Odo, I suggest you research Tasmanian Aboriginals more thoroughly. There was a deliberate, and ultimately successful campaign to exterminate them.
Likewise, out of the estimated 500+ nations that existed around 1788, I think about 240 still exist.
Please understand, there was and is no 'aboriginal nation'. There were over 500 nations, as distinct from each other in language and culture as the French are to the Spanish, or the Jews are to the Palestinians.
By any definition, that's genocide.
CJ, you're undoubtedly correct about the author, however, the opening sentence to this article is:
"The University of Queensland’s Asia-Pacific Centre..."
I wonder if the lack of any mention about Australian genocide is possibly due to the sensibilities of those like Odo.

Billie, palestinians have not been living in the area that the Romans called Palestine, for 2000 years.
Just after the Arab-Muslim induced war of independence (for Israel), the UN made a decision to regard all those who fled the war and ended up in refugee camps on the perimetre of the new state of Israel as refugees of the war. The UN also decided to regard any of these refugees as a resident of the area if they had lived there for 2 years, which has no precedent in international law - a much more common criteria is 2 or 3 generations.
When the Muslim armies invaded palestiune in 634AD, they found a mostly Christian and Jewish population, which they proceeded to murder, enslave, deport and, when the economy began to collapse for lack of a population, discriminate against in their own (former) country. Throughout this time (ie 1400 years) Jews and Christians have remained in the area, and remained true to their faiths and communities under desperate circumstances. As did the Samaritans, and a few other groups not usually heard from.
When a significant number of Jews decided to begin moving into the area, from around the 1820s, they began a process that resulted in the attempt to re-establish a Jewish state in the area that Jews have been associated with for 4000 years.
What the Queensland study seems to miss, for all its focus on the genocides of Jews by both Hitler and Stalin, is that one of the genocides waiting to happen is of the Jews currently living in Israel by the Arab-Muslims who surround them.
Perhaps the evidence - persistent statements by both the political elites and the populace of these countries to eliminate Israel as a state and kill all the Jewish occupants - is so obvious that the Queenslanders can't see it.
When the 'palestinians' and the overwhelming majority of Muslims - Arab and not - call off their war against Israel and Jews in general, there will be peace in the Middle-East, but not before.

CJ Morgan,
“Under this definition, the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide would be included, as would be deliberate efforts to exterminate the Cherokees and other Native American nations, and indeed Australian Aborigines.”

Assuming that we accept the UN definition as appropriate(!)

And assuming we accept the “stolen Generations” saga as wholly bad/ of absolutely no merit (and, I’m sure you will quickly conclude that it was) it still leaves the question, if the children removed during this process where half white and half black, how do you determine which side was the most sinned against?

Sorry, I'll rephrase that, as I'm sure -- you --would have absolutely no trouble at all making a one-eyed determination regarding that: how would an objective observer determine which side was most sinned again?

There was no official policy of genocide against the Australian aborigines in the sense that they were to be exterminated.

However, there was a period when it was assumed that most would simply die out and the policy was that the remainder should be "bred out" of existence. After a few generations of interbreeding with the white population, they would cease to exist as a distinct racial group.

The definition of the word genocide specifies that the intention is "deliberate and systematic" - just as the words "attack and reprisal" or "terrorist and freedom fighter" can be interpreted through the filter of one's own personal opinion.

Horus: << if the children removed during this process where half white and half black, how do you determine which side was the most sinned against? >>

Given that all the "half-caste" children who were removed were taken from "black" families and installed in "white" households or institutions, it's a bit of no-brainer, really.

Rache, the reason that the "stolen generations" are argued to constitute genocide is that the removals were often done with the express eugenic intention of 'breeding out' Aboriginality over subsequent generations. "Full-bloods" were assumed to be dying out anyway, so the removals were designed to ensure that the process was complete.

CJ Morgan,

Ah, gotya! so the determining factor is the family of origin.

But…hold on a cotton-picking minute…I seem to recall that the policy of removing children was also applied to non-Aboriginal families ( and, by the way, such non-Aboriginal families are still awaiting the essential “closure” of an apology!)

So lets see now …it was applied to both Aboriginals & non-Aboriginals , and if as you & others imply the intention was to diminish the family & culture they were “stolen” from – perhaps “genocide” is the wrong word –perhaps we should be using the word ( national) suicide?

Yep! I can see why you might describe your take on the issue as a “no-brainer”!