Executive Summary
This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the interconnected phenomena of pseudolaw, cultism, conspirituality, and Indigenous identity fraud in Australia, with a specific focus on their manifestation and impact in the New South Wales (NSW) Central Coast and Sydney regions. The analysis reveals that these movements, while seemingly disparate, frequently converge to pose significant threats to the integrity of the Australian legal system, social cohesion, and, most critically, the legitimate self-determination and cultural authority of Indigenous Australians. Key findings indicate that pseudolaw burdens the courts with frivolous claims, cultic dynamics employ manipulative tactics to exploit vulnerable individuals, and conspirituality provides an ideological framework that often co-opts Indigenous narratives. Indigenous identity fraud, or “pretendianism,” emerges as a particularly insidious form of neocolonial violence, diverting resources, distorting cultural truths, and undermining the statutory roles of legitimate Aboriginal people and organisations, including Local Aboriginal Land Councils.
The report highlights instances of institutional complicity, particularly within local government and media, which, through uncritical platforming and engagement, inadvertently legitimize fraudulent groups and incur substantial financial and cultural costs. The findings underscore the urgent need for robust verification processes, targeted legal and policy reforms, and increased public education to safeguard Indigenous culture, sovereignty, and broader societal integrity against these evolving threats.
Introduction: The Intersecting Threats to Australian Society and Indigenous Sovereignty
The contemporary Australian social and political landscape is increasingly challenged by a complex interplay of pseudolaw, cultism, conspirituality, and Indigenous identity fraud. These phenomena, while distinct in their primary manifestations, frequently intersect and reinforce one another, creating a multifaceted threat environment. This report aims to critically analyze these interconnected movements, with a particular emphasis on their presence and impact within the New South Wales (NSW) Central Coast and Sydney regions.
This analysis defines pseudolaw as the application of false legal arguments to dispute established government authority, often rooted in the broader Sovereign Citizen ideology (Hobbs, 2025; Parker & Mckenzie, 2023). Cultism, for the purposes of this report, refers to groups or movements characterized by excessive devotion to a person or idea, employing unethical and manipulative techniques of persuasion and control, such as isolation, psychological manipulation, and exploitation (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). While acknowledging the strong negative connotations and the need for caution in applying the term “cult,” its use here aligns with public discourse and the focus of recent inquiries into organized fringe groups (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). Conspirituality is understood as a portmanteau describing the overlap of conspiracy theories, such as QAnon or narratives of a “New World Order,” with New Age spiritual beliefs. This fusion often portrays adherents as uniquely enlightened individuals facing persecution for their awareness of a “real truth” (Day & Carlson, 2023; Wikipedia, n.d.). Finally, Indigenous Identity Fraud, also known as “Pretendianism,” denotes the false claim of Indigenous identity, whether through fabricated ancestry or community affiliation. This practice is considered an extreme form of cultural appropriation that directly undermines the inherent sovereignty and self-determination of legitimate Indigenous nations and communities (Andersen, 2025; Deloria, 1998; Stolz & Toscano, n.d.).
The NSW Central Coast and Sydney regions serve as a critical geographic focus for this report due to the documented concentration of activities by groups and individuals implicated in these phenomena, including the GuriNgai group and the Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA). The central argument of this report is that these interconnected phenomena collectively pose significant and escalating threats to legal integrity, social cohesion, and, fundamentally, to legitimate Indigenous self-determination in Australia. This convergence is particularly damaging to Indigenous communities, as it co-opts and distorts Indigenous narratives, undermines established governance structures, and diverts crucial resources from genuine Indigenous initiatives.
The Landscape of Pseudolaw and the Sovereign Citizen Movement in Australia
The Sovereign Citizen (SovCit) movement, an ideology originating in the United States in the 1970s, has maintained a presence in Australia for decades. Historically, Australian adherents of this movement typically sought to disengage from societal norms, often refusing to comply with requirements such as paying taxes or obtaining driver’s licenses, and frequently operated in isolation or within small, localized groups (Dametto, 2022; Hobbs, 2025; Parker & Mckenzie, 2023).
However, the COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a significant resurgence and transformation of the SovCit movement in Australia. This period saw increased online connectivity facilitate transnational information sharing and mutual support among sovereign citizen groups globally (Dametto, 2022; Hobbs, 2025; Parker & Mckenzie, 2023). The movement evolved from a collection of isolated individuals to a more organized and evangelizing force, characterized by formal and informal leadership structures, marking a distinct shift in its operational dynamics (Dametto, 2022).
Adherents of the SovCit ideology are bound by the erroneous belief that government law does not apply to them without their explicit consent, asserting that governments themselves are illegitimate entities lacking legal power (Hobbs, 2025; Parker & Mckenzie, 2023).
To support these claims, they employ “pseudolaw” tactics, which involve idiosyncratic interpretations of common law principles, human rights laws, and even historical documents like the Magna Carta, all aimed at delegitimizing governmental authority (Dametto, 2022). In legal settings, this manifests as disruptive courtroom behavior, a steadfast rejection of genuine legal advice, the use of outdated or confusing language, and the filing of numerous nonsensical claims (Hobbs, 2025).
This persistent engagement with pseudolaw arguments creates a significant systemic burden on the Australian legal system. Despite the fact that these views have never been accepted in any court in Australia, or indeed in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom, adherents continue to pursue them in increasing numbers (Hobbs, 2025; Parker & Mckenzie, 2023). This relentless pursuit of baseless legal arguments slows down trials, escalates legal costs, and places immense pressure on a system designed to ensure fair treatment for all (Hobbs, 2025). The motivation for individuals to adopt these pseudolegal frameworks often stems from personal crises, such as family breakups, economic uncertainty, or home repossession, where they seek to regain a sense of control (Hobbs, 2025). This self-reinforcing cycle, where repeated failures in court paradoxically fuel further attempts, diverts judicial resources and time from legitimate cases, highlighting a vulnerability in how individuals in distress can be drawn into and perpetuate these false legal narratives.
The consequences for individuals embracing pseudolaw are consistently negative, leading to criminal convictions, substantial fines, and additional legal costs. A notable example involved a man who challenged a $95 parking fine, ultimately incurring a total cost of $5085 after multiple unsuccessful appeals (Hobbs, 2025). Beyond financial repercussions, the adoption of pseudolegal beliefs can severely damage family relationships, causing significant emotional distress for loved ones (Hobbs, 2025).
Furthermore, the SovCit movement has demonstrated an increasingly violent edge. It has been linked to serious incidents in Australia, including those in Newcastle and Lithgow, and the killing of two Queensland police officers in 2022 (Hobbs, 2025; Parker & Mckenzie, 2023). The Australian Federal Police (AFP) and other law enforcement agencies worldwide have designated sovereign citizens as a potential terrorist threat (Dametto, 2022; Parker & Mckenzie, 2023). The progression from individuals attempting to establish “micro-nations” to a movement associated with arson, child abuse, rape, sexual assault, attempted kidnapping, mass shootings, and homicides indicates a clear radicalization pathway (Dametto, 2022; Hobbs, 2025). This progression is fueled by a deeply held conviction that their beliefs are morally and legally correct, combined with a rejection of external authority, which fosters a dangerous echo chamber (Dametto, 2022).
The shift towards encrypted communication, observed as a response to de-platforming by social media companies, further suggests increasing insularity and a greater potential for clandestine planning and extreme actions (Dametto, 2022). This underscores the urgent need for law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies to monitor and disrupt these groups, recognizing the potential for domestic extremist violence, even as the movement attempts to shed its “sovereign citizen” label (Dametto, 2022). The intimidating and sometimes violent behavior of pseudolaw litigants also has a significant negative impact on court staff, as evidenced by incidents during the pandemic where staff were followed and filmed, and a seemingly harmless individual was found with unregistered weapons (Hobbs, 2025).
A particularly concerning development in Australia is the increasing overlap between the Sovereign Citizen movement and Indigenous sovereignty claims. There is a growing trend of non-Indigenous individuals employing pseudolegal arguments that co-opt terms related to Indigenous sovereignty (Hobbs, 2025). Concurrently, some Indigenous individuals have also adopted sovereign citizen pseudolaw to challenge state authority (Hobbs, 2025). This evolving pseudolegal overlap is deeply problematic because, unlike countries such as Canada, the United States, and New Zealand where treaties recognize distinct Indigenous claims, Australian law currently treats all sovereignty claims similarly (Hobbs, 2025). This approach risks undermining the dignity of legitimate Indigenous law and weakening broader efforts to meaningfully recognize Indigenous rights and sovereignty within Australia’s legal and political systems (Hobbs, 2025).
| Characteristic/Impact Category | Description |
| Ideological Basis | Belief that government law is illegitimate and does not apply without consent; individuals possess two identities: a fictitious “legal person” and a “living person” (Hobbs, 2025; Parker & Mckenzie, 2023). |
| Legal Tactics (“Pseudolaw”) | Disputing the law itself; rejecting genuine legal advice; using outdated/confusing language; filing numerous nonsensical claims; applying idiosyncratic interpretations of common law, human rights laws, and Magna Carta (Dametto, 2022; Hobbs, 2025; Parker & Mckenzie, 2023). |
| Court Outcomes | Pseudolegal arguments consistently fail in court, leading to convictions, fines, and increased legal costs for adherents (Hobbs, 2025). |
| Societal Impacts | Increased legal system burden (slowed trials, higher costs); emotional and relational damage to families; escalating violence (linked to arson, child abuse, mass shootings, homicides, and police killings); designated as a potential terrorist threat by law enforcement (Dametto, 2022; Hobbs, 2025; Parker & Mckenzie, 2023). |
| Operational Characteristics | Strong belief in moral/legal correctness; generally open about beliefs; increasing use of encrypted communication due to de-platforming; shift from isolated individuals to organized groups with recruitment (Dametto, 2022). |
| Overlap with Indigenous Sovereignty | Non-Indigenous individuals increasingly use pseudolegal arguments with Indigenous sovereignty terms; risks undermining legitimate Indigenous law and rights recognition in Australia (Hobbs, 2025). |
Table 1: Key Characteristics and Impacts of the Sovereign Citizen Movement in Australia.
Conspirituality and Cultic Dynamics: A Framework for Understanding Manipulation
Conspirituality, a neologism coined in 2011, denotes the significant overlap of conspiracy theories with New Age spiritual beliefs, a phenomenon that gained prominence in the 1990s (Wikipedia, n.d.). This politico-spiritual philosophy is founded on two core convictions: first, the belief that a secret group covertly controls, or attempts to control, the political and social order; and second, the conviction that humanity is undergoing a profound “paradigm shift” in consciousness (Wikipedia, n.d.). Proponents of conspirituality believe that the most effective strategy for confronting the perceived threat of a totalitarian “new world order” is to align one’s actions with an awakened “new paradigm” worldview (Wikipedia, n.d.).
Adherents of conspirituality often perceive themselves as possessing a unique enlightenment, believing they are more aware of the “real truth” than mainstream society, and consequently, are prone to persecution for this awareness (Wikipedia, n.d.). This combination of optimistic, holistic New Age culture and pessimistic, conservative conspiracy culture creates a paradoxical yet compelling narrative. It offers a powerful sense of specialness and belonging, while simultaneously justifying a detachment or isolation from what is perceived as “three-dimensional” mainstream concerns (Wikipedia, n.d.). This dual narrative, which positions followers as uniquely enlightened yet persecuted, serves as an potent recruitment tool, particularly for individuals seeking meaning, community, or explanations for societal problems, especially during periods of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Day & Carlson, 2023). This self-validating system makes adherents highly resistant to external critique and factual information. The appeal of conspirituality lies in the narcissistic idea of being the one capable of unraveling the true explanations for all that is perceived as wrong in the world (Wikipedia, n.d.).
The dynamics observed within conspirituality often mirror those found in cults and organized fringe groups, which employ manipulative tactics for recruitment and control. While there is no universally accepted legal definition of “cult” in Australia, parliamentary inquiries focus on groups that utilize techniques causing emotional, psychological, financial, or physical harm to individuals (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). Such groups are characterized by an excessive devotion to a person, idea, or thing, and the unethical manipulation of persuasion and control, often to advance the goals of leaders at the expense of members and their families (Parliament of Victoria, 2025).
Recruitment tactics often target vulnerable individuals experiencing emotional stress, identity crises, or social disconnection. Groups may initially present themselves through seemingly benign activities, such as self-improvement programs or environmental activism, before gradually introducing their core beliefs (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). Common recruitment methods include “love bombing,” where new recruits are overwhelmed with affection and praise to forge emotional bonds; offering a strong sense of belonging and purpose; and utilizing “front groups” that mask the true nature of the organization (Parliament of Victoria, 2025).
This deceptive messaging and gradual indoctrination allows these groups to attract individuals who might otherwise be wary of overt cultic or conspiratorial ideologies. The use of pretexts, such as “bushcraft” or “environmental protection,” to draw in new members without fully disclosing the group’s true identity or expectations, exemplifies this strategy (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). This strategy makes it difficult for the public and even authorities to identify and regulate harmful groups, as their public-facing activities appear legitimate. This highlights the need for increased public awareness of recruitment tactics and for regulatory bodies to scrutinize organizations that exhibit cultic behaviors, regardless of their stated purpose.
Control tactics employed by these groups are extensive and systematically erode individual autonomy. These include psychological control, manifested through isolation from family and friends, thought reform or “brainwashing,” guilt trips for questioning beliefs, fear-based tactics, gaslighting, and fostering an “us-vs-them” mentality (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). Behavioral control involves rigid daily routines, obedience training, restrictions on freedom of movement, dress, and communication, peer surveillance, sleep deprivation, and strict dietary rules (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). Information control limits access to external media, promotes group propaganda, rewrites history, and discourages critical thinking (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). Emotional and spiritual control often involves claims of divine authority, using religious language to justify abuse, and inducing phobias related to leaving the group (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). Financial exploitation can involve mandatory donations, pressure to surrender assets, and unpaid labor, while physical and sexual abuse, including coerced relationships and child neglect, may be disguised as “spiritual practice” (Parliament of Victoria, 2025).
The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing social and economic instability provided fertile ground for the proliferation of conspirituality and far-right ideology in Australia (Day & Carlson, 2023). A central narrative within the conspiritualist anti-vax movement is the belief in an attempted “Great Reset” to implement a “New World Order.” This narrative posits that clandestine elites are using vaccines to corrupt populations and seize control of political, economic, and social systems, sometimes even proposing a singular world government (Day & Carlson, 2023). While legitimate Indigenous, post-colonial, and anti-colonial critiques exist regarding concentrated wealth and the Western medical-industrial complex, settler conspiritualist narratives deliberately avoid engaging with these nuanced perspectives. Instead, their invocations of “global elites” are imbued with colonial and antisemitic anxieties (Day & Carlson, 2023).
The “Great Awakening” narrative, central to many conspiritualist anti-vax movements, describes a shift in consciousness that empowers believers to prevent the “Great Reset/New World Order” and return to an “underlying, natural state, inspired by ancient, pristine wisdom narratives” (Day & Carlson, 2023). This narrative is deeply rooted in white anxieties of replacement and, in the Australian context, strategically invokes Indigeneity to “naturalize” conspiritualist settlers on stolen lands (Day & Carlson, 2023).
This strategic re-framing of settler presence reveals how conspirituality provides a pseudo-spiritual justification for settler-colonial ideologies, attempting to legitimize white claims to land and authority by appropriating and distorting Indigenous concepts of “ancient wisdom” and “natural connection.” This further complicates efforts towards genuine reconciliation and the recognition of Indigenous land rights. The internet and social media have been instrumental in the rapid spread of this cult-like ideology (Day & Carlson, 2023).
| Category of Control | Specific Tactics/Behaviors | Documented Harms/Impacts on Individuals |
| Psychological Control | Isolation from family and friends; “Love bombing”; Thought reform / “brainwashing”; Guilt trips for questioning beliefs; Fear-based tactics; Confession and public shaming; Gaslighting; Us-vs-them mentality (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). | Intense guilt and shame; Pervasive distrust of “outside world” (including law enforcement and support services); Irrational phobias (fear of leaving); Depression, PTSD, and other mental health challenges (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). |
| Behavioral Control | Rigid daily routines; Obedience training; Restrictions on freedom (movement, dress, communication); Surveillance by peers; Sleep deprivation; Fasting or strict dietary rules (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). | Loss of personal autonomy; Difficulty reintegrating into society after leaving (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). |
| Information Control | Limited access to media; Propaganda promoting cult worldview; Rewriting history; Discouraging critical thinking (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). | Disrupted education/career paths; Alienation from peers (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). |
| Emotional/Spiritual Control | Claims of other-worldly authority; Religious language to justify abuse; Promises of exclusive salvation; Induced phobias (fear of leaving) (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). | Identity confusion (especially for children); Low self-esteem; Delayed cognitive development (for young people) (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). |
| Financial Exploitation | Mandatory donations or tithes; Pressure to give up assets; Unpaid labor (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). | Economic dependence on the group; Significant financial losses (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). |
| Physical/Sexual Abuse | Coerced sexual relationships; Arranged/forced marriages; Physical punishment; Child abuse or neglect (often disguised as ‘spiritual practice’) (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). | Serious injury or death due to abuse, medical neglect, or dangerous practices (Parliament of Victoria, 2025). |
Table 2: Manipulative Tactics and Documented Harms of Cults and Fringe Groups.
Indigenous Identity Fraud and Pretendianism: A Neocolonial Violence
“Pretendian” is a pejorative term used to describe individuals who falsely claim Indigenous identity, often by professing to be citizens of an Aboriginal, Native American or First Nation tribal nation, or by asserting descent from Indigenous ancestors (Deloria, 1998). This practice is recognized as an extreme form of cultural appropriation, frequently referred to as Indigenous identity fraud, ethnic fraud, box-ticking, or race shifting (Deloria, 1998).
The phenomenon of non-Indigenous individuals “playing Indian” has historical roots stretching back to at least the Boston Tea Party, where it was utilized by white settlers to forge a new national identity distinct from their European origins (Deloria, 1998). Historical examples include various scouting societies and individuals who built careers on fabricated Indigenous identities (Deloria, 1998).
A notable increase in pretendian claims occurred after the 1960s, partly influenced by the re-establishment of tribal sovereignty and media coverage of Indigenous rights movements, but also fueled by settler myths that served colonial purposes (Deloria, 1998).
The motivations behind these false claims are complex. While some individuals may genuinely believe their fabricated claims, many cases involve a knowing and deliberate misrepresentation of Indigenous identity for personal gain (Stolz & Toscano, n.d.). Reconciliation efforts, particularly in academic and institutional settings, have inadvertently created a “market for pretendianism” (Andersen, 2025). When institutions, in their pursuit of inclusion, prioritize self-identification or rely on spoken of, but never revealed documentation over lived relationships, they create fertile ground for false claims (Andersen, 2025). This commodification of Indigenous identity, where well-intentioned policies are exploited, can paradoxically undermine the very communities they aim to uplift. It highlights a systemic flaw in reconciliation efforts that, without robust Indigenous-led verification, can lead to the institutionalization of fraud.
The impacts of pretendianism on legitimate Indigenous communities are profound and deeply damaging. Firstly, it leads to cultural distortion, as the misrepresentation of historical narratives and identities, such as the GuriNgai group’s false association with the historical Aboriginal leader Bungaree, obscures the true histories of Aboriginal peoples and undermines the cultural integrity of established communities (Cooke, 2025; History of Aboriginal Sydney, n.d.). Secondly, there is significant resource diversion. Government programs, grants, and scholarships specifically designed to support Indigenous communities are accessed by individuals whose claims to Aboriginality are unsubstantiated, exacerbating existing inequalities and reducing the availability of resources for those genuinely entitled (Cooke, 2025). This is evident in the financial arrangements and contracts awarded by Hornsby Shire Council to the GuriNgai group for work they were not culturally or legally qualified to perform (Cooke, 2025). Thirdly, pretendianism contributes to a pervasive erosion of trust and skepticism towards Aboriginal identity within broader society, complicating advocacy efforts and creating additional barriers for legitimate Aboriginal communities seeking recognition and support (Cooke, 2025).
Furthermore, false claims of Indigenous identity directly undermine Indigenous self-determination. By perpetuating the myth that Native identity is an individual choice rather than a collective determination by a tribe or community, pretendians challenge the very foundation of tribal sovereignty (Deloria, 1998). This is exemplified in the context of the “Patyegarang Proposal,” where fabricated custodianship has been shown to undermine not only heritage protection but also the coherence and lawfulness of climate governance itself (Cooke, 2025). Ultimately, Indigenous identity appropriation is argued to constitute a form of neocolonial violence, representing a reassertion of settler control over Aboriginal land, resources, and identity through the manipulation of recognition frameworks, environmental activism, and liberal multicultural rhetoric (Moreton-Robinson, 2015). This practice also results in epistemic harm, as state agencies, councils, and media outlets that provide platforms and resources to unverified claimants perpetuate a false narrative and undermine the statutory role of legitimate Aboriginal Land Councils (Cooke, 2025).
Addressing Indigenous identity fraud necessitates a fundamental shift in adherence to, and awareness of verification processes. The core challenge lies not in determining what constitutes legitimate evidence of Indigeneity, but in having consultation with genuine Aboriginal community. This requires moving beyond mere self-identification to a model rooted in citizenship (being claimed by a nation or community) and kinship (ongoing relational belonging) (Andersen, 2025). The inadequacy of current approaches is evident, as identity is not merely a “technical fact to be located and submitted” but an “anchoring point for a set of responsibilities maintained in community” (Andersen, 2025).
This emphasis on “Whose voices will we trust to make sense of them?” underscores the critical need for Indigenous data sovereignty (Andersen, 2025). Without this, the energy transition and other reconciliation efforts risk reproducing colonial dispossession under the guise of “greenwashing” (Cooke, 2025).
The Potential for uninformed ‘Environmentalism’ to Undermine Indigenous Rights
Settler environmental narratives often inadvertently or deliberately co-opt and misrepresent Indigenous connections to Country. This is particularly evident in the actions of settler conspiritualists, especially within anti-vax movements, who invoke Indigeneity to “naturalize” themselves on stolen lands, a phenomenon termed “settler nativism” (Day & Carlson, 2023). This involves attempts by settlers to indigenize themselves by claiming Indigenous identity or associating with “ancient wisdom narratives” (Day & Carlson, 2023). This practice serves to deflect a settler identity while simultaneously maintaining settler privilege and occupying stolen land, ultimately aiming to erase Indigenous peoples and replace them with settlers who perceive themselves as the rightful claimants to the land (Day & Carlson, 2023).
The “back to nature” narrative, prevalent in anti-vaccination movements, is often repurposed by settler conspiritualists to promote alternative health products, aligning with far-right groups that advocate nature-worship and neo-paganism (Day & Carlson, 2023).
The appropriation of Indigenous narratives and symbols by settler environmental groups, particularly those linked to conspirituality and identity fraud, constitutes a form of “greenwashing” of ongoing settler colonialism. By framing their actions as “saving sacred lands” or protecting nature, they attempt to gain moral authority while actively undermining legitimate Aboriginal Land Councils and their inherent right to self-determination over their own Country. This is a strategic maneuver to control Aboriginal narratives and resources, leading to confusion and division and making it harder for genuine Indigenous-led environmental efforts to gain traction and resources. This risks reproducing colonial dispossession under a new, seemingly benevolent, environmental banner.
The manifestation of settler colonialism through climate change and resource extraction profoundly impacts Indigenous livelihood and cultural heritage. Colonial activity is not a relic of the past but an ongoing factor shaping Indigenous life, with climate change directly contributing to communal displacement from homelands and cultural genocide (ANTaR, n.d.; Curley, 2025; National Archives of Australia, n.d.). First Nations people in Australia and globally are disproportionately affected by climate change impacts, including rising sea levels, coastal erosion, extreme weather events, and bushfires (ANTaR, n.d.). These phenomena threaten both tangible and intangible cultural heritage, such as coastal shell middens, burial grounds, and rock art, and severely impede First Nations peoples’ ability to access and care for Country and practice their culture (ANTaR, n.d.). The intensifying resource extraction projects, driven by industrial needs (e.g., uranium mining), further exacerbate environmental harm and contribute to the ongoing legacy of settler colonialism (Curley, 2025).
This framing of climate change as “climate colonialism” or a continuation of colonial violence moves beyond viewing it as a purely environmental phenomenon. It highlights how the Global North’s knowledge systems often negate Indigenous involvement, leading to the seizure and removal of Indigenous ways of living and land management (ANTaR, n.d.; Curley, 2025). This perspective underscores that effective climate mitigation and adaptation require centering Indigenous knowledge and self-determination, rather than marginalizing it within mainstream environmental management (ANTaR, n.d.). Environmental justice, therefore, cannot be separated from addressing historical and ongoing colonial injustices.
A particularly concerning tactic is the weaponization of misinformation in environmental campaigns to discredit legitimate Aboriginal land management. Campaigns such as “Saving Kariong Sacred Lands” and “Save Kincumber Wetlands” are characterized as “settler-conspiritualist movements” deeply entangled with pseudo-Indigenous claims and white environmental populism (Cooke, 2025; Reddit, 2025d; Reddit, 2025e). These campaigns function not as genuine ecological protests but as “ideological offensives against Aboriginal self-determination and land rights,” framing Aboriginal governance as incompatible with imagined localized spiritual ecologies and community values (Cooke, 2025; Reddit, 2025d; Reddit, 2025e). They are explicitly described as being “rooted in misinformation, theatrical protest, and spiritual mimicry, strategically designed to discredit Aboriginal-led land use” (Reddit, 2025e).
For instance, the “Save Kincumber Wetlands” campaign is labeled “manufactured outrage” and a “pre-emptive attack on Aboriginal land rights disguised as environmental concern,” despite the fact that no development application had been submitted by the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) for the site, nor had any verified environmental risk or endangered sacred sites been formally identified (GuriNgai.org, 2025g; Reddit, 2025e).
This direct link between disinformation and the intent to dispossess indicates that the environmental concern is a pretext for a deeper agenda. The misinformation is not accidental; it is a deliberate “weaponisation” aimed at discrediting Aboriginal-led land use and elevating a fringe settler cult to a position of cultural and environmental authority it has no right to occupy (GuriNgai.org, 2025g; Reddit, 2025e).
This highlights how environmental narratives, when combined with identity fraud and conspirituality, can be used as a powerful tool to resist Aboriginal self-determination and land rights, effectively continuing colonial patterns of control over land and resources. It necessitates a robust response from legal, policy, and media sectors to counter such weaponized misinformation.
Case Studies: Intersecting Controversies in NSW
A. The GuriNgai Group: A Case Study in Contested Identity and Cultural Authority
The “GuriNgai” identity emerged in the early 2000s, promoted by individuals such as Warren Whitfield, Neil Evers, Laurie Bimson, Brad Twynham, and Tracey Howie. These individuals asserted that the group represented an authentic Aboriginal community with historical ties to the Northern Beaches and Central Coast regions, often claiming descent from the renowned Aboriginal leader Bungaree (Cooke, 2025). However, historical records and anthropological research, including a publicly available Anthropology Report from 2015, have conclusively demonstrated that Bungaree and his actual descendants have no genealogical or cultural connection to the group now identifying as GuriNgai (Cooke, 2025; History of Aboriginal Sydney, n.d.). The assertion of a connection to Bungaree appears to have been an attempt to capitalize on his prominence and historical significance, seeking to enhance the group’s legitimacy and garner public recognition (Cooke, 2025).
Linguistic and historical research further contradicts the GuriNgai group’s claims. A 2024 paper by Amanda Lissarrague and Robert Syron, “Guringaygupa djuyal, barray: Language and Country of the Guringay people,” meticulously details that the true Guringay people and their language are historically located north of the Hunter River (Lissarrague & Syron, 2024; Wikipedia, n.d.). The term “Kuringgai” (or “Guringai”) as applied to the Sydney and Central Coast regions is identified as a misapplied, constructed term, originating from colonial linguists like John Fraser, whose flawed analysis in 1892 erroneously extended the term across an unrealistically vast region (Wikipedia, n.d.). This linguistic cartography of dispossession reveals that the “GuriNgai” claim is not merely a mistaken identity but a constructed one, rooted in colonial-era misinterpretations. The persistence of the group despite this debunking suggests a deliberate performance of Indigeneity. This highlights how colonial knowledge production can create enduring “voids” or misrepresentations in Indigenous history and identity, which are then exploited by “pretendians” for contemporary gain, underscoring the importance of Indigenous-led historical and linguistic research in reclaiming accurate narratives. The Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) explicitly acknowledges the Guringai in Sydney and the Central Coast as a “fiction,” citing a report that discredited the anthropologist who coined the name and noting the group’s discontinued Native Title application on Central Coast lands (Coast Community News, 2021b).
The claims made by the GuriNgai group have had significant negative impacts on legitimate Aboriginal communities and the statutory role of Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs). These impacts include cultural distortion, resource diversion, erosion of trust, and challenges to community cohesion (Cooke, 2025). Hornsby Shire Council, for example, has faced criticism for its “sustained institutional recognition and funding” of the non-Aboriginal GuriNgai group, despite community concerns regarding their legitimacy (GuriNgai.org, 2024b). This engagement has resulted in “unreliable heritage studies” and financial costs to ratepayers, including the awarding of contracts to the GuriNgai for work they are not culturally or legally qualified to perform (GuriNgai.org, 2024b). The direct financial cost to Hornsby Shire residents, exemplified by the NSW State Government reclaiming $36 million in funding for Westleigh Park due to the Council’s inaction and engagement with the GuriNgai, is a tangible consequence of this institutional complicity (GuriNgai.org, 2024b; Reddit, 2024). Beyond monetary costs, the “unreliable heritage study” represents significant cultural damage, distorting the historical record and undermining genuine Aboriginal heritage protection (GuriNgai.org, 2024b). This highlights a systemic vulnerability where local government and other institutions, by failing to conduct rigorous cultural verification, become complicit in the “white possession” of Aboriginal land and culture, subverting Aboriginal governance structures and weakening their political leverage (Cooke, 2025; Moreton-Robinson, 2015). Legitimate Aboriginal Land Councils, such as DLALC and the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC), have explicitly challenged the GuriNgai’s claims and their attempts to undermine the LALCs’ statutory role and cultural authority (Coast Community News, 2021b; Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council, n.d.; GuriNgai.org, 2023b; GuriNgai.org, 2025b; GuriNgai.org, 2025d). The GuriNgai group’s actions are described as “crimes against Aboriginal People, Customs, Culture and existence” (GuriNgai.org, 2024b).
B. The Kariong/Gosford Glyphs: A Persistent Hoax and its Pseudoscientific Underpinnings
The Kariong/Gosford Glyphs, a collection of approximately 300 Egyptian-style hieroglyphs located in Brisbane Water National Park, exist in an area also known for its legitimate Aboriginal petroglyphs (Atlas Obscura, n.d.; Wikipedia, n.d.). Despite persistent attempts by pseudohistorians to assert their authenticity, these glyphs have been definitively dismissed as a modern hoax by authorities and academics since their discovery in the 1970s (Australian Geographic, 2021; OceaniaChronicle, 2021; Wikipedia, n.d.).
Overwhelming evidence debunks the glyphs as ancient artifacts. Local surveyor Alan Dash, who had visited the area for seven years prior to 1975, reported no sightings of the glyphs before that year, and subsequently observed new glyphs appearing with each visit over the next five years, even discovering a culprit inscribing them in 1984 (OceaniaChronicle, 2021; Wikipedia, n.d.). Egyptologists have identified numerous inconsistencies: the carvings are “disorganised,” mix symbols from vastly different periods of Egyptian history, contain un-Egyptian elements (such as bells or a dog’s bone), and some are carved backwards (OceaniaChronicle, 2021; Wikipedia, n.d.). Geologists confirm that the local sandstone erodes quickly, and the Kariong Glyphs exhibit significantly less erosion than nearby 250-year-old Aboriginal petroglyphs, indicating a recent origin (OceaniaChronicle, 2021; Wikipedia, n.d.). A plausible explanation links their creation to an American artist, Leroy Staley, who carved similar panels for a local building in the 1970s, aligning with the timing of their appearance (Coast Community News, 2025b).
The Kariong Glyphs controversy is not merely about a hoax; it is a manifestation of broader pseudoarchaeological theories, including “ancient astronaut” narratives, which often diminish the accomplishments of Indigenous cultures (Art.utexas.edu, n.d.; Wikipedia, n.d.). These theories frequently carry racist undertones, implying that non-white Indigenous peoples were incapable of complex feats of engineering or cultural development on their own (Art.utexas.edu, n.d.; Reddit, 2018; Reddit, 2023; The Thinking Republic, 2021). The persistence of these false beliefs, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, reveals a desire to impose a non-Indigenous origin story onto Indigenous lands, effectively re-colonizing history. This colonial echo in pseudoarchaeology demonstrates how pseudoscientific narratives can serve to legitimize white supremacist and settler-colonial ideologies by erasing or undermining Indigenous intellectual and cultural achievements, contributing to a popular mistrust of authoritative historical and archaeological methods (Art.utexas.edu, n.d.).
Beverley “Beve” Spiers, who styled herself as “Aunty Goolabeen, Darkinooong Elder,” was a foundational figure in the “settler spiritualist movement” centered around the Kariong/Gosford area (GuriNgai.org, 2025a). From the late 1980s until her death in 2014, Spiers actively promoted a fabricated Aboriginal identity and constructed a mythological narrative around the Kariong Glyphs (GuriNgai.org, 2025a). She is linked to the “grandmother tree” and a cohort of pseudo-historians with “messianic delusions” (GuriNgai.org, 2023).
Jake Cassar, a key figure in the Coast Environmental Alliance, reportedly learned the story of the “wishing tree” at Kariong from Spiers in the early 2000s (GuriNgai.org, 2025d). Spiers’ role as a “charismatic fraud” who promoted a fabricated Aboriginal identity and mythological narrative demonstrates an intergenerational transfer of false narratives, perpetuating identity fraud and complicating efforts to establish genuine Indigenous cultural authority and land claims. Her self-styled title “Aunty Goolabeen, Darkinooong Elder” highlights the self-authorization of cultural authority without community recognition (GuriNgai.org, 2025a).
| Aspect | Claims/Beliefs (Proponents) | Evidence/Expert Consensus (Debunking) | Associated Theories/Implications |
| Origin/Authenticity | Carved by ancient Egyptians ~4,500 years ago; proof of ancient Egyptian contact with Australia (Atlas Obscura, n.d.; OceaniaChronicle, 2021; Wikipedia, n.d.). | Dismissed as a modern hoax by authorities and academics; no sightings before 1975; new glyphs appeared over time; culprit observed carving them (OceaniaChronicle, 2021; Wikipedia, n.d.). | Pseudoarchaeology, “ancient astronaut” theories, “lost civilizations” narratives (Art.utexas.edu, n.d.; Wikipedia, n.d.). |
| Linguistic/Artistic Quality | Authentic Egyptian hieroglyphs (OceaniaChronicle, 2021; Wikipedia, n.d.). | Disorganized; mix symbols from different historical periods; contain un-Egyptian elements (e.g., dog’s bone, bells); some carved backwards (OceaniaChronicle, 2021; Wikipedia, n.d.). | Diminishes accomplishments of Indigenous cultures by attributing complex feats to external, often non-Indigenous, sources (Art.utexas.edu, n.d.; Wikipedia, n.d.). |
| Geological Evidence | Exhibit significant age/erosion (OceaniaChronicle, 2021). | Carved in soft sandstone that erodes quickly; show less erosion than nearby 250-year-old Aboriginal petroglyphs, indicating recent origin (OceaniaChronicle, 2021; Wikipedia, n.d.). | Supports racist thinking that assumes non-white Indigenous people were incapable of complex engineering/cultural development (Art.utexas.edu, n.d.; Reddit, 2023; The Thinking Republic, 2021). |
| Plausible Modern Origin | (Not acknowledged by proponents) | Linked to American artist Leroy Staley, who carved similar panels in the 1970s for a local building (Coast Community News, 2025b). | Contributes to popular mistrust of authoritative historical and archaeological methods (Art.utexas.edu, n.d.). |
| Key Figure | Beverley “Beve” Spiers (“Aunty Goolabeen, Darkinooong Elder”) (GuriNgai.org, 2025a). | Promoted fabricated Aboriginal identity and mythological narrative around the glyphs from late 1980s to 2014; linked to “settler spiritualist movement” (GuriNgai.org, 2023; GuriNgai.org, 2025a). | Example of “charismatic fraud” creating foundational myths for cultic/conspiritual movements, complicating genuine Indigenous cultural authority. |
Table 3: The Kariong/Gosford Glyphs Controversy: Claims, Debunking, and Associated Theories.
C. The Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA) and Jake Cassar: Environmentalism, Conspirituality, and Identity Fraud
The Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA) publicly presents itself as a non-politically aligned, grassroots environmental group dedicated to protecting the Central Coast’s environment through peaceful community events (Do Something Near You, n.d.; The Environmental Movement, n.d.). The organization claims successful involvement in campaigns such as the creation of a new National Park at Bambara and halting sand mine expansions (Do Something Near You, n.d.; The Environmental Movement, n.d.). However, a critical examination reveals CEA’s deep entanglement with “settler-conspiritualist movements” (Cooke, 2025; GuriNgai.org, 2025a; Reddit, 2025d; Reddit, 2025e), “cult-like ideology” (Day & Carlson, 2023), and “charismatic fraud” (GuriNgai.org, 2025a). These campaigns are not legitimate ecological protests but rather operate as “ideological offensives against Aboriginal self-determination and land rights,” framing Aboriginal governance as incompatible with imagined localized spiritual ecologies (Cooke, 2025; Reddit, 2025d; Reddit, 2025e).
Jake Cassar, a Central Coast “bushcraft” tourism operator and self-proclaimed conservationist (Jake Cassar Bushcraft, n.d.), is the central figure in CEA. He is also identified as a “conspiracy promoter” and founder of CEA (GuriNgai.org, 2025g), linked to QAnon related, and anti-vax movements (Day & Carlson, 2023; Wikipedia, n.d.). Cassar frequently claims to have 40,000 supporters, members, or “minions.” However, this claim is widely debunked by verifiable data: CEA’s Facebook page has only 8,000 members, with minimal active engagement, while Cassar’s personal and official Facebook pages show 10,000 and 13,000 followers, respectively, far short of his asserted numbers (GuriNgai.org, 2025c). Furthermore, protests organized by Cassar and CEA typically attract only 20-40 people, and his and his associates’ political election results consistently demonstrate a significant disparity between claimed support and actual votes received (e.g., 2,480 votes in the 2013 federal election out of 94,744 turnout) (GuriNgai.org, 2025c). This consistent overestimation of support, where repetition is used to create an illusion of reality, indicates a deliberate strategy to generate an “illusion of popular support.” This inflated perception of public backing can be used to influence public opinion, pressure decision-makers, and attract more followers. This highlights how online metrics and self-promotion can be manipulated to misrepresent the true scale and legitimacy of social movements, making it challenging for the public and authorities to accurately assess their influence and intentions.
Two specific campaigns exemplify CEA’s approach: “Saving Kariong Sacred Lands” and “Save Kincumber Wetlands.” The “Saving Kariong Sacred Lands” campaign, orchestrated by Jake Cassar and Lisa Bellamy of CEA, is deeply entangled with pseudo-Indigenous claims (Reddit, 2025d). These efforts frame Aboriginal governance as incompatible with “imagined localised spiritual ecologies,” relying on narratives of being “custodians” of areas owned by Aboriginal organizations and even citing “extraterrestrial intervention” (Reddit, 2025d). They specifically target land owned by the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC), which they accuse of being a “land developer” (Bellamy, n.d.; GuriNgai.org, 2024a). This campaign is also linked to the Kariong Glyphs hoax, further embedding it in pseudoscientific narratives (GuriNgai.org, 2025a; GuriNgai.org, 2025d).
The “Save Kincumber Wetlands” campaign is explicitly described as a “weaponisation of misinformation” and a “fabricated” cause (GuriNgai.org, 2025g; Reddit, 2025e). Critically, no development application had been submitted by the legitimate landowners, DLALC, for the site, nor had any verified environmental risk been formally identified (GuriNgai.org, 2025g; Reddit, 2025e). This campaign is characterized as a “settler-conspiritual movement” and a “pre-emptive attack on Aboriginal land rights disguised as environmental concern” (GuriNgai.org, 2025g; Reddit, 2025e). It centers white voices as the “rightful protectors” of land legally held by Aboriginal people (GuriNgai.org, 2025g). The explicit statements that campaigns like “Save Kincumber Wetlands” are “entirely fabricated” and that no development application had been submitted by the legitimate Aboriginal landowners (DLALC) reveal a direct causal link between disinformation and the intent to dispossess. The misinformation is not accidental; it is a “weaponisation” designed to “discredit Aboriginal-led land use” and “elevate a fringe settler cult to a position of cultural and environmental authority it has no right to occupy” (GuriNgai.org, 2025g; Reddit, 2025e). This calculated effort to undermine Aboriginal sovereignty by creating false pretexts for opposition highlights how environmental narratives, when combined with identity fraud and conspirituality, can be used as a powerful tool to resist Aboriginal self-determination and land rights, effectively continuing colonial patterns of control over land and resources.
| Campaign | Stated Objectives | Key Criticisms/Allegations | Associated Individuals/Groups |
| Saving Kariong Sacred Lands | Protecting “Kariong Sacred Lands” from “inappropriate development” (Bellamy, n.d.; Reddit, 2025d). | Functions as an “ideological offensive against Aboriginal self-determination and land rights”; deeply entangled with pseudo-Indigenous claims; frames Aboriginal governance as incompatible with “imagined localised spiritual ecologies”; relies on narratives of “extraterrestrial intervention”; exclusively targets land owned by DLALC, falsely claiming it is a “land developer” (Bellamy, n.d.; GuriNgai.org, 2024a; GuriNgai.org, 2025d; Reddit, 2025d). | Jake Cassar, Lisa Bellamy, Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA), “GuriNgai group,” “Goolabeen” protege Colleen Fuller (GuriNgai.org, 2025d; Reddit, 2025d). |
| Save Kincumber Wetlands | Protecting “Kincumber Wetlands” from development; preserving green spaces and wildlife habitat (Coast Community News, 2025a). | “Weaponisation of misinformation”; “entirely fabricated” cause, as no development application was submitted by DLALC; no verified environmental risk or endangered sacred sites formally identified; “pre-emptive attack on Aboriginal land rights disguised as environmental concern”; centers white voices as “rightful protectors” of Aboriginal land (Coast Community News, 2025a; GuriNgai.org, 2025g; Reddit, 2025e). | Jake Cassar, Lisa Bellamy, Vicki Burke, Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA), “faux-Aboriginal activists” (Coast Community News, 2025a; GuriNgai.org, 2025g; Reddit, 2025e). |
Table 4: Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA) Campaigns: Stated Goals vs. Criticisms.
D. Institutional Complicity and Financial Implications
The sustained operations of groups engaged in pseudolaw, cultism, conspirituality, and identity fraud are often facilitated by institutional complicity, particularly from local government bodies and certain media outlets. Hornsby Shire Council stands out as the “only Local Government in Australia to have made the choice to accept the non-Aboriginal GuriNgai group’s claims” to represent Aboriginal people and possess cultural connection to the Sydney area (GuriNgai.org, 2024b). Despite internal “uncertainty” and awareness of community concerns regarding the GuriNgai’s legitimacy, the Council voted unanimously to endorse an “ahistorical document” produced by and for the GuriNgai (GuriNgai.org, 2024b). This active legitimization by a local government body inadvertently creates an “echo chamber of legitimacy” for unverified groups, amplifying their fabricated narratives and granting them an undeserved authority. This represents a significant governance failure, where due diligence and critical verification are neglected, leading to the institutionalization of fraud and the further marginalization of genuine Indigenous voices.
The consequences of this complicity are tangible and far-reaching, including significant financial implications and compromised heritage studies. The GuriNgai group has been “awarded contracts to conduct work they are not Culturally or legally qualified to do” (GuriNgai.org, 2024b). Companies owned by key GuriNgai figures, such as Laurie Bimson and Tracey Howie, and their families, appear to have financially benefited from their personal relationships with council members and staff (GuriNgai.org, 2024b). A stark example of the financial cost to taxpayers is the NSW State Government’s decision to reclaim $36 million in funding previously allocated to Hornsby Shire Council for the Westleigh Park development. This reclamation occurred because the Council had only spent $4 million of a $40 million allocation over six years, a delay linked to the GuriNgai’s involvement (GuriNgai.org, 2024b; Reddit, 2024). The GuriNgai’s involvement in this process resulted in an “unreliable heritage study,” with data “twice tainted by non-Aboriginal People: Tracey Howie and Laurie Bimson,” who had discretion over its content (GuriNgai.org, 2024b). This demonstrates that the impacts of identity fraud and uncritical institutional engagement are not abstract; they have concrete financial repercussions for taxpayers and profound, long-lasting cultural consequences for Indigenous heritage and truth-telling.
The “Patyegarang Proposal” further illustrates how these dynamics undermine Aboriginal sovereignty, particularly in the context of the renewable energy transition. This planning proposal, initiated by the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC), seeks to rezone land for housing and a cultural center (NSW Department of Planning, 2023). However, the broader push for renewable energy infrastructure coincides with a rise in contested cultural authority and identity fraud, threatening legitimate Aboriginal-led climate solutions (GuriNgai.org, 2025b). The absence of rigorous cultural verification processes leaves Aboriginal Land Councils vulnerable to interference by individuals and groups falsely claiming Aboriginal identity or cultural authority (GuriNgai.org, 2025b). This “settler mimicry” directly undermines the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), misrepresents the cultural needs of Country, and diverts project benefits away from legitimate Indigenous communities (GuriNgai.org, 2025b). The context of the “Patyegarang Proposal” within the renewable energy transition reveals a new frontier for settler-colonial dynamics.
The fact that non-Indigenous actors adopting fabricated Aboriginal identities have already compromised local planning processes and Aboriginal land consultations demonstrates how identity fraud is being leveraged to interfere with legitimate Aboriginal economic self-determination through land development. This constitutes a form of “green colonialism,” where the imperative for climate action is appropriated to further undermine Indigenous sovereignty and control over their lands and resources, diverting benefits and misrepresenting cultural needs. Protecting Aboriginal rights in renewable energy development requires explicit safeguards against exploitation, identity fraud, and epistemic violence (GuriNgai.org, 2025b). Without robust, rights-based, and verification-driven models of Aboriginal participation, the energy transition risks reproducing colonial dispossession under a new banner of “greenwashing” (GuriNgai.org, 2025b).
Conclusion: Reaffirming Sovereignty and Combating Disinformation
The analysis presented in this report underscores the complex and deeply intertwined nature of pseudolaw, cultism, conspirituality, and Indigenous identity fraud in Australia, particularly within the NSW Central Coast and Sydney regions. These phenomena are not isolated occurrences but rather form a mutually reinforcing web. Pseudolaw provides a pseudo-legal framework that enables adherents to challenge legitimate authority, while conspirituality offers an ideological and spiritual justification for their beliefs, often by co-opting and distorting Indigenous narratives. Cultic dynamics, characterized by manipulative recruitment and control tactics, provide the structural means to exploit vulnerable individuals and amplify these fabricated narratives. All these elements converge to enable and amplify Indigenous identity fraud, which serves as a potent tool of neocolonial violence against Aboriginal communities.
The significant and ongoing harm inflicted by these movements is multifaceted. They burden the legal system with frivolous and often aggressive claims, leading to substantial financial costs and emotional distress for those involved. Cultic practices cause profound psychological, social, and economic damage to individuals and their families. Crucially, the proliferation of Indigenous identity fraud distorts cultural truths, diverts essential resources from legitimate Indigenous initiatives, erodes trust within and outside Aboriginal communities, and fundamentally undermines Indigenous self-determination and cultural authority. The documented instances of institutional complicity, particularly within local government and media, exacerbate these harms by inadvertently or deliberately legitimizing fraudulent groups, thereby institutionalizing fraud and further marginalizing genuine Indigenous voices.
A critical observation is the adaptability of these movements. They readily co-opt new narratives, such as environmentalism and climate action, to advance their agendas, demonstrating a strategic capacity to disguise their true intentions. Their reliance on misinformation, theatrical protest, and charismatic figures to create illusions of popular support or moral authority is a consistent pattern. This highlights the urgent need for proactive, evidence-based responses that can effectively counter these evolving threats.
Recommendations
Addressing the complex and interconnected threats posed by pseudolaw, cultism, conspirituality, and Indigenous identity fraud requires a multi-pronged approach encompassing policy, legal, and community responses. All recommendations must prioritize Indigenous self-determination, recognizing that genuine solutions must be driven by and accountable to Aboriginal communities and their inherent cultural authority.
- Strengthening Indigenous Identity Verification:
- Implement robust, Indigenous-led verification processes across all government, academic, and corporate sectors. This is crucial to prevent identity fraud and ensure that resources, opportunities, and recognition reach legitimate Indigenous communities.
- Facilitate a systemic shift from self-identification models to community-based citizenship and kinship models, where Indigenous nations and communities determine who belongs. This requires respecting Indigenous governance, cultural protocols, and community-defined belonging, rather than relying solely on self-identification.
- Legal System Reform and Protection:
- Develop specific legal and administrative strategies to more efficiently counter pseudolaw arguments in courts, minimizing their disruptive impact and financial burden.
- Simultaneously, establish clear legal distinctions and protections for legitimate Indigenous sovereignty claims, ensuring they are not conflated with or undermined by pseudolegal arguments. Australian law should evolve to recognize Indigenous claims distinctly, similar to countries with treaties.
- Combating Misinformation and Disinformation:
- Invest significantly in public education campaigns designed to enhance media literacy and critical thinking skills across the population. These campaigns should specifically address the characteristics and dangers of conspiracy theories, cultic recruitment tactics, and false claims of Indigenous identity.
- Support independent journalism that is committed to rigorous investigation and exposure of these phenomena, ensuring accurate and responsible reporting.
- Protecting Aboriginal Land Councils and Cultural Authority:
- Implement policies that explicitly affirm and strengthen the statutory role and cultural authority of Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) and Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs).
- Develop mechanisms to safeguard these legitimate Indigenous governance structures from interference, malicious campaigns, and the appropriation of their authority by fraudulent groups.
- Ethical Engagement in Environmentalism and Development:
- Mandate strict adherence to the principles of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for all environmental and development projects proposed on Indigenous lands.
- Ensure that such projects are genuinely guided by verified Indigenous cultural authority and traditional ecological knowledge, preventing the “greenwashing” of colonial practices and ensuring that Indigenous landholders are central as sovereign decision-makers, not merely stakeholders.
- Increased Accountability for Institutions:
- Establish clear guidelines and accountability mechanisms for government bodies (at all levels), educational institutions, and media outlets to prevent the unwitting or deliberate platforming and legitimization of fraudulent groups. This includes rigorous due diligence processes for all engagements involving Indigenous affairs and heritage.
- Implement financial oversight and audit mechanisms to prevent the diversion of public funds to unverified or fraudulent entities claiming Indigenous representation.
By implementing these comprehensive recommendations, Australia can move towards a more just and equitable society, protecting its legal and social integrity while upholding and strengthening the inherent sovereignty and cultural authority of its First Peoples.
References
7NEWS Australia. (2024, August 31). Albanese government accused of ignoring indigenous identity fraud | 7NEWS. YouTube. Retrieved July 2, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBshOW-dcf0
7NEWS Australia. (2024b, February 20). Experienced bush tracker Jake Cassar to join in search for missing jogger Samantha Murphy. 7NEWS. Retrieved July 2, 2025, from https://7news.com.au/news/experienced-bush-tracker-jake-cassar-to-join-in-search-for-missing-jogger-samantha-murphy–c-13670564
Aboriginal Heritage Office. (2015). Filling a void: Guringai language review. Retrieved July 1, 2025, from https://www.aboriginalheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Filling-a-Void-Guringai-Language-Review-2015.pdf
Aboriginal Heritage Office. (n.d.). History of Aboriginal Sydney. Retrieved July 1, 2025, from https://www.aboriginalheritage.org/history/history/
Andersen, C. (2025, June 1). The fix for pretendianism in academia requires Indigenous involvement. Policy Options. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/june-2025/pretendianism-universities/
ANTaR. (n.d.). Climate justice. Retrieved July 1, 2025, from https://antar.org.au/issues/cultural-heritage/climate-justice/
Art.utexas.edu. (n.d.). Aliens, Atlantis, and Aryanism: Fake news in archaeology and heritage. Retrieved July 1, 2025, from https://art.utexas.edu/event/aliens-atlantis-aryanism-fake-news-archaeology-heritage
Atlas Obscura. (n.d.). Gosford Glyphs. Retrieved July 1, 2025, from https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/gosford-glyphs
Australian Geographic. (2021, March 1). The Gosford glyphs, debunked. Retrieved July 1, 2025, from https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/tim-the-yowie-man/2021/03/the-gosford-glyphs-debunked/ B
CEO Institute. (2024, February 1). Brad Twynham Welcome to Country The CEO Institute Summit 2024. YouTube. Retrieved July 1, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzOsUNGRoug
Central Coast Council. (1988). Old Sydney Town brochure map. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://centralcoast.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p20041coll17/id/4005/
CGS Scholar. (n.d.). Portrayals of Indigeneity in Australian historical novels 1989-2009. Retrieved July 1, 2025, from https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/portrayals-of-indigeneity-in-australian-historical-novels-19892009
City of Sydney. (2017, October 20). Aboriginal histories. Retrieved July 2, 2025, from https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/history/aboriginal-histories
Classic.Austlii.edu.au. (2007). Aboriginal land rights and native title: Competing claims and the need for dispute resolution. Retrieved July 1, 2025, from https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlIndigP/2007/21.pdf
Coast Community News. (2021b, May 7). New Indigenous party opposed to DLALC bushland development. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2021/05/new-indigenous-party-opposed-to-dlalc-bushland-development/
Coast Community News. (2023, December 20). Outrage over remedial work at glyphs site. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://issuu.com/centralcoastnewspapers/docs/dig_-_ccn421 Coast
Community News. (2025, June 25). Appeal to Commonwealth Ombudsman over Kariong development. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2025/06/appeal-to-commonwealth-ombudsman-over-kariong-development/
Coast Community News. (2025a, June 7). Community gathers to protest wetlands development. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2025/06/community-gathers-to-protest-wetlands-development/
Coast Community News. (2025b, May 5). Kariong glyphs mystery explained. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2025/05/kariong-glyphs-mystery-explained/
Common Dreams. (2025, June 25). Zohran tenants rights. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/zohran-tenants-rights
Community Environmental Council. (2023, July 25). Community Environmental Council launches campaign to prepare Central Coast residents for extreme heat impacts. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://cecsb.org/press-releases/extreme-heat-resilience-alliance-press-release
Cooke, J. D. (2025, January 28). Implications of Indigenous identity appropriation/fraud: The GuriNgai of the Northern Beaches and Central Coast regions of NSW. GuriNgai.org. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/2025/01/28/implications-of-indigenous-identity-appropriation-fraud-the-guringai-of-the-northern-beaches-and-central-coast-regions-of-nsw/
Curley, M. (2025, May 19). Settler colonialism conspiring as climate change. Yale Global Health Review. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://yaleglobalhealthreview.com/2025/05/19/settler-colonialism-conspiring-as-climate-change/
Daily Climate. (2025, June 25). Newsom and lawmakers weaken key California environmental law to speed housing and infrastructure builds. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://www.dailyclimate.org/newsom-and-lawmakers-weaken-key-california-environmental-law-to-speed-housing-and-infrastructure-builds-2672551904.html
Dametto, S. (2022, February 28). The Sovereign Citizen Movement in Australia. Australian Federal Police. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://www.afp.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/123-2023.pdf
Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council. (2021, March 29). Aboriginal cultural authority on the Central Coast. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://www.darkinjung.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Aboriginal-Cultural-Authority-on-the-Central-Coast-29-March-2021.pdf
Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council. (n.d.). Submission to the NSW Parliament Inquiry into the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW). Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/79745/013a%20Darkinjung%20Local%20Aboriginal%20Land%20Council.pdf Day,
M., & Carlson, B. (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
Deloria, P. J. (1998). Playing Indian. Yale University Press. Do Something Near You. (n.d.).
Coast Environmental Alliance. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://dosomethingnearyou.com.au/cause/coast-environmental-alliance/
E&E News. (2025, June 25). US exports much of the world’s climate misinformation — report. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/06/25/us-exports-much-of-the-worlds-climate-misinformation-report-00419363
Ford, G. E. (2010). Darkiñung recognition. Hunter Living Histories. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://hunterlivinghistories.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/geford2010-darkinung-recognition-ch8.pdf
GuriNgai.org. (2023, September 27). Chapter 14: Conclusion. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/2023/09/27/chapter-14-conclusion/
GuriNgai.org. (2023b, November 9). Local Aboriginal Land Council concerns regarding ‘GuriNgai’ claims of Traditional Ownership of Northern Sydney and Central Coast. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/2023/11/09/local-aboriginal-land-council-concerns-regarding-guringai-claims-of-traditional-ownership-of-northern-sydney-and-central-coast/
GuriNgai.org. (2024, June 2). Coast Environmental Alliance vs the local Aboriginal Land Council: An interview with ‘Walk for Kariong’ organiser Emma French. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/2024/06/02/coast-environmental-alliance-vs-the-local-aboriginal-land-council-an-interview-with-walk-for-kariong-organiser-emma-french/
GuriNgai.org. (2024b, June 14). How the GuriNgai cost Hornsby Shire residents $36 Million Dollars, and Westleigh Park. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/2024/06/14/how-the-guringai-cost-hornsby-shire-residents-36-million-dollars-and-westleigh-park/
GuriNgai.org. (2025a, June 23). Blog posts. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/blog-posts/
GuriNgai.org. (2025b, July 2). Empowering Aboriginal people in the renewable energy transition: A policy framework for NSW. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/2025/07/02/empowering-aboriginal-people-in-the-renewable-energy-transition-a-policy-framework-for-nsw/
GuriNgai.org. (2025c, March 15). The mysterious 40,000 supporters of Jake Cassar’s CEA. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/2025/03/15/the-mysterious-40000-supporters-of-jake-cassars-cea/
GuriNgai.org. (2025d, March 31). Lisa Bellamy to run as an Independent for Robertson. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/2025/03/31/lisa-bellamy-running-for-robertson-in-2025/
GuriNgai.org. (2025e). Save Kincumber Wetlands: The weaponisation of misinformation. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/blog-posts/save-kincumber-wetlands-the-weaponisation-of-misinformation/
GuriNgai.org. (2025f). Echoes of Goolabeen: Settler conspirituality, pretendianism, and the recolonisation of Kariong Sacred Lands. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/blog-posts/echoes-of-goolabeen-settler-conspirituality-pretendianism-and-the-recolonisation-of-kariong-sacred-lands/
GuriNgai.org. (2025g, June 18). Jake Cassar and Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA). Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://guringai.org/feed/
Hird Fletcher, R., Wittenhagen, L., Cormick, A., Watson, M., Elliott, J., Scott, J. G., Harden, S., Stathis, S., Kinner, S. A., IMHIP-Youth Cultural Governance Group, Heffernan, E., Dale, P., & Meurk, C. (2025). Development of a growth and empowerment tool (GEM-Youth) co-designed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 59(4), 401–409. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40165674/
History of Aboriginal Sydney. (n.d.). Descendants of Bungaree (from left) Trudy Smith, Lynette Robley, Reta Smith, Margaret Robinson, Tracey Howie. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://historyofaboriginalsydney.edu.au/north-coastal/descendants-bungaree-left-trudy-smith-lynette-robley-reta-smith-margaret-robinson-trac
History of Aboriginal Sydney. (n.d.). Growing recognition of Guringai heritage. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://www.historyofaboriginalsydney.edu.au/north-coastal/growing-recognition-guringai-heritage
History of Aboriginal Sydney. (n.d.). It’s not easy claiming Native Title in NSW: Tracey Howie and Trudy Smith. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://historyofaboriginalsydney.edu.au/north-coastal/it%E2%80%99s-not-easy-claiming-native-title-nsw-tracey-howie-and-trudy-smith
Hobbs, H. (2025, June 11). How sovereign citizen claims fail but keep clogging courts. UNSW Newsroom. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/06/how-sovereign-citizen-claims-fail-but-keep-clogging-courts
Hornsby Shire Council. (2022, June 1). Warada Ngurang Community Nursery formally named in tree planting ceremony. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au/council/noticeboard/news/pre-2022/Warada-Ngurang-Community-Nursery-formally-named-in-tree-planting-ceremony
Hunter Living Histories. (2011, July 2). Dr Jim Wafer – On the Hunter River – Lake Macquarie language. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://hunterlivinghistories.com/2011/07/02/dr-jim-wafer-on-the-hunter-river-lake-macquarie-language/
ICES Journal of Marine Science. (2025, June 25). Recognizing that ocean observations are essential to the planet’s health is a critical cultural shift we must embrace in the next decade. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsaf079/8185764?rss=1
Issuu. (n.d.). Laurie Bimson 40,000 years of culture. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://issuu.com/coveredhub/docs/beaches_covered_issue_28/s/15181068
Jake Cassar Bushcraft. (n.d.). About Jake. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://www.jakecassarbushcraft.com.au/about-jake
Jake Cassar Bushcraft & Survival. (2023, February 23). Save Kariong Sacred Lands Rally Feb 2023. YouTube. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPfSjh9opNA
Lissarrague, A., & Syron, R. (2024, November). Guringaygupa djuyal, barray: Language and Country of the Guringay people. National Library of Australia. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-3657305244
A Long Con, Gone on Too Long. 
Leave a comment