Lord Kitchener visited Seymour in January 1910, as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army.
Hailed a war hero at the time, he was also responsible for the commission of extensive and horrific war crimes.
Mr Unkles put forward the proposition of relocating the memorial to a museum, where the context of the memorial could be better explained.
“The challenge for the Mitchell Shire is do you want public buildings and memorials named after Lord Kitchener?” he said in February.
“The placement of memorials and monuments in public spaces recognises that they offer an officially sanctioned view of history.
“This provides an insight into the values and ideals of the society that constructed them.”
At the time, Mitchell Shire Council chief executive Brett Luxford said council had no plans to remove the memorial.
Since then, Mr Unkles has put forward an alternative proposal to the council, that does not involve relocating the memorial.
He suggests erecting a secondary information board near the monument, with relevant and verified inscriptions and photographs that evidence Lord Kitchener’s commissioning of war crimes, according to the law of the time.
“Does council not have a duty to explore its history, the highs and lows, tragedies prior to and post-European settlement and initiate reviews?” Mr Unkles said.
“If it does, then in the public interest council should ensure it occurs in an open and transparent manner devoid of selectiveness … Remaining silent about uncomfortable aspects should not ignored.
“To critics who may suggest this is about cancel culture, that is not the case. History is not stagnant, it is emerging as verifiable evidence is revealed. This is a good example.”
Despite being a cost-effective measure that maintains council’s commitment to truth-telling and could involve local groups such as the Seymour and District Historical Society and RSL, the proposal has been rejected.
Mr Luxford said in a response to The Telegraph that while council acknowledged the need to provide a balanced representation of historical figures, council’s immediate focus was on supporting community members in their recovery from the October 2022 floods.
“It is important to note that council’s decision should not be perceived as dismissing the importance of truth and historical accuracy,” Mr Luxford said.
“Rather, it reflects the current circumstances … Council remains committed to serving the community and considering diverse perspectives.”
Mr Unkles received an email with the identical message. He said he was “very disappointed” in the response.
“I think his response is a disgrace … The logic implied within the email is extraordinary,” he said.
“If you interrogate that, what does it mean? All other work stops … because of flood recovery?
“If a commitment to truth-telling exists, then I expect this project could be implemented without any loss to flood recovery … I know there are many community projects in the shire that are continuing.”
Mr Unkles referenced memorials to Lord Kitchener in other local government areas where grants had been used to install information boards, like the one that he is proposing, to fill in the selective gaps of colonial history.
Mr Unkles has been invited to present to council at an upcoming Community Questions and Hearings Committee Meeting, where he will continue to put forward his case.
