The report ''Govt to probe war memorials'' (February 4, p6) recommending that a truncated version, down from 20m to 15m, would not ''compete with the scale and importance of the Australian War Memorial''. Unfortunately, that is not the only consideration and it certainly sounds dubious. Why an ad hoc 15 metres, why not 10m or 5m, which would be much more in scale with the present memorials lining Anzac Parade?
Also, what about the fact that the chosen site is not in accordance with the NCA's stated policy of not having war memorials in this area but in the vicinity of the Carillon and on a much smaller scale.
I have written previously on these pages that the National Capital Development Commission, as the designer and constructor of the whole landscaped space from Parliament House to the War Memorial and the interpreter of Griffin's ''Land Axis'' concept, did not intend that the War Memorial/Anzac Parade precinct would ever extend beyond the line of Constitution Avenue.
This intention, which surely is of heritage significance, has been confirmed by the installation of the Australia New Zealand memorial to mark the southern portal of the precinct, to which the twin memorials proposal is embarrassingly disrespectful.
I have also written that an important consideration is that the view from the Parliament House forecourt to the War Memorial frontage should not be interrupted by such an extensive and alien structure. As built, the Land Axis is based on important town planning, architectural and landscape design principles that extend back more than 350 years via Washington (1829) and Vaux-le-Vicomte (1661).
I doubt that the Department of Environment will have taken such matters into account in its heritage assessments. There is an urgent need to make the rest of Australia aware that the depredations of both the commonwealth and territory governments are turning Canberra into crap city.
Tony Powell, Griffith
Over the summer I've often been asked ''what's happening with those appalling lakeside war memorials?'' Now The Canberra Times tells us that the proposal will be the subject of a government ''probe'' (''Govt to probe war memorials'', February 4, p6).
This ''probe'' is made of marshmallow - it is in fact an outrageously flawed ''heritage referral'', submitted by the memorials' proponents, who are now desperately trying to persuade us that they have listened to the overwhelming opposition expressed to the idea.
Last November we saw the Senate's Etched in Stone? report condemn the process of approving these memorials as deeply flawed. You might have thought that the Memorials Development Committee'' would do the decent thing and abandon their divisive and deeply unpopular plan to snaffle a key lakeside site, in the process needlessly (and harmfully) duplicating the War Memorial's commemorative function.
Far from it. The committee has the effrontery to lodge this rambling, incoherent referral rich in historical error and utterly misleading.
The community had only 10 days to respond; now half that time. Independent legal advice shows that the responsible bodies did not comply with statutory procedures when approving this proposal. Despite popular protest and flawed process, the MDC seems to continue brazenly without anyone in authority blowing the whistle.
When will the responsible ministers stop hiding behind bureaucratic process and act to kill this travesty?
Peter Stanley, Lakeside War Memorials Forum, Dickson
BUSH DOCTORS
In her article ''Medical schools fail on bush doctor target'' (January 31, p3), Lisa Cox fails to address the success of the various government programs, including RUSC, which have been implemented to increase the numbers of rural doctors. UNSW, a ''top uni'', has invariably satisfied and often exceeded the seven RUSC criteria. A minimum of 2per cent of places in first year medicine each year are reserved for rural students and since 1988 special criteria have facilitated their entry.
In 2012, 30per cent of new medical students at UNSW are of rural origin. RUSC-supported rural health clubs are the foundation for lifelong peer support for our future country doctors. The medicine curriculum places emphasis on rural and indigenous contexts.
Lesley Forster, UNSW, Wagga Wagga
.gif)
