Australian War Memorial to further change display commemorating Ben Roberts-Smith's Victoria Cross medal
The Australian War Memorial has confirmed it will make changes to its display commemorating Ben Roberts-Smith's Victoria Cross medal, in light of last week's Federal Court ruling.
The full Federal Court in Sydney dismissed the Australian special forces veteran's appeal against his long-running defamation case against Nine Newspapers on Friday.
Mr Roberts-Smith had tried to sue three newspapers over a series of articles published in 2018 detailing allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan, bullying, and domestic violence against a woman in Canberra.
In 2023, a Federal Court judge in Sydney found Mr Roberts-Smith complicit in war crimes on the balance of probabilities.
The justices who dismissed his appeal last week ordered him to pay costs, which were estimated to have cost more than $25 million.
Following the dismissal, Mr Roberts-Smith said he would "immediately" seek a challenge to the decision in the High Court, reiterating his ongoing denial of what he described as "egregious, spiteful allegations".
The Australian War Memorial added information to a plaque commemorating Mr Roberts-Smith's Victoria Cross medal late in 2023 to reflect the Federal Court's findings earlier that year.
The revised text panel, which remains on display at the war memorial, reads in part:
"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."
In a statement to the ABC, Australian War Memorial chairman Kim Beazley confirmed the display would be altered again, but could not provide any further detail about how or when.
"They will obviously reflect the change in circumstances that result from a decision and the fact that other decisions are being made or are yet to be made."
An Australian War Memorial spokesperson said the collection of items relating to Mr Roberts-Smith remained in the memorial's galleries, "displayed with context of the case".
The Australian War Memorial has also removed two portraits of Mr Roberts-Smith from display as part of its $500 million development, which is expected to be completed in 2028.
The pieces are among a collection of more than 300 items that have been taken off display as part of planned gallery works.
"The memorial will display thousands of new objects in an expanded Peacekeeping and Middle East galleries in the new Anzac Hall," the AWM said in 2023.
It's unclear whether the portraits of Mr Roberts-Smith will feature in the new exhibition space when it opens.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
11 minutes ago
- ABC News
Magistrate in Hillcrest jumping castle case to hand down decision
A chapter of the Hillcrest Primary School tragedy may end today, with Magistrate Robert Webster set to hand down his decision in the criminal case, but the story is far from over. It is more than six months since the Devonport Magistrates Court heard evidence in the case against Rosemary Anne Gamble, who is charged with failing in her work health and safety duty over the tragedy on December 16, 2021. Students Zane Mellor, Peter Dodt, Jalailah Jayne-Maree Jones, Addison Stewart, Jye Sheehan, and Chace Harrison died, and three of their classmates were seriously injured when a freak wind tossed a jumping castle across their primary school oval in Devonport in north-west Tasmania. Ms Gamble pleaded not guilty to the charge ahead of a two-week hearing in November. In February, the court heard closing statements from the prosecution and defence lawyers. Some of the victims' family members sat through each day of the hearing, clutching pillows bearing their children's faces and wearing T-shirts printed with their photos. The courtroom was often a scene of tension and heightened emotions as parents' grief, anger and frustration came to the fore. The distressing details and timeline of the tragedy were examined in detail throughout the two-week hearing. The court heard Ms Gamble owned Taz-Zorb, a business that dealt in inflatable amusement devices, and was contracted by the Hillcrest Primary School for its end-of-school-year celebrations on the day of the tragedy. That morning, she and her partner Robert Monte set up their operation on the school's oval, and students began queuing for their turn on the couple's crayon-themed jumping castle. At about 10am, a fierce wind, described by some witnesses as a "mini tornado" and by a weather expert as a "dust devil", swept through the school grounds with devastating effect. It was an otherwise calm and sunny day, and the court heard the couple had used 30cm pegs at four of the castle's eight anchor points to tether it to the ground. The pegs almost immediately failed when the dust devil struck, lifting the castle high into the air. Seven children were inside the castle when it was thrown across the oval, and five of them did not survive their resulting injuries. Another child was waiting in line and died after being struck in the head by the airborne jumping castle blower. The charge alleged Ms Gamble failed to comply with her duty "in a way that exposed the children to a risk of death or serious injury". Crown prosecutor Madeleine Wilson said Ms Gamble failed in several ways to comply with her duty, including by properly failing to anchor the castle to the ground. The Crown also said Ms Gamble had failed to properly train herself or her staff in the proper, safe inflation and operation of the jumping castle. Mr Monte told the court they watched YouTube and taught themselves how to operate the jumping castle after buying it in 2015. "You're f***ing joking," a father said as he stormed out of court during Mr Monte's evidence. Mechanical engineer Roderick McDonald told the court that if star pickets, which were available on the day, had been used at all eight anchor points, the castle would have stayed on the ground. But defence lawyer Chris Dockray SC said it was the defence case that nothing Ms Gamble could have done would have prevented the tragedy on that day, as the dust devil was a freakish and unpredictable weather event. That position was backed in by defence expert witness Professor David Eager from the University of Technology Sydney. "If you hadn't held the event, it wouldn't have happened," he said. During submissions in February, Mr Dockray also targeted Chinese company East Inflatables, the manufacturer of the jumping castle. He said it was East Inflatables' business model to "prey upon people like Ms Gamble" to sell jumping castles. Even if Magistrate Robert Webster does find Ms Gamble guilty, he cannot sentence her to a prison term. The maximum penalty for a category two offence under the Work Health and Safety Act is a $1.5 million fine for a corporation, and a $300,000 fine for an individual conducting a business. If Ms Gamble is found not guilty, she will simply be free to go. But whatever the result, the victims' families will likely soon return to back in court as a coronial inquest is slated to begin once the criminal proceedings conclude. The families also launched a civil class action against the state of Tasmania and Ms Gamble in December last year on the third anniversary of the tragedy. The class action was filed in the Supreme Court of Tasmania by the law firm Maurice Blackburn and alleges the state, as the school's operator, and Taz-Zorb had a duty of care and failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure the children's safety. At the time, principal lawyer Dimi Loannou said the families' grief was a daily experience. "Nothing will erase the suffering or bring back their lost children," she said.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Anthony Albanese faces a novel challenge in Sussan Ley
Anthony Albanese loves a trophy, especially a human one. He prides himself on his various "captain's pick" candidates — good campaigners he has steered into seats. Way back in the Gillard days, he was key in persuading discontented Liberal Peter Slipper to defect. Slipper became an independent and Labor's speaker. The exercise helped the government's numbers, but the bold play didn't end well for Labor or for Slipper. The government was tarnished, and Slipper, relentlessly pursued by the Coalition and mired in controversy, eventually had to quit the speakership. The affair did produce Julia Gillard's famous misogyny speech, however. Now Albanese has another gee-whiz prize — Western Australian Senator Dorinda Cox, who has defected from the Greens. Cox, after being defeated in a bid for Greens deputy leader, approached Labor and the PM drove her course to being accepted into the party. The manoeuvre makes a marginal but insignificant difference to Senate numbers — Labor will still need the Greens to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition. Taking in Cox is a risk, and some in Labor are looking at it askance. The prime minister's embrace of Cox contradicts Labor's argument when its Western Australian senator Fatima Payman defected to become an independent. It said then hers was a Labor seat and she should therefore resign. But this wouldn't be the first time expediency trumped consistency in politics. Cox, who is Indigenous and was spokesperson for First Nations and resources in the last parliament, has been a fierce critic of the extending the North West Shelf gas project, which the government has just announced. Albanese says he is confident she "understands that being a member of the Labor Party means that she will support positions that are made by the Labor Party". She has also faced allegations of treating staff badly. Labor discounts the claims against her, saying they are overblown and a product of Greens factionalism and toxicity. Certainly, she was given a tough time by the hard-left faction represented by deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi. Labor would be wise to ensure Cox feels supported in her new party home. Albanese perhaps calculates that the worst that can happen is there's a blow up and she defects to the crossbench. Labor could shrug and say, she was never really one of us. Snatching a senator from the Greens is particularly satisfying to Albanese because he hates the party so much. Last term, lower house Greens MP Max Chandler-Mather (defeated at the election) really got under his skin. More generally, the Greens held up important legislation, most notably on housing. In the new Senate, Labor will need only the Greens to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition. How new Greens leader Larissa Waters — who replaced Adam Bandt after he lost his seat — handles the party's relationship with the government will be crucial for the more contentious parts of Labor's legislative program. The usually low-key Waters will be under a lot of pressure. The Greens had a bad election, losing three lower house seats. Now they have lost a senator at the start of Waters's watch. Waters conceded on the Serious Danger podcast in late May that Labor had successfully run the narrative of the Greens as blockers. "So, I do think we're going to need to be quite deft in how we handle balance of power in this term, […] People want us to be constructive. They don't just want us to roll over and tick off on any old shit. They want meaningful reforms." Waters will want to pick her fights carefully and also find ways of pursuing the Greens' agenda where the party co-operates. The first deal is likely to be on the government's legislation to increase the tax on those with large superannuation balances, which contains the controversial provision to tax unrealised capital gains. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and her team will confront some of the same problems as the Greens — when to oppose and when to seek to negotiate with the government. For his part, Albanese will have a novel challenge with Ley — what stance to adopt against the first female opposition leader, especially but not only in parliamentary clashes. After facing two alpha-male Liberal leaders, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, a new approach will obviously be necessary. As one Labor man succinctly puts it, "Labor can't monster a woman". There can be no repeat of Albanese, a frontbencher a decade ago in the Shorten opposition, interjecting to urge a female colleague engaged in a stoush with Ley to "smash her". For Ley, trying to deal with the Liberals' multiple difficulties in attracting women voters and candidates must be high on her agenda. Former Liberal federal president Alan Stockdale, one of the three-person group currently running the NSW division of the party, showed himself part of the problem when this week he told the NSW Liberal Women's Council, "The women in this party are so assertive now that we may need some special rules for men to get them pre-selected." Stockdale said later he was being "light-hearted". Tone deaf might be a better term. Ley jumped on him. "There is nothing wrong with being an assertive woman. In fact, I encourage assertive women to join the Liberal Party." The jury is out on whether Ley will be able to make any sort of fist of her near-impossible job. But in the short time she's been leader, she has shown she is willing to be assertive. She emerged from the brief split in the Coalition looking much steadier than Nationals leader David Littleproud, even though she had to persuade her party room to accept the minor party's policy demands. In her frontbench reshuffle, she was willing to wear the inevitable criticism that came with dropping a couple of senior women who had under-performed. As deputy leader, Ley adjusted her style a while before the election, toning down the aggression and sometimes wild attacks, that had characterised her performance earlier in the term. A Liberal source said she found her "line and length". As leader, she will have others, notably deputy Ted O'Brien, to do the head-kicking, giving her room to attempt to develop a positive political persona. Labor leaned into attacking Dutton — never afraid to name him. With Ley, Albanese might adopt the Bob Carr approach of avoiding using his opponent's name. At least until he finds his line and length in dealing with her. Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and chief political correspondent at The Conversation, where this article first appeared.
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
What the US warning on China means for our defence
Sam Hawley: Donald Trump is demanding America's allies massively boost defence spending. His Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, says a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could be imminent. And one of our closest allies, the UK, is rushing to invest billions of dollars in its defence force to make sure it's war-ready. Today Peter Dean from the United States Studies Centre at Sydney Uni, on what that all means for us, and whether our defence force is fit for purpose. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal Land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Peter, we better start with these comments from the US Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, at the Shangri-La meeting in Singapore. He has warned that China poses an imminent threat to Taiwan. Pete Hegseth, US Defense Secretary: To be clear, any attempt by communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world. There's no reason to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real and it could be imminent. We hope not, but it certainly could be. Peter Dean: Yes, so Secretary Hegseth I believe is referring to here is comments made by the Chinese leader Xi Jinping and by other members of the Chinese leadership, where Xi Jinping in particular has said that the Chinese military are prepared to use force and to achieve specific capability goals by the dates of 2027 and the dates of 2029. Pete Hegseth, US Defense Secretary: We know, it's public, that Xi has ordered his military to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027. The PLA is building the military needed to do it, training for it every day and rehearsing for the real deal. Peter Dean: This is about requirements that Xi Jinping has set for the development of the People's Liberation Army and its subsequent Navy and Air Forces as well. So this is about its development of specific capabilities, but also its command and control systems, its ability to conduct exercises and its ability to conduct the types of high-end warfare to undertake, for instance, a strike across the Taiwan Strait. Sam Hawley: So what has China then, Peter, had to say about all of this, that it will imminently attack Taiwan? Peter Dean: Well, I mean, what Xi Jinping has said is that he reserves the right to use force to solve what the Chinese argue is a domestic political issue. They, of course, refer to Taiwan as a rogue state. They don't recognise the democratic system that the Taiwanese people have. And of course, they don't recognise the will of the Taiwanese people, who overwhelmingly identify now as Taiwanese and do not wish to be reunited with the mainland. Sam Hawley: Well, China's foreign ministry does say that the US is overstepping its bounds and stoking flames in the South China Sea in response to those comments from Pete Hegseth. Sam Hawley: Let's consider, Peter, now then China's military build-up and defence spending by Western nations. Now, our Defence Minister, Richard Marles, he also addressed that conference in Singapore, noting that Australia can't rely on the US alone to counter China's military strength in the Indo-Pacific. Richard Marles, Defence Minister: There is no effective balance of power in this region absent the United States, but we cannot leave it to the United States alone. Other countries must contribute to this balance as well, and that includes Australia. Sam Hawley: And he also pointed to that huge military build-up by China. Richard Marles, Defence Minister: What we have seen from China is the single biggest increase in military capability and build-up in a conventional sense by any country since the end of the Second World War. Peter Dean: So I think what Richard Marles is putting out there is basically reaffirming Australia's strategic approach and that this is not just something that we can rely upon the US to do on its own. It doesn't have the requisite levels of capability to respond to China in this way. It must be by a community of nations within the Indo-Pacific. And as a status quo power, Australia and the United States and others are attempting to maintain the free and open Indo-Pacific that we currently have and stop any state from being able to dominate that region and impose a sort of hegemonic control over the Indo-Pacific. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Donald Trump, of course, and Pete Hegseth have urged US allies in the region to increase their defence spending. They want Australia to raise our contribution to 3.5% of GDP, but let's face it, we are nowhere near that at the moment, and that would cost a lot of money, wouldn't it? Peter Dean: Oh, yes. You're looking in the realm of somewhere around $41 billion additional to go into defence spending to raise that level of money. I think what's really key here is GDP as a measure of defence spending has become a bit shorthand in recent decades for sort of commitment towards defending your own country or contributing to collective defence. There is no magical number that the Australian government can get to that would make our country safe. And if you remember way back when Tony Abbott was vying to become Prime Minister, when Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd were running the country, then there was a whole debate about achieving 2% of GDP, which we currently have. Now the debate has moved on to is it 3 or 3.5% of GDP. But of course, as I said, most importantly, this number is being used internationally as a proxy by both the Trump administration, but by other states around the world, relative to an individual state's commitment to both its own sovereignty and security, but also the collective defence of the region it lives in. Sam Hawley: Yeah, well, Anthony Albanese says we will determine our own defence policy. And he notes that Australia is on track to lift defence spending to 2.4% of GDP by 2033-34. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: We're provided an additional $10 billion of investment into defence over the forward estimates. We're continuing to lift up. That adds up to 2.3% of GDP. Sam Hawley: A long way, as we said, to 3.5% that the Americans actually want. But nations like the UK are now moving more quickly, aren't they, Peter? The British leader, Keir Starmer, he has promised to increase annual spending to 3% up from 2.3%. They seem pretty worried in the United Kingdom. Peter Dean: Yeah, look, the UK government has made a firm commitment to move to 2.5% of GDP in the next couple of years and 3% of GDP in the near future. This is off the back of their strategic defence review. News report: Under the AUKUS security pact with Australia and America, 12 new nuclear-powered submarines will be built to protect Britain's waters. Six new munitions factories will be constructed across the UK and thousands of long-range weapons will be manufactured on British soil. Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister: We are moving to warfighting readiness as the central purpose of our armed forces. When we are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, the most effective way to deter them is to be ready. Peter Dean: Particularly in response not only to the war in Ukraine and the threat from Russia, but of course, most recently from the changing posture of the United States under President Donald Trump. And what we can see there is Keir Starmer, along with Emmanuel Macron from France and other key leaders in Europe, are working assiduously hard to provide for greater defence of Europe based on European needs. Sam Hawley: Well, the British leader Keir Starmer says the UK must be ready to fight a war. Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister: A battle-ready, armour-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities equipped for the decades to come. Sam Hawley: What weaponry does he want? Peter Dean: Well, what Keir Starmer has announced is that he wishes the UK military to field a force of at least 7,000 long-range missiles. Now, if you look at what's happening in the war in Ukraine in particular, but also the war in Gaza and the Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, what you've seen is the explosion of the use of long-range precision fires in each of those conflicts. Sam Hawley: Well, the UK plans to pay for all of this by, in part, cutting international aid, just to note that. What's it really worried about then? Is it just Russia or does China come into this as well for the UK? Peter Dean: Look, I think it's both. I mean, what we're seeing is a fundamental changing of the strategic order of the world that we live in. The world is becoming much more dangerous. As our own government has said, we live in the most perilous times. We're seeing the rise of revisionist powers, in particular China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. And of course, the Russian illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine has been really at the centre of this. This is the first time since the end of the Second World War that Europe has seen a large major power conduct a full-on invasion of another state in Europe. That is an ongoing war, as we see today. And it looks like President Trump's efforts at brokering a peace deal are faltering at the moment. So that war is going to continue on. Sam Hawley: And the concern is, of course, that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he has other plans after that, right? Peter Dean: Well, exactly. And Putin, again, I think we need to actually believe what the rhetoric is coming out of some of these leaders from some of these states. I mean, Putin made it very clear in the lead up to the war in Ukraine that he believes that Ukraine shouldn't exist as a sovereign state, that it belongs as a part of a revitalised Russian empire that he sees. And he committed similar acts in states such as Georgia and other parts. And of course, in Ukraine itself, where he conducted limited incursions. And of course, what we see in the South China Sea and the East China Sea is ambient claims from China that are not recognised by international courts or international law. And the Chinese consistently using coercion military force against the Philippines, against Vietnam, against Indonesia, against Taiwan and against Japan in various parts of those seas to push their own sovereign claims, even though they are not recognised in the international community and not recognised by those other states. And of course, we add in the layer here of the cyber domain and cyber dimension, that while we're largely in strategic competition with these states across the globe in areas such as cyber, we're in day to day limited conflict as we receive an onslaught of assaults in the cyber domain from states such as North Korea, Iran, China and Russia. Sam Hawley: All right, well, Peter, as you say, we're living in a less stable world. But what do you think is our approach when it comes to defence, the right one? Are we war ready like the UK wants to be? And if we're not, do we actually need to be? Peter Dean: I think we're definitely not war ready at the moment. If you look at the Defence Strategic Review in 2023, it made it really clear that the ADF was not fit for purpose. The government is in the process of lifting defence spending to try and achieve some of the outcomes that were set. We don't have 10 years anymore to wait to prepare our forces. Now, what's been happening in Australia has been a long discussion in recent years over the requisite levels of defence spending. This was happening well before Donald Trump was elected for his second term of office. And if you look back to last year, you'll see some very eminent commentators and experienced people in this debate, people such as Sir Angus Houston, the former chief of Defence Force and one of the two independent leads of the Defence Strategic Review, former Secretary Dennis Richardson, former Labor leader Kim Beazley, former Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo, have all called for increasing of defence spending to around about three percentage of GDP on defence. So this is a national debate that's been happening for quite a while. And now it's become much more direct, given that our US alliance partner has directly made the request to Australia to increase defence spending. Sam Hawley: All right, and what about this imminent threat that Pete Hegseth talks about that China will invade Taiwan soon? If that was the case, and we're not saying that it is, of course, but what would that mean for us? Peter Dean: This would mean you have the two largest economies in the world going toe to toe militarily with each other across the Taiwan Strait and in East Asia. It would always inevitably suck in states like Japan and Korea and Australia and others. And in all the estimates we have, not only would it be the extreme loss of life that would occur by the states involved in the conflict, you would spiral the global economy into a major recession, if not depression. You're talking about the most dynamic economic region in the world being consumed by conflict. And we will be putting ourselves in the risk not just of a global economic recession and a major war, but of course, we're talking about a war here between major nuclear armed states. The government's not wrong when it says we live in this really dangerous strategic age. And of course, Donald Trump is not helping that, right? He's not helping stability and security. He's, you know, in many senses, creating a source of additional instability in the global strategic order. Sam Hawley: Peter Dean is the director of foreign policy and defence at the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Adair Sheppard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
