The Australian War Memorial has a history of quietly, almost apologetically, announcing changes in direction. Except, of course, when it opens parts of its $550m Big Build.
What the submission says
This post analyses the Memorial's submission to the current inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (JSCATSIA) into racism against First Nations people. Here are the key points from the submission, along with Defending Country's comments:
Work is under way on 'a revived Frontier Wars exhibition' with a focus on 'warlike actions' between Crown forces and Aboriginal people' which is 'a small piece of a much larger story'. (If that means the Memorial is looking at battles but not at massacres that would be as incongruous as a museum/memorial portraying Gaza street fighting between the Israeli Defence Force and Hamas, but ignoring the mass deaths of civilians. Or commemorating Allied deaths in World War but ignoring the Holocaust - which the Memorial does not.) The submission goes on to describe how content decisions will be made, including consultation with First Nations people and historians, and notes rightly that other institutions have a role to play in telling the stories (paras 5, 9 and 10).
The Memorial's approach will reflect academic research that some precolonial conflict 'equated to warfare and could be termed war'. There were also crimes, including murder. 'The current AWM Council Chair has described the Memorial approach as depicting "the dignity of resistance". The overall sentiment of the gallery should not be a story of victimhood. As appropriate to the Australian War Memorial, we will tell the stories of war fighters and of organised resistance built from centuries of a culture of defending country.' (Defending Country's comment in parentheses above applies here as well.) (para 7)
Australian (Frontier) Wars content will be part of the Pre-1914 galleries: '[t]he 408 m2 is split in two areas ... with one of those spaces dedicated to the Frontier Wars'. There are timing points out to mid-2028 (para 8). (This is what we have heard before - pretty much - but it does not specify that the two areas are to be equal in size.)
The Memorial's treatment of the Australian (Frontier) Wars 'is an important step in reconciliation in Australia'. There is a 'vital role that reconciliation can play in healing and stimulating important conversations' and 'this work is important and for many will go some of the way to addressing past racism, hate and violence towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people' (paras 4 and 10).
The submission mentions 'the presence of frontier violence representations ... since at least 1986' in the Memorial's galleries (para 3) and quotes the Memorial Council's August 2022 determination (para 5). (Defending Country says, as it has previously, that the first reference overstates the degree of representation, while the second glosses over the qualifications in the determination. We can leave these points aside in the context of the positive tone of the rest of the submission.)
Why is the Memorial so nervous?
Why is the Memorial so careful in its public statements about how it intends to handle the Australian (Frontier) Wars? The final paragraph of Director Anderson's submission letter gives a clue: 'We are under no illusions; this work will be challenging. We understand that regardless of what we put in our galleries, print in our publications/website or host in public programs, it will be too much for some and not enough for others.'
So it has been and is likely to continue. Defending Country's analysis of the period after the August 2022 Council determination on the Australian Wars shows Opposition politicians, the then RSL National President, and Quadrant magazine contributors lobbing mortars and the Memorial retreating for a while (and playing funny buggers with FOI). From early 2023, new Memorial Council Chair Kim Beazley started strongly with calls for substantial space in a separate gallery, depicting the 'dignity of resistance'. (Two legs of that 'trifecta' are home; the Memorial submission shows the dignity of resistance is still to complete the course.) The Memorial has lost some skin since with an Auditor-General's report and a scathing ABC Four Corners show on the Big Build, in trying to steer a middle path on Ben Roberts-Smith, and through continuing criticism of its receipt of donations from arms companies.
Perhaps we can understand the Memorial's wariness on potentially controversial matters. There is another way, however, on the Australian Wars. A former artillery man of Defending Country's acquaintance suggested 'up the guts with bags of smoke' was often a useful tactic. General Monash at Le Hamel in 1918 sorted out the Germans in a well-planned 90 minutes. Defending Country has called more than once for 'firm and brave' actions and decisions from the Memorial on the Australian Wars. It's worth a try, surely? The public support following firm and brave action on the Australian Wars might well outweigh Quadrant, the more rusted-on RSL folk, Barnaby Joyce, and (probably) Pauline Hanson.
The Memorial has made progress on the Australian Wars but it has been painfully slow, inconsistent, poorly publicised or acknowledged, and showing a reluctance to engage with constructive critics. The posts listed below tell much of the recent story. To cite just one example, surely the change of direction evident in the Memorial's submission to JSCATSIA of 29 May, its remarks at Senate Estimates on 2 June, and a letter to a federal MP from Minister Keogh's office early in June (in pretty much the same words as the Memorial's submission of 29 May) justified a formal public announcement, perhaps a media release, flagging this new direction for the Memorial?
The Memorial put out exactly nil media releases between 28 April (Anzac Day Dawn Service) and 23 June (Anzac Hall opening). The Director's letter of 29 May was published (as submission No. 581) on the JSCATSIA website on 24 June 2026. Once the Memorial's submission was published by JSCATSIA there was no protocol barrier to a media release drawing attention to that submission and related matters. Dead silence.
Modesty and diffidence do not become the Memorial. They detract from our ability to take seriously its pronouncements on the Australian Wars.
The JSCATSIA inquiry has received 626 submissions, is holding public inquiries until 7 August and is due to report in September.
Earlier posts on the Memorial's actions and statements relevant to the Australian Wars:
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/australian-wars-we-all-should-help-the-war-memorial-build-on-this-promising-start
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/memorial-sidles-quietly-towards-a-change-on-the-australian-wars---or-does-it
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/defending-country-op-ed (Peter Stanley and David Stephens published in Canberra Times 29 May, headed 'Our war memorials tell a sanitised and incomplete story')
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/baby-steps-really-doesnt-cut-it-recent-anzac-media-coverage
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/missing-in-action-australian-wars-policy-not-mentioned-in-war-memorials-key-documents
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/reading-the-australian-wars-tea-leaves-at-the-war-memorial-we-shouldnt-have-to-do-this-
Picture credit: view of the Parade Ground and Stone of Remembrance at the Memorial from the new front steps, December 2024 (supplied).
We welcome a response from the Memorial and will publish it without amendment, taking account of our Moderation Policy.
The Australian War Memorial has a history of quietly, almost apologetically, announcing changes in direction. Except, of course, when it opens parts of its $550m Big Build.
What the submission says
This post analyses the Memorial's submission to the current inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (JSCATSIA) into racism against First Nations people. Here are the key points from the submission, along with Defending Country's comments:
Work is under way on 'a revived Frontier Wars exhibition' with a focus on 'warlike actions' between Crown forces and Aboriginal people' which is 'a small piece of a much larger story'. (If that means the Memorial is looking at battles but not at massacres that would be as incongruous as a museum/memorial portraying Gaza street fighting between the Israeli Defence Force and Hamas, but ignoring the mass deaths of civilians. Or commemorating Allied deaths in World War but ignoring the Holocaust - which the Memorial does not.) The submission goes on to describe how content decisions will be made, including consultation with First Nations people and historians, and notes rightly that other institutions have a role to play in telling the stories (paras 5, 9 and 10).
The Memorial's approach will reflect academic research that some precolonial conflict 'equated to warfare and could be termed war'. There were also crimes, including murder. 'The current AWM Council Chair has described the Memorial approach as depicting "the dignity of resistance". The overall sentiment of the gallery should not be a story of victimhood. As appropriate to the Australian War Memorial, we will tell the stories of war fighters and of organised resistance built from centuries of a culture of defending country.' (Defending Country's comment in parentheses above applies here as well.) (para 7)
Australian (Frontier) Wars content will be part of the Pre-1914 galleries: '[t]he 408 m2 is split in two areas ... with one of those spaces dedicated to the Frontier Wars'. There are timing points out to mid-2028 (para 8). (This is what we have heard before - pretty much LINK - but it does that specify that the two areas are to be equal in size.)
The Memorial's treatment of the Australian (Frontier) Wars 'is an important step in reconciliation in Australia'. There is a 'vital role that reconciliation can play in healing and stimulating important conversations' and 'this work is important and for many will go some of the way to addressing past racism, hate and violence towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people' (paras 4 and 10).
The submission mentions 'the presence of frontier violence representations ... since at least 1986' in the Memorial's galleries (para 3) and quotes the Memorial Council's August 2022 determination (para 5). (Defending Country says, as it has previously, that the first reference overstates the degree of representation, while the second glosses over the qualifications in the determination LINK. We can leave these points aside in the context of the positive tone of the rest of the submission.)
Why is the Memorial so nervous?
Why is the Memorial so careful in its public statements about how it intends to handle the Australian (Frontier) Wars? The final paragraph of Director Anderson's submission letter gives a clue: 'We are under no illusions; this work will be challenging. We understand that regardless of what we put in our galleries, print in our publications/website or host in public programs, it will be too much for some and not enough for others.'
So it has been and is likely to continue. Defending Country's analysis of the period after the August 2022 Council determination shows Opposition politicians, the then RSL National President, and Quadrant magazine contributors lobbing mortars and the Memorial retreating for a while (and playing funny buggers with FOI). From early 2023, new Memorial Council Chair Kim Beazley started strongly with calls for substantial space in a separate gallery, depicting the 'dignity of resistance'. (Two legs of that 'trifecta' are home; the Memorial submission shows the dignity of resistance is still to complete the course.) The Memorial has lost some skin since with an Auditor-General's report and a scathing ABC Four Corners show on the Big Build, in trying to steer a middle path on Ben Roberts-Smith, and continuing criticism of its receipt of donations from arms companies.
Perhaps we can understand the Memorial's wariness on potentially controversial matters. There is another way, however, on the Australian Wars. A former artillery man of Defending Country's acquaintance suggested 'up the guts with bags of smoke' was often a useful tactic. General Monash at Le Hamel in 1918 sorted out the Germans in a well-planned 90 minutes. Defending Country has called more than once for 'firm and brave' actions and decisions from the Memorial on the Australian Wars. It's worth a try, surely? The public support following firm and brave action on the Austrslian Wars might well outweigh Quadrant, the more rusted-on RSL folk, Barnaby Joyce, and (probably) Pauline Hanson.
The Memorial has made progress on the Australian Wars but it has been painfully slow, inconsistently publicised or even acknowledged, and showing a reluctance to engage with constructive critics . The posts listed below tell much of the recent story. To cite just one example, surely the change of direction evident in the Memorial's submission to JSCATSIA of 29 May, its remarks at Senate Estimates on 2 June LINK, and a letter to a federal MP from Minister Keogh's office early in June (in pretty much the same words as the Memorial's submission of 29 May) justified a formal public announcement, perhaps a media release, flagging this new direction for the Memorial?
The Memorial put out exactly nil media releases between 28 April (Anzac Day Dawn Service) and 23 June (Anzac Hall opening). The Director's letter of 29 May was published (as submission No. 581) on the JSCATSIA website on 24 June 2026. Once the Memorial's submission was published by JSCATSIA there was no protocol barrier to a media release drawing attention to that submission and related matters.
Modesty and diffidence do not become the Memorial. They detract from our ability to take seriously its pronouncements on the Australian Wars.
The JSCATSIA inquiry has received 626 submissions, is holding public inquiries until 7 August and is due to report in September.
Earlier posts on the Memorial's actions and statements relevant to the Australian Wars:
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/australian-wars-we-all-should-help-the-war-memorial-build-on-this-promising-start
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/memorial-sidles-quietly-towards-a-change-on-the-australian-wars---or-does-it
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/defending-country-op-ed (Peter Stanley and David Stephens published in Canberra Times 29 May, headed 'Our war memorials tell a sanitised and incomplete story')
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/baby-steps-really-doesnt-cut-it-recent-anzac-media-coverage
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/missing-in-action-australian-wars-policy-not-mentioned-in-war-memorials-key-documents
https://www.defendingcountry.au/news/reading-the-australian-wars-tea-leaves-at-the-war-memorial-we-shouldnt-have-to-do-this-
Picture credit: view of the Parade Ground and Stone of Remembrance at the Memorial from the new front steps, December 2024 (supplied).
We welcome a response from the Memorial and will publish it without amendment, taking account of our Moderation Policy.
More from
General
category
