The Claim
“Claimed pre-First Fleet Australia was "unsettled or, um, scarcely settled", and called British colonisation a form of foreign investment.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The comments were made: On July 3, 2014, during a Q&A session following Tony Abbott's keynote address at the Australian-Melbourne Institute conference in Melbourne [1][2].
The exact quote: Abbott stated: "I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land" [1][2].
Context of remarks: The comment came during a discussion about foreign investment in residential real estate, where Abbott was defending foreign investment as essential to Australia's economy. He said, "Our country is unimaginable without foreign investment" and "As a general principle we support foreign investment. Always have and always will" [2].
Historical accuracy issues: The description of pre-1788 Australia as "unsettled" or even "scarcely settled" is historically inaccurate. At the time of British arrival in 1788, Australia was home to an estimated 750,000 to 1.2 million Indigenous people across hundreds of distinct nations with established societies, languages, trade networks, and governance systems [1]. The term "unsettled" echoes the legal fiction of terra nullius (land belonging to no one), which the High Court explicitly rejected in the landmark 1992 Mabo decision.
Missing Context
The context of the remarks: Abbott's comments came in the context of defending foreign investment policy, not as a formal historical or Indigenous policy statement [2]. He was answering a question about foreign investment in real estate and used colonisation as an analogy to illustrate Australia's historical dependence on external investment.
Abbott's self-correction: Abbott himself immediately corrected his first characterization from "unsettled" to "scarcely settled" during the same sentence, suggesting he recognized the inaccuracy even as he spoke [1][2].
Abbott's broader Indigenous record: At the time of these remarks, Abbott was advocating for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and had committed to spending one week annually in an Aboriginal community (he was scheduled to visit Arnhem Land in September 2014) [1]. He appointed himself as Minister for Indigenous Affairs and positioned himself as a champion for Indigenous recognition [4].
Immediate reaction and clarification: Abbott faced swift criticism from Indigenous leaders, including Professor Michael Dodson (Director of the National Centre for Indigenous Studies at ANU), who called it "an unfortunate slip of the tongue" but noted it reflected lingering "European colonial" views [1]. Senator Nova Peris (the first female Indigenous parliamentarian) condemned the comments, stating "British settlement was not foreign investment. It was occupation" [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian: A mainstream UK-based news outlet with center-left editorial stance. Generally regarded as reputable with factual reporting standards, though its opinion section has a progressive leaning. The article quotes multiple Indigenous leaders and provides the full context of Abbott's remarks [1].
Brisbane Times (Fairfax Media): A mainstream Australian news outlet (now part of Nine Entertainment). Generally considered credible with factual reporting standards. The article provides additional context about Abbott's speech on infrastructure and economic reform [2].
Both sources are mainstream media outlets with established fact-checking processes. The Guardian article includes Indigenous perspectives and critical analysis, while the Brisbane Times article focuses more on the policy context. Neither source appears to have a specific partisan bias that would invalidate their factual reporting on this incident.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor have similar issues with Indigenous policy statements?
Kevin Rudd's National Apology (2008): The Rudd Labor government delivered the historic National Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples on February 13, 2008, specifically addressing the Stolen Generations [5]. This stands in stark contrast to Abbott's remarks—it was a moment of national reckoning rather than problematic historical framing. However, the apology itself came after years of similar language issues across the political spectrum.
Labor's record on Indigenous issues: Labor governments (Rudd 2007-2010, Gillard 2010-2013) generally used more sensitive language regarding Indigenous history and maintained policies like "Closing the Gap." However, it's worth noting that the terra nullius doctrine that Abbott's language echoed was originally a British colonial concept predating modern Australian political parties.
Partisan responses: Labor leader Bill Shorten called Abbott's remarks "offensive" and tied them to Abbott's budget cuts to Indigenous programs ($500 million) [1]. This demonstrates the partisan nature of the criticism—Labor used the incident to criticize both Abbott's language and his government's Indigenous funding decisions.
Historical context: Both major parties have had members make problematic statements about Indigenous history. The difference lies in the frequency and severity, as well as the broader policy context. Abbott's comments were particularly notable given his position as Prime Minister and self-appointed "Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs."
Balanced Perspective
What Abbott got wrong: Describing pre-1788 Australia as "unsettled" or "scarcely settled" was historically inaccurate and culturally insensitive. It echoed the discredited terra nullius doctrine that ignored the presence of established Indigenous societies. Professor Michael Dodson noted this reflected a "typical European colonial thing to say" that stemmed from how history was traditionally taught in Australia [1].
The framing as "foreign investment": This characterization was widely criticized as trivializing the violent dispossession and colonization that Indigenous Australians experienced. As Senator Nova Peris stated, "British settlement was not foreign investment. It was occupation" [1].
What the claim doesn't tell you: Abbott's remarks came during an off-the-cuff Q&A about economic policy, not a formal Indigenous affairs statement. He immediately corrected himself mid-sentence. At the same time, he was actively pursuing constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and had committed to annual visits to remote Indigenous communities [1]. This context doesn't excuse the problematic language but provides important nuance about intent versus impact.
Comparative analysis: Abbott's language was a significant misstep, particularly for a Prime Minister positioning himself as a champion for Indigenous affairs. The criticism from Indigenous leaders was immediate and justified. However, it's notable that the incident was used for partisan purposes by Labor, who tied it to budget cuts and broader policy critiques rather than addressing it purely as a historical/language issue.
This is not unique to the Coalition: While Abbott's specific formulation was particularly problematic, politicians across the spectrum have made historically insensitive comments. The key distinction is how parties respond—Abbott's remarks prompted immediate Indigenous community backlash and became emblematic of perceived cultural insensitivity in his government's approach.
TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The claim is factually accurate—Abbott did make these comments exactly as described. However, the claim omits several critical contextual elements: (1) Abbott was speaking extemporaneously at an economic policy conference, not delivering a formal historical or Indigenous policy address; (2) he immediately self-corrected from "unsettled" to "scarcely settled" mid-sentence; (3) at the time, he was advocating for Indigenous constitutional recognition and had committed to regular remote community visits; and (4) the Labor criticism was partly partisan in nature, linking the comments to budget decisions rather than addressing them solely as a historical accuracy issue.
The comments were genuinely problematic and historically inaccurate, echoing discredited colonial narratives. The criticism from Indigenous leaders was well-founded. However, presenting the incident without the broader context of Abbott's Indigenous policy agenda and the circumstances of the remarks creates an incomplete picture of the event.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The claim is factually accurate—Abbott did make these comments exactly as described. However, the claim omits several critical contextual elements: (1) Abbott was speaking extemporaneously at an economic policy conference, not delivering a formal historical or Indigenous policy address; (2) he immediately self-corrected from "unsettled" to "scarcely settled" mid-sentence; (3) at the time, he was advocating for Indigenous constitutional recognition and had committed to regular remote community visits; and (4) the Labor criticism was partly partisan in nature, linking the comments to budget decisions rather than addressing them solely as a historical accuracy issue.
The comments were genuinely problematic and historically inaccurate, echoing discredited colonial narratives. The criticism from Indigenous leaders was well-founded. However, presenting the incident without the broader context of Abbott's Indigenous policy agenda and the circumstances of the remarks creates an incomplete picture of the event.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
theguardian.com
'Our country is unimaginable without foreign investment,' prime minister says in Q&A after speech urging infrastructure spending
the Guardian -
2
brisbanetimes.com.au
Brisbanetimes Com
-
3
nma.gov.au
2008: National Apology to the Stolen Generations
Nma Gov -
4
abc.net.au
Prime Minister Tony Abbott says the Government will finalise the timeframe for a referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition within weeks. Mr Abbott is in north-east Arnhem Land on a week-long visit which includes meetings with Aboriginal elders and other stakeholders. The referendum is a key request from clan leaders in the region. "I think you can be confident that sometime in next few weeks a timeline will be determined," Mr Abbott said. The Prime Minister has also not ruled out introducing a quota to set a minimum number of Indigenous MPs in Parliament - an idea championed today by Palmer United Party senator Jacqui Lambie.
Abc Net -
5
en.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.