-May-2021-War-Memorial-redevelopment-Web.pdf) This research must be recognised as being decisive: there is no evidence that those polled who expressed support for gallery expansion had been told how much money would be spent. One can be in favour of gallery expansion to include humanitarian and peacekeeping missions but not want to spend half a billion dollars on it.
h) The proposed works are unsustainable
The enormous cost of this project is in sharp contrast with other national museums and cultural events in the ACT which must comply with “efficiency dividends” .( https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-23/national-gallery-australia-to-cut-jobs-union-calls-for-help/12384150) It is unsustainable and therefore inconsistent with the National Capital Plan that an amount of money sufficient to fund cultural works for several years be spent on a single project. The subsequent decline in the cultural life of the National Capital is not consistent with its role as a symbol of Australia’s national life and values.
All museums operate on a budget, and all must make decisions about which items in their collection are included in the current display. A rotation of items is part of the life of museums from the National Gallery in Canberra to the Tate in London. It is unsustainable that the AWM expands its building in order to display its growing collection.
Conclusion
The significant public opposition to the AWM expansion has been a strong indicator that the project runs contrary to Australian values. These values prefer a place of reverence and contemplation in which to reflect on those who died in combat – whatever uniform they wore – and on the importance of remembering the sufferings and misery of war. They oppose the glorification of war and the showcasing of arms manufacturers. They are strongly opposed to the expenditure of large sums of public money on this project, even if it increases the space available for humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.
Because this project is so expensive and stands in sharp contrast to other cultural institutions which must practice “efficiency dividends”, it also offends against the National Capital Plan’s requirement that works reflect national concern with the sustainability of urban areas.
For these reasons, the work on the Glazed Link and New ANZAC Hall cannot proceed.
The main purpose of this area is to double the area for display of large objects “currently unable to be viewed by the public” . (In fact, the public is currently able to view large objects at the display in Mitchell.) It also provides “a more visitor-friendly connection between the existing main building and the new ANZAC Hall.”
a) Part 3 of the proposed work is inconsistent with the Territory Plan
The National Capital Plan establishes 5 matters of national significance in the planning and development of Canberra and the territory, including:
• 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.
Part 3 of the proposed works is inconsistent with the Territory Plan because the stated purpose for which they are designed does not reflect Australian values.
b) Australians value honouring and revering the war dead
The AWM is primarily a memorial: a place to remember the sacrifice of those who served and the reasons for that sacrifice: our democratic institutions and our beautiful land.
That this was the original intention of parliamentarians, historians and soldiers for whom the Great War had ended just 10 years previously and who therefore had a clear memory of it. It’s clear from the Minutes of Evidence of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Works in 1928, that the War Memorial was to be a place of remembrance and to inspire reverence:
“[Including a library in the design] will have the effect of inducing people to view the place with reverence and will curb any tendency to glorify war…The purpose in our design is to provide that centre of reverence that does not exist elsewhere in Australia...” Charles Edwin Woodrow Beau, Official Historian of the AIF
“…it is not the purpose of this memorial to glorify war in any way. We have set out with the definite intention…to depict, as far as possible, the sufferings and misery of war. I have taken many hundreds of people around the memorial, and that has been the chief impression that most of them have drawn from the display.” Sir Neville Reginald Howes VC, KCB, KCMG Minister for Home and Territories, Minister for Health, Minister in Charge of Repatriation and Chairman of the Board of Management of the Australian War Memorial
The desire that the AWM continue to be primarily a place of remembrance and a background for ceremonial occasions is reflected in the response the Authority has already received in relation to this project. Although a consultation focussed on members and former members of the armed services agreed with a gallery expansion, and a survey asking AWM visitors if they’d like to see more gallery space to cover humanitarian and peacekeeping missions received majority support, neither of these results is a mandate for the large and costly work being proposed.
A more accurate measure of public opinion is derived from the response the Authority received to the Early Works, submissions made to the parliamentary Committee for Public Works (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Public_Works/AustralianWarMemorial/Submissions) , an open letter from the distinguished members of the Medical Association for the Prevention of War (Australia) (https://www.mapw.org.au/australian-militarism/opposition-to-war-memorials-498-million-extension-grows/) , public comments from senior military figures such as Admiral Chris Barrie and former directors of the AWM (https://www.mandurahmail.com.au/story/7326105/one-in-two-australians-think-the-500m-war-memorial-funds-could-be-better-spent/, https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/shameful-ex-directors-oppose-war-memorial-redevelopment-20200713-p55bid) as well as a recent survey by the Australia Institute. The vast majority of these comments strongly oppose the proposed works.
These objections are an accurate reflection of the values of a diverse range of Australians. They strongly oppose the change from a place of reflection and tribute to one of entertainment for tourists.
c) Australians value cultural diversity
During the 10th anniversary of WW1, I was impressed by the beautiful display of hand-knitted poppies in the garden of the AWM. But I was saddened that the project implicitly (though not intentionally) excluded so many Australians. My grandfather died in WW1, leaving a widow and a boy of 5 who suffered that loss deeply and struggled over the ensuing years to live without him. But there was no poppy for my grandfather – he was a German who died in 1918 on the Russian front.
Millions of Australians have relatives who have served in or suffered as the result of war. The AWM, as a symbol of Australian national life and values can no longer tell the story of combat from a single perspective. It cannot display weapons used in recent conflict by the Australian Army, because those weapons are deeply disturbing to people who have returned from service with PTSD or other mental health issues. They are deeply disturbing to people – like the Afghanis we saw in recent weeks flocking to the airport in Kabul – who have fled war-torn countries where weapons such as these were patrolling the streets.
The AWM would no doubt protest that it can’t cater to the whole world in its collection. But the members of the 1928 Parliamentary Committee would have a response: this building is not a war museum. It should be empty of trophies, because they glorify war. It should be empty of all weapons, so that people from Japan and America, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany – all countries can come to one place to mourn for and remember their dead.
The memorials around the world judged the most effective are simple – the Holocaust memorial, The 9/11 memorial, the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC, the Tjentiste Monument, the Neue Wache. Artists struggle to portray the horror and tragedy of war. It’s in our imaginations that we best recall the dead, imagine their suffering and mourn our loss, whatever their country of origin. This was the intention of the designers of the AWM, and these are the values Australians wish to see enshrined in our national building.
d) The proposed works glorify war.
Currently, Australians are interested in a lot of stories about military engagement in recent conflicts. We are deeply concerned by the contents of the Brereton Report; by Australian soldiers who are facing criminal trials for war crimes; by politicians who are interfering with decisions of military command about discipline in the forces; by the chaos and death Australian troops leave behind in Afghanistan as they withdraw. Australians are sceptical of the need for soldiers to “tell their story”. This scepticism deepens when we hear that they need a half-billion-dollar building housing large pieces of military equipment to do it. The tanks, helicopters and planes planned for the space in ANZAC Hall and the Glazed Link won’t tell these stories we need to hear in order to grow as a nation and move towards the ideal of a peaceful world imagined in 1928 by those men who had just been through an horrific war. They are purely a showcase for manufacturers of weapons, and make the AWM into an institution that glorifies war, not one that depicts the sufferings and misery of soldiers and civilians or the complexity of military decision-making.
e) The Proposed Works promote the work of arms manufacturers
The careful design and construction of a museum space tailored to display large military materiel and items of war converts it to a space to glorify war and its instruments and therefore runs counter to deeply held Australian values.
There has been a sustained public outcry at the sponsorship of the AWM and its exhibits by weapons manufacturers. The Biden administration has cancelled arms contract to Saudi Arabia by Boeing and Raytheon because of civilian deaths and humanitarian disaster in Yemen. Australians who are aware of this connection would be deeply distressed by their inclusion in a public display.
f) The proposed works don’t respect people who have been victims of war
The absence of concern for those with psychological injuries from war is counter to the ANZAC spirit and contrary to Australian values.
The AWM is intended to be a place of reverence and contemplation for all Australians. The planned display of weapons excludes large numbers of the population with direct experience of war who re-experience trauma in the presence of these weapons. A memorial that is solely a place of contemplation would, by contrast, be healing and beneficial.
g) Australians value frugality
The greatest part of the discussion of the Parliamentary Committee of 1928 was around cost. The members, reflecting the will of the parliament of the day, were concerned that the cost of the building not exceed £250,000: around $20.7 million in today’s money. Australians continue to value frugality in the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, especially during this time when national debt is at unprecedented levels, businesses are failing due to lockdowns and employment is uncertain.
Australians do not support spending $500,000,000 on a museum. A recent poll by the Australia Institute found that only 13% of respondents supported spending this amount on the AWM expansion.( https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Polling-May-2021-War-Memorial-redevelopment-Web.pdf) This research must be recognised as being decisive: there is no evidence that those polled who expressed support for gallery expansion had been told how much money would be spent. One can be in favour of gallery expansion to include humanitarian and peacekeeping missions but not want to spend half a billion dollars on it.
h) The proposed works are unsustainable
The enormous cost of this project is in sharp contrast with other national museums and cultural events in the ACT which must comply with “efficiency dividends” .( https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-23/national-gallery-australia-to-cut-jobs-union-calls-for-help/12384150) It is unsustainable and therefore inconsistent with the National Capital Plan that an amount of money sufficient to fund cultural works for several years be spent on a single project. The subsequent decline in the cultural life of the National Capital is not consistent with its role as a symbol of Australia’s national life and values.
All museums operate on a budget, and all must make decisions about which items in their collection are included in the current display. A rotation of items is part of the life of museums from the National Gallery in Canberra to the Tate in London. It is unsustainable that the AWM expands its building in order to display its growing collection.
Conclusion
The significant public opposition to the AWM expansion has been a strong indicator that the project runs contrary to Australian values. These values prefer a place of reverence and contemplation in which to reflect on those who died in combat – whatever uniform they wore – and on the importance of remembering the sufferings and misery of war. They oppose the glorification of war and the showcasing of arms manufacturers. They are strongly opposed to the expenditure of large sums of public money on this project, even if it increases the space available for humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.
Because this project is so expensive and stands in sharp contrast to other cultural institutions which must practice “efficiency dividends”, it also offends against the National Capital Plan’s requirement that works reflect national concern with the sustainability of urban areas.
For these reasons, the work on the Glazed Link and New ANZAC Hall cannot proceed.