War Memorial to update Roberts-Smith panels but display will remain

The Australian War Memorial will update the text accompanying its displays about Ben Roberts-Smith after the former soldier lost his bid to overturn a landmark decision that found he committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

But a sensitive debate over how the institution acknowledges the behaviour of some Australian special forces soldiers in Afghanistan will continue, with Roberts-Smith seeking to challenge in the High Court Friday’s judgment that upheld the findings of the original defamation trial.

Ben Roberts-Smith outside the Federal Court this month.Credit: Sam Mooy

The Full Court of the Federal Court unanimously dismissed Roberts-Smith’s appeal on Friday, saying there was sufficient evidence to support findings that the decorated soldier was complicit in the murder of four unarmed prisoners while deployed in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012. The allegations were first reported by this masthead.

Australian War Memorial chair Kim Beazley said the organisation was still discussing its approach to displays featuring Roberts-Smith. “But wording will be altered to reflect the decision,” he said on Sunday.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not weigh in when asked whether the Australian War Memorial should remove references to Roberts-Smith given the court outcome.

The text panel next to Roberts-Smith’s uniform as displayed this month.

“I have no comments on those matters. I know there’s been legal matters taking place between various media organisations. I haven’t commented before and I won’t comment after,” he said on Sunday.

Roberts-Smith’s uniform is displayed at the entrance of the Hall of Valour in the upgraded Australian War Memorial, which is still undergoing renovations and set to fully reopen in 2028.

The text panel next to it introduces Roberts-Smith as a two-metre tall “imposing figure on the battlefield” who was deployed to Afghanistan six times. It describes why he was awarded the Victoria Cross and says he is “Australia’s most highly decorated combat soldier from the conflict”.

It then says: “Accounts of alleged misconduct by a small number of Australian Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan began appearing in the media from late 2016.

“Claims were later heard in a civil defamation case brought by Roberts-Smith against media outlets and journalists. In June 2023 a Federal Court Judge determined that there was ‘substantial truth’ to the allegations that Roberts-Smith had been involved and complicit in unlawful killings in Afghanistan. Roberts-Smith has appealed this decision.

“Roberts-Smith has not been charged with any offence under criminal law.”

Two paintings of Roberts-Smith, by artist Michael Zavros, are not displayed as the museum upgrades its Middle East conflict gallery, which will open this year, according to signage at the museum. The new gallery is expected to acknowledge the 2020 Brereton inquiry into alleged war crimes by Australia’s special forces.

Zavros has indicated his desire for the portraits of Roberts-Smith to remain: “I never think art should ever be removed – I think it should be contextualised over time, and these paintings have become history paintings now,” he said after the original defamation judgment in 2023.

But the War Memorial’s former head historian, Professor Peter Stanley, said he did not think the paintings should be displayed again. He said the memorial had so far not given an honest representation about Roberts-Smith’s conduct as well as the broader findings of the Brereton report.

“The memorial doesn’t usually disclose its plans but when the Brereton report was released, the director Matt Anderson did say he thought the subject of alleged war crimes should be aired in the memorial. We can expect that war crimes will not be ignored. The question is how openly and honestly that distressing subject will be examined and interpreted,” he said.

“There would surely be protracted and earnest discussions about how much they will have to disclose. My preference would be that it is dealt with openly, because this is an aspect of war. But the memorial increasingly sees itself as the guardian of Anzac, and it feels embarrassed at having to confront this fact.”

Stanley said the text panel next to Roberts-Smith’s uniform was insufficient. “While Roberts-Smith’s heroism merited the award of a VC, his complicity in the deaths of four civilians – a judicial finding confirmed by the failure of his recent appeal – obliges the memorial to also make that clear in the interpretative panel accompanying his uniform,” he said.

The memorial will have to balance this push for greater transparency with the view of veterans who do not think it should make substantial changes until Roberts-Smith’s legal avenues are exhausted.

“Given Ben Roberts-Smith is taking his appeal to the High Court, the War Memorial should wait until that is final before making a decision,” said one former officer, who requested to remain anonymous given the sensitivities of the public debate.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.