Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of substantiated allegations concerning Indigenous Identity Appropriation and fraud related to the ‘GuriNgai’ identity in New South Wales. These results of a years long investigation critically examine the historical validity of the ‘GuriNgai’ ethnonym, the genealogical and cultural claims of the non-Aboriginal group known as Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation (GTLAC), and the broader implications of such appropriation for genuine Indigenous communities.

The analysis reveals that the term “GuriNgai,” as applied to the Sydney and Central Coast regions, is a colonial invention, originating from John Fraser in 1892, and is not recognized as an authentic traditional name for the local Aboriginal people by academic bodies or genuine Indigenous communities. The true Guringai/Guringay people are historically located north of the Hunter River. Furthermore, the genealogical claims of GTLAC’s leading figures, particularly Tracey Howie’s asserted descent from Bungaree, are explicitly refuted by comprehensive anthropological research. Evidence suggests a manipulation of historical records to construct this lineage, with indications that key individuals are aware of the lack of genuine connection.

GTLAC and associated Corporations and companies such as Wannangini Pty Ltd, engage in extensive commercial activities, including cultural heritage assessments and tours, leveraging these contested identity claims. This practice raises significant concerns regarding profiteering from “stolen and fictional culture” and the diversion of vital resources and opportunities away from legitimate Indigenous people and communities. The widespread non-recognition of GTLAC’s claims by multiple genuine Aboriginal Land Councils, communities, and individuals underscores their failure to meet the fundamental “community acceptance” criterion essential for authentic Indigenous identity in Australia.

Indigenous identity appropriation and fraud inflict profound and multi-dimensional harm, undermining Aboriginal sovereignty, distorting cultural truth, eroding trust, and causing significant emotional, cultural, and financial detriment to genuine Indigenous peoples and our self-determination. The report concludes with recommendations for strengthening identity verification processes, increasing support for Indigenous-led research, developing specific legal frameworks to address cultural and economic harms, promoting Indigenous-led media, and enhancing inter-agency collaboration to combat identity fraud effectively.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background: The Significance of Indigenous Identity and Cultural Heritage

Indigenous identity in Australia is deeply rooted in a complex interplay of ancestry, kinship, community recognition, and lived experience, forming the fundamental basis for self-determination and collective rights (Cooke, 2025a; Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, 2025). It extends beyond a mere personal declaration, embodying a profound and multifaceted connection to a people and their ancestral Country. The formal recognition of Aboriginality in Australia, particularly for accessing Indigenous-specific services, programs, and opportunities, is governed by a “three-part test” (NAISDA Dance College, 2019; Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, n.d.; University of Melbourne, n.d.; University of Tasmania, n.d.). This test requires an individual to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, to self-identify as such, and crucially, to be accepted as Indigenous by the community in which they live or formerly lived (NAISDA Dance College, 2019; Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, n.d.; University of Melbourne, n.d.; University of Tasmania, n.d.). It is imperative that all three criteria are met, and it is explicitly stated that physical appearance is not a determining factor (NAISDA Dance College, 2019; University of Melbourne, n.d.).

The emphasis on community acceptance highlights a critical aspect of Indigenous identity: it is fundamentally communal and relational, rather than solely an individual assertion. While personal identification is a necessary component, reciprocal recognition and validation from a legitimate Indigenous community, particularly one connected to the claimed Country, are indispensable for authentic Indigenous identity, especially in formal or legal contexts. This dynamic is central to understanding the complexities surrounding claims of identity appropriation. Many genuine descendants of Bungaree are actively working to prevent Indigenous Identity Fraud due to their direct experience with the non-Aboriginal GuriNgai group (Bungaree.org, n.d.).

Cultural heritage stands as an intrinsic element of Indigenous identity, safeguarded by Australian legislation such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Guringai Festival, n.d.). Traditional Owners possess inherent rights and profound responsibilities for the stewardship and protection of their ancestral lands and waters (National Native Title Council, n.d.). The frameworks designed to recognize and protect these rights, however, exhibit a systemic vulnerability to exploitation. The reliance on a multi-part test, which includes self-identification, can be manipulated if verification processes lack sufficient rigor or if institutions do not possess the cultural competence required to adequately assess genuine community acceptance. High-profile cases of identity fraud demonstrate how individuals can exploit these vulnerabilities for personal gain, such as securing scholarships or positions specifically reserved for Indigenous people (Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, 2025). This highlights a broader systemic issue where mechanisms intended to address historical injustices can inadvertently be repurposed to inflict further harm if not adequately fortified against deceitful practices.

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Report

This report is designed to provide a comprehensive, evidence-based analysis of the allegations of Indigenous Identity Appropriation and fraud pertaining to the ‘GuriNgai’ identity in New South Wales. It aims to dissect the layers of these claims through a rigorous examination of historical, genealogical, and cultural evidence.

The report will critically investigate the historical origins and validity of the ‘GuriNgai’ ethnonym, specifically addressing the assertion that it is a recent invention by non-Aboriginal individuals. It will scrutinize the claims and activities of the non-Aboriginal group identifying as ‘GuriNgai’, notably the Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation (GTLAC), by contrasting their assertions with documented historical, genealogical, and cultural facts. Finally, the report will discuss the broader detrimental impacts of Indigenous identity fraud on Aboriginal communities and the integrity of Indigenous affairs across Australia, and consider relevant legal and institutional responses to these challenges.

2. The Contested Ethnonym: Historical and Linguistic Analysis of ‘GuriNgai’

2.1 The Invention of ‘Kuringgai’ by John Fraser (1892) and Subsequent Interpretations

The term “Kuringgai,” often encountered in its variants “Guringai” and “GuriNgai” did not emerge from Sydney or Central Coast Indigenous tradition but was introduced by the non-Aboriginal ethnographer John Fraser in 1892 (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015; Kuringgai, n.d.). Fraser’s work, which posited a hypothetical “super-tribe” spanning a vast expanse of the central New South Wales coastline from the Macleay River south of Sydney, is now widely considered flawed (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015; Kuringgai, n.d.). His expansive and arbitrary classification of “Kuringgai” was subsequently rejected by researchers such as Tindale in 1974 (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015; Kuringgai, n.d.).

Despite this early rejection, the term gained further, albeit erroneous, academic traction through Arthur Capell in 1970. Capell applied “Kuringgai” to a supposed language group extending from north of Port Jackson to Tuggerah Lakes (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015; Kuringgai, n.d.). This application persisted despite linguistic evidence clearly demonstrating that this was merely a dialect of the Hunter River and Lake Macquarie (HRLM) language (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015; Kuringgai, n.d.). The subsequent inclusion of “Kuringgai” on the 1996 AIATSIS map further cemented this misclassification in public perception and educational resources, contributing to its widespread, yet inaccurate, usage (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015).

The historical analysis reveals an enduring legacy of colonial ethnography in shaping contemporary Indigenous identity disputes. The term “GuriNgai,” as applied to the Sydney/Central Coast region, is demonstrably a colonial construct, “invented” by a non-Indigenous person (Fraser) and perpetuated through subsequent academic and institutional channels (Capell, AIATSIS map) (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015; Kuringgai, n.d.). This demonstrates how early colonial attempts to categorize Indigenous societies, often based on limited understanding or flawed methodologies, can create enduring fictions that continue to impact genuine Indigenous communities and their self-determination centuries later. This historical misattribution forms a foundational premise for the alleged identity appropriation.

2.2 Academic and Indigenous Perspectives on the Term’s Authenticity

The controversy surrounding the term “Guringai” has been directly addressed by authoritative bodies and genuine Indigenous voices. The Aboriginal Heritage Office (AHO), in its 2015 report titled “Filling a Void: A Review of the Historical Context for the Use of the Word ‘Guringai’,” explicitly discusses the issue (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015; Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2023; Clans of Sydney, n.d.). In consultation with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC), the AHO concluded that the term “Guringai” is likely not the original name for the area, tribe, or language in question (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015).

The AHO unequivocally argues that the use of “Guringai” (or its various spellings) for the Sydney/Central Coast region is “not warranted” because it is “not authentic to the area, it was coined by a non-Aboriginal person and it gives a misleading impression of the connectivity of some original clan boundaries” (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015). This position is further supported by historical and linguistic evidence, which confirms that the genuine Gringai (or Guringay) people and their distinct Guringay dialect, part of the Gathang language, traditionally occupied areas north of the Hunter River, geographically distinct from the Sydney/Central Coast region (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015; Kuringgai, n.d.).

Robert Syron, a Registered Aboriginal Owner and a descendant of the true Guringai people (specifically the Kabook and Watoo people), has provided direct testimony on this matter. He states that his family’s traditional Country is in the Barrington/Gloucester Manning Valley area, north of the Hunter River, and explicitly clarifies that the Guringai people are not from the Central Coast or Sydney (Coast Community News, 2021; Syron, 2022). Syron emphasizes his family’s continuous connection to their ancestral lands, reinforcing the geographical and cultural distinction (Syron, 2022). This consistent and authoritative stance from the Aboriginal Heritage Office and genuine Guringai descendants like Robert Syron directly contradicts the non-Aboriginal group’s claim to ‘GuriNgai’ identity in the Sydney/Central Coast region. This is not merely an academic disagreement but a fundamental dispute over territorial identity and cultural ownership. The misapplication of the name “GuriNgai” to a region where it does not authentically belong directly undermines the identity and heritage of the true Guringay people and creates a false narrative for the Central Coast, forming a core element of the alleged appropriation.

2.3 Distinguishing ‘GuriNgai’ (Sydney/Central Coast) from Genuine Gringai/Guringay (Hunter River Region)

The distinction between the ‘GuriNgai’ identity claimed for the Sydney/Central Coast and the genuine Gringai/Guringay people of the Hunter River region is crucial and supported by clear linguistic and historical evidence. Linguistically, the Guringay dialect is recognized as part of the Gathang language, spoken alongside Birrbay and Warrimay, and is distinctly different from the languages spoken south of the Hunter River (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015; Kuringgai, n.d.). This linguistic evidence underscores the geographical separation of these groups. The First Languages Australia Gambay Map accurately places the Guringay language group north of the Hunter River, serving as a corrective to earlier misrepresentations that have contributed to the current identity disputes (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015).

The historical context of European arrival in Australia further illuminates how such misapplications of terms could have occurred. 

The detailed evidence that the ‘GuriNgai’ term, as applied to the Sydney/Central Coast, is a colonial invention and a misapplication has profound implications. This misattribution not only distorts the true historical and linguistic landscape of Indigenous Australia but also establishes a false foundation for claims of custodianship and cultural representation. This linguistic appropriation, when combined with the assertion of a fabricated identity, directly undermines the cultural sovereignty of genuine Aboriginal communities. It can lead to the “alienation” of actual Guringay descendants from their cultural heritage, as their authentic identity and history are overshadowed by a fabricated narrative (Kuringgai, n.d.). This constitutes a significant form of cultural violence, as it attempts to rewrite Indigenous history and control Indigenous identity from an external, non-Indigenous perspective.

3. The ‘GuriNgai’ Identity Claimants: Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation (GTLAC)

3.1 Formation, Stated Objectives, and Public Activities

The Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation (GTLAC) was formally established in 2003 (Australian Business Register, n.d.; Walkabout Wildlife Sanctuary, n.d.). Operating with an Australian Business Number (ABN 18 351 198 069), which has been active since July 1, 2003, GTLAC presents itself as a legitimate entity (Australian Business Register, n.d.; Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation, 2010; Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation, 2018). The corporation publicly asserts its status as the “Traditional Owners of the NSW Central Coast and the Northern Beaches of Sydney” (Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation, 2018). Its stated objectives include the reunification of “traditional clans of the Guringai people” and the teaching of “contemporary Guringai culture”, not as is claimed on the website of Wakabout Wildlife Park, “reunification of “traditional clans of the Wanangine people, and the teaching of “contemporary Wanangine culture”(Walkabout Wildlife Sanctuary, n.d.).

Tracey Howie has been a central and highly visible figure within GTLAC, having managed the corporation since 2004 and serving as a “Senior Female Cultural Heritage Officer” (Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation, 2018; National Indigenous Times, 2019; Walkabout Wildlife Sanctuary, n.d.). Under her leadership, GTLAC and its affiliates such as Wannangini Pty Ltd have engaged in a diverse array of public and commercial activities. These include conducting Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments for proposed property re-zoning and due diligence assessments, which are often prerequisites for land development projects (Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation, 2010; Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation, 2018). Beyond these consultative services, GTLAC offers cultural immersion tours, provides Didgeridoo lessons, offers language translation services, and sells Aboriginal artwork (Guringai Festival, n.d.; TribalLink, n.d.). 

The establishment of GTLAC as a registered corporation and its active engagement in commercial activities, such as cultural heritage assessments, tours, and art sales, indicates that the appropriation of the ‘GuriNgai’ identity extends beyond mere symbolic claims. By asserting “Traditional Owner” status over the Central Coast and Northern Beaches, GTLAC strategically positions itself to derive significant financial benefits from development projects and cultural tourism. This suggests a deliberate strategy to leverage a claimed, but highly contested, Indigenous identity for economic and political influence, potentially diverting resources and opportunities that would otherwise be directed towards legitimate Indigenous groups. This commercialization of a contested identity raises questions about the ethical implications of profiting from a narrative that lacks authentic historical and community validation.

3.2 Key Individuals and Their Claims of Ancestry and Custodianship

The guriNgai.org website, a platform operated by genuine descendants of Bungaree, explicitly alleges that the ‘GuriNgai’ group’s identity was “invented” in 2001 by a “non-Aboriginal man named Warren Whitfield” through “guesswork and plagiarism.” It further states that a “local amateur historian” began repeating these claims from 2002 (Cooke, 2025b). This narrative positions the origins of the ‘GuriNgai’ identity as a deliberate fabrication.

Prominent individuals associated with promoting this contested identity include Warren Whitfield, Neil Evers, Laurie Bimson, Brad Twynham, performers ‘Charlie Needs Braces’ and Tracey Howie (Cooke, 2025a). A significant aspect of the narrative propagated by this group involves claims of direct descent from Bungaree, a highly respected and well-known Aboriginal leader from the Broken Bay area during the early colonial period (Cooke, 2025a; Walkabout Wildlife Sanctuary, n.d.). However, these genealogical claims are directly contradicted by genuine descendants of Bungaree (Cooke, 2025a). The “ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONNECTION REPORT Part 2: Family history and contemporary connection evidence AWABAKAL AND GURINGAI PEOPLE NC2013/002” by Natalie Kwok (2015) states that “There seems to be no evidence to substantiate claims made that Sophy [Charlotte Ashby’s purported mother] was the daughter of Bungaree, nor any account of how this came to be known” (Kwok, 2015, p. 2).

Anthropological Connection Report: Family history & contemporary connection evidence.

The Kwok report further clarifies a critical error in the genealogical chain put forward by GTLAC. While Charlotte Ashby’s death certificate lists her mother as Sophia, the purported “Sophy” in the 1835 Brisbane Water blanket return, a key document in the claimed lineage, is “unmistakeably Sally” (Kwok, 2015, p. 2). The report finds “no evidence at hand to link Sally with Charlotte” (Kwok, 2015, p. 2). Additionally, claims by Keith Vincent Smith regarding “Sophy” appearing on other historical returns could not be confirmed due to insufficient referencing (Kwok, 2015, p. 2).

The guriNgai.org website, maintained by confirmed descendants of Bungaree, explicitly asserts that Tracey-Lee Howie has “no genuine Cultural connection to the Central Coast, is not a confirmed descendant, direct or otherwise of Bungaree” and, critically, that Tracey-Lee is “aware this is the case” (Reddit, 2023). This source also claims that Tracey-Lee Howie admitted under oath to only becoming “interested” in Aboriginal issues in 1991, after 20 years of identifying as non-Aboriginal (Reddit, 2023). The detailed findings of the Kwok anthropological report provide strong evidence that the specific genealogical link claimed by GTLAC (via Sophy as Bungaree’s daughter) is unsubstantiated and based on misinterpretation of historical records. When combined with the assertion from guriNgai.org that Tracey-Lee Howie is “aware this is the case,” this moves beyond mere error to suggest a knowing and willing attempt to construct a false lineage. This deliberate misrepresentation of historical and genealogical facts is central to the fraud allegations.

3.3 Allegations of Fictional Culture and Profiteering

The guriNgai.org website details a “long con” spanning from 2001 to 2025, alleging that those involved are “still profiting from ‘stolen and fictional Culture, heritage, even our Ancestors’” (Cooke, 2025b). The site explicitly states that the group’s ventures into various industries are based on “the lies of a single, White bloke named Warren” (Cooke, 2025b). The Aboriginal Heritage Office’s 2015 report also highlights the appropriation of the term “Guringai” by non-Indigenous groups, particularly the Guringai Tribal Link, which claims cultural representation despite the term’s colonial origins (Kuringgai, n.d.).

Concerns have been raised by genuine Indigenous community leaders about individuals “being remunerated very handsomely to hold a lot of senior positions” and “growing rich on our misery,” with “fake Aborigines” allegedly controlling the narrative and policy within “black affairs” (SBS News, 2022). Specific examples include individuals participating in cultural site surveys and earning substantial daily fees (e.g., $1500 a day) without possessing genuine cultural knowledge (SBS News, 2022). The Indigenous Chamber of Commerce emphasizes that Indigenous identity fraud enables individuals to access “scholarships, grants, jobs, and other resources reserved for Indigenous peoples,” thereby depriving genuine Indigenous people of crucial and much-needed resources (Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, 2025).

The consequences of these claims extend far beyond mere misrepresentation, inflicting significant harm on genuine Indigenous communities.

Cultural Distortion: The misrepresentation of historical narratives and identities, such as the false association of Bungaree with the Guringai-speaking peoples, actively obscures true Indigenous histories and undermines the cultural integrity of established communities (Cooke, 2025a).

Resource Diversion: Government programs, grants, and scholarships specifically designed to support Indigenous communities are accessed by individuals whose claims to Aboriginality are unsubstantiated. This diversion reduces the availability of vital resources for those who are genuinely entitled, exacerbating existing inequalities and undermining efforts to address the severe socio-economic challenges faced by Aboriginal communities (Cooke, 2025a; Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, 2025; SBS News, 2022; 7NEWS Australia, 2024).

Erosion of Trust and Scepticism: The presence of contested identity claims fosters mistrust and scepticism towards Aboriginal identity within broader society, complicating advocacy efforts and creating additional barriers for legitimate Aboriginal communities seeking recognition and support (Cooke, 2025a; Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, 2025). This unfortunate outcome often forces genuine Indigenous individuals, particularly those with fair skin, to constantly prove their authenticity, adding an undue burden to their lives (Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, 2025).

Challenges to Community Cohesion: The introduction of unverified or contested claims creates tensions and divisions both within and between Aboriginal communities, weakening collective efforts for cultural integrity and rights advocacy (Cooke, 2025a).

“Neocolonial Violence” and “Settler Conspirituality”: Academic commentary frames this identity appropriation as “cultural theft as contemporary colonialism” and “a form of neocolonial violence—a reassertion of settler control over land, resources, and identity through the manipulation of recognition frameworks, environmental activism, and liberal multicultural rhetoric” (White Possession, Settler Conspirituality, and the GuriNgai Cult, 2025). This phenomenon is linked to “settler conspirituality,” where non-Indigenous Australians imagine themselves as spiritually sovereign, thereby bypassing both settler guilt and the political obligations of decolonization (White Possession, Settler Conspirituality, and the GuriNgai Cult, 2025; Cooke, 2025c). This “hijacked sovereignty” directly erodes the authority of genuine Traditional Owners at Native Title consultations and cultural heritage assessments (Cooke, 2025c).

Emotional Harm: The profound impact of these false claims includes measurable emotional harm, as Elders and cultural leaders, already burdened by generations of institutional violence, are forced to defend their identity and authority in the presence of impostors claiming rights to Country (Cooke, 2025c). Threats and harassment have also been reported against genuine Aboriginal people who speak out against false claims (Cooke, 2023b; Cooke, 2023c).

The detailed allegations of financial gain and participation in lucrative cultural heritage assessments by the GuriNgai group, coupled with the difficulty genuine communities face in legally challenging these claims due to a lack of resources, reveal a systemic problem (Cooke, 2025b; Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation, 2010; Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation, 2018; Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, 2025; SBS News, 2022). This is not merely individual deceit; it is a mechanism that allows non-Indigenous individuals to “infiltrate our organisations and our communities” and “control the narrative of black affairs and they’re controlling the policy” (SBS News, 2022). This constitutes a profound form of economic and political dispossession, whereby resources and decision-making power, intended for the self-determination of genuine Indigenous peoples, are diverted to those with fabricated identities. The framing of this as “neocolonial violence” (White Possession, Settler Conspirituality, and the GuriNgai Cult, 2025) underscores that it represents a continuation of historical patterns of control and exploitation, rather than isolated incidents of fraud.

4. Genealogical and Cultural Legitimacy: The Genuine Descendants of Bungaree

4.1 Documented Lineage and Traditional Connections of Bungaree’s Family

Bungaree (circa 1775 – 1830) was a highly significant Aboriginal leader originating from the Broken Bay region, situated north of Sydney (Canada Bay Heritage Society, n.d.; National Museum of Australia, n.d.; Wikipedia, n.d.). He is identified as a Carigal/Garigal man, closely associated with the “Broken Bay, Pittwater, Saltwater people” (Canada Bay Heritage Society, n.d.; WikiTree, n.d.a). Historical records suggest his father was likely Carigal/Garigal, and his mother an Awabakal woman from the lower Hunter River area (Wikipedia, n.d.).

Bungaree holds a unique and esteemed position in Australian history, notably as the first Aboriginal person to circumnavigate the continent. He achieved this feat by accompanying Matthew Flinders on the Investigator between 1801 and 1803, and later Phillip Parker King in 1817 (Canada Bay Heritage Society, n.d.; National Museum of Australia, n.d.; Wikipedia, n.d.). His role during these voyages was indispensable; he served as an interpreter, guide, and diplomat, often successfully mediating complex cross-cultural interactions between the European explorers and various Indigenous groups they encountered (Canada Bay Heritage Society, n.d.; Wikipedia, n.d.).

Bungaree had two wives, Matora and Cora Gooseberry (National Museum of Australia, n.d.; WikiTree, n.d.a). Matora is recorded as having children, among them Sarah Biddy (Lewis), Diana and Toby Bungaree. His son, Boin (Bowen) Bungaree, also known as Long Dick, succeeded him as a crucial intermediary with the colonists, continuing his father’s role in navigating the complex relationship between Indigenous communities and the burgeoning colonial society (Kwok, 2015).

The strategic value of Bungaree’s historical prominence in claims of identity appropriation is evident. His well-documented and historically significant role as an early Indigenous leader, explorer, and diplomat makes him a highly recognizable and respected figure (Canada Bay Heritage Society, n.d.; National Museum of Australia, n.d.; Wikipedia, n.d.). This prominence renders claims of direct descent from him particularly valuable for groups seeking to establish legitimacy and authority within Indigenous affairs. The fact that GTLAC explicitly claims this lineage despite significant counter-evidence highlights a deliberate strategy to appropriate a recognized historical narrative to bolster a contested identity. This demonstrates how historical figures can become targets of identity appropriation, as their legacy is leveraged to create a facade of authenticity for unverified claims.

4.2 Anthropological Assessment of Claimed Genealogical Links to Bungaree (e.g., Tracey Howie’s connection to Sophy)

The Kwok Anthropology Report (2015) provides a critical assessment of the genealogical links claimed by Tracey Howie’s family to Bungaree. The report states unequivocally that “There seems to be no evidence to substantiate claims made that Sophy was the daughter of Bungaree, nor any account of how this came to be known” (Kwok, 2015, p. 2). This finding directly challenges a foundational element of the claimed lineage.

The report identifies a significant error in the genealogical chain: while Charlotte Ashby’s death certificate lists her mother as Sophia, the individual purportedly named “Sophy” in the 1835 Brisbane Water blanket return, a key document cited in the claimed lineage, is “unmistakeably Sally” (Kwok, 2015, p. 2). Crucially, the report further notes that there is “no evidence at hand to link Sally with Charlotte” (Kwok, 2015, p. 2). Additionally, the report indicates that claims by Keith Vincent Smith regarding “Sophy” appearing on other historical returns could not be confirmed due to insufficient referencing (Kwok, 2015, p. 2).

While Charlotte’s connections to the Brisbane Water area and her association with the Webb surname might suggest a traditional link to the area associated with Bungaree’s family, the report cautions that it was common for Aboriginal people to assume white settlers’ surnames without implying a direct blood relationship (Kwok, 2015, p. 4). This highlights the complexities of interpreting historical records in a colonial context. The guriNgai.org website, which is operated by a confirmed descendant of Bungaree, directly asserts that Tracey-Lee Howie is “not a confirmed descendant, direct or otherwise of Bungaree” and, critically, that she is “aware this is the case” (Reddit, 2023).

The detailed findings of the Kwok anthropological report provide strong evidence that the specific genealogical link claimed by GTLAC (via Sophy as Bungaree’s daughter) is unsubstantiated and based on a misinterpretation of historical records. When combined with the assertion from guriNgai.org that Tracey-Lee Howie is “aware this is the case,” this moves beyond mere error to suggest a knowing and willing attempt to construct a false lineage. This deliberate misrepresentation of historical and genealogical facts is a central component of the fraud allegations.

4.3 Lived Aboriginality and Connection to Country: Perspectives from Genuine Descendants

The Kwok report (2015), while questioning specific genealogical claims, provides extensive detail on what Tracey Howie claims is her and her families lived Aboriginality and deep connection to Country. They articulate an “innate connection to the water” and an “uninhibited love, an unconditional love” for the land, a feeling they believe non-Aboriginal people cannot share (Kwok, 2015, p. 8). This profound connection is described as providing a “warm comforting feeling” and a sense of “protection” (Kwok, 2015, p. 9). The family claims to maintain strong ties to their heritage through regular visits, the upkeep of holiday homes, and perennial camping trips to ‘culturally significant’ areas such as Chittaway Bay and Patonga Beach (Kwok, 2015, p. 7).

Their cultural practices are claimed to be evident in their sustainable approach to fishing, where they “catch what you need to eat” and consciously respect breeding stock, such as releasing larger flathead to ensure population replenishment (Kwok, 2015, p. 8). Furthermore, specific cultural protocols are claimed to be observed, exemplified by Kevin Robinson’s family’s prohibition on catching or eating stingray, which they state is integral to “who we are” (Kwok, 2015, p. 11). This simulates a transmission of cultural knowledge and practices across generations.

Historically, the family in 2015 claimed to have maintained their Aboriginality privately, a strategy adopted for survival in challenging times. This act of “keeping it tight” is now perceived as having empowered later generations to reclaim and assert their identity more openly (Kwok, 2015, p. 10). Kyle Howie, a younger family member, actively advocates for his family’s exclusive right to speak for Country as genuine descendants, challenging those who do not possess this inherent authority (Kwok, 2015, p. 10).

This section highlights a significant nuance: while the specific genealogical link to Bungaree is explicitly refuted for Tracey Howie’s family, the Kwok report simultaneously documents claims of a profound and deeply felt “lived Aboriginality” and connection to Country within the family. This raises a critical question for the assessment of fraud: does the performance of cultural practices, even if heartfelt, legitimize a foundational identity claim that is historically and genealogically contested? This requires careful consideration in determining the precise nature of the alleged fraud, distinguishing between potential misinformation or misinterpretation and deliberate deception.

4.4 Non-Recognition of GTLAC Claims by Genuine Indigenous Communities

A fundamental criterion for Indigenous identity in Australia is community acceptance (NAISDA Dance College, 2019; Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, n.d.; University of Melbourne, n.d.). The Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation (GTLAC) and its members face widespread non-recognition from established and genuine Indigenous communities in the relevant regions, which is a decisive factor in assessing the legitimacy of their claims.

Bungaree’s genuine Aboriginal descendants have explicitly stated that they do not recognize the GuriNgai group as Aboriginal or as being related to Bungaree and his mob (Cooke, 2023, 2025a). This direct rejection from the very lineage GTLAC claims to represent is a significant indicator of a lack of community acceptance. The Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC), recognized as custodians for the Sydney area, in collaboration with the Aboriginal Heritage Office (AHO), agrees that the term “Guringai” is not the original name for the area, tribe, or language (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015). This collective stance from recognized Indigenous bodies further undermines GTLAC’s assertions.

The Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) has publicly declared the “Guringai” in Sydney and the Central Coast to be a “fiction” and has discredited the anthropologist associated with coining the name (Coast Community News, 2021). DLALC also noted that the ‘Guringai’ group had to discontinue a Native Title application, which suggests a failure to meet the rigorous legal and evidentiary requirements for native title recognition, thereby indicating a lack of legal and communal legitimacy (Coast Community News, 2021). Further reinforcing this position, a significant collective statement from “7 Aboriginal Land Councils from Sydney to Newcastle” was sent to the Premier NSW, asserting that the Guringai are historically from north of the Hunter River, directly contradicting GTLAC’s claimed territorial affiliation (Coast Community News, 2021).

Kumarah Kelly, CEO of Awabakal Local Aboriginal Corporation, has publicly criticized newly-identifying individuals as “false Aboriginals” who misrepresent cultural knowledge and practices. She emphasized that such individuals “do not represent our community and they are not endorsed or accepted as Aboriginal people within our community” (SBS News, 2022). This strong condemnation from a prominent Indigenous leader highlights the deep concern within genuine communities regarding identity appropriation. The overwhelming evidence of non-recognition from multiple legitimate Aboriginal Land Councils and genuine descendants is a decisive factor in assessing the legitimacy of the ‘GuriNgai’ identity claims. This collective rejection signifies a failure to meet one of the three core criteria for Indigenous identity in Australia. This lack of community acceptance, coupled with the historical and genealogical refutations, strongly supports the argument that the group claiming ‘GuriNgai’ identity is engaged in appropriation and fraud, as they lack the fundamental communal validation required for authentic Indigenous identity. This has direct implications for their ability to legitimately represent themselves as custodians or benefit from Indigenous-specific programs.

5. Indigenous Identity Fraud: Broader Context, Impacts, and Legal Frameworks

5.1 Defining Indigenous Identity in Australia: Descent, Self-Identification, and Community Acceptance

The definition of Indigenous identity in Australia is a multifaceted concept, formally articulated through a widely accepted “three-part test.” This test requires an individual to demonstrate: (1) being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent; (2) self-identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person; and (3) being accepted as such by the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community in which they live or formerly lived (NAISDA Dance College, 2019; Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, n.d.; University of Melbourne, n.d.; University of Tasmania, n.d.). All three elements are crucial and must be satisfied for formal recognition, particularly when accessing Indigenous-specific services or programs (NAISDA Dance College, 2019; Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, n.d.; University of Melbourne, n.d.).

The criterion of community acceptance is particularly emphasized as reflecting the collective and relational nature of Aboriginal identity, rather than solely individual claims (University of Melbourne, n.d.). This acceptance is often formalized through a “Confirmation of Aboriginality” letter, which is issued by a registered Indigenous community organization after a thorough review of sufficient evidence of heritage (NAISDA Dance College, 2019). The Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) applies this three-part test for the indigeneity requirement of corporations registered under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (CATSI Act), mandating that a majority of a corporation’s members and directors must be Indigenous (Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, n.d.). ORIC relies on the corporations themselves to assure the indigeneity of their members and directors, challenges to an individual’s indigeneity within a corporation can not be resolved, despite the efforts of Aboriginal People, Communities and Organisations such as Local Aboriginal Land Councils.

The consistent emphasis on “community acceptance” highlights that identity is not a purely individual construct. The fact that government agencies and organizations like ORIC appear to rarely rely on this three-part test, but also rely on the corporations themselves to verify indigeneity, indicates a potential vulnerability. If a group lacks genuine community acceptance but can self-identify and present some form of “descent” (even if contested), they can and do exploit this gap to gain a semblance of formal recognition, thereby creating opportunities for fraud. This underscores the importance of the community’s role as a gatekeeper of identity, and the need for rigorous, culturally informed verification processes to prevent exploitation of recognition frameworks.

5.2 The Harmful Impacts of Identity Appropriation and Fraud on Indigenous Peoples and Communities

Indigenous identity fraud is recognized as a deeply damaging phenomenon, extending far beyond mere misrepresentation to constitute a severe form of “cultural theft” and “neocolonial violence” (Cooke, 2025a; White Possession, Settler Conspirituality, and the GuriNgai Cult, 2025). This practice undermines Aboriginal sovereignty, distorts cultural truth, and exploits “settler ignorance for personal gain” (Cooke, 2025a; White Possession, Settler Conspirituality, and the GuriNgai Cult, 2025).

A primary and tangible impact of such fraud is the diversion of crucial resources and opportunities that are specifically intended for genuine Indigenous peoples. This includes scholarships, grants, jobs, and various programs designed to address historical injustices and socio-economic disparities (Cooke, 2025a; Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, 2025; SBS News, 2022; 7NEWS Australia, 2024). When these resources are accessed by individuals whose claims to Aboriginality are unsubstantiated, it exacerbates existing inequalities and deprives those genuinely entitled of vital support.

Beyond the material impact, Indigenous identity fraud encourages deceit, commodifies Indigenous identity, and severely erodes trust between Indigenous communities and broader institutions striving for reconciliation (Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, 2025). It also casts suspicion on all Indigenous individuals, particularly those with fair skin due to mixed ancestry, forcing them to constantly “prove their authenticity” and adding an additional burden to their lived experiences (Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, 2025).

Cultural distortion is another profound consequence, where historical narratives and identities are misrepresented. The specific misrepresentation of Bungaree’s lineage and the erroneous usage of the “Guringai” term for the Central Coast are prime examples of this distortion, which obscures true histories and undermines the cultural integrity of established communities (Cooke, 2025a). The presence of contested claims generates significant tensions within and between genuine Indigenous communities, disrupting cohesion and weakening their collective efforts to advocate for their rights (Cooke, 2025a). Elders and cultural leaders, already burdened by generations of institutional violence, are forced to defend their identity and authority against impostors, adding to their existing emotional and psychological toll (Cooke, 2025c). Furthermore, reports indicate that threats and harassment have been directed at genuine Aboriginal people who speak out against false claims, highlighting the personal safety risks involved in challenging these fraudulent narratives (Cooke, 2023b; Cooke, 2023c).

The research clearly demonstrates that Indigenous identity fraud is not merely a financial crime but a deeply damaging act with profound cultural, social, and political ramifications. The description of it as “neocolonial violence” (White Possession, Settler Conspirituality, and the GuriNgai Cult, 2025) signifies that it is a reassertion of external control over Indigenous identity and resources. This systemic harm leads to the erosion of trust, the undermining of genuine self-determination, and the re-traumatization of communities already impacted by colonialism. While the diversion of resources is a tangible consequence, the intangible harms, such as cultural distortion, community division, and the undue burden placed on genuine Elders, are equally, if not more, devastating.

5.3 Legal and Institutional Responses to Identity Fraud in Australia

Australia possesses general legal frameworks designed to combat identity fraud, which is recognized as a growing issue with significant financial and psychological impacts on individuals and the broader community (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2023; Merdović & Jovanović, 2024; Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, n.d.). These laws typically target the use of false identities to obtain various advantages (Douglas-Stewart, 2004). New South Wales, for instance, has introduced specific legislation, the Identity Protection and Recovery Bill, to enhance safeguards against identity fraud, including the establishment of a fraud check service for compromised identification documents (NSW Government, 2025b). NSW Police investigate fraud based on false statements, deceptive conduct, or untrue representations (NSW Police Force, n.d.).

The Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) plays a crucial role in overseeing Indigenous corporations. It has a mandate to address concerns about these corporations’ compliance with the CATSI Act, including cases of suspected fraud and failure to meet indigeneity requirements (Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, n.d.; Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, n.d.; Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, n.d.b). Challenges to an individual’s indigeneity within a corporation can be brought before the Federal Court (Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, n.d.).

Other key bodies in the native title and traditional owner rights landscape include the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) and the National Native Title Council (NNTC) (National Native Title Council, n.d.; National Native Title Tribunal, n.d.). The fact that the “GuriNgai” group had to discontinue a Native Title application suggests that existing legal mechanisms are capable of challenging the legitimacy of identity claims in this context, particularly when they lack sufficient evidence of traditional connection and community acceptance (Coast Community News, 2021).

Crucially, Indigenous journalists play a vital role in investigative reporting, actively “unearthing groundbreaking stories” and “confronting fake tribes” (Global Investigative Journalism Network, 2021). Their work highlights the indispensable importance of Indigenous-led media in exposing such issues, as they often possess the cultural insights and community connections necessary to navigate these sensitive and complex investigations ethically and effectively.

Despite these existing frameworks, there appears to be a disjuncture between general fraud legislation and the specific complexities of Indigenous identity fraud. While general identity fraud laws exist and bodies like ORIC address corporate indigeneity, these may not fully capture or adequately redress the unique cultural, genealogical, and sovereignty-related harms caused by Indigenous identity appropriation. The focus of general fraud is often predominantly financial, whereas Indigenous identity fraud involves the theft of heritage, cultural authority, and self-determination. This gap indicates a need for more specialized legal and policy tools that specifically address the unique dimensions of Indigenous identity fraud, potentially drawing on international Indigenous rights frameworks to provide more comprehensive avenues for redress.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1 Summary of Key Findings

The comprehensive examination of the ‘GuriNgai’ identity claims reveals several critical findings:

The term “GuriNgai,” as applied to the Sydney and Central Coast regions, is demonstrably a colonial invention. It originated from John Fraser in 1892 and is not recognized as an authentic traditional name for the local Aboriginal people by authoritative academic bodies or genuine Indigenous communities. The true Guringay people are historically and linguistically located north of the Hunter River.

The Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation (GTLAC) and its prominent figures, particularly Tracey Howie, assert genealogical claims of descent from Bungaree that are explicitly refuted by detailed anthropological research. Evidence indicates a manipulation of historical records to construct this lineage, with strong suggestions that key individuals within GTLAC are aware of the lack of genuine ancestral connection.

GTLAC actively engages in extensive commercial activities, including cultural heritage assessments and tours, leveraging these contested identity claims. This practice raises serious concerns about profiteering from what is described as “stolen and fictional culture,” leading to the diversion of resources, opportunities, and funding away from legitimate Indigenous communities.

Crucially, GTLAC’s claims lack recognition and are actively opposed by multiple legitimate Aboriginal Land Councils (e.g., Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council) and genuine Indigenous communities in the region. This widespread non-acceptance signifies a failure to meet the fundamental “community acceptance” criterion, which is essential for authentic Indigenous identity in Australia.

Indigenous identity appropriation and fraud inflict profound and multi-dimensional harm. These acts undermine Aboriginal sovereignty, distort cultural truth, erode trust within and between communities, and cause significant emotional, cultural, and financial detriment to genuine Indigenous peoples and their inherent right to self-determination.

6.2 Recommendations for Strengthening Identity Verification and Protecting Indigenous Heritage

Based on the findings of this report, the following recommendations are put forth to strengthen identity verification processes and enhance the protection of Indigenous heritage in Australia:

Implement and rigorously enforce the three-part test for Indigenous identity across all governmental, corporate, and institutional contexts. The consistent failure of groups like GTLAC to meet the community acceptance criterion highlights a critical vulnerability in current recognition processes. While the test exists, its application, particularly the community acceptance component, requires more robust and consistent enforcement. This would prevent fraudulent entities from gaining legitimacy, accessing resources, and speaking on behalf of Country without genuine community endorsement, thereby safeguarding the integrity of Indigenous identity.

Increase funding and support for Indigenous-led genealogical and historical research and validation processes. The detailed anthropological report was instrumental in debunking specific genealogical claims. Empowering Indigenous communities and their own experts to conduct and lead genealogical and historical research can provide definitive, culturally appropriate evidence to counter false claims and affirm genuine lineages. This would strengthen the evidence base for identity verification and ensure that Indigenous voices and methodologies are central to determining authenticity.

Develop specific legal frameworks or amendments to existing laws to explicitly address Indigenous identity fraud as a distinct form of cultural and economic harm. Current identity fraud laws may not fully capture the unique cultural, spiritual, and communal harms associated with Indigenous identity appropriation. Framing this issue as “neocolonial violence” necessitates the development of legal tools that provide stronger avenues for redress for cultural distortion, the undermining of sovereignty, and the theft of cultural authority, extending beyond purely financial loss. This would provide clearer and more comprehensive legal recourse for affected Indigenous communities.

Promote and financially support Indigenous-led media and journalistic investigations into identity fraud and appropriation. Indigenous journalists are uniquely positioned to “confront fake tribes” and expose systemic issues due to their cultural insights and deep community connections. Investing in and protecting Indigenous-led media ensures that investigations into identity fraud are conducted ethically, with cultural sensitivity, and bring to light issues that might otherwise be overlooked or misrepresented by mainstream media. This strengthens accountability and truth-telling within the public discourse.

Enhance and formalize collaboration between government agencies (e.g., ORIC, ACNC), Indigenous representative organizations (Local Aboriginal Land Councils, Native Title bodies), and academic institutions to share information, develop best practices, and coordinate strategies for combating identity fraud. The current landscape suggests a fragmented approach where information may not be adequately shared or acted upon across different regulatory and community bodies. A coordinated, multi-sectoral approach is essential to effectively identify, investigate, and prosecute cases of Indigenous identity fraud and appropriation, ensuring that all relevant expertise and authority are brought to bear on this complex and sensitive issue. This would create a more unified and effective front against fraudulent claims.

References

7NEWS Australia. (2024, August 31). Albanese government accused of ignoring indigenous identity fraud [Video]. YouTube. 

Aboriginal Heritage Office. (2015). Filling a void: A review of the historical context for the use of the word ‘Guringai’. 

Aboriginal Heritage Office. (2023). 2021-2022 annual report part 1: Including proposed activities for 2022-2023. 

Ku-ring-gai Council. Australian Business Register. (n.d.). Current details for ABN 18 351 198 069. Retrieved from https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?id=18351198069 

Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. (n.d.). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. Retrieved from https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-charities/manage-your-charity/other-regulators/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander 

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2025, March 12). Explainer: Commonwealth v Yunupingu and compensation for native title. Retrieved from https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/explainer-commonwealth-v-yunupingu-and-compensation-native-title 

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2025, May 28). 2025 AIATSIS Summit: Voices of empowerment, strengthening our future. Retrieved from https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/speeches/2025-aiatsis-summit-voices-empowerment-strengthening-our-future 

Australian Institute of Criminology. (2023). Identity crime and misuse in Australia 2023. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. (n.d.a). 

AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research. Retrieved from https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/aiatsis-code-ethics.pdf 

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. (n.d.b). Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Retrieved from https://aiatsis.gov.au/ 

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. (n.d.c). Map of Indigenous Australia. Retrieved from https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia 

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. (n.d.d). Media releases. Retrieved from https://aiatsis.gov.au/tags/media-release 

Barayamal. (n.d.). First Nations identity fraud. Retrieved from https://barayamal.good.do/identity-fraud/ 

Bungaree.org. (n.d.). Victim impact statements. Retrieved from https://bungaree.org/victim-impact-statements/ 

Canada Bay Heritage Society. (n.d.). Bungaree. Retrieved from https://canadabayheritage.asn.au/35614-2/ 

CBC News. (n.d.). Ontario Human Rights Commission offers hiring guidance to avoid Indigenous identity fraud. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/identity-fraud-indigenous-hiring-1.7564978 

Clans of Sydney. (n.d.). Clans of Sydney. Aboriginal Heritage Office. Retrieved from https://www.aboriginalheritage.org/history/clans-of-sydney/ 

Coast Community News. (2021, May). New Indigenous party opposed to DLALC bushland development. Retrieved from https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2021/05/new-indigenous-party-opposed-to-dlalc-bushland-development/ 

Cooke, J. D. (2023, July 7). A long con, gone on too long. guriNgai.org. Retrieved from https://guringai.org/blog/ 

Cooke, J. D. (2023, July 11). Using threats of court action to stifle critique – A long con, gone on too long. guriNgai.org. Retrieved from https://guringai.org/2023/07/11/using-threats-of-court-action-to-stifle-critique/ 

Cooke, J. D. (2023, July 27). GuriNgai threats to Aboriginal people – A long con, gone on too long. guriNgai.org. Retrieved from https://guringai.org/2023/07/27/guringai-threats-to-aboriginal-people-extend-beyond-the-metaverse/ 

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 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/ 

Cooke, J. D. (2025, July 4). A long con, gone on too long. guriNgai.org. Retrieved from https://guringai.org/ 

Cooke, J. D. (2025, July 4). Hijacked sovereignty: The far-right attempts at appropriation of Aboriginal resistance. guriNgai.org. Retrieved from https://guringai.org/2025/07/04/hijacked-sovereignty-the-far-right-attempts-at-appropriation-of-aboriginal-resistance/ 

Dark Emu Exposed. (n.d.). Room to work. Retrieved from https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/home/2016/1/30/room-to-work-ye2nx-f46ey-tztjf-n2h7e-slsth 

Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council. (n.d.). Financial report. Retrieved from https://acncpubfilesprodstorage.blob.core.windows.net/public/b1288ddf-38af-e811-a963-000d3ad24077-9a47d3a5-9640-469f-af68-02605f01eb13-Financial%20Report-415b164c-46b0-e811-a962-000d3ad24a0d-DLALC_2015_Signed_Financial_Report_080915_-_FINAL.pdf 

“They are NOT Aboriginal”- explosive claim in controversial project. (n.d.). 2GB. Retrieved from https://www.2gb.com/they-are-not-aboriginal-explosive-claim-in-controversial-project/ 

Douglas-Stewart, J. (2004). South Australian laws target identity theft. Privacy Law and Policy Reporter, 10(9), 16