I haven't been able to find much on the internet about the differences between the two terms but that a province has a relationship with the land and a colony merely uses the land. However, I'm not sure if that is correct.
If I could be pointed in a more appropriate direction, that would also be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for any help or insight.
I assume you mean the Province of South Australia, as created in 1836? This was a slightly different settlement to the ones preceding it. Sydney, Hobart Town, Brisbane, and Perth - which had all been founded prior to this - were convict colonies. (People had settled at the site of future Melbourne in 1834, but these people were considered illegal squatters, and this settlement was not officially recognised until later.) These colonies all had local governors who acted in the name of, and reported to, the King (via the responsible Minister). These Governors, however, had almost total authority within their colonies.
However, the Province of South Australia was the first official site in Australia to be settled only by free persons, not convicts. As such, the King appointed a Resident Commissioner as well as a Governor. The Resident Commissioner was responsible for overseeing the sale and distribution of land in the new province, and, while subordinate to the Governor, had full power of his area of responsibility and could not be over-ruled by the Governor.
Apart from this one difference, the difference between the Province of South Australia and the other colonies was basically just the difference between a settlement of only free persons and settlements which received convicts.