Aust- more protracted Aboriginal resistance

This thread follows on somewhat from the 'Native American Genghis Khan' and similar posts on the previous board: how could Aust Aborigines have more effectively and extensively resisted European settlement from 1788 onwards ? OTL, Aboriginal tribes thruout many parts of the country were able to conduct systematic guerilla warfare against the white settlers, inflicting heavy losses on both ppl, livestock and property, although they eventually succumbed to the overwhelming power of European nos., technology and diseases as was the case in America with the Indians- estimates of Aboriginal losses include Tassie historian Henry Reynolds' of some 20,000 killed in combat thruout the frontier while fighting for their land. To make the colonisation of Aust even harder for the whitefellas, what types of PODs are feasible ? Perhaps if certain indigenous tribes had developed permanent settlements, cultivation and greater infrastructure to be able to sustain extended warfare ? The availability of more domesticable native animals besides the dingo ? Aborigines capturing, utilising and developing at a rudimentary stage European firearms and other technology ? Or, similar to another post on the 'Native American Genghis Khan' thread, possibly the largescale influx of runaway white convicts, together with any weapons and technical know-how, into a discrete Aboriginal tribe and the establishment of a mixed-blood community capable of defending itself and its land against further European encroachments onto tribal hunting-grounds ?

You'll probably end up with a treaty, although I'd say the Aboriginal AH would resemble the OTL of the Maoris. See my AH "Makarrata The Legacy of Windradyne" @ http://www.geocities.com/davidmarkatwell/makarrata.html

I'd say that a mixed blood community would be a huge help, especially if it can be established by shipwreck very early on. I started on a somewhat plausible timeline on this subject on the old board but it didn't go anywhere.

In the long run, what really matters is cattle. If you can get them to make the shift from hunter-gatherer to pastoralist in good numbers, that will be enough. As far as I know, the aborigines were even worse off than the American tribes because of their diet. Herding animals takes a lot less time than foraging, provides (generally) better nutrition, and has the benefit that it forces a nomadic lifestyle.

Pastoralism

Pastoralism solves the five main problems of resisting European or Asian invasion.
1. Disease resistance. Nomads transmit diseases more efficiently. The aborigines would develop disease resistance faster as plagues spread faster.
2. Alcohol resistance. Nomads trade alcohol farther and evolve faster to resist alcoholism.
3. Trade goods. Wool and leather exports pay for guns, ammunition, knives, arrowheads, and telescopes, to fight back. Also trade exposes you to diseases and that helps develop resistance to disease, and to alcohol, which helps you develop resistance to alcohol.
4. Depth. The Australians were exterminated a band at a time because they never had the ability to fight in depth. The Europeans could move in, wipe out a band, build their population and roads for mobility, then move in and wipe out another band again, and repeat. With pastoralism the herds are the short term source of wealth. A pastoralist doesn't need to know the territory as intimately as a hunter-gatherer. You can send your herds into some other tribe's territory if you pay a tax on your animals. It's the recurrent Australian ENSO droughts that limit herd sizes.
5. Mobility. The horses give you the ability to raid far into the colonial areas. You can deny them a sanctuary on the mainland. They have to settle Tasmania and the other islands first, and then attempt to settle the mainland.