Abstract 

This article examines the emergence and persistence of the so-called “GuriNgai” identity movement, as a case study in contemporary Indigenous identity fraud, settler conspirituality, and the performance of cultural authority. The GuriNgai are referred to as ‘so-called’ because this name has been self-assigned by individuals whose claims to Aboriginal ancestry have been consistently rejected by recognised Aboriginal people, communities, genealogists, and cultural historians in New South Wales, Australia,

Drawing on critical frameworks from Chelsea Watego (2021), Aileen Moreton-Robinson (2015), Philip Deloria (1998), and Kim TallBear (2013), the essay investigates how a predominantly non-Aboriginal network of individuals has constructed and asserted a fabricated Indigenous identity through claims of descent from Bungaree and Matora, claims that have been genealogically disproven and culturally rejected, leaders of the historical Carigal clan of Broken Bay. Through the appropriation of language, ceremony, and symbolic kinship, this group, known publicly as the GuriNgai, has gained access to cultural heritage consultations (such as those conducted by Hornsby Shire Council), public funds (including arts grants and cultural programs), and institutional legitimacy despite consistent genealogical and community-based refutations of their claims.

The essay situates the GuriNgai phenomenon within a broader pattern of white possession, race-shifting, and settler mimicry. It argues that such performances of Indigeneity are not merely neutral errors of misidentification but, in many cases, deliberate and systemic acts of identity fraud that constitute neocolonial occupations of cultural space that undermine Aboriginal sovereignty, displace genuine custodians, and weaponise the rhetoric of reconciliation for personal, political, and spiritual gain. It further critiques the enabling role of local councils, state heritage bodies, and media outlets such as Coast Community News, who continue to platform and legitimise GuriNgai voices while excluding authentic Aboriginal perspectives. Using the cases of Tracey Howie, Neil Evers, Laurie Bimson, Charlie Needs Braces, and Jake Cassar as focal points, the article explores the cultural and policy consequences of settler-led Indigenisation projects, and calls for urgent reforms in identity verification (including the consistent application of the three-part test), media ethics (such as mandatory identity verification for self-declared Aboriginal voices), and cultural heritage governance (with Aboriginal-led oversight bodies empowered to vet representatives and claims).

Introduction

The question of who is entitled to claim Aboriginal identity has become increasingly contested in contemporary Australia, not merely as a question of ancestry, but as a matter of cultural authority, historical truth, and political consequence. In the context of ongoing settler colonialism, the emergence of groups such as the self-declared “GuriNgai” reveals the complex ways in which white Australians continue to seek belonging on Aboriginal land, often through the co-option of Aboriginal identity itself. As Chelsea Watego (2021) asserts, the settler state’s willingness to recognise certain Aboriginal identities while ignoring or undermining others is not accidental; it is an extension of the colonial project. Within this frame, identity fraud is not simply a personal transgression but a systemic mode of erasure and replacement.

The GuriNgai identity movement, centred in the Northern Beaches and Central Coast regions of New South Wales, provides a striking case study. Claiming descent from the Broken Bay leader Bungaree and his wife Matora, this group has asserted cultural authority through ceremony, education, media appearances, and local government partnerships, despite genealogical evidence that contradicts these assertions and the absence of recognition from any Aboriginal Land Council or known cultural authority. The persistence of the GuriNgai identity, and its public endorsement by institutions such as Hornsby Shire Council, Northern Beaches Council, and Coast Community News, raises urgent questions about how Aboriginality is authenticated, who performs that authentication, and to what end.

Theoretical Framework

This essay draws on a range of critical theoretical frameworks to understand the emergence and persistence of fraudulent Indigenous identity claims, with a particular focus on the GuriNgai group in New South Wales.

Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s (2015) theory of the White possessive provides a foundational lens through which to interpret settler claims to Aboriginality. For Moreton-Robinson, whiteness functions as a structure of possession—a means through which the settler state continues to control land, knowledge, and identity. When settlers appropriate Indigenous identity, they are not simply misidentifying; they are asserting ownership over Aboriginal subjectivity, reinscribing colonial power by appearing as the ‘authentic’ voice of Country. In this context, the GuriNgai movement becomes a strategic assertion of settler sovereignty through the performance of Aboriginality.

Philip Deloria’s (1998) concept of “playing Indian” helps illuminate the cultural dynamics at play in the public performance of GuriNgai identity. In settler societies, Deloria argues, there is a long history of white subjects adopting elements of Indigeneity—clothing, rituals, language—as a way to resolve their alienation from land and manufacture an authentic national identity. This form of mimicry serves the dual purpose of romanticising Indigeneity while erasing living Indigenous peoples. The GuriNgai’s public ceremonies, linguistic appropriation, and faux-historical narratives exemplify this dynamic.

Chelsea Watego (2021) contributes a crucial First Nations perspective, emphasising how recognition politics within the settler state continues to reward performances of Indigeneity that are legible to white institutions, while marginalising Aboriginal people who speak uncomfortable truths. The success of GuriNgai figures in gaining institutional legitimacy—despite widespread Aboriginal opposition—demonstrates how identity fraud is enabled by systems designed to affirm settler desire, not Indigenous sovereignty.

Finally, Kim TallBear’s (2013) critique of genetic essentialism highlights the dangers of using ancestry and DNA as a proxy for cultural belonging. In both the US and Australia, TallBear argues, the fixation on biological descent ignores the relational, communal, and political foundations of Indigenous identity. The GuriNgai’s reliance on dubious genealogies and self-published family trees, devoid of community recognition, exemplifies the fallacy of descent-based claims divorced from actual kinship networks.

Together, these frameworks demonstrate that the GuriNgai phenomenon is not merely a cultural curiosity or bureaucratic oversight—it is a calculated, politically enabled performance of white possession, enacted through the language of reconciliation, and legitimised by institutions invested in settler futures.

Case Study I – The Fabricated Descent Lineage of Tracey Howie

Tracey Howie is a central figure in the GuriNgai identity movement. A founder of Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation (GTLAC), Howie has publicly claimed descent from Bungaree and Matora through a purported daughter named “Sophy.” This narrative forms the basis of her claim to cultural authority in the Northern Beaches and Central Coast regions. However, archival and genealogical research unequivocally demonstrates that Bungaree and Matora had only one daughter—Biddy, also known as Biddy Salamander, Sarah Wallace, Sarah Ferdinand, or Sarah Lewis. Biddy’s lineage is well-documented and continues through recognised members of the Marramarra clan, none of whom include Howie or her family.

The “Sophy” narrative appears to be an invention with no basis in archival records, oral history, or genealogical documentation. This assertion is substantiated by the comprehensive report Disputed Descent: A Critical Examination of Tracey Howie’s Claimed Connection to Bungaree and Matora (Bungaree.org, 2025), which outlines the historical, demographic, and cultural inconsistencies in Howie’s claims. Notably, her family line shows no known Indigenous descent.

Despite these refutations, Howie has been repeatedly invited to perform ceremonial roles at council events, advise on land and heritage matters, and receive cultural grants. These acts of institutional recognition not only validate her fabricated identity but marginalise the actual descendants of Bungaree and Matora. The Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC) and other cultural custodians have formally objected to Howie’s claims, including in correspondence with the NSW Premier (MLALC, 2020), yet her role continues to be supported by organisations such as Hornsby Shire Council and the Coastal Environment Centre.

This case exemplifies how a false lineage, once repeated and institutionalised, can gain a veneer of legitimacy even in the face of rigorous cultural and genealogical refutation. It also reveals how the mechanisms of cultural heritage consultation, when not adequately verified, can be weaponised by non-Aboriginal actors seeking authority and influence in Aboriginal affairs.

Case Study II – Neil Evers, Laurie Bimson, and the Performance of Authority

Neil Evers and Laurie Bimson are among the most publicly visible figures associated with the GuriNgai identity movement. Both have acted as cultural representatives in council consultations, heritage panels, and public ceremonies across the Northern Beaches and Central Coast regions. Their public personas are frequently reinforced by local media such as Coast Community News, which routinely refers to them as GuriNgai Elders despite their lack of recognised Aboriginal descent or community endorsement.

Neil Evers, a retired Northern Beaches resident with no genealogical or community-verified Aboriginal ancestry, has long asserted a GuriNgai identity and held ceremonial roles for various Schools and Councils, including Welcome to Country events and heritage negotiations. Evers has claimed descent from the Guringai/GuriNgai people through oral family knowledge, yet archival investigations, including those conducted by independent researchers and Aboriginal communities, have found no documentation supporting his assertions. His affiliations with organisations such as the Aboriginal Support Group Manly Warringah Pittwater (ASGMWP) have further bolstered his institutional profile, even as Aboriginal Land Councils and cultural custodians have publicly challenged the legitimacy of his claims.

Laurie Bimson, similarly, has presented himself as a GuriNgai knowledge holder and been employed in ‘teaching’ and representing Aboriginal Culture. Yet genealogical research traces the Bimson family to non-Aboriginal settler lines, and his assertions of Aboriginal ancestry have not been substantiated by any recognised Aboriginal organisation. Despite this, Bimson has appeared in numerous public forums to speak on behalf of GuriNgai culture, further entrenching the group’s institutional presence. Notably, both Evers and Bimson have worked closely with Tracey Howie through Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation and associated cultural programs.

Their repeated participation in local government projects, often to the exclusion of genuine Aboriginal voices, highlights a systemic failure of verification processes within cultural heritage governance. These failures enable the consolidation of authority by individuals whose claims are grounded not in recognised kinship networks or communal validation, but in self-identification and performative engagement. As a result, the public perception of who constitutes an Aboriginal Elder or knowledge holder becomes distorted, allowing non-Aboriginal actors to displace authentic custodians and reframe cultural narratives for settler consumption.

Case Study III – Charlie Needs Braces and Cultural Appropriation in the Arts

Charlie Needs Braces is the musical project of Melbourne-based artist Charlie Woods, frequently accompanied by her sister, Miri Woods. Together with their mother, Rebecca Hird-Fletcher, the Woods family has actively claimed Aboriginal identity by asserting descent from the historical Broken Bay leader Bungaree and his wife, Matora. These assertions have been widely and consistently challenged by Aboriginal community members, cultural historians, and multiple statutory bodies on the basis of genealogical inaccuracy and lack of cultural recognition (Guringai.org, 2024; MLALC, 2020).

There is no genealogical evidence to support the claim that Charlie Woods or her sister Miri Woods are of Aboriginal descent. Their mother, Rebecca Hird-Fletcher, has publicly claimed to be a GuriNgai woman descended from Bungaree and Matora, through their daughter “Sophy.” However, as demonstrated in prior sections, Bungaree and Matora had only one daughter, Biddy (also known as Biddy Salamander, Sarah Wallace, Sarah Ferdinand, or Sarah Lewis). Biddy’s line is continued through the recognised Marramarra clan, and no evidence links the Woods family to that lineage.

Despite this, Charlie Needs Braces has received considerable media coverage and institutional support that centres Woods’s claimed Aboriginality as a key element of her artistic brand. In interviews with the ABC and Beat Magazine (2025), Woods speaks of her “mob,” her connection to Country, and the cultural inspiration of her music, claims that have not only gone unchallenged by media outlets, but have been platformed as evidence of Indigenous cultural practice. The visual branding of the band incorporates Aboriginal iconography, and performances often include references to being a voice for Country and wildlife, invoking tropes commonly associated with Aboriginal ecological and spiritual knowledge.

This case reveals the extent to which the music and entertainment industries lack rigorous protocols for verifying Indigenous identity, particularly when identity claims are framed through affect, storytelling, or aesthetic performance. The funding and visibility afforded to Charlie Needs Braces, while actual Aboriginal artists struggle for representation, demonstrates the material harm of such misrepresentation. In turn, this contributes to a broader pattern of cultural appropriation in the arts, wherein self-declared Indigeneity is rewarded over community-acknowledged identity, reinforcing colonial structures of recognition and legitimacy.

Case Study IV – Coast Environmental Alliance, Jake Cassar, and Settler Conspirituality

The Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA), led by Jake Cassar, represents a hybrid movement of faux-environmentalism, New Age spirituality, and populist resistance to Aboriginal land rights. Operating primarily on the NSW Central Coast, CEA has framed itself as a grassroots conservation organisation, yet its campaigns frequently target land development proposals by legitimate Aboriginal Land Councils such as the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) and the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC). These campaigns, framed as ecological protection, often mask deeper anxieties about Aboriginal authority and re-assert settler control over land under the guise of environmental stewardship.

Jake Cassar, a self-styled bush tracker and survivalist, is emblematic of what scholars have termed ‘settler conspirituality’, a blend of conspiracy thinking, esoteric belief systems, and anti-institutional rhetoric that incorporates appropriated Indigenous language and imagery. Cassar and CEA have regularly platformed unverified figures claiming to be Aboriginal, including Tracey Howie, Paul Craig, Laurie Bimson,Colleen Fuller, and Neil Evers, to lend cultural legitimacy to anti-development protests. Simultaneously, the group has been silent or hostile when actual Aboriginal representatives of DLALC and MLALC have spoken publicly in support of development plans grounded in economic self-determination and community control.

One of the most high-profile examples of this settler eco-spiritual backlash occurred at Kariong, where Cassar and his allies opposed a DLALC development proposal by invoking alleged sacred sites, often linked to pseudoarchaeological claims such as the Gosford Glyphs. Rather than deferring to Aboriginal cultural heritage experts or LALC custodians, the campaign promoted voices outside any recognised kinship or cultural authority, including those tied to New Age interpretations of Dreaming and alien visitation theories.

CEA’s campaigns have been amplified by sympathetic local media outlets, particularly Coast Community News, which has regularly reported their claims without critical scrutiny or balanced inclusion of DLALC and MLALC perspectives. The outcome is a re-entrenchment of settler narratives of custodianship, where white eco-activists, cloaked in Aboriginal symbology, assert moral and spiritual authority over Country while undermining the sovereignty of Aboriginal landholders.

This case reveals how environmental rhetoric, when decoupled from Aboriginal governance, can function as a tool of re-colonisation. It also highlights the dangerous convergence of identity fraud, spiritual appropriation, and conspiracy discourse in contemporary land struggles—one that must be recognised as a serious threat to the cultural and political self-determination of Aboriginal communities.

Discussion

The case studies presented above reveal a consistent pattern of white possession enacted through the performance of Indigeneity. Moreton-Robinson’s (2015) framing of the White possessive as a structural force is exemplified in each case, where settler Australians assert ownership not only over land but also over Aboriginal identity, ceremony, and authority. The figures examined, Tracey Howie, Neil Evers, Laurie Bimson, Charlie Woods, and Jake Cassar, have each fashioned public identities that invoke Aboriginal ancestry while bypassing Aboriginal systems of accountability. In doing so, they reoccupy Aboriginal cultural space in a manner that parallels historical patterns of dispossession.

This phenomenon is made possible by the complicity of institutions, local councils, media platforms, arts bodies, and government departments, that consistently fail to apply rigorous identity verification standards. Recognition is extended not through cultural validation but through bureaucratic criteria that reward performance, accessibility, and settler legibility. The crisis of recognition, as Watego (2021) identifies, is not just a matter of misplaced belief but an outcome of colonial institutions prioritising narratives that align with white expectations of what Indigeneity should look and sound like. In this context, the language of reconciliation is co-opted to legitimise those who perform Aboriginality in ways palatable to settler audiences while silencing those who assert sovereignty, accountability, and truth.

The GuriNgai group and its affiliated networks also exhibit characteristics of a cultic social formation. There is an inward reinforcement of unverified claims, an emphasis on charismatic leadership, and a rejection of external critique—particularly when it originates from Aboriginal people. The invocation of mysticism, sacred sites, and esoteric knowledge, often detached from recognised community protocols, reinforces their spiritual authority in the eyes of followers and the public. This cultic structure allows for the strategic consolidation of influence across environmental activism, education, media, and heritage policy.

Together, these dynamics illustrate a settler colonial formation in which identity fraud is not only tolerated but often celebrated when it serves settler interests. The harms extend far beyond misrepresentation. They include the erasure of legitimate Aboriginal voices, the undermining of community governance, the distortion of cultural memory, and the reoccupation of Country by those with no ancestral or communal right to speak for it. These are not isolated incidents, but symptoms of a systemic failure to recognise and uphold Aboriginal sovereignty in cultural and political life.

Conclusion

The persistence and institutional entrenchment of the GuriNgai identity movement expose the urgent need for reform in how Aboriginal identity is recognised, authenticated, and governed in Australia. As demonstrated throughout the case studies of Tracey Howie, Neil Evers, Laurie Bimson, Charlie Woods, and Jake Cassar, the appropriation of Aboriginal identity is not merely an individual misstep but a pattern of systemic deception enabled by institutional complicity and settler desire.

These acts of identity fraud result in tangible and long-lasting harms: they displace genuine custodians from consultation processes, redirect resources away from Aboriginal communities, distort public understandings of Indigenous culture and history, and reassert settler control over narratives of Country. When institutions accept self-declared identities without verification, they participate in a broader colonial project that continues to erase Aboriginal sovereignty while masking itself in the language of inclusion and reconciliation.

Addressing these harms requires coordinated and structural reform. First, identity verification processes must be strengthened across all sectors that engage with Aboriginal identity, including arts funding, media representation, cultural heritage management, and public policy. The consistent application of the three-part test (descent, self-identification, and community recognition) must become a non-negotiable standard for recognition.

Second, oversight of Aboriginal cultural representation must be returned to Aboriginal-led bodies with the authority to assess identity claims and cultural legitimacy. This includes deferring to Local Aboriginal Land Councils and recognised custodians in all matters of ceremony, heritage, and consultation. Non-Aboriginal organisations must cease elevating unverified individuals as Aboriginal voices and instead prioritise engagement with communities that hold legitimate authority.

Third, there must be accountability for media outlets, educational institutions, and public organisations that platform fraudulent identities. Editorial standards should require verification of Aboriginal identity in the same way that professional credentials are checked. Failure to do so perpetuates misinformation and facilitates the ongoing displacement of Aboriginal knowledge holders.

Finally, this is not only a matter of policy but of cultural ethics. Settler Australians must interrogate their complicity in perpetuating romanticised and convenient fictions of Indigeneity. As Chelsea Watego (2021) insists, true justice for Aboriginal people will not be achieved through performances of solidarity but through the structural transfer of power. This includes returning authority over identity to Aboriginal people, restoring cultural narratives to rightful custodians, and resisting the settler desire to possess Aboriginality as a means of resolving colonial guilt.

Anything less is complicity in a twenty-first century continuation of dispossession.

References

ABC. (2025). Charlie Needs Braces artist profile. Triple J Unearthed. https://www.abc.net.au/triplejunearthed/artist/charlie-needs-braces/

Beat. (2025). Charlie Needs Braces: “Protecting Country, taking care of our wildlife – a lot of the music is derived from my mob”. Beat Magazine. https://beat.com.au/charlie-needs-braces-protecting-country-taking-care-of-our-wildlife-a-lot-of-the-music-is-derived-from-my-mob/

Bungaree.org. (2025). Disputed descent: A critical examination of Tracey Howie’s claimed connection to Bungaree and Matora. https://bungaree.org/2025/06/18/disputed-descent-a-critical-examination-of-tracey-howies-claimed-connection-to-bungaree-and-matora/

Carlson, B. (2021). Indigenous social media and the gendered politics of identity. Routledge.

Coast Community News. (2022–2025). Multiple articles referring to GuriNgai identity and land controversies. https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/

Deloria, P. J. (1998). Playing Indian. Yale University Press.

DLALC. (2024). Public submission regarding cultural heritage management and false identity claims. Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council.

Guringai.org. (2023, August 25). Neil Evers: Constructing a Guringai Identity. https://guringai.org/2023/08/25/neil-evers/

Guringai.org. (2023, August 28). Laurie Bimson: The legacy of fabrication. https://guringai.org/2023/08/28/laurie-bimson/

Guringai.org. (2024, June 6). The false mirror: Settler environmentalism, identity fraud, and the undermining of Aboriginal sovereignty on the Central Coast. https://guringai.org/2025/06/06/the-false-mirror-settler-environmentalism-identity-fraud-and-the-undermining-of-aboriginal-sovereignty-on-the-central-coast/

Guringai.org. (2024, June 12). Coast Community News, the Guringai group, and the reframing of Aboriginal custodianship on the Central Coast. https://guringai.org/2025/06/12/coast-community-news-the-guringai-group-and-the-reframing-of-aboriginal-custodianship-on-the-central-coast/

Kim TallBear. (2013). Native American DNA: Tribal belonging and the false promise of genetic science. University of Minnesota Press.

MLALC. (2020). Letter to Premier Berejiklian opposing Guringai identity claims. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council.

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

Watego, C. (2021). Another day in the colony. University of Queensland Press.

Watego, C., Singh, D., & Macoun, A. (2020). Normalising settler colonial violence: Media representations of Aboriginal identity. Media International Australia, 177(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20928284

Wafer, J. (2021). Report on Northern Beaches Aboriginal identity claims. NSW Aboriginal Affairs (Note: cited critically in essay).

Whitfield, W. (2001). Oral history interview transcript. State Library of New South Wales.