Your question is really broad so I'm not sure what aspect of society you're asking about but I will have a try.

Australia was "discovered" by the British when a legal theory called terra nullius was relatively popular. It says that if unoccupied land is found, it belongs to no one, and so finders keepers applies. I think Australia is the only place this was ever actually implemented. Although there were obviously people on the land, the British said they were primitive, and didn't count because they were mostly nomadic rather than farmers, so the British owned the whole country.

Unlike the US, Canada and NZ, there are no treaties. There have been some statutes that returned land to certain groups, and some groups have been able to claim native title over their traditional lands. But that doesn't give exclusive rights, and doesn't apply if there have been lapses in traditional use of the land - a problem when children were taken from their families as explained below. If an incompatible use has ever happened, eg some pastoral leases, native title doesn't apply. Native title rights don't allow communities to stop mining, to use the land commercially. Few communities have been able to satisfy the difficult test to have native title granted, and many cases will probably fall away in the next few people because the elders in the communities are getting old and dying before they can give evidence.

The indigenous peoples (deliberate - there were 5,000+ language groups) were displaced in their own land. There was slaughter of many, many people. The indigenous populations in Tasmania were basically wiped out - some stories talk of hundreds of people being rounded up and herded to a cliff top then being given the option of stepping off or being shot. Farmers treated other people like local wildlife and shot them for coming onto "their" land.

Many mixed race children and indigenous children were taken from their parents to be raised "properly" in group homes. Many of them were treated terribly. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the people who implemented these policies, they still stripped children from loving homes, punished them for using their native languages and speaking about their culture. This is recent. Look up stolen generations - people are have only recently been reunited with the children who were taken from them only a generation ago.

Indigenous populations living traditional lives have huge social problems. Socio economic status is low, alcohol is a huge problem, paint sniffing is causing huge issues for young people, domestic violence is rife. There are few indigenous politicians. The life expectancy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is lower than for many third world countries. Education levels are low, unemployment is high.

Cultural understanding is low. Many histories have been lost or are only known by tiny groups. Many non Indigenous Australians have negative attitudes because social security programs for indigenous peoples are different. There is little understanding or appreciation for the enormous disadvantages that indigenous people face when trying to succeed in a western culture, but also to hold on to their traditional culture and practices. Our national public holiday, Australia Day, is held on the anniversary of white settlement - a huge slap in the face.

The government only officially apologised for the awful policies of the past in 2007. Governments have recently tried and failed at programs aiming to overcome the cultural divide such as implementing dry zones in some towns (alcohol free / limited). There are a few vocal and respected spokespeople. Because the traditional cultures are so diverse, they do not speak for all indigenous peoples. It is hard to know what most affected people think about particular issues.

Long story short, the history of white settlement in Australia is reprehensible and there are many serious, widespread issues flowing from it.

I'll try to add a few points to the discussion, based on a few years of undergraduate study of the colonial history here in Australia.

Australia's real colonial history begins in 1788, when the first governor and his convict invaders/settlers arrive.

There is a general consensus among historians (like Bain Attwood, Inge Clendinnen as examples) that up until around the 1820s, the Australian settlers moving into frontier areas were fairly open about claiming land for pasturing sheep and cattle. Fear has a role to play in this. Killing parties would be sent out and this would be discussed in newspapers. However, violence is also not the whole story of frontier life. There was trade, intermarriage and employment; but trust was often fragile. In Queensland, there was perhaps less violence and more co-operation as Indigenous people were often happy to have work and food as stockmen (for example).

Pressure started to be applied from Britain to the Australian colonies from those who were religiously/ethically motivated to see the 'Frontier Wars' as a bad thing (similar pressure like that coming from those who sought the abolition of the slave trade between Africa, Europe and the Americas). In the 1830s, the British Govt. more or less told the Australian colonies that indigenous people were 'British subjects' and were deserving of protection and rights. This was not necessarily a popular message with any Australian settler hungry for land and wealth. The orders were not necessarily followed through with gusto, because they were unpopular. But it did lead to a kind of silencing of public talk around the wholesale slaughter of indigenous people. A famous trial following on from the Myall Creek massacre was big news, because before then it wasn't really expected that European settlers could be brought to justice for killing indigenous people. Crimes began to be covered up, talk moved underground.

After the Australian Gold Rush (~1850s), racialised ideas of 'survival of the fittest' seemed to really infect the public consciousness. Indigenous people were 'herded' onto the equivalent of reservations - church missions and it was felt that it was best to give them the gift of the benefits of European civilisation. Right up until the early 1900s, it was thought that the indigenous peoples were dying out.('smoothing the pillow of a dying race.') Australia had more or less forgotten that violence, dispossession of land/water/traditional food supplies and disease had taken an enormous toll on the Indigenous population

By the early 1900s (after Australian Federation and the nation becoming its own nation, not a set of separate British colonies), people start to realise that the Indigenous people aren't actually dying out at all. So instead of 'protection', the shift moves towards 'assimilation' (essentially breeding out indigenous genes and culture.) We Australians seem to have been paranoid about our 'genetic stock' and the damage that mixed-race people could supposedly do to society. Excuse the value-judgement, but it is an awful thing when viewed from the stance of our modern sensibilities. Other than in racial politics, Australia was one of the more progressive societies in the world at the time. New Zealand beat us to giving the vote to women, but we were the first to bring in the 8 hour working day.

Anyway, the practice of trying to assimilate indigenous people into mainstream society continued right up until 1970, though it started to be opposed after the Second World War as international attention started to be shone on Australia (where we looked about as bad as Apartheid-era South Africa). Generations of indigenous children were raised apart from their parents and the understandable mistrust and social damage are still being felt today.

Australia underwent a surprisingly painless and quick transformation into a genuinely multicultural society from the late 1970s. Though we only recognised Indigenous people as citizens after a national referendum (where everyone votes) in 1967.

Indigenous politics taken up by indigenous people has perhaps only made it into the mainstream consciousness with the Native Title claims from the 1980s. This was led by a group headed by Eddie Mabo, who wanted the doctrine of 'Terra Nullius' tested in Australian courts. The British had originally taken up ownership of the land on the basis of it not being occupied or at least, appropriately farmed or developed. This has more or less been exposed as a convenient legal fiction.

The fallout from years of dispossession of land, lack of employment, discrimination have been written about by many. Stuart McIntyre might be a writer to check out if you need to know more. We're still dealing with this as a nation and our government hasn't entirely rid itself of paternalistic habits. Another value judgement: Canada has made much more progress on this than we have - this seems to be acknoledged amongst the scholarship.

The vast majority of people who identify as indigenous (and are recognised by their community as indigenous) also have other European/whatever heritage. Most indigenous people now live in major cities and towns, like the rest of the population.

Prior to the 1970s, this history wasn't really taught. Australian school students were more or less ignorant of all of this and there was little public discussion or knowledge of it. Understanding of this history is now being taught to all school kids (parts of it anyway.) It is a mandated part of our curriculum. We call it 'the culture wars' or 'history' wars here, largely because many conservative people in public life are concerned that our national story should not be seen [enitrely?] as one to be ashamed of. Some historians (like Keith Windschuttle, whose practice of studying history is more than a little open to question) are championed as telling a better version of the past. Mostly this involves criticising mainstream scholarship and accusing other historians like Scott McIntyre of exaggeration and selective use of evidence.

Im 50/50 myself. Honestly almost all the culture and history is long gone, there isn't much left at all you'll have to go to the outback to really experience anything and even then the elders and tribes have lost mostly everything. Many great warriors fought however many were captured and executed. Many people have a very much disdain view of us as mostly alcoholic welfare criminals.

Eh the Australian aborigines were treated worse even though British colonization methods were the same and both have similar outcomes as a result. -native.