ED: This article was sent to me by Bob Buick MM with the following comment: “I am a subscriber to the Spectator which has many articles of interest, and this piece is an argument against the woke lefty socialists, those many tertiary educated buffoons who accept the Invasion misinformation as historical fact”. I agree with Bob.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2025/01/australia-was-not-invaded/

Flat White

Australia was not invaded

Luke Powell

Luke Powell

18 January 2025

11:58 PM

Was Australia invaded by Britain on January 26, 1788? For a growing number of people, our national holiday, which marks the arrival of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove, represents an ‘invasion’. According to recent polling, 69 per cent of Australians want to keep Australia Day on January 26, yet anger towards the national holiday has intensified to the point some activists are congratulating those who decapitated a Captain Cook statue. This year, over 150 councils will not be holding citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day. In fact, there is a growing movement to abolish the national holiday altogether because ‘there is nothing to celebrate’. Was Australia really ‘invaded’ as some experts suggest? In short, no. Here’s why.

The goal of the First Fleet was to occupy a small colony, not invade a continent.

The central claim behind the ‘invasion’ argument is that British occupation was not a ‘settlement’. The question is then, did Britain plan an invasion or intentionally seek to occupy the whole country in 1788? For the answer to be ‘yes’, proponents of ‘Invasion Day’ have to read Australian history backwards.

The historian Geoffrey Blainey explains in his book The Tyranny of Distance, ‘Australia held commercial, logistical, and diplomatic importance for the British who were competing with the French and in need of the Flax timber along the eastern coast.’ In fact, the first legal officer of NSW, David Collins, wrote in 1788 that the goal of the First Fleet was not to invade the country but to occupy small areas of land:

‘By the definition of our boundaries it will be seen that we were confined along the coast of this continent to such parts of it as were navigated by Captain Cook, without infringing on … the right of discovery [and] of that right … Great Britain alone has followed up the discoveries she has made in this country by at once establishing in it a regular colony and civil government.’

The historian Bain Attwood in his ground-breaking book Empire and the Making of Native Title helpfully explains that Governor Arthur Phillip’s administration never perceived a need to negotiate this land because the colony ‘merely comprised a small garrison settlement and so had little need for land beyond the beachhead it occupied’. The intention was not to invade, but to form strategic outposts and source flaxwood in a race with the French. That is why the second settlement after Sydney Cove, was not on land nearby. Instead, Phillip travelled to Norfolk Island off the coast of Brisbane, a place not known to Aboriginal people. As Geoffrey Blainey explains in The Australian, ‘Its inhabitants [on Norfolk Island] certainly have no reason to talk of Invasion Day.’

So why did Britain come to the southern continent? According to Blainey, the justification for settling Australia were many:

‘Contrary to popular belief, Britain did not find or settle Australia because of overcrowded gaols. There were other ports in South Africa and across the Empire that would have been much cheaper overseas prisons. Likewise, many other European countries simply built more prisons. These options were available to the British.’

It is therefore historically inaccurate to describe January 26, 1788, as an ‘invasion’ when its original intention was to occupy a small colony restricted to the coast of Australia.

Aboriginal people did not see British colonisation as an ‘invasion’.

What was the original reaction to the so-called ‘invasion’ of the British from the perspective of Aboriginal people? The answer is more complicated than most people think. Anthropologist Peter Sutton in an academic paper titled, Stories about feeling: Dutch–Australian contact in Cape York Peninsula, 1606–1756 documents the very mixed reactions of Aboriginal people to European contact. Sutton writes:

First encounters with Europeans were arguably experienced by Aboriginal people in anything but territorial terms. They were most often, it seems, primarily an encounter with relatives who had gone to the spirit world and returned…

What about the First Fleet? Historian Bain Attwood argues:

In the beginning, Phillip’s party found it difficult to forge a relationship with the Aboriginal people. Indeed, several months after the British had landed, Phillip reported that the local people repeatedly avoided them. In due course, a good deal of cross-cultural exchange did in fact occur…

From early Dutch encounters to the January 26, European encounters with the British were mostly characterised by indifference. Labelling Australia Day an ‘invasion’ ignores the fact Aboriginal people never viewed early European encounters as territorial usurpation.

Aboriginal people did not have a European concept of land ownership.

Since 2006, activists have begun referring to Australia Day as ‘Sovereignty Day’. The ‘core of the issue is the concept of Sovereignty’ writes the SBS, ‘which means the inherent jurisdiction of Indigenous Australians over their lands … that existed before European arrival and was never ceded.’ Is this true?

An invasion requires the acquisition of land. If that land is not owned, it is essentially impossible to ‘invade’ in the conventional sense of the word. Peter Sutton again points out in his article on early European contact:

‘For most Aboriginal people of a classical cast of thought there was no publicly ordained conception of territory as something that could be annexed, by force or without force. It was a sacred endowment and not a secular achievement.’

Did Europeans realise that Aboriginal people were the occupants living there? ‘There can be no doubt,’ writes Attwood, ‘that some colonists believed that Aboriginal people had been the original possessors of the land and that consequently they had a moral duty to ensure that the natives were recompensed.’ However, in my view it would be more accurate to say that according to Aboriginal peoples the Land owned them (See A.P. Elkin, Aboriginal Men of High Degree). From an Aboriginal point of view, it is therefore not possible to ‘invade’ the Land in a fully European sense, because no one owned it.

Could it be argued that Aboriginal people exemplified a natural connection to the land that Europeans should have been immediately recognised? As Geoffrey Blainey explains in his book Triumph of the Nomads, many Aboriginal people did not stay in the same place for long periods of time, ‘While many aboriginals spent every month of their life in their traditional territory, others might spend most of their life in alien territory.’ This does not undermine any violent interactions between the British and Aboriginal people after 1788, but it does show January 26 was not, by any stretch of the definition, an invasion.

Many Aboriginal people were never dispossessed.

Some have claimed that the ‘British were armed to the teeth’ and engaged in the murdering and dispossession of the Aboriginal people nearly as soon as they arrived. The assumption behind the argument for an ‘invasion day’ relies on the claim Aboriginal people were systematically ‘slaughtered and dispossessed’. The truth is more complicated.

Academic research done by one of Australia’s most renowned academics, William Stanner, shows in his book White Man Got No Dreaming, that many Aboriginal people chose to migrate to colonised areas for work and opportunity.

‘… for every Aboriginal who, so to speak, had Europeans thrust upon him, at least one other had sought them out. More would have gone to European centres sooner had it not been that their way was often barred by hostile Aborigines. As late as the early 1930s I was able to see for myself the battles between the encroaching myalls and weakening, now-sedentary groups who had monopolised European sources of supply and work.’

Stanner never encountered an Aboriginal whoever wanted to return to the bush and their traditional way of life, even in cases of miserable urban circumstances. They simply ‘went because they wanted to, and stayed because they wanted to’.

As Stanner points out, not enough work has been done to properly account for the numbers and scale of this migration due to a historical silence on the matter. Instead, scholars are ‘prone’, to reductionistic models of explanation which place all the weight on ‘dramatic secondary causes’ such as ‘violence, disease, neglect, prejudice, or on the structure of Aboriginal society, or both’.

It is therefore misleading to call all of British settlement an ‘invasion’ considering a large amount of Aboriginal people willingly migrated and chose to live with the so-called ‘invaders’. Not to mention that over 50 per cent of Australia’s land is under Aboriginal ownership through Native Title claims. Undeniably, many Aboriginal Australians today are not ‘dispossessed’, considering most remote communities have a Native Title agreement.

The coming of the British was less violent than Aboriginal tribal warfare.

It has been famously argued that Australia Day celebrates ‘the coming of one race at the expense of another’. Some organisations explain the public holiday ‘marks the beginning of a long and brutal colonisation of people and land’. These statements do not acknowledge the historical context of British colonisation. It assumes that life would have been better and less violent if the British never ‘invaded’. This is not the case.

A key source was a British settler named Edward Stone Parker who was the assistant protector of Aborigines who studied Aboriginal languages and a knowledge of their traditional way of life. He famously remarked, ‘On the whole their way of life was a satisfying one, and could have been almost idyllic – but for their frequent fighting and the persistent fear of revenge.’ Parker goes on to quote a well-informed Aboriginal man who argued before the British arrived ‘the country was strewed with bones, and were always at war’. Indeed ‘whole tribes have been exterminated by sudden attacks on nocturnal surprises’. While Parker strongly denounced the conflict between settlers and Aborigines, he identified that the wars between tribes were more destructive.

The fighting was both brutal and constant. The British settler with the most experience in observing traditional warfare was William Buckley, an escaped convict who lived with a friendly Aboriginal group. After two women in Buckley’s group were killed, an ambush soon followed where several women were wounded and later beaten to death. Their limbs were removed by sharp stone axes and shells.

In The Life and Adventures of William Buckley it says:

Buckley records fourteen conflicts involving the violent death of a tribe member over the thirty-two years that he lived with the Wallarranga. Nine of the causalities were women, seven children and seven men. Ten enemies (two of whom were children) were killed in revenge. Buckley also documents the massacre of a tribe near Barwon Heads…. Buckley cites just two principal causes for the conflict: disputes over women, and ‘payback killings’ following a death by natural causes.

There are even incidents of invasion and groups pushing out traditional holders of territory. For example, The Goonyandi people who occupied an area larger than the African nation of Gambia was dislocated by their neighbouring tribe, the Walmadjari people. This happened across the country in the Western coast to Central Australia, and in the words of Blainey ‘the loss of territory must have been a frequent event’. Blainey, argues in his book The Story of Australia’s People, (which won the Prime Ministers literary award in 2016):

Such comparisons reveal that the annual death rate through warfare in that corner of Arnhem Land was nearly six times as high as that of the United States during an average year of its participation in the Second World War. Even the direct drain on Japan’s population through the loss of fighting men in China, the Pacific and all other theatres of war between 1937 and 1945 was not quite as high, statistically, as warfare’s drain on the population of Arnhem Land. In the Second World War, only the armed forces of the Soviet Union and Germany suffered losses of higher relative magnitude.

Calling Australia Day ‘Invasion Day’, ultimately ignores the harsh reality of life prior to 1788, and paints a one-sided view of history to favour a political movement.

Australia Day is an important holiday commemorating the unified cultural link we all share as descendants of Britain. This includes the rule of law, sport, education, music, art, politics, and the English language to name a few. Changing the date and the name of Australia Day would erode the unity our forebears worked so hard to create, and would legitimise a view of history which is simply not true.

Media Release

In 2025, the Australian government introduced a $4,100 one-time Centrelink payment aimed at easing the financial pressures faced by carers. This initiative highlights the critical role carers play in supporting individuals with disabilities, chronic illnesses, and age-related needs. Here’s everything you need to know about this much-needed financial aid, its eligibility criteria, and how to access it.

Who Qualifies for the Payment?

To receive the $4,100 payment, applicants must meet specific criteria:

・Primary caregiver: Provide daily care for someone with a disability, chronic illness, or age-related needs, including mobility and medical support.

・Existing Centrelink support: Recipients must already receive either the Carer Payment (for full-time caregiving) or the Carer Allowance (for part-time caregiving).

・Residency and age: Both the carer and the care recipient must be Australian residents aged 16 or older.

・Financial limits: Income and asset thresholds apply, although they are less stringent than those for other Centrelink benefits.

How to Apply

Carers who meet the eligibility criteria can follow these straightforward steps to claim the payment:

・Confirm eligibility: Log in to MyGov and ensure your account is linked to Centrelink.

・Verify existing payments: Ensure you are already receiving Carer Payment or Carer Allowance. If not, apply for these first.

How Can the Payment Be Used?

The flexibility of the payment allows carers to address their unique challenges. Common uses include:

・Medical expenses: Covering doctor visits, therapies, and medications.

・Caregiving equipment: Purchasing mobility aids, medical devices, or other essential tools.

・Home modifications: Installing ramps, handrails, or accessibility features.

・Daily living costs: Managing utility bills, groceries, and personal care needs.

Additional Resources for Carers

Beyond this payment, carers in Australia can access other support measures, such as:

・Carer Supplement: An annual payment of up to $600.

・Respite care: Subsidized short-term care services offering carers a much-needed break.

・Support groups: Community resources providing advice and emotional backing.

Why This Initiative Matters

Unpaid carers often bear the emotional and financial strain of their roles without adequate recognition. By introducing the $4,100 payment, the Australian government acknowledges their invaluable contributions while alleviating some of their financial burdens. Eligible carers are encouraged to apply promptly and take full advantage of the available support.

For more details, visit the Services Australia – Carer Support page or your MyGov account.

 

Donald Trump wasted no time in making his mark upon returning to the White House. His bold first day included the signing of a significant number of executive orders, signalling his intent to reverse course from the previous administration and reshape America in line with his vision. Estimates suggest these orders could total as many as 200, making this one of the most aggressive policy reversals in modern presidential history.

Key Executive Orders

Some of Trump’s most notable executive actions include:

1. Rescinding 78 Biden-era Executive Orders
   • These reversals target regulations and policies implemented during Joe Biden’s term, including measures tied to environmental protections, healthcare reforms, and immigration policy.
2. Declaration of National Emergency at the Southern Border
   • Trump has reinstated his focus on border security, emphasising the construction and completion of the southern border wall. This move is expected to reignite debates over immigration policy and national sovereignty.
3. Pardoning January 6 Protesters
   • Labelling them as “January 6 hostages,” Trump issued a sweeping pardon for approximately 1,500 individuals involved in the Capitol events. This decision underscores his narrative of political persecution.
4. Revocation of Electric Vehicle Targets
   • In a direct challenge to Biden’s green energy agenda, Trump has dismantled federal electric vehicle mandates, calling them costly and ineffective.
5. Elimination of Gender Ideology Guidance
   • Trump’s executive order now officially recognises only two genders, male and female, removing federal support for programs promoting gender identity inclusivity.
6. Delay of TikTok Ban Enforcement
   • Contrary to expectations, Trump has chosen to delay enforcing a ban on TikTok for 75 days, citing the need for further review.
7. Withdrawal from Global Agreements
   • Reaffirming his “America First” stance, Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization, citing these as costly endeavours that undermine national interests.

A Return to Bold Leadership

Trump’s inauguration was accompanied by the characteristic flair and assertiveness that defined his first term. His supporters see this as a restoration of strength and decisiveness. His swift actions leave no doubt that Trump plans to govern with urgency and purpose.

Biden’s Controversial Last-Minute Pardons

In his final hours as president, Joe Biden issued a slew of controversial pardons that have drawn widespread criticism. In what appears to be a pre-emptive move to shield his family and key allies from future legal scrutiny, Biden set a record for the most individual pardons and commutations issued by any U.S. president.

Family Pardons

Biden granted clemency to five family members:

• His brother James and sister-in-law Sara Biden.
• His sister Valerie and her husband John Owens.
• His brother Francis Biden.

Biden defended his actions, stating that these pardons were necessary to protect his family from “unrelenting attacks” and emphasised that the pardons were not admissions of guilt.

Protecting Allies

Biden’s pardons extended to high-profile figures, including:

• Dr. Anthony Fauci: The nation’s leading infectious disease expert, who has faced scrutiny from Trump and his allies.
• Retired General Mark Milley: The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has also been a target of Trump’s criticism.

Both Fauci and Milley welcomed the pardons, citing a desire to avoid retaliation.

Record-Breaking Clemency

Biden’s clemency actions also included:

• Reducing sentences for nearly 2,500 non-violent drug offenders.
• Commuting death sentences for 37 individuals, converting them to life imprisonment.

While Biden’s supporters applaud these actions, critics argue they were politically motivated and undermine accountability.

Looking Ahead

As Donald Trump embarks on his second term, the stark contrast between his leadership style and that of Joe Biden could not be more evident. Trump’s focus on bold, immediate action contrasts sharply with Biden’s controversial and, at times, polarizing final decisions. The coming months will reveal the long-term impacts of these divergent approaches on the United States and its place in the world.

 

One of our long time Laurieton RSL Sub-branch members, Laurie Ross died on 16 January 2024. He was 92.

Laurie initially joined the Australian Army in 1952 and served in the Korean War from May 1954 until May 1955 with the 1^st Battalion, RAR.   He discharged but rejoined in 1965 and served two tours of Vietnam. His first tour was from January 1968 until January 1969. He returned to Vietnam in May 1970 until May 1971 with 8^th Field Hospital and 1^st Australian Field Hospital in Vung Tau.  He discharged again in 1971.

A funeral, including an RSL Tribute, for Laurie will be held on Thursday 23 January 2024 in Laurieton, followed by a wake at the Laurieton United Services Club.

RIP Lawrence Harry (Laurie) Ross

 

Peter Bruce, OAM

[email protected]

In today’s video, we rank the world’s most powerful main battle tanks, the key weapons of modern armored forces. These tanks are not only recognized for their firepower but also for their cutting-edge technology and battlefield dominance. From the precision of Japan’s Type 90 to the unmatched engineering of Germany’s Leopard 2A7A1, we delve into the features and innovations that make these tanks extraordinary.

 

Defence Australia has announced a new $100 million contract for Bendigo defence manufacturer Thales Australia to build another 40 Bushmaster-protected vehicles.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has extended his congratulations to Donald Trump for becoming the 47th President of the United States and has expressed readiness to engage in discussions aimed at resolving the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti reported the development on January 20.

During a Security Council meeting, Putin emphasized Moscow’s openness to dialogue with the new U.S. administration, aiming for what he termed “lasting peace” in Ukraine. “The goal should be a durable peace that respects the legitimate interests of all people and nations in the region,” Putin stated. He also stressed that any negotiations with the United States must be conducted on an “equal and mutually respectful basis.”

Trump’s Pledge to End the War in Ukraine

President Trump, who made resolving the Ukraine conflict a cornerstone of his campaign, has set an ambitious objective of securing peace. While he initially pledged to broker a peace deal on his first day in office, his advisors have since acknowledged that achieving this goal could take several months or longer.

Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, has confirmed that the administration is aiming to make significant progress toward peace within the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency. Reports indicate that Trump has instructed his aides to arrange a phone call with President Putin shortly after his inauguration on January 20. This call is expected to explore avenues for ending the war in Ukraine, with the potential for a face-to-face meeting between the two leaders in the coming months.

Direct Engagement with Putin

President Trump has long advocated for direct engagement with Putin as a strategy for resolving the Ukraine conflict. According to a source close to the president, “Trump believes that direct engagement with Putin is essential to finding a solution to end the war.”

Trump’s national security team has reportedly been preparing for this engagement for weeks, although the exact timing of a potential meeting remains uncertain.

Ukrainian Perspective

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed cautious optimism about Trump’s commitment to peace. Zelensky hopes that the new U.S. administration can provide “real security guarantees” for Ukraine, which has been seeking NATO membership, security assurances, and the deployment of an international peacekeeping contingent to deter future Russian aggression.

As the international community watches closely, Trump’s presidency could usher in a new chapter in U.S.-Russia relations, with potential implications for the future of Ukraine and the broader geopolitical landscape.

Electricity Generation by Nuclear Energy

(An article by Dr John Griffin concerning his knowledge and experience in nuclear energy). Republished from the Tweed Heads & Coolangatta RSL Sub Branch Inc. Newsletter.

The issue of nuclear energy is topical and I take the opportunity to provide information based upon my training and experience. I am supportive of nuclear energy.

During my initial engineering qualification, I completed a course in nuclear engineering conducted by an engineer from Calder Hall (the first nuclear facility constructed in the UK). The purpose of Calder Hall was to produce fissionable material for nuclear weapons, a “by product” was 250MWe provided to the electricity grid.

The design and legislative requirements were commenced in 1947 and Calder Hall commenced production in 1956 and continued to 2003.

I have had the opportunity to visit operational nuclear power stations in the UK; Dungeness (now closed down), Tourness and recently the construction of Hinkley Point C (HPC).

HPC site is 174 ha and will have two reactors providing 3200MWe.

Planning and legislative measures were commenced in 2006 for approval, and work commenced in 2017 with an expected cost of GBP31bn and operational by 2025. Currently the estimated cost is GBP47.9bn with Unit 1 being operational by 2031 (on site discussion suggested “not before 2032 and Unit 2 a couple of years later”).

Early nuclear plants had a design life of 30 years, currently the design life is 40-60 years.

It is expected that the current world reserves of uranium could run reactors for approximately 200 years at the current rate of consumption. (Australia has the largest reserve with about one third of global reserves)

Nuclear reactors require refuelling every 18-24 months (replacing one third of its core) at a cost of approximately USD40m.

In the UK, the waste from nuclear plants has been processed and stored at Sellafield (the site of Calder Hall), commencing operations in 1950, however it was closed in 2003 and site decommissioning commenced in 2005. It is forecast that the cost of decommissioning currently is GBP136bn. Currently waste from nuclear power stations is stored on site at each station.

Planning for a follow-on nuclear power plant is Sizewell C (which is to be a copy of HPC). This plant will be owned and operated by French company EDF as is HPC. October 2012 was the commencement and in May 2020 the plans were submitted to the UK government who had provided GBP100m towards the project.

In March 2022 funding legislation was passed and in July 2022 the Development Consent Order was approved. The UK Government, in December 2022 provided GBP700m (which gave 50% share holding with EDF). In August 2023 the UK Government allocated a further GBP341m and in September commenced seeking private investments.

In January 2024 the UK Government added an additional GBP1.36bn.

During my career in the electricity industry, I had occasion in the 1980’s to examine alternative fuel resources for electricity generation to replace liquid fossil fuels. At this time there was publicity relating to Small Modular Reactors (SMR); however, this is still the position today. Rolls Royce have announced that they plan to have an SMR of possibly 250MW to 500MW size available by 2035 at the earliest.

John Griffin

 

Brief Bio – Dr John Griffin

Dr. John Griffin is a distinguished professional with a diverse background in engineering, management, and public service. He has held significant positions, including General Manager of the Northern Territory Electricity Commission, City Manager of the City of Keilor in Victoria, and General Manager of Tweed Shire Council. Throughout his career, Dr. Griffin has been actively involved in various professional, industry, government, and sporting organizations. His commitment to public service is further exemplified by his tenure as an Officer in the Royal Australian Naval Reserve and his membership on the Veterans Review Board.

In recognition of his dedication, Dr. Griffin is a Life Member of the Returned and Services League of Australia and currently serves as President of the Tweed Heads and Coolangatta RSL Sub-Branch. He is also a Life Member and Director of the Twin Towns Services Club. His contributions to the health sector are notable; he is a Member of the Health Professional Councils Authority and serves on the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Previously, he was a member of the Sydney and Regional Planning Panels. Since 2016, Dr. Griffin has been a dedicated member of the Northern NSW Local Health District (NNSWLHD) Board, contributing to the governance and strategic direction of the health district.

Dr. Griffin’s extensive experience and unwavering commitment to community service have significantly impacted the organizations and communities he has served.