Abstract:
In the last two years or so there has been a renewed interest in whether the Australian Continent should be characterized as having been conquered or settled and the significance of the distinction to the rights of the Aboriginal people. Many of the articles which have emerged simply repeat established principles of law and traditional arguments. Further, many fail to consider in any detail the relevance of the distinction or incorrectly describe its consequences. Even the advocates of the first characterization have been to some extent mistaken, believing the Crown prerogative to be limited in Colonies so acquired, when in fact the indigenous people could be in a worse position in conquered colonies. However, the distinction is nevertheless relevant and beneficial to the claims of the Aboriginal people. It is time that the myth of peaceful In the last two years or so there has been a renewed interest in whether the Australian Continent should be characterized as having been conquered or settled1 and the significance of the distinction to the rights of the Aboriginal people. Many of the articles which have emerged simply repeat established principles of law and traditional arguments. Further, many fail to consider in any detail the relevance of the distinction or incorrectly describe its consequences. Even the advocates of the first characterization have been to some extent mistaken, believing the Crown prerogative to be limited in Colonies so acquired, when in fact the indigenous people could be in a worse position in conquered colonies. However, the distinction is nevertheless relevant and beneficial to the claims of the Aboriginal people. It is time that the myth of peaceful settlement was recognised and to acknowledge as a matter of historical fact that Australia was conquered. settlement was recognised and to acknowledge as a matter of historical fact that Australia was conquered.