It's nice that we can agree that this come down to a Euro-centric judgement as to what constitutes "civilisation".
If it's a matter of long establish trade routes, borders, territory, stone housing, multi generational aqua culture infrastructure, agriculture, oral transmission of history, etc. then yes, civilised.
If it's a case of a bunch of euro colonisers going "Yeah, Nuh" then no, not civilised.
Not at all, you might like to reread and perhaps identify the point at which I assert that I "personally, should be able to decide the proper definition" of "civilised".
I merely pointed out that if one adopts a Euro-centric definition them, indeed, Australian Aboriginals are not civilised.
This is historically what happened when the English declared Terra Nullus - a concept that was later overturned.
If you're unsure of how to reason forward and contrast varying axioms and definitions then this HN thread might of some interest and shed some insight:
If it's a matter of long establish trade routes, borders, territory, stone housing, multi generational aqua culture infrastructure, agriculture, oral transmission of history, etc. then yes, civilised.
If it's a case of a bunch of euro colonisers going "Yeah, Nuh" then no, not civilised.