Australian artist and writer Norman Lindsay (1879–1969) wrote 11 novels and two children's books, one of which— The Magic Pudding first published in 1918—remains a national classic. This article argues that readers and critics have long misunderstood Lindsay's intention in writing this lengthy cartoon‐story about the adventures of Bunyip Bluegum in protecting Albert, the somewhat cantankerous pudding, as valuable treasure for the Pudding‐Owners' Society. This article reviews many scholarly examinations of Lindsay's impressive arrangement of words and drawings to reveal that almost all of the critical commentary on Linday's text fails to understand the hidden politics of this work. Lindsay's classic achievement reflects his promotion of elitist cultural strategies drawn from close reading of the cultural philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900). Lindsay is inspired by his study of Nietzsche to use The Magic Pudding as a critique of Australian public culture. Far from praising Australian nationality or, as critics claim, articulating “the Australian Dream,” Lindsay's 1918 work was highlighting the lack of artistic “free spirits” in Australia's complacent civic culture.

Sir Isaac Isaacs, Australia's first native‐born Governor‐General (1931–1936) was a leading figure in the controversy on Zionism within the Jewish community in Australia in 1941–1946. Isaacs argued against Extreme or Political Zionism on grounds of prudence and justice. Zionism undermined the British war effort, also leading to conflict within Palestine and beyond. Zionism was unfair to the Arabs of Palestine, also weakening the position of Jews as citizens in jurisdictions where they lived; it ran counter to principles of justice in Judaism. Julius Stone was Isaacs's leading critic: Isaacs lacked sympathy for the plight of Jews in Europe; Jewishness involved nationality, compatible with the right to a Jewish state in Palestine and democratic citizenship elsewhere. Stone was an influence on Dr. Herbert Evatt, the Australian foreign minister who took a pro‐Zionist position at the United Nations, whereas Isaacs was not. Isaacs's critique of Zionism remains prescient to many aspects of the contemporary Israel‐Palestine conflict but not all.

Prime Minister Alfred Deakin invited Field Marshal Viscount Kitchener to visit Australia in 1909 to inspect the overall state of defence preparedness and to advise the best way to provide Australia with more effective land defences. Kitchener's report was submitted in February 1910 and, along with wide‐ranging infrastructure advice, recommended the introduction of compulsory military training. An examination of how Australia's closest colonial neighbour viewed defence programs and their implications for both Germany's position in the Asia‐Pacific region and British Imperial unity contributes much to the continuing debate over Australia's involvement in the First World War. With an understanding of Kaiser Wilhelm II's expansionist “world policy” which necessitated preparation for what was regarded as a possible conflict with Britain, German activity in Australia and the broader Asia‐Pacific region is placed in a meaningful world‐political context.

In 1976, the Fraser Government passed the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act . This piece of legislation was one of the results of the Whitlam Government's radical commitment to Aboriginal self‐determination. It was, however, hotly contested by proponents of the mining industry. This article explores two of the key arguments put forward by the Australian Mining Industry Council (AMIC) in opposition to the Fraser Government's provision of land rights to Aboriginal peoples in the Northern Territory. Through its anti‐land rights campaign, AMIC attempted to present itself as an arbiter of equality in the 1970s by pushing two overarching narratives about land rights. First, the Council maintained that land rights legislation was discriminatory, akin to “apartheid” in its creation of division in the Australian population. And in a second, related, line of argument, AMIC insisted that land rights threatened the democratic rights and expectations of all citizens, fundamentally undermining the Government's constitutional responsibilities to its people. As far as AMIC was concerned, the Australian people had a choice in front of them by the mid‐to‐late 1970s: rights or resources.

This review article provides a critical assessment of elements of Clare Wright's book, Näku Dhäruk The Bark Petitions . The book deals with the events leading to a bark petition being tabled in the House of Representatives on 28 August 1963, on behalf of the Yolngu people of the Yirrkala Mission in the Northern Territory. The events are conveyed as significant to later steps to formalise rights to land for Indigenous Australians, at a time when such rights, as well as access to minerals, were vested in the Crown. The author characterises the events as representing a “four‐cornered contest” to cheat the Yolngu people of reserve land for planned mining. Further, the book posits a framework of “territorial control” and suggests an “extractive frontier”. In doing so, Wright characterises the actions of key individuals, notably Paul Hasluck, the Minister for Territories, as willing protagonists in actions antithetical to the interests of the Yolngu people. This article suggests such a framework and the author's interpretation of aspects of this history through the perceived shortcomings and moral weaknesses of individuals, as well as a lack of contextual understanding of the actions of some individuals and what they sought to achieve, detracts from a balanced understanding of events. In the process the motivations, and part of the careers, of individuals, not least Paul Hasluck, are impugned. An attempt is made in this article to redress some of the perceived deficiencies in this form of historical analysis.