I think Britain would have eventually claimed Australia even if the French had been the first. They had been psyched up to do so for a generation. As we see with Australia's contemporary offshore detention it seems to be a facet of the Anglospheric mindset. Did France have comparable numbers in prison hulks hence equivalent motivation?

A few years later Flinders met Baudin on the southern coastline and then went on to completely eclipse the latter in terms of discoveries. That seems to show that the British were more determined.

Qui mon ami
Alan B.

A poster said that almost 700 of the 700+ souls on board were not prisoners.
If rhat is so the history has been badly distorted.
Of course Transportation continued to about 1830s I think.

I'm not sure what relevance this review of history is worth or achieves?

If I were to suggest some books that we could and should read they would be, as required reading? Ivy league professor/Economist, Robert Hargrave's book, Thorium, cheaper than coal and prize winning investigative Journalist/science writer Richard Martin's book, Thorium, Super fuel, subtitled, green energy!

These two would be very educational without stirring racial resentment/hatred all over again along with all the (mixed blood) false claims/shite stirring made about invasion.

Yes there was conflict and extermination! But Invasion? Hardly! Mostly resettlement by transportees imported in chains.

The principle problem seems to have been the colour of their skins? Given the numerous waves of resettlement by brown and black skins, during the previous 60,000 years or so? And countless tribal conflict!
Alan B.

AND.

It's rarely a question of this or that. It's usually this AND that.

So not one reason for the settlement.

Yes there was a need to handle the prison system overload.
Yes there was a perceived need to establish a presence in the southern Pacific
Yes there was a perceived need to stake a claim to New Holland.

All sorts of reasons to justify a colonising endeavour

I believe that Cameron-Ash has failed to substantiate two issues: firstly, the so-called "race" between La Perouse and Phillip and, secondly, that La Perouse and Phillip met. I base my belief not on having read the whole book but on her public statements about these issues. I contend that she has not used the historical sources properly. My full argument can be read here:

https://sites.google.com/view/arthur-phillip-and-la-perouse/introduction