ANALYSIS
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The self-taught history buff in Brendan Nelson must be all too aware of legacy.
He's secured his own for the Australian War Memorial, leaving a place transformed and readying for more monumental change.
Dr Nelson will depart in December in the earliest stages of the nine-year, $498 million expansion. He leaves the project unprotected by its greatest advocate, but the decision signals his confidence it no longer needs him.
His advocacy could have been useful should economic headwinds grow and test the government's commitment. Dr Nelson may have judged the mere chance of such a turn of events didn't justify another term on the job, and that he'd done his part anyway.
The job description laid out for Dr Nelson's successor by Veterans Minister Darren Chester on Thursday is like a mirror to the departing memorial chief.
They need not be former military, but should have "empathy and a great deal of commitment to telling the story of Australian servicemen and women".
Dr Nelson has been a controversial figure within Canberra, but no one can deny him these qualities.
The job ad is also a reminder the former Liberal leader and diplomat has reshaped the director's role.
He's been an advocate for the memorial, but also a salesman of the smoothest quality.
Dr Nelson was a masterful performer at Senate estimates. Dazzled Coalition and Labor senators barely asked him a hard question at a recent hearing on one of the largest government-funded capital works programs in Canberra for many years.
He was well across his brief and could disarm with his grasp of detail. His passion for history, veterans and the memorial was real.
From the beginning of his tenure, he employed anecdote to back his points, relating how families and veterans had responded to the war memorial. These stories were powerful, and Dr Nelson used them to explain his vision.
He was well across his brief and could disarm with his grasp of detail. His passion for history, veterans and the memorial was real.
His style put many off, but it worked. While he's expressed dislike for the games of politics, his time in that world equipped him for his personal mission and the lobbying it needed.
Could anyone else have secured the bipartisan support for an outlay half that of the final bill for the permanent Parliament House, against a backdrop of government restraint and as other national institutions starved?
Dr Nelson used his skills to carve out new funding sources elsewhere, too. Donations were $1 million and sponsorships $1.5 million the year before he started. In the last fiscal year before his departure, the memorial received $6.7 million from donors and sponsors combined.
Like other shifts he made at the memorial, this one has raised debate about the role and character of one of Australia's most revered institutions. The war memorial's use of funds from weapons manufacturers has raised good questions, but the director is unapologetic.
In fact, the memorial found itself in the middle of several cultural debates during Dr Nelson's tenure. He's fended off criticism that its expansion is unjustified, and faced calls to recognise colonial conflicts between Europeans and Aboriginal people.
His leadership coincided with the centenary commemorations of World War I. Judging by visitor numbers and Anzac Day attendances, the memorial rose to the occasion.
In the process it's become a more relevant place for Australians.
It's the expansion plans that have made the memorial a target for those who believe the Anzac story has grown to dominate the nation's self-image.
READ MORE:
Dr Nelson took Charles Bean's powerful vision and re-interpreted it, innovating with the projections of World War I soldiers' names on the memorial's facade and the daily Last Post ceremony. The expansion, which looks likely to destroy and rebuild the award-winning Anzac Hall, is the most radical reimagining under his leadership.
Whether Dr Nelson has strayed too far from the original vision will be debated long after he leaves. But right or wrong, the changes showed the memorial is a living project, not a finished one.
It's unfortunate the memorial has become a front in the so-called culture wars, but the broader debate over Dr Nelson's innovations has value.
Not every veteran is happy about the expansion. The passionate resistance of many Canberrans only shows their pride in having the national treasure in their backyard.
The sense of ownership in these groups is an asset for the memorial.
It belongs to the nation. Many feel Dr Nelson made the memorial too much his own. In any case, he won these debates during his term.
His chapter is closed. CVs will stream in to Mr Chester soon. The memorial's next custodian had better be a good project manager.