Backbencher

In lecture 4, we looked at the origins of settlement in Australia and New Zealand. The key to this lecture was identifying the differences between the settlement of Australia and New Zealand. Australia's convict origin came about as a result of crime problems in Great Britain. The area was chosen specifically because of the recommendations of James Cook. The first fleet came to New South Wales in 1788, and the settlers were exposed to the challenges of starvation and survival on a difficult landscape with a difficult group of citizens (convicts). New Zealand's origins, in contrast, appear at first to be more orderly with the ideal of planned colonization. This civil and well-structured view of New Zealand's early growth (from Edward Gibbon Wakefield) has been challenged, however, as problems such as violence, drunkenness, and general "frontier chaos" have been suggested by Miles Fairburn. This frontier chaos was supplemented by the gold rush, which produced unplanned growth and the presence of undesirable people. In New Zealand especially, then, we see the crossing and conflict of mythistory and revisionism.
Whether the "true version" of history is what we are studying was of interest to me. I wonder how much of the accepted origins of Australia and New Zealand are the result of stories versus revisionism. This topic makes for an interesting discussion of any historical topic. In the end, I believe general ideas and themes can be agreed upon, but details are never truly definitive.
Also, as much as the differences between the settlements of these nations are emphasized, I find the commonalities interesting. A couple striking similarities are the influence of gold mining and pastoralism, as well as the influence of British institutions (political, as emphasized by Clark, in Australia, social stratification in New Zealand).
Again, I would like to know more about the issue of mythistory versus revisionism in the two nations. Which historians accept which views? Or is there general consensus? Who is most influential among those we studied?