Back in 2022, news broke that the Australian War Memorial had entered the culture wars with the following announcement:
The War Memorial chair, former Howard government minister Brendan Nelson, revealed the Memorial’s governing council had decided they would have a ‘much broader, a much deeper depiction and presentation of the violence committed against Indigenous people, initially by British, then by pastoralists, then by police, and then by Aboriginal militia’.
This, in my opinion, makes it a fully signed-up member of the Blak Armband Brigade.
An ABC RN Breakfast story reported:
The Australian War Memorial has attracted fierce criticism for its minimal depiction of the frontier wars. Historians and Indigenous leaders have long argued that what occurred in this country was a series of battles and wars – a resistance against colonisation – and the failure to tell that history in the most important institution telling stories of war was a great silencing of truth.
Contrary to some opinion, the primary purpose of the Memorial is not ‘telling stories of war’. It is to honour those thousands of men and women who have given their lives in defence of this country and its values. The storytelling derives from that aim.
At the time I published an article in The Spectator Australia outlining my opposition to what I view as potential desecration.
I started a petition, which is still active, that has over 11,000 signatures.
I wrote letters to Tony Abbott, Brendan Nelson, Gen Simon Stuart (then Chief of Army), VADM Mark Hammond (then CDF), Sen Jim Molan, Greg Melick (then RSL President), Liberal Andrew Hastie, and One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson.
From these, I received three responses: a vaguely supportive letter from Hastie, a polite brush-off from Hammond’s Staff Officer, and a letter from Matt Anderson, the Director of the AWM, that stated inter alia:
‘It is the Memorial’s intention to expand on the depiction and presentation of the violence committed against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that existed prior to the Development project … the Memorial aims to broaden awareness and education through an inclusive presentation of frontier conflicts in a respectful and appropriate way in keeping with our mission and purpose.’
And then, to my shame, I dropped the ball. I went AWOL. And since that time, the proposal has moved on apace.
It was a timely article in Quadrant Online by Robert Hill that had me reporting back for duty. On that note, Quadrant Books has recently published a book of essays edited by Gary Johns and David Barton titled Australian Apartheid – the Aboriginalisation of Australia.
Australia is under attack both from without and from within.
The creeping tribalism that Pauline Hanson – and a majority of voters – so deplores is not only related to indiscriminate and uncontrolled migration. It is also coming at the hands of a handful of Aboriginal activists and their supporters in many levels of corporate and institutional Australia.
The late great Keith Windschuttle first warned us of this in his magisterial work The Break Up of Australia. Since his passing, it is up to all of us to take up the ideological fight.
I contributed a chapter to the new book in which I postulate that the current assault is akin to a guerrilla campaign. This comprises countless actions, some of them superficially benign (for example, the renaming or double naming of cities, the inevitable welcomes to country, and so on) and others very serious such as the Voice to Parliament proposal, ‘Truth Telling’ Commissions, and the cession of more and more of our land to Native Title.
I argue that to succeed in restoring Australia to cultural coherency, we must vehemently oppose and defeat all of these initiatives, large or small, no matter how innocent or well-intended they may appear. It is my concern that, if left to continue, these will inevitably metastasise and weaken our resolve and our ability to fight the more serious incursions.
I would put the War Memorial proposal somewhere in the middle.
Even as it stands, I personally view it as a serious desecration of one of our sacred sites into this category. The ultimate aim, as stated by activists, is for a tomb of an unknown Aboriginal warrior to be installed at the site – probably within the Shrine itself. I believe this would be intolerable to at least 60 per cent of voters.
We must cut out this ‘Frontier Wars’ cancer before it goes any further.
On the AWM front there are three prongs to what I envisage as a counter-insurgency campaign. They are the semantic argument, the legal argument, and the public relations engagement.
Let me deal with the legal argument first because that is potentially the most effective.
It is my opinion that this proposal is contrary to the charter of the Australian War Memorial as expressed in the Australian War Memorial Act of 1980, which replaced preceding Acts including the 1925 Act which established the War Memorial. That Act was specific:
(1)There shall be a Commonwealth Memorial of the Australians who died in the war [defined in the legislation as the ‘war which commenced 4th August 1914].
(2.) The Memorial shall be known as the Australian War Memorial and shall consist of the collection of the war relics of the Commonwealth and such building for the accommodation of those relics as is specified by the Governor-General by notice in the Gazette.
(3.) The war relics of the Commonwealth shall include the relics, records, models, pictures, photographs and other articles which at the commencement of this Act comprise the Australian War Museum and any other such articles, having relation to the war, which are acquired in pursuance of this Act.
The Act was amended in 1952:
2. Section two of the Principal Act is amended –
(a) by inserting before the definition of “the Board” the following definition:–
“‘active service’ means active service in war or in war-like operations by members of the naval, military or air forces of the Commonwealth, or of any naval or military force of the Queen raised in Australia before the establishment of the Commonwealth;”; and
(b) by omitting the definition of “the War”.
3. Section three of the Principal Act is amended–
(a) by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words “died in the war” and inserting in their stead the words “have died on or as a result of active service”;
The current 1980 Act contains provisions which confirm the extension of the Memorial’s remit to other wars, including colonial wars prior to Federation. It states:
Functions of Memorial
(1) The functions of the Memorial are:
(a) to maintain and develop the national memorial referred to in subsection 6(1) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 as a national memorial of Australians who have died:
(i) on or as a result of active service; or
(ii) as a result of any war or warlike operations in which Australians have been on active service;
(b) to develop and maintain, as an integral part of the national memorial referred to in paragraph (a), a national collection of historical material;
(c) to exhibit, or to make available for exhibition by others, historical material from the memorial collection or historical material that is otherwise in the possession of the Memorial;
(d) to conduct, arrange for and assist in research into matters pertaining to Australian military history; and
(e) to disseminate information relating to:
(i) Australian military history;
(ii) the national memorial referred to in paragraph (a);
(iii) the memorial collection; and
(iv) the Memorial and its functions.
Just to be clear, according to the Act, Australian military history means the history of:
Wars and warlike operations in which Australians have been on active service, including the events leading up to, and the aftermath of, such wars and warlike operations; and
The Defence Force.
And:
Defence Force includes any naval or military force of the Crown raised in Australia before the establishment of the Commonwealth.
Which brings me to the semantic argument, which on its own, will be the least productive line of attack, as I have already discovered.
From a 2026 essay on the AWM website:
Today there is wide acceptance that conflict and violence between settlers and Indigenous Australians should be considered war. Historical research continues to highlight the sophisticated martial and political organisational structures of Indigenous Australian nations. Australian military historians have used the term “Frontier Wars” for decades; the Frontier Wars have been incorporated into larger studies of Australian military history in the work of David Horner, Jeffrey Grey, John Connor, Craig Wilcox, Chris Coulthard-Clark and John Coates.
For at least the past 25 years, Australian historians have largely been in agreement that the conflict between Indigenous Australians and settlers and agents of the colonial state was warfare, and should be described as such. War, despite the fact it is seemingly inseparable from human nature and history, has always proved difficult to define. Changing standards and laws, and the emergence of non-state political groups, have all forced changes in the ways we understand warfare. In the case of the Frontier Wars, it is less about updating definitions to fit a changing political climate, and more about revisiting what we thought we knew of the past, and viewing it in a different light.
This war is virtually uncontested among historians…? I’m sure even our most distinguished historian would not go along with that assertion.
Regardless, the point is that terms such as ‘war’ are ubiquitous and are widely used, or misused, to describe a multitude of human activity. Unfortunately, the Act in question does not clearly define ‘war’. It merely refers to ‘war and warlike operations’, which apparently gives activists carte blanche to include frontier conflict in the settlement phase of our national history as ‘war’.
To my knowledge, the War Memorial Council has no mandate or remit to redraft its own charter or Australian military history. While some do not view this foray into the culture wars as a contravention of the Act, others, such as myself, do. Perhaps it is a debate that comes down to the definition of ‘Defence Force’ as ‘any naval or military force of the Crown raised in Australia before the establishment of the Commonwealth’.
But were such forces involved in the alleged ‘Frontier Wars’?
Before Federation, the defence of the Australian colonies was primarily handled by the British Army. Over 30 different British regiments rotated through the colonies to guard convicts, quell uprisings, and enforce colonial law, including the New South Wales Corps (1790-1810), the 73rd Regiment of Foot (1810-1814), the 40th (2nd Somersetshire) Regiment of Foot (1824-1829), the 28th (North Gloucestershire) Regiment of Foot (1835-1842), 50th (Queen’s Own) Regiment of Foot (1866-1869). These units were raised in the United Kingdom and these are the most likely to have been deployed against Aboriginal resistance or brigandage.
In the mid-19th Century, concerns over British troop withdrawals and fears of foreign invasion prompted the colonies to raise their own part-time volunteer and militia forces. They included the New South Wales Volunteer Rifles (1860), the Adelaide Regiment of Volunteer Rifles (1860), the Victorian Scottish Regiment (1898) the Victorian Mounted Rifles (mid-1880s), the Australian Regiment (1899-1900). These units, i.e., the ones raised in Australia would not have been deployed against Aborigines. Or certainly not, in any sense that could reasonably be described as a war.
Unless the activists can demonstrate significant involvement of these units in the ‘Colonial Wars’, I view their proposal as being contrary to the Act.
Colonial police forces, including Aboriginal ones, were not ‘military forces’.
If we look at the implicit raison d’être for the Memorial, it is, essentially, to honour those who gave their lives in defence of this nation, its national interests, or its allies. Thus, the heart of the complex is the Shrine itself, which contains the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the Honour Roll of those who died. The museum function is incidental to that aim, but should conform to it.
If the so-called frontier wars were a legitimate example of warfare, as tendentiously argued, then the Aborigines who died in those conflicts were enemy combatants. We should not honour enemy combatants at our national Memorial. We could, if we wish, pay them respect at another location, as the Turkish government of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk did. As we do Japanese POWs at Cowra. But we do not honour them as military heroes of Australia.
It is a small point but, if it is a war, then campaign medals are struck. Where is the evidence that colonial governments, or the British governments, issued medals in relation to these alleged campaigns?
What the British regiments did in Australia during the settlement phase was Aid to the Civil Power. This is a legitimate and ongoing function of the Defence Force but it is not ‘war’ or ‘warlike operations’.
I now turn to the ideological aspect. I would like to argue two reasons why this proposal should not go ahead – one is emotional, the other intellectual.
I find the proposal personally offensive, as do many of the ex-service-people I have spoken to, because I am a Vietnam veteran, and the Memorial has special significance to me. Not because I suffered unduly – indeed I emerged relatively unscathed from the experience. The principal, possibly the sole, purpose of the Memorial, is to honour the memory of the thousands of Australian men and women who have given their lives in the defence of this nation and its values. And that brings me to the personal dimension.
Those honoured dead have a face and a name to me. John Lee and Bernie Garland graduated from the Royal Military College Duntroon in 1967. That was in my first year at the College and I greatly admired both men. To me, at the age of 18, they seemed so much older and wiser and, at the age of 74, I still strangely think of them that way, although age shall not weary them. I attended both their funerals at the RMC Chapel and the memory of the distress of their young wives stays with me today. Bob Pothof, who graduated in 1968, and John Wheeler, who graduated in 1969, also never made it home. I was closer to John Wheeler than the others because he was only one year ahead of me and his death hit me hard. He was killed just before I arrived in South Vietnam.
And that is why I feel such anger that all Australians, but particularly those – most of whom were volunteers – who lost their lives in the two major conflagrations of the 20th Century, should have their sacrifice diminished by anything that might suggest the nation that they fought for was illegitimate in its conception?
There can be no doubt that atrocities were committed against Aborigines.
But they were isolated incidents.
Many of them were in reprisal for killing settlers or their stock – and no less reprehensible for that.
Where atrocities were committed, they were crimes according to British law. We can argue about how effectively, or not, colonial governments dealt with them but the War Memorial is not the place to do it.
They had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the defence of the nation, they do not form part of our military history and therefore have no place in the Australian War Memorial.
But what about the ‘Colonial Wars’?
There is a new myth, in my view, that has emerged in the last decade or so, and that is that the Aborigines fought a series of sustained wars of resistance.
I believe this story is demonstrably not true. The figure of 100,000 killed in some form of military action is, as I and other see it, totally implausible. The most authoritative database of incidents in which Aborigines were killed in clashes with colonial Australians is maintained at the University of Newcastle. Scores of historians have, over a number of years, scoured the historical record to dredge up every last Aboriginal death they can find. They have documented 416 incidents that reportedly resulted in the death of some 11,000 Aborigines.
Keith Windschuttle, Michael Connor, Scott Seymour, George Brown, Roger Karge, Rod Moran, Robert Hill, and myself (amongst others) have conducted audits of this database and we have all identified serious discrepancies. In most of the incidents reported, the number of Aboriginal deaths has been based on estimates, and they almost always err on the high side.
Regardless of that, even if the figure of 11,000 deaths is correct, how is it possible that this legion of researchers could have missed the other 90,000 deaths?
If this proposal goes ahead it will add to the growing and tiresome collection of concessions we already made – the flags outside every public building in the land (and in our Parliaments), ‘welcome to country’ ceremonies at every public event, the renaming of our towns and landmarks, the grandstanding in Parliament, and mockery of the oath.
By 1918 the new nation of Australia had emerged on the world stage as a nation to be taken seriously. And it was unified as never before.
That unity was forged by 60,000 lives sacrificed in the name of freedom.
Those men were no longer Victorians or Queenslanders. They were Australians.
The AWM was initially established to honour those 60,000 Australians, but now honours the more than 100,000 who have lost their lives in wars to defend this nation, its interests or its allies. The claim that Aboriginal deaths in ‘Frontier Wars’ equals that figure is, in my view, derisory and divisive. It undermines the sanctity of the Anzac sacrifice and fractures the national unity that we once took for granted.
If these alleged ‘Frontier Wars’ are legitimised as part of our military history, what next? Will we see the tomb of The Unknown Aboriginal Warrior?
Let’s nip this in the bud now.
But me writing an article in The Spectator Australia won’t get the job done.
Here is the strategy.
Dark Emu Exposed editor, Roger Karge, amateur historian Robert Hill, and I have formed a committee to progress this as a serious public interest campaign. The campaign will be called Hands off the Australian War Memorial.
In 2022 I launched a change.org petition.
It is still active and has over 11,000 signatures. Can we urge you to sign the petition (if you haven’t already done so) and promulgate it as widely as you possibly can? We want at least 60,000 signatures – to mirror the 60 per cent of people who voted against the Voice.
We have written to the Presidents of the National and State Branches of the RSL seeking their support for this campaign. (Bruce Ruxton would have been out of the blocks like a shot.) If you are an RSL member, I urge you to raise the matter within your Sub-Branch and District Council. And if you are willing to take on a role as RSL State coordinator for this campaign, please make yourself known in the Comments section below.
And we have sought legal advice with a view to a possible court challenge.
The Aboriginalisation of Australia is well advanced because unaccountable bureaucrats simply ignore the will of the people. The only time the Australian people have been consulted was the Voice referendum and that was only thanks to the Constitution. Here is a chance for us to chalk up another win. This is a well-defined target. It is eminently defeatable.
Together, let’s put a stop to this cancer. Let’s tell the elite that No to the Voice means No to all this other nonsense as well.
The post Protecting the Australian War Memorial from the culture wars appeared first on The Spectator Australia.
