Submission re the Australian War Memorial Redevelopment Project From: Tim Sullivan,

I am writing to support the proposed redevelopment of the Australian War Memorial (AWM). I was Assistant Director and Branch Head (National Collection) at the AWM from 2013-2017; I have had a long relationship with the AWM as a peer institution over my 30 years in the sector; and a lifelong interested party in the AWM as a descendant of people who have served in the Australian military forces and who have experienced war and armed conflict. The need for the redevelopment The AWM has, over its 78 years, had several extensions to the original Sodersten and Crust building. None have effectively mitigated the difficulties of visitor wayfinding through the building, nor have they addressed the logistical difficulties presented by the original building’s limitations on exhibition space. The spaces are not adequate to: ➢ meet the expectations of contemporary audiences in being able to access objects, exhibitions and other visitor services; ➢ provide essential electrical, digital and mechanical services in exhibition and other visitor spaces in an efficient manner; nor ➢ accommodate the larger objects in the AWM’s collection, nor in adequate numbers of them, especially those from more recent conflicts and operations. The best experiences around the world provide clear and easily accessible, functional spaces to enable the movement and changeover of large technology to support the interpretive programs being offered. Large objects are typically very accessible so that the scale, texture and mass of the objects are part of the visiting experience. Ease of movement is also a critical factor in the conservation of large objects. Wayfinding for visitors has never been properly addressed until the development of the concept that is proposed. In my experience, more than a third of visitors to the AWM do not find Anzac Hall or experience the presentations within it. Too much staff time is absorbed in directing visitors with research inquiries to the Research Centre or Reading Room as navigation to those places is too complex. Likewise, too many visitors do not find the temporary exhibition space which is obscured behind stairs. There are too many choke points where visitors are not presented with clear sight lines to exhibits or programs and so they miss them. Orientation at entry is crucial for all visitors—for those who are making a short visit with a specific objective in mind, or those who are planning an extended visit to see all they can. The current arrangements for orientation are inadequate for that purpose, especially when under pressure because of volume of visitors. School children currently enter through a difficult to find side access rather than through the main entry. Why should that lesser experience be acceptable for young Australians in school groups? They are as entitled to a proper orientation as part of their visiting experience as any other visitor—perhaps even more so. There is a large body of literature on museum practice and visitor studies that shows how important orientation is in the visiting experience, the way in which the visit is remembered, and the depth of learning that is achieved. The AWM staff are constantly intervening to overcome the difficulties the current building presents for visitor orientation. That is not only an inefficient use of staff resources, but is proof every day of the difficulty in visitor wayfinding. That literature also reinforces how important being able to see, to approach, and often touch the real object is for visitors. The real object helps to make tangible the experience of those who created or used the object; to make comparisons between objects and their attributes and use which helps understand the time period, the technology of the time, the efficacy of the object compared with those from other time periods; to share stories and connections with each other through those objects in common; it enables artworks to be seen in real light conditions with their depth and size relative to other works; and visitors appreciate seeing how those objects are conserved and presented, and often, particularly in the case of smaller objects such as documents and photographs, on how to conserve their own examples. And in a world which has become sceptical about what is truth—what is ‘real’—the real object is the physical evidence of our past. The size of the investment The proposed concept represents a long-term solution to the problems the AWM has had to deal with increasingly since it opened in 1942. Even then, it was not big enough to do what it had to do! Extensions were made up to the 1980s to accommodate the exhibition space needed. And that has continued with Anzac Hall as a more recent and inadequate solution to a bigger problem. I would also point the committee to the following examples of major capital investments in the same sector as the AWM to show that the AWM commitment is in keeping with the major long-term investment in cultural institutions in the last 20 years: ➢ Melbourne—a new Museum Victoria at Carlton Gardens (2000); a new Immigration Museum in the old Customs Building (1998); a new NGV at Federation Square (2002); redevelopment of the State Library of Victoria (2004 and 2015) and the Vision 2020 plan started in 2015; a new Science Gallery is underway as part of Melbourne University; and approval has been given for a new Museum of Contemporary Art as part of the NGV in Southbank—both of the latter are major CBD projects; ➢ Brisbane—new Queensland Gallery of Modern Art (2006); new State Library of Queensland (the Millennium Library Project, 2006); there has been major modifications to the Queensland Museum Southbank; new Railway Workshops Museum Ipswich (2002, part of the Queensland Museum network and an adaptive re-use of the Queensland Rail workshops); ➢ —proposed redevelopment on existing site following the redevelopment of the ‘spirit house’ collections storage and now a redeveloped entry, orientation and exhibition spaces; a commitment to a new Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences at ; a new Asian Art wing to NSW Art Gallery Sydney (2003); ➢ Perth—new Western Museum (c. $400 million to open 2020-21); ➢ Canberra—National Museum of Australia (2000); National Portrait Gallery (2005). The AWM’s proposal is the most recent in significant expenditure on new or redeveloped cultural institutions undertaken by state and Commonwealth governments in a relatively short period of time. Relevance and Meaning All public cultural institutions strive to maintain relevance and value to the society that funds them and uses them. That means there must be a commitment to improving public spaces commensurate with contemporary expectations, and the changing nature of our society. A large part of the AWM’s constituency is people—like me—who have a family history associated with voluntary military service in defence of our national sovereignty and our national interests. The recent commemoration of the Centenary of Anzac and its underlying theme of a century of service showed how deeply valued the Memorial is in telling the stories of service and sacrifice by Australians on the global stage. So many people look to the Memorial for association with their family and personal history, for validation of sacrifice, for connection with others who share that history. This is particularly important for those who have served and for whom connection to that experience is so important in helping others understand what they have done and why. It is increasingly evident that the Memorial plays a critical part in the well-being of those who have experienced trauma on military operations. It is important for those constituencies, just as it is for all those who visit, that the Memorial is able to do it well and in ways that are relevant and meaningful. The AWM proposal has minimal impact on its heritage presentation as the bulk of the work will be underground or contained within the current footprint. It can be argued that previous extensions, including Anzac Hall, have had a far larger impact on the heritage aspect of the Sodersten and Crust Memorial than the proposed one. I am bewildered by the assertions that Anzac Hall is of such heritage value that it ought not be removed. By what yardstick is such an evaluation possible? Because the architectural profession gave one of its peers a prize? Whilst it is recognition of good work, it is not a conferring of significance on the building. Surely the client who commissioned that work cannot lose all rights in such a short period of time when it has determined the building is no longer fit for purpose? It is ironic that the creation of Anzac Hall was itself a subject of controversy with heritage experts. Now some of those who advocated for Anzac Hall are as adamant against a development proposal that will address problems Anzac Hall did not fix. I am likewise bewildered by the assertions made that the investment in the AWM is evidence of a ‘militarisation’ of Australia’s history. That one cultural institution could so influence the nation’s historiography is not credible. The AWM was uniquely envisioned as one place where the stories of military service would be told, combining a memorial to commemorate those who lost their lives, with a museum to tell their stories, and an archive where the records of that experience would be kept for public access and research to inform future historiography. This proposed redevelopment is completely consistent with the AWM’s purposes and will enable it to continue to do its work more effectively into the longer-term future. Yours sincerely,

Tim Sullivan 14 June 2020