In recent years, proposals by Aboriginal Land Councils to develop lands granted under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) have faced fierce and increasingly organised opposition. While these campaigns often adopt the language of grassroots environmentalism, closer scrutiny reveals that many are driven by settler interests, conspiracist ideologies, and false claims to Aboriginal identity. Two emblematic cases illustrate this convergence: opposition to the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council’s (MLALC) Patyegarang (Lizard Rock) development in the Northern Beaches, and the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council’s (DLALC) Kariong and Kincumber land development proposals on the Central Coast. This article focuses primarily on the opposition to Patyegarang, situating it within the broader settler-colonial resurgence evident across both sites.

The MLALC’s Patyegarang proposal seeks to rezone 71 hectares of bushland in Belrose to build 450 homes and a cultural centre, contributing to economic self-determination for Aboriginal people (Department of Planning and Environment, 2023). Despite this legitimate statutory mandate, opposition has emerged from groups such as Save the Northern Beaches Bushland and self-appointed individuals including Neil Evers, Dennis Jones, Lisa Bellamy, and Amanda Jane Reynolds. These figures have become public spokespeople against the project, but all have links to the non-Aboriginal GuriNgai group—a discredited identity network widely rejected by Aboriginal communities, researchers, and statutory authorities (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015; Cooke, 2023a; 2024; 2025a).

The opposition to the MLALC Patyegarang (Lizard Rock) development proposal has brought to the surface a disturbing reality in Australian cultural politics: the active role of non-Aboriginal individuals and networks in appropriating Indigenous identity to subvert Aboriginal land rights. Central to this phenomenon is the self-styled GuriNgai group, whose members—particularly Neil Evers, Dennis Jones, Amanda Jane Reynolds, and Lisa Bellamy—have falsely claimed Aboriginality while positioning themselves as cultural authorities. This article interrogates the GuriNgai’s involvement in the campaign against Patyegarang, exposing their tactics, motivations, and the broader implications for Indigenous governance.

The term “GuriNgai” is itself a colonial construct, popularised in the 20th century through linguistic misreadings and later embraced by self-identifying non-Aboriginal groups in Northern Sydney. Scholarly reviews and cultural authorities have long rejected the historical legitimacy of the term in reference to the Northern Beaches (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015). Nevertheless, the GuriNgai name has been appropriated by a network of settler descendants to manufacture an Aboriginal identity, with no genealogical or communal basis.

This constructed identity has enabled individuals like Neil Evers to perform Welcome to Country ceremonies and to speak as if on behalf of the Traditional Owners. Evers, who has no verified Aboriginal descent and has been formally disavowed by the MLALC, continues to feature in media stories and public forums.

A thorough Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment conducted by Biosis (2024) concluded that the proposal respected the heritage values of the site and integrated mitigation strategies informed by Aboriginal consultation. Further, an Independent Peer Review of the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) validated the scientific rigour of environmental modelling and confirmed the proposal met legislative requirements for conservation offsets (PPA Team, 2024).

“They are NOT Aboriginal”- explosive claim in controversial project

Despite these procedural safeguards and findings, opposition groups continue to misrepresent the process as opaque or culturally damaging. In a 2023 public meeting convened by Northern Beaches Council, several speakers repeated unfounded claims about sacred sites and cultural harm, none of which were supported by formal assessments or recognised Aboriginal stakeholders. Public audio recordings reveal that concerns were largely voiced by non-Indigenous residents with political or ideological objections to urban development (Northern Beaches Council, 2023).

These records and assessments reinforce that MLALC’s proposal is compliant, culturally respectful, and well-supported. What remains contested is not the proposal’s substance, but the authority to define what counts as heritage and who is authorised to speak for Country. That battle is being waged not between Aboriginal communities, but between Aboriginal institutions and settler imposter groups like the GuriNgai.

Evers and his GuriNgai associates have played a central role in the disinformation campaign against the Patyegarang proposal. Their false claims to cultural authority are used to cast doubt on the legitimacy of MLALC, despite the Land Council being the legally mandated Aboriginal representative organisation under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW). By positioning themselves as cultural custodians, the GuriNgai seek to reframe the opposition to Aboriginal led development as an act of internal Aboriginal conflict rather than what it truly is: an instance of settler obstructionism.

This is not merely an academic dispute. It has real implications for land use, policy implementation, and public understanding of Aboriginal heritage.

This pattern is not unique to the Northern Beaches. On the Central Coast, the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) has encountered similar resistance to its Kariong and Kincumber land development proposals. These campaigns—led by the Coast Environmental Alliance, Save Kariong Sacred Lands, and Save Kincumber Wetlands—are also populated by settler actors including Colleen Fuller, Laurie Bimson, Neil Evers, Paul Craig, and Tracey Howie (aka Walkaloa Wunyunah), all of whom lack verified Aboriginal descent. As with the Patyegarang opposition, these groups claim to protect Country while simultaneously erasing the authority of legally recognised Aboriginal custodians (Cooke, 2025b).

The opposition to DLALC developments includes pseudoarchaeological myths about the Kariong Hieroglyphs, promotion of fringe conspiracies about globalism and government corruption, and the use of aesthetic protest tactics that mimic Aboriginal ceremony. This is what Munro (2024) calls “Rowbothian conspiracism”—a belief structure that replaces expert consensus with personal mythology. These tactics are effective in mobilising public concern, but they obscure the truth: DLALC, like MLALC, is pursuing culturally and economically sustainable projects under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.

Both campaigns have been strategically amplified through fringe groups social media forums, and seemingly biased media outlets such as Coast Community News. These networks feed off algorithmic radicalisation and grievance-driven storytelling. Booth et al. (2024) and Mahl et al. (2022) describe how such platforms create echo chambers that intensify hostility toward Aboriginal institutions while providing affective validation to settler activists. CEA, Jake Cassar and Lisa Bellamy’s online forums and videos explicitly characterise ‘Land Council’s’ as a destructive force, casting themselves as custodians, despite having no legitimate claim to Country.

As Moreton-Robinson (2015) argues, white possession operates through the denial of Indigenous sovereignty, often under the banner of environmental or civic concern. The GuriNgai network, and Coast Environmental Alliance, do not merely misrepresent cultural heritage—they actively fracture Aboriginal community consensus and obstruct statutory processes. Their actions, however well-branded, represent a new wave of settler denialism cloaked in the language of justice.

The current legislative framework, including the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) and the proposed Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (Culture is Identity) Bill 2022, affirms the role of Aboriginal Land Councils in managing and developing land for community benefit. These laws rely on cultural authority and representative legitimacy—criteria the GuriNgai group and its allies cannot meet (NSW Parliament, 2022). The failure to enforce these principles enables identity fraud, delays housing and employment outcomes for Aboriginal people, and legitimises a parallel structure of settler-led governance.

In conclusion, the opposition to the Patyegarang development proposal is not a grassroots expression of concern—it is a carefully coordinated campaign rooted in settler resentment, conspiracist thinking, and false identity claims. By aligning themselves with environmental language and symbolic Aboriginality, these actors undermine the rights of actual Aboriginal communities to determine the use of their own land. If left unchallenged, this movement threatens to erode the legal and cultural foundations of Aboriginal sovereignty in New South Wales.

JD Cooke

References

Aboriginal Heritage Office. (2015). Filling a void: A review of the historical context for the use of the word “Guringai”. https://www.aboriginalheritage.org

A Current Affair. (2024, March 2). Nathan Moran speaks out on Neil Evers [Video]. Nine Network. https://www.facebook.com/ACurrentAffair9/videos/nathan-moran-speaks-out-on-neil-evers/468312962863322/

Cooke, J. D. (2023a). Tracey Howie and family: Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation. Guringai.org. https://guringai.org/2023/09/06/tracey-howie-and-family-guringai-tribal-link-aboriginal-corporation/

Cooke, J. D. (2023b). Greedy white man’s ways: Guringai TLAC and the coal companies. Guringai.org. https://guringai.org/2023/08/31/greedy-white-mans-ways-guringai-tlac-the-coal-companies/

Cooke, J. D. (2023c). The mysterious Mr Pross. Guringai.org. https://guringai.org/2023/12/11/the-mysterious-mr-pross/

Cooke, J. D. (2024). The appropriation of Indigenous identity by the non-Aboriginal Guringai group. Guringai.org. https://guringai.org/2024/09/03/the-indigenous-identity-fraud-of-neil-evers-and-the-guringai/

Cooke, J. D. (2025a). The false mirror: Settler environmentalism, identity fraud and the undermining of Aboriginal sovereignty on the Central Coast. Guringai.org. https://guringai.org/2025/06/06/the-false-mirror/

Daily Telegraph. (2024, March 2). Not welcome: Land council tells Neil Evers to stop conducting Indigenous ceremonies. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/not-welcome-land-council-tells-neil-evers-to-stop-conducting-indigenous-ceremonies/news-story/42fa22139237abf645a1640007c2119a

Department of Planning and Environment. (2023). Patyegarang rezoning proposal summary. NSW Government. https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015). The white possessive: Property, power, and Indigenous sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press.

Muirhead, J., & Rosenblum, N. (2023). A lot of people are saying: The new conspiracism and the assault on democracy. Princeton University Press.

Munro, D. (2024). Rowbothian conspiracism: The new logic of post-truth settler activism. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 70(1), 55–72.

NSW Parliament. (2022). Report No. 15 – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (Culture is Identity) Bill 2022. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au

Sky News. (2024, February 28). Major Aboriginal Land Council slams Welcome to Country performer Neil Evers. https://www.skynews.com.au

Taplin, B. (2023). The sovereign citizen superconspiracy: Contemporary issues in native title anthropology. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 34(2), 110–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/taja.12480

Teillet, J. (2021). Indigenous identity fraud: Truth, recognition, and the law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 71(3), 321–348.

Watt, E., & Kowal, E. (2019). To be or not to be Indigenous? Understanding the rise of Australia’s Indigenous population since 1971. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(16), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2018.1546021