This report documents and critically analyses the development, rhetoric, public reception, and implications of Coast Environmental Alliance’s latest scare campaign from 2023 to 2025. It draws on primary social media content, public statements, and local news coverage, as well as secondary analysis from Indigenous-authored sources such as guringai.org. The campaign is situated within the broader context of CEA’s activities, including its opposition to Aboriginal-led housing initiatives at Kariong and its alignment with Coast Community News (CCN).
CEA and Settler Environmentalism on the Central Coast
Since its formation in the late 2010s, the Coast Environmental Alliance has promoted a form of online grassroots environmental activism that frequently blurs into cultural politics. Led by Jake Cassar and supported by a network including Emma French, Cassie Roese, Vicki Burke, Lisa Bellamy, and Colleen Fuller, CEA has initiated or supported several high-profile campaigns, including Save Kariong Sacred Lands and Save Kincumber Wetlands (Cooke, 2025a; Cooke, 2025c).
While ostensibly championing ecological preservation, CEA has also consistently opposed developments initiated by the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC)—the legally recognised Aboriginal landowner —particularly when such developments promise socio-economic benefits for Aboriginal communities (Darkinjung LALC, 2022).
The relationship between the “Save Kincumber Wetlands” initiative and the Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA) reflects a pattern of coordinated activism wherein ostensibly independent campaigns are deeply interlinked through shared personnel, leadership, and strategic objectives.
Despite their distinct campaign branding, both initiatives are functionally intertwined and demonstrate continuity in organisational practice and ideology. Their alignment within the broader framework of Central Coast environmental advocacy reveals a pattern in which local conservation campaigns are strategically framed to bolster a central narrative controlled by the CEA (DoSomething Near You, n.d.).
The Coast Environmental Alliance presents itself as a grassroots environmental organization committed to protecting the Central Coast’s biodiversity and ecologically sensitive sites. Its origins trace back to the “Save Our Sacred Land” campaign, which opposed Aboriginal land development initiatives under the guise of protecting cultural heritage and sacred sites—despite the legitimate custodians of those sites being in support of development. Over the years, CEA has spearheaded or affiliated with campaigns at Bambara, Walkabout Park, and most recently, Kincumber, all of which shared common messaging and tactics. This replication of themes across projects suggests a deliberate and coordinated effort rather than a series of independent, community-led uprisings.
“Save Kincumber Wetlands,” for instance, emerged in response to a rumour of a proposed development project in the Kincumber area. While the campaign frames itself as a spontaneous community effort to protect wetland ecosystems, the individuals promoting the initiative are either affiliated with or previously involved in CEA campaigns. The same activist figures—including CEA founder Jake Cassar and key spokesperson Emma French—frequently reappear across multiple protest movements, including the campaign to halt the Kariong housing development proposed by the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) (Guringai.org, 2024). These recurring appearances make clear that the supposed grassroots spontaneity is, in reality, a sustained campaign infrastructure directed by a consistent network of CEA-aligned actors.
More critically, the campaigns led or supported by CEA have often targeted Aboriginal-led development proposals, raising serious concerns about the racial and political implications of their activism. In the case of the Kariong Sacred Lands, CEA mounted a public campaign under the claim of protecting Aboriginal heritage, despite the fact that DLALC—the legally constituted and culturally legitimate Aboriginal landowner—had already conducted thorough heritage assessments and found no impediment to development (ABC News, 2020; Central Coast News, 2020). Rather than supporting the autonomy and economic development goals of the Aboriginal landholders, CEA instead promoted an alternative narrative that positioned non-Aboriginal environmentalists as more legitimate stewards of cultural heritage, a move widely viewed as racially paternalistic and epistemologically violent.
This pattern of behavior, whereby CEA members question the authenticity or cultural legitimacy of DLALC members, reflects deeper structural issues of settler-colonialism and environmental racism. The delegitimisation of Aboriginal authority in environmental governance perpetuates the notion that Aboriginal communities are incapable of managing their lands in accordance with both cultural and ecological principles. As noted in community responses and documented complaints, CEA members—including Jake Cassar—have suggested that members of DLALC are “not really from the area” and therefore should not have decision-making authority, an inherently racist assertion that disregards the complex histories of forced removal and diaspora that shape Aboriginal identities and land tenure (Guringai.org, 2024).
Further compounding this problem is the strategic deployment of protests and symbolic events by CEA at times designed to undermine Aboriginal events or initiatives. For example, Emma French publicly claimed that CEA’s “Walk for Kariong” coincided with the 5 Lands Walk, an Aboriginal cultural event, despite not seeking permission or partnership with Aboriginal custodians. The timing and positioning of such events have been interpreted as attempts to reframe Aboriginal land as contested space in which non-Aboriginal activists, cloaked in environmental language, assert their authority over legitimate cultural custodians (Guringai.org, 2024). This type of activism, though framed as conservationist, functions as a form of white possessiveness (Moreton-Robinson, 2015), where control over Country is asserted through settler logics of environmental management and faux-cultural preservation.
Ultimately, the convergence of “Save Kincumber Wetlands” and CEA under a shared ideological and operational framework demonstrates a form of strategic activism that appropriates both environmental and Aboriginal discourses to serve settler-colonial interests. While environmental protection is a worthy cause, its instrumentalisation to derail Aboriginal economic self-determination and land use rights reveals a deeper contradiction within the CEA’s mission. What is being enacted is not grassroots empowerment, but a settler-led resistance to Indigenous sovereignty, camouflaged beneath the language of conservation.
Origins of the ‘Save Kincumber Wetlands’ Campaign
The “Save Kincumber Wetlands” campaign was initiated in early 2025 in response to the announcement that the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) was considering a proposal to lease part of its Kincumber land holdings to Woolworths for the development of a new supermarket and car park. This parcel of land, already recognised under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) and successfully transferred to DLALC, includes wetland ecosystems that are ecologically significant and culturally important (Darkinjung LALC, 2022).
The public controversy began when Woolworths’ interest in the site was publicised on social media, with environmental activists and concerned locals reacting strongly. Jake Cassar, the founder of Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA), reposted a Facebook message from local resident Seamus Turton describing the development proposal as the destruction of endangered wetlands (Cassar, 2025). Within days, a Facebook group titled “Save Kincumber Wetlands” was established, gaining hundreds of members almost immediately.
Although it presented itself as a spontaneous community-led initiative, the campaign was deeply embedded within CEA’s activist network. Founding members of Save Kincumber Wetlands, including Emma French and Cassie Roese, had longstanding affiliations with CEA and had previously participated in the organisation’s other protest movements (Guringai.org, 2024). The campaign’s rapid mobilisation and professional branding reflected not grassroots emergence but the activation of an existing campaign infrastructure.
The stated aims of Save Kincumber Wetlands focused on ecological concerns, citing the protection of endangered ecological communities such as Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest, Swamp Sclerophyll Forest, and Coastal Saltmarsh. Species such as the Eastern Curlew, the Powerful Owl, and the Green and Golden Bell Frog as vulnerable or endangered species potentially impacted by development (Central Coast News, 2025). Potentially being the operative word, as the group are not relying on any genuine environmental assessment.
Protest materials, media coverage, and public events emphasised these groundless environmental stakes, and public rallies were held, including one outside Gosford Woolworths on 7 June 2025, where speakers invoked both ecological and cultural reasons to halt the development.
However, the campaign’s messaging also deployed cultural and spiritual language drawn from GuriNgai-associated narratives. Protesters referenced the site as sacred and implied that the DLALC’s development plan was in violation of Indigenous heritage values, despite the fact that DLALC is the legally recognised Aboriginal landowner and had conducted appropriate cultural heritage assessments (ABC News, 2020). This misrepresentation of Aboriginal governance and sovereignty drew strong rebuke from Indigenous commentators, who argued that the campaign displaced legitimate cultural authority in favour of a settler-framed environmentalism (Cooke, 2025a; Moreton-Robinson, 2015).
By mid-2025, Save Kincumber Wetlands had garnered media attention and public support, but it remained entangled in controversy. The potential proposal for some form of development is not yet formulated, so there is no way of measuring the impact of these events, other than to spark renewed debate about the ethics of settler-led environmental campaigns that oppose Aboriginal land councils under the guise of cultural and ecological stewardship.
Manufacturing Dissent: Coast Community News and the Kincumber Wetlands Campaign Against Aboriginal Land Rights
Despite no formal application or proposal being submitted by the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) for the so-called “Kincumber Wetlands development,” Coast Community News has published five successive articles between February and June 2025 amplifying public opposition. All five rely heavily on the same network of activists affiliated with the Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA), Save Kincumber Wetlands, and associated social media groups tied to the My Place movement. Together, they demonstrate how settler environmentalism, rumour, and conspiratorial narratives are mobilised to undermine legitimate Aboriginal authority over land.
Article 1: “Community gathers to protest wetlands development” (June 13, 2025)
This story falsely frames a peaceful gathering led by CEA-affiliated activists as a spontaneous grassroots protest. Although no development application exists, the article asserts that “community members fear” imminent destruction of wetlands. The story prominently features Kate Mason, a My Place Central Coast coordinator, who has consistently opposed DLALC projects under various guises (Save Kariong Sacred Lands, Walkabout Park, Community Voice). No representative from DLALC is quoted or referenced, reflecting a pattern of exclusion that perpetuates settler-defined environmental authority over Aboriginal land.
Article 2: “Rally to oppose Kincumber Wetlands development” (June 6, 2025)
The “rally” in question was promoted via Facebook by CEA and its offshoots, including Save Kincumber Wetlands, and was explicitly linked to anti-Voice, anti-DLALC, and anti-council sentiment. Yet the article presents it as a neutral environmental cause. Emma French is once again quoted—her third appearance across the campaign—as a “concerned local,” despite her formal involvement in Walkabout Wildlife Sanctuary and other settler-led eco-activist groups that oppose Aboriginal land management.
Article 3: “Opposition to proposed Woolies development ramps up” (May 17, 202
This piece escalates the rhetoric, invoking a multinational corporation—Woolworths—as a spectre of urbanisation. However, there is no evidence of Woolworths’ involvement in any DLALC proposal. The article uses the phantom threat of commercial development to stir alarm. It obscures the statutory role of DLALC as a land rights body and implicitly positions the unnamed developers as profit-driven “outsiders,” while in fact DLALC is the rightful Aboriginal custodian exercising land rights under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW).
Article 4: “New group opposes Kincumber development plan” (March 8, 2025)
This is the origin article for Save Kincumber Wetlands, which is portrayed as an organic community formation. In fact, its founding members overlap almost entirely with CEA leadership. The language of “protecting cultural heritage” is weaponised here, echoing the tactics used in opposition to the Kariong Sacred Lands development. The article makes no mention of Aboriginal custodians who support or are responsible for land use decisions, erasing both DLALC and the Aboriginal community in favour of settler environmental voices.
Article 5: “Up in arms over proposed Kincumber development” (February 14, 2025)
This early article lays the groundwork for the entire campaign. It elevates a speculative rumour about development into a public controversy. Notably, no journalist appears to have confirmed with DLALC that a development is being planned—this absence of basic verification illustrates a deliberate dereliction of ethical journalism. The article relies almost exclusively on social media commentary from CEA-affiliated accounts, effectively laundering Facebook hearsay into published journalism.
Analysis of Social Media Amplification and Conspiratorial Framing
Across Facebook and Instagram, CEA and Save Kincumber Wetlands utilise repetition, aestheticised nature imagery, and alarmist rhetoric to mobilise support. Hashtags like #SaveOurWetlands and memes portraying DLALC as a threat to biodiversity frame Aboriginal land councils as enemies of nature—a settler-colonial inversion of reality. Several posts link the wetlands campaign to broader anti-government and anti-Voice sentiment, aligning with the political rhetoric of My Place and sovereign citizen movements.
These pages frequently feature content that also circulated during opposition to other DLALC projects at Kariong and Warnervale, revealing a templated campaign model. The public-facing environmentalism disguises a deeper racial anxiety about Aboriginal control of land, expressed through code words like “overdevelopment,” “loss of community access,” and “environmental destruction”—terms that implicitly deny the Aboriginal right to self-determination in land use.
Conclusion: The Weaponisation of Rumour Against Aboriginal Land Rights
The Kincumber Wetlands media campaign is emblematic of how local media, settler environmentalists, and conspiratorial movements converge to erode Aboriginal land sovereignty. Through the manufacture of a development rumour, Coast Environmental Alliance and Coast Community News and their affiliated networks have constructed a public narrative in which DLALC is positioned as a silent, opaque, and destructive actor—despite the complete absence of any actual proposal.
By failing to include DLALC’s voice or even verify the existence of a development application, CCN acts as a conduit for racialised environmental misinformation. The cumulative effect is colonialism—where settler fears are validated, Aboriginal governance is silenced, and public opinion is mobilised against the very land rights enshrined under NSW law.
References
ABC News. (2020, July 9). Battlelines drawn over Kariong housing project proposed by Darkinjung Aboriginal Land Council. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-09/darkinjung-kariong-housing-development-tensions-mount/12426348
ABC News. (2023, April 4). Anti-vax group My Place is pushing to take ‘control of council decisions’. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-04/anti-vax-group-my-place-plan-to-influence-your-local-council/102166182
Aboriginal Heritage Office. (2015). Filling a void: A review of the historical context for the use of the word “Guringai”. https://www.aboriginalheritage.org
Australian Press Council. (2014). General principles. https://www.presscouncil.org.au
Behrendt, L. (2001). Indigenous self-determination: Rethinking the relationship. UNSW Press.
Carlson, B. (2016). The politics of identity: Who counts as Aboriginal today? Aboriginal Studies Press.
Carlson, B., & Day, M. (2023). So-called sovereign settlers: Settler conspirituality and nativism in the Australian anti-vax movement. Humanities, 12(5), 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/h12050112
Central Coast News. (2020, July 3). Controversy continues over Darkinjung development proposal. https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2020/07/controversy-continues-over-darkinjung-development-proposal/
Central Coast News. (2025, February 26). Ombudsman weighs in on Kariong development controversy. https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2025/02/ombudsman-weighs-in-on-kariong-development-controversy/
Cooke, J. D. (2025a). The false mirror: Settler environmentalism, identity fraud and the undermining of Aboriginal sovereignty on the Central Coast. https://guringai.org/2025/06/06
Cooke, J. D. (2025b). Prepping for sovereignty: Settler conspirituality, identity fraud and the recolonisation of Indigeneity in Australia. https://guringai.org/2025/06/05
Cooke, J. D. (2025c). White possession, settler conspirituality and the Guringai cult. https://guringai.org
Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council. (2021). Aboriginal Cultural Authority on the Central Coast: Position Paper. https://guringai.org
Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council. (2022). DLALC submission into the Central Coast Council First Nations Accord. https://guringai.org
DoSomething Near You. (n.d.). Coast Environmental Alliance. https://dosomethingnearyou.com.au/cause/coast-environmental-alliance/
Guringai.org. (2024, June 2). Coast Environmental Alliance vs the local Aboriginal Land Council: An interview with Walk for Kariong organiser Emma French. https://guringai.org/2024/06/02/coast-environmental-alliance-vs-the-local-aboriginal-land-council-an-interview-with-walk-for-kariong-organiser-emma-french/
Leroux, D. (2019). Distorted descent: White claims to Indigenous identity. University of Manitoba Press.
Lissarrague, A., & Syron, R. (2024). Guringaygupa djuyal, barray: Language and Country of the Guringay people.
Moreton-Robinson, A. (2004). The possessive logic of patriarchal white sovereignty: The High Court and the Yorta Yorta decision. Borderlands e-journal, 3(2).
Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015). The white possessive: Property, power, and Indigenous sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press.
Visontay, E. (2021, July 31). Sydney lockdown double standards: ‘We were treated like criminals’. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/31/sydney-lockdown-double-standards-we-were-treated-like-criminals
Watt, E., & Kowal, E. (2019). To be or not to be Indigenous? Meanjin Quarterly, 78(1), 38–45.
A Long Con, Gone on Too Long. 
Leave a reply to Colette Baron and the Architecture of Conspirituality: Epistemic Dissonance, and Settler Appropriation in Activist Wellness Networks – Bungaree.org Cancel reply