Former prime minister Tony Abbott has said the Australian War Memorial should not 'dwell on' frontier conflicts, arguing that such history would be better told at the Australian National Museum. In comments published across Fairfax outlets including the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and Brisbane Times, Abbott said: "My own view is that [frontier conflicts] would be better done at the Australian National Museum rather than the Australian War Memorial."

The remarks insert Abbott into a heated national conversation about the memorial's role. For years, historians, Indigenous leaders and former service personnel have urged the War Memorial to acknowledge the frontier wars — the violent clashes between Aboriginal people and European settlers that continued well into the twentieth century. Some argue that the memorial, as Australia's principal institution for commemorating military death, has a responsibility to recognise all victims of war, including Indigenous Australians killed or displaced during the colonisation of the continent. Others, however, maintain the memorial's purpose is specifically to honour Australians who enlisted and served in formally declared military campaigns, and that conflating domestic colonial conflicts with war memorialisation risks distorting its mission.

Abbott's view aligns with the latter position. The former Liberal leader has a long history of engaging in Australia's 'history wars', often pushing back against what he sees as an excessive focus on colonial violence. By suggesting the National Museum of Australia as an alternative venue, he has effectively argued that frontier conflict is better addressed in a broader national history museum, not a war memorial. The National Museum already devotes part of its permanent galleries to relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, though it has itself been the subject of political scrutiny in the past.

Supporters of Abbott's stance note that the War Memorial is first and foremost a shrine to those who have given their lives in war. They argue that opening it to historical conflicts that were not formally declared, or in which the line between combatant and civilian was blurred, could undermine its commemorative function. Veterans' groups have expressed similar concerns, while some commentators have accused those calling for a frontier-conflict gallery of 'rewriting history' for political purposes.

On the other side, prominent historians such as Henry Reynolds and Indigenous scholars have long argued that frontier conflicts were warfare in every meaningful sense, involving Indigenous resistance against invasion and massacres sanctioned by colonial authorities. Several inquiries have documented the high death toll. In 2020, the Australian War Memorial's director, Matt Anderson, said the institution was 'committed to telling the story of Australia's military history, including colonial conflicts'. Yet critics contend that coverage remains patchy and often marginalised. Whether the memorial should incorporate a dedicated frontier-conflict exhibition remains unresolved, and Abbott's intervention is likely to intensify the debate as the memorial continues its major redevelopment.

The National Museum of Australia has not yet responded to the suggestion. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has also been approached for comment.