Australian War Memorial denies frontier wars will be major feature

The Australian War Memorial Council has said colonial wars against Aboriginal people will receive only a ‘modest’ focus compared to traditional wars.

A tinted lithograph depicting the Waterloo Creek massacre in 1838 by the New South Wales Military Mounted Police is held at the Australian War Memorial.

The Australian War Memorial Council has denied that it will create a major permanent feature on colonial wars against Aboriginal people, saying it will be only a “modest” focus compared to traditional wars.

It comes as the National Museum of Australia hit back at claims by the AWM that it had the prime responsibility to tell the story of the frontier wars in which at least 20,000 Aborigines died.

The AWM has been under fire from veterans and the federal opposition after its council chairman Brendan Nelson said it would have “a much broader, much deeper depiction and presentation of the violence committed against Aboriginal people” as part of the $550m expansion of the memorial. This was interpreted by many to mean that the memorial would have a significant permanent focus on the frontier wars for the first time to rival the galleries dedicated to the two world wars and Vietnam.

The move was praised by historians, and Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney said she was “thrilled” the memorial “will be reflecting the true history of this country and the wars that were fought on this land by our people for their land”.

But RSL Australia president Greg Melick said his office had been inundated with phone calls from concerned veterans fearing that the memorial’s focus was changing from the soldiers who fought and died for Australia.

Opposition veterans affairs spokesman Barnaby Joyce said he “opposed any move that could put the Australian War Memorial at the centre of partisan political debate”. However, Dr Nelson played down the extent of the AWM’s plans, saying the expansion of the focus on frontier wars in the enlarged memorial would be only “modest”.

At present, the memorial has only a small display on frontier ­violence against Aborigines by whites from 1788 until 1914.

“In the new galleries we will professionally and sensitively present the story of frontier violence perpetrated against Aboriginal Australians to set the context for their service to and suffering for Australia,” Dr Nelson told The Weekend Australian.

“(But) it will be of modest dimensions. It will also complement the full story of the relationship between the First Australians and Europeans that is the responsibility of the National Museum of Australia.”

Dr Brendan Nelson. Picture: Supplied

Dr Nelson said the memorial needed to adapt to changing public expectations even if it was not the primary institution that should be telling the story of frontier violence.

Mr Melick said it was a story that should primarily be told by the National Museum rather than the War Memorial.

“Have a look at the National Museum of Australia Act where it talks about their responsibility to tell Aboriginal history. Now go and try to find the frontier wars in the National Museum – good luck if you can find it,” he said.

However, National Museum head Mathew Trinca hit back at claims that his museum had ignored the story of frontier violence. “We have been telling the story of frontier conflict and violence in Australia for more than two decades in books, galleries, exhibitions, and online,” he said.

In response to a question about the debate over the War Memorial’s depiction of frontier violence, Dr Trinca said: “Every institution has a part to play in speaking openly and honestly about our past.” He said he did not believe the National Museum had a greater responsibility to tell this story than did the AWM.

Professor Peter Stanley of UNSW Canberra and a former principal historian with the AWM said that if there was only a “modest” expansion of frontier ­violence exhibits it would be an insult to First Nations people.