Neither of your links are reliable historical sources. I suggest you do some real research. If you did have the facts you would have immediately recognised the many errors in the two sites you have linked.

And you would know that Terra Nullius did not arrive with the First Fleet but was first recorded as one reference, in documents in 1864 and then was revived and re-invented in the 1970's as part of a highly subjective campaign.

Do you even know what Terra Nullius means? Clearly not. It does not mention ethnic cleansing or settler-colonialism but was an aspect of English law where efforts were made to establish ownership. As I said Terra Nullius did not become a part of the conversation until the 1970's. I can give you some reading links if you like.

Terra Nullius simply meant, 'nobody's land' or 'land belonging to nobody. ' In legal jargon, terra nullius means 'land over which no previous sovereignty has been exercised.'

No doubt similar views regarding ownership, applied of course when the Romans invaded and colonised Britain so it is not wise to retrofit modern values to the past.

Since there were 350 to 500 different groups of peoples in Australia in 1788, bit of guessing I am sure given the capacity to know in the times, who were not united, had no common language and who were often no more than family clans, it was deemed in the times, that there was no sovereignty, because by the laws of the times there was no sovereignty.

The British first called them Indians, then Natives and finally settled for Aborigines, more Latin, meaning in essence there when the British arrived.

This is why aborigines were never a nation either. They had no common language and were not united. This is why no Treaty was ever done as happened in New Zealand. They would have needed as many as 500 Treaties.

The biggest tribes were in Queensland because this area is rich and fertile. But they were also mostly at war with each other and smaller groups, clans, would camp next to the settlers for protection.