War memorial staff takes on feedback

War memorial staff takes on feedback

Since 2018, the Australian War Memorial has engaged in extensive consultation on our Development Project, running our own national program in addition to the consultations connected to three major approval processes.

We have reached more than half-a-million Australians in person, through our website and social media, surveys, community forums, focus groups, public notices and media coverage.

A total of 385 consultation activities have taken place, from meetings with community groups, to nationwide surveys and a national roadshow to every State and Territory.

We have listened, and more than 50 changes have been made to the project.

One of the most important surveys took place in July 2020 when visitors to the Memorial were provided information on the project and asked if they supported it. More than 660 people answered this question.

Remembering they had just visited existing galleries on Afghanistan and peacekeeping, 85 per cent of these visitors said 'yes' the Memorial needs to do more to tell modern service stories and the plans we proposed were appropriate. Only six percent were opposed.

The expansion of the Memorial's galleries to recognise recent conflicts and operations will allow us to tell the untold stories of our servicemen and servicewomen.

Through this once in a generation project, veterans who served, and those still serving, will soon be able to visit the Memorial to share stories of their service and sacrifice with loved ones, and receive the recognition they so richly deserve.

Matt Anderson, director

Australian War Memorial 

Nuclear debacle

Apparently, New South Wales' "Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation must be in the business of medicine production and research, not long-term waste management" (Helen Griffiths, Chief Nuclear Officer, ANSTO, June 10). Why would that be so?

Is it being suggested that their own nuclear "bad science" claim has been false?

Does ANSTO finally admit that "to pack NAW once and never need to look at it again" (for example deep underground permanent storage) to intentionally limit nuclear estimates, that apparent earlier "world's best NAW management" science has never actually been true.

How can that "once and for extremely long time 'safe' NAW packaging" ever be so time-consuming for professional nuclear experts who are legislated to be without any accountability to them specifically, whatsoever anyway, regardless?

Anything nuclear proves to be a debacle, over and over again, endlessly limiting quality-of-life opportunities for many centuries to come.

Sebastian Tops

Port Lincoln