The Verdict ROSE: Australia was definitely invaded. If you know what invaded means, then obviously it was invaded. I remember in primary school in the '90s being taught about colonisation - the exact opposite of invasion and that wasn't that long ago, so I think it is good that the history books, so to speak, are being rewritten. But it's a very uncomfortable idea for a lot of Australians - to reconcile that the past of Australia is bloody and gory. But I think it has to be understood because you can't ignore the past. 
PAUL: I think it's an argument over semantics. You can call it invasion or forced colonisation. The bottom line is if you were an indigenous Australian in 1788 and onwards and you were watching ship loads of Europeans full of disease and guns, alcohol and all the rest arriving and moving you out of your land, I think you would probably use a word similar to invasion.
SUSAN: That's right, without a doubt. But I agree it's very uncomfortable for a lot of Australians because for so long white Australia has had this cherished notion that we came in as a superior civilising force to spread society and ethics to the barbarians. There has been a lot of recent history done by Bill Gammage on how well Australia was managed by its indigenous peoples. The other thing that's come out in the last few years is how many more massacres occurred than previously was thought. Those facts were never taught when I was at school. Of course it was an invasion.
PAUL: There are some inconvenient truths and fiddling around with words doesn't make the facts any different.
the bottom linethere's no evading the truth