You've got that arse-backwards, I'm afraid.

Under English Law, one may say untrue things about someone and not be liable (sic) for libel (sic). This would be true if you said Ian Huntley (a convicted child killer) is into beastiality, for example. He has such a lousy reputation anyway, it's impossible to further tarnish it, however outrageous a lie about him one tells.

But truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel and slander in England, as it is (I imagine) everywhere. It's what it means; to libel (sic) is to tell a damaging untruth.

I googled it, and I discover

"The Eureka rebellion is considered by some historians to be the birthplace of Australian democracy. It is the only Australian example of armed rebellion leading to reform of unfair laws. The Southern Cross flag has been used as a symbol of protest by organisations and individuals at both ends of the political spectrum."

Sounds foundational to me. Why shouldn't it count, just because the rebels mostly weren't born in Oz?