Submission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works ‘ Project’

I tender the following submission to the Committee outlining my reservations about and objections to the so-called ‘Australian War Memorial Project’; that is, the $498m expansion of the institution’s buildings and proposed associated displays.

Overview The Australian War Memorial’s $498m Redevelopment Project is an unnecessary makeover of a national heritage institution. It is not consistent with the Memorial’s historical objectives. It duplicates other Memorial facilities. It does not represent value for money. It should not proceed.

Background - My Relationship with the Australian War Memorial I am proudly Australian, born in Cairns, Far North . I first visited the Australian War Memorial in 1957, with my parents, as I sought to understand why my grandfather’s brother had not returned from WW1, and was buried in France. I was told of Charles E. W. Bean, Australia's official World War I historian, who conceived a museum memorial to Australian soldiers while observing the 1916 battles in France; of Bean’s envisioned memorial that would not only keep track of and hold records and relics of war, but would also commemorate the Australians who lost their lives fighting for their country.

I had been shown my family’s collection of their ‘relics of war’ – soldiers cigarette holders, and match-box protectors - and my family friend’s scale-model array of Air-Force WW2 aircraft - fashioned from war-shrapnel during lulls between skirmishes – truly personal items which resonate soldiers frontline experience/s. Moreover, Australia’s Returned and Services League of Australia is a great repository of WW1 artefacts displayed in individual clubhouses but it concerns me that these items are not catalogued under a national database or displayed in a manner that is conducive to long term preservation; nor secure from theft. Moreover they are cabinets of misplaced items donated in good faith after ‘grandad’ has entered into a retirement village or died at a considerable distance from home place of enlistment losing/splitting connectivity with various regiments. For me, it is things of this ilk which should be collated and displayed, to depict the soldiers’ war experiences, alongside the few iconic large technology objects (LTO’s) like George the Lancaster bomber, and the Japanese mini-submarine/s, which have an established ‘provenance’. Among those with established provenance, and displayed permanently (at the Memorial, if ‘relinquished’?), should be ‘Mephisto’, the sole surviving German WW1 Tank model A7V, displayed in ANZAC Hall for WW1 centenary commemorations, while on temporary loan from the Queensland Museum, for it is truly “the ultimate soldiers’ collected war artefact/trophy”, in marked contrast to those ‘large technology items’ redundant to current Department of Defence needs, or worse still out-of- date/superseded stock ‘donated’ by the world’s creators and purveyors of ‘weapons of war’, covertly seeking ‘sponsor/ed’ advertising promotion.

So, just where will/should the ‘museum’ aspect of the Australian War Memorial cease?? The allocation of resources (initial and ‘on-going upkeep’) for the museum component seems disproportionate to the Memorial focus on “commemorate the Australians who lost their lives fighting for their country” and also to Bean's view that war should not be glorified, but that those who died fighting for their country should be remembered. Why not use The Treloar Resource Centre site instead??

I was heartened to learn since, that my grandfather’s brother’s grave was located within 341 Busigny Communal Cemetery Ext, Nord, France, 5½ miles SW of Le Cateau, (Busigny is 175Km ENE of Buchy), tended by Australia’s Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I have since appreciated the Australian War Memorial’s 1993 creation of The Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier, to mark the 75th anniversary of the end of World War I, as I held concerns for those relatives whose soldiers had not been located or formally interred.

My recall from my 1957 visit to the Australian War Memorial is of the tall domed chapel-like Hall of Memory, the memorial pool and eternal flame, and above/behind the pool was the Roll of Honour, where I was able to see my relative’s name in the west gallery. At the Memorial’s rear and outdoors, I recall seeing the Lancaster bomber known as G for George, and the damaged pieces of two Japanese Ko-hyoteki class midget submarines, sunk during the 1942 raid on Harbour. On a subsequent visit I appreciated the Anzac Hall development below the sight-lines so as to be unobtrusive to the original architectural concepts, to better house and curate those items of provenance.

I visited the Australian War Memorial most recently in May 2018, approaching it by walking along the Anzac Parade with its memorials, including visiting St John the Baptist Anglican Church, cnr Anzac Parade and Constitution Avenue, while the view up Anzac Parade is to the Australian War Memorial and Mt Mount Ainslie’s summit beyond.

My pedestrian entrance to the Memorial from Anzac Parade was via The Stone of Remembrance, focal point of Anzac Day and Remembrance Day commemorative services. So, to learn that this area is to be disturbed/reconstructed – might it be called desecrated? – by the proposed development is concerning. It is only on looking over one’s shoulder at the Memorial entrance that the ceremonial sight-line axis relationship with the rest of , specifically the ‘old and new’ Parliament House is truly appreciated, and this entrance provided by its architects Emil Sodersten and John Crust must be maintained, to the exclusion of others (aside from adjacent ‘equitable access provision’) – indeed, consideration needs to be given to provision of ‘public transport’ preferentially to the development of further car-parking on-site, within the curtilage, or within even adjacent walking distance of the Memorial.

The Australian War Memorial remains an important place for me. Its importance relies upon it being a Memorial, a place of remembrance and commemoration, not a Museum. The fact that with the initials AWM, Memorial is far too easily erroneously supplanted by ‘Museum’!! I appreciate the establishment of The Treloar Resource Centre, as the Memorial's conservation facility and store for large objects of military technology, including aircraft, vehicles, boats, missiles and guns. It is a suitably easily accessed centre and extensive site should it be considered appropriate to provide public access to contemporary military hardware, military technology, and the means of making war; in appropriately curated displays - the stuff of military museums and theme parks. Concerns about these functions being separated should be allayed by even the briefest survey of other contemporary overseas establishments.

I appreciated the provision of an ‘appropriate memento stocked’ gift shop, and the two coffee shops on site, one overlooking ANZAC Hall, named "The Landing Place", and the other on the east side of the main building, named "Poppy's Cafe". While I consider the Australian War Memorial to be no place for ‘therapeutic milieu’, perhaps a ‘drop-in’ centre, similar to “members’ lounges” at other cultural centres globally, perhaps as adjunct and adjoining “Poppy’s Café” as ‘first-contact’ point for follow-up services for those in need and attending the Memorial would be appropriate.

More recently, I attended the Australian War Memorial’s ‘public consultation’ ‘Community Drop-in’ session at Brisbane’s suburban Coorparoo RSL on Tuesday 10 December 2019, as its sole attendee. It was one of just three locations across Queensland where consultations were held. The Memorial Project staff attending were Mr Tim Wise AWM Redevelopment Project Director (Director at Capital Works Consulting Pty Ltd) and Ms Natasha (surname escapes me – sorry!). The ‘presentation’ comprised a display table with a A3 plan of the Memorial site with its current layout and planned changes, a ‘lap-top computer’ for displaying the videos, a ~15min and short-cut 6min version of the ‘Our Continuing Story’, and conversational discourse with the staff. My impression was that this ‘new project’ which has already got Australian Government funding for $500m seems ‘disproportionate’ - particularly when Tim Wise agreed with me that the support of returned servicemen is grossly inadequate, and a national tragedy; -disproportionate in its focus on ‘glorifying war machines’ not just the Bean envisaged ‘relics’, and it does nothing towards reflecting on the servicemen (now ‘service-persons’ – past, current, and future?) and ‘peacekeepers’ who seem to have a ’diminished’ recognition also. Further, aside from the plaque to indigenous soldiers on the Mount Ainslie Kokoda summit trail, there seems to be little/no recognition of indigenous soldiers, and unlikely/ no recognition of the lives lost in ‘Frontier Wars’ between colonial settlers and “First Nation’s” inhabitants. And yet I recall Bean's view that war should not be glorified, but that those who died fighting for their country should be remembered. So, surely there’s Memorial space for all those who died fighting for their country – currently called “Australia”. Indeed, a little space dedicated to Peace would be appreciated too – or perhaps a mention of such in the daily “The Last Post” ceremony would be a good commencing point?

In Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments for your consideration. I made these based on my experience/s of the Australian War Memorial, engagement with the travelling consultation ‘project staff’, and in the interests of cost-effective use of public money.

John C. Taylor, Sherwood Q 4075.