Section 1: Historical and Systemic Harms—Objectification, Exploitation, and Deficit Discourse

Australian research on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is marked by a persistent legacy of objectification, exploitation, and deficit framing. From colonization onward, non-Aboriginal anthropologists, ethnographers, and scientists cast Aboriginal people as “specimens,” reducing them to objects of scientific curiosity. This objectification facilitated the extraction of cultural knowledge, sacred artifacts, language records, and human remains—nearly always without consent or community benefit (Taaffe, 2008; Smith, 2012; NHMRC, 2018).

The removal of ancestral remains from Tasmania represents one of the most egregious chapters in this history. Over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, thousands of remains were shipped to museums and universities across Australia and Britain. Decades of advocacy by the Tasmanian Aboriginal community finally led to the 1996 repatriation of remains by the British Museum and the Natural History Museum in London. The Australian Prime Minister’s 2000 statement formally acknowledged the pain and suffering caused, promising ongoing repatriation and reconciliation (Australian Government, 2000; Turnbull, 2000).

Research from this era, including anatomical studies comparing “the spinal curvature in an Aboriginal Australian” to a “chimpanzee,” did not merely dehumanize Aboriginal people but also legitimized racist policies such as terra nullius. These so-called scientific inquiries underpinned legal, political, and cultural frameworks that justified dispossession, exclusion, forced removal, and denial of sovereignty, embedding epistemic violence into settler-colonial institutions (Smith, 2012; NHMRC, 2018; Taaffe, 2008).

These traumas are not simply historical. Aboriginal people today recall being “studied as the other,” stripped of intellectual property and sacred materials, and subjected to research relationships that provided no benefit and little agency (Taaffe, 2008; Lowitja Institute, 2020). Many remains still await return, with their journeys recorded in museum archives (Smith, 2012; Turnbull, 2000).

This legacy is compounded by the ongoing prevalence of deficit discourse, which frames Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in terms of “gaps,” “risks,” and “deficiencies” rather than community strength or resilience (Fogarty et al., 2018; Lowitja Institute, 2020). As the Lowitja Institute (2020) asserts, race-based stereotyping and negative discourse “continue to disempower communities, ignore their diversity, and undermine the strengths that sustain health and wellbeing” (p. 8). Reductionist narratives that neglect structural inequalities entrench stereotypes and undermine self-determination (Fogarty et al., 2018; Lowitja Institute, 2020; Smith, 2012).

These patterns directly shape contemporary debates in health, education, and land rights. The ongoing limitations of Closing the Gap policies are closely linked to the colonial logics that continue to inform data collection and interpretation (Lowitja Institute, 2020). The cumulative effect is persistent disempowerment, mistrust, and harm that contemporary researchers and institutions must confront through genuine partnership and reparative action (NHMRC, 2018; Smith, 2012).

---

Section 2: Data Colonialism and Intellectual Exploitation—Contemporary Distrust

Contemporary non-Aboriginal research perpetuates harm not only through overt abuses but also via the ongoing extraction, commodification, and control of Indigenous data and knowledge. This phenomenon, termed “data colonialism” by Kukutai and Taylor (2016), involves the collection of Indigenous stories, genealogies, biological samples, and knowledge—often without proper authority or benefit to communities (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Smith, 2012).

Such relationships can reproduce colonial power dynamics, with knowledge and data “flowing up” to academic gatekeepers, while benefits accrue to non-Indigenous individuals and institutions (Smith, 2012; NHMRC, 2018). Aboriginal communities are too often excluded from research design, ownership, and interpretation. As Johnstone (2007) notes, these “one-way flows of information” have produced profound distrust, particularly when research outcomes affect health and social policy yet are published without meaningful participation or access for the community (Johnstone, 2007, p. 22).

The Lowitja Institute’s 2020 report confirms that the issues of Indigenous “ownership, interpretation, and dissemination of research findings and data” are unresolved, with most benefits still accruing to non-Indigenous researchers (Lowitja Institute, 2020). The report insists that empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to determine data use, storage, and return is essential to future benefit (Lowitja Institute, 2020, p. 17).

A significant shift is reflected in the “Our Data, Our Stories, Our Future” report, published by AIATSIS and the Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective. This work outlines the continued challenges and provides a roadmap for implementing Indigenous Data Sovereignty, influencing government data reforms and the creation of community-governed data networks (AIATSIS & Maiam nayri Wingara, 2020; Walter et al., 2021).

Testimony from Data Sovereignty Leaders:
Palawa scholar Professor Maggie Walter stresses that “data is a cultural, economic, and political resource… Indigenous Data Sovereignty is about rebalancing power—ensuring that our communities govern the data that affects our lives” (Walter, 2019, p. 3). Maiam nayri Wingara states that “Indigenous peoples must control the creation, interpretation, management and use of data,” asserting the right to reclaim data withheld or misused (Maiam nayri Wingara, 2018, p. 1).

These principles are reshaping research ethics. More funders and journals now require evidence of Indigenous community governance in research, marking a significant departure from data colonialism and a shift toward trust and justice.

---

Section 3: Identity Fraud and Epistemic Laundering—The GuriNgai Case

A profound contemporary harm is the laundering of fraudulent Aboriginal identities for institutional, personal, and commercial gain. The GuriNgai case in Sydney’s Northern Beaches and Central Coast epitomizes this phenomenon. Here, the Bungaree–Sophy–Charlotte Ashby descent line—deliberately invented by non-Aboriginal individuals, particularly Warren Whitfield—became the cornerstone of fabricated identity claims (Cooke, 2025; Guringai.org, 2023–2025; Attenbrow et al., 2015).

Impact on Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC):
DLALC, the region’s preeminent Aboriginal organization, has been directly harmed by GuriNgai fraud. False claims created confusion around custodianship, undermined land negotiations, and compromised heritage assessments. DLALC has consistently denounced these fabrications and called out their harmful diversion of recognition and resources (Central Coast Council, 2023; DLALC, 2022; DLALC, 2023). As the DLALC Chair stated: impostors who claim identity and are accepted as “Traditional Owners” by agencies erase real communities and inflict profound harm on justice and self-determination efforts (DLALC, 2022, as cited in Guringai.org, 2023).

Community Testimony:
Direct descendants of Bungaree emphasize the spiritual and cultural violence of such fraud:
“It’s not just about paperwork. This is our story, our kin, our law. When outsiders invent ancestors and institutions believe them, they’re taking something sacred. It breaks our hearts and it damages how young people see themselves. Our identity isn’t for sale or invention” (Guringai.org, 2024). Another Elder compares it to losing land all over again, now losing “names, ancestors, our children’s futures” (Guringai.org, 2024).

Policy and Legal Reversal:
Following exposure of the GuriNgai fraud, Central Coast Council and several NSW agencies retracted or suspended partnerships with the non-Aboriginal group, recognizing only legitimate, community-verified Aboriginal organizations (Central Coast Council, 2023; Office of Local Government, 2023). This policy shift, driven by Aboriginal research and advocacy, has become a model for institutional accountability (Cooke, 2025; Debunking the GuriNgai Humbug, 2025).

Consequences for Culture and Sovereignty:
Credentialing fraudulent identities distorts policy, heritage, and resource distribution, delegitimizes authentic voices, and entrenches settler-colonial authority over Aboriginal recognition (Attenbrow et al., 2015; Cooke, 2025). Aboriginal-led research platforms have demonstrated the necessity of genealogical and community-based verification to restore cultural authority.

---

Section 4: Academic and Institutional Complicity—Collapse of Peer Review and Ethical Oversight

The GuriNgai case exposes failures of due diligence in Australian academia. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (NHMRC et al., 2018) and AIATSIS (2020) require respect for Indigenous communities, community engagement, and verification of claims. Yet universities and journals have repeatedly failed to enforce these standards, relying on circular citation and unverified genealogies without primary research or community consultation (Cooke, 2025; Attenbrow et al., 2015; The Stewart Simulation, 2025).

Failure of Policy and Oversight:
Research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples must be based on ethical conduct, community respect, and evidence-based verification (NHMRC et al., 2018, Section 1.5, 2.1). Yet, research projects and theses using fabricated genealogies have been approved without consulting relevant Land Councils (Cooke, 2025). Universities also failed to retract errors, violating the ACRCR’s requirements for correction and retraction (NHMRC et al., 2018, Section 3.1, 5.1). Peer review instead embedded prior errors in institutional archives and policy (The Stewart Simulation, 2025).

Chilling Effect:
This negligence is compounded by risk aversion following Eatock v Bolt (2011), which rendered scrutiny of Aboriginal identity claims fraught (Cooke, 2025; Guringai.org, 2023–2025). As a result, institutional reluctance further undermines required verification and culturally secure research (AIATSIS, 2020).

Consequences:
These failures enable unverified narratives to circulate, harming resources, policy, and Aboriginal community trust, and undermining research integrity (Cooke, 2025; The Stewart Simulation, 2025).

---

Section 5: Policy Impacts, Data Distortion, and the Broader Harm

Fraudulent genealogies and identity claims, when accepted by policy-makers and embedded in census data, distort the entire policy environment. Eligibility for Indigenous programs is often based on self-identification. Where community verification is absent, non-Aboriginal individuals gain access, inflating official counts (Lowitja Institute, 2020; Cooke, 2025). These distorted numbers influence program design, funding, and evaluation, misallocating resources and eroding accountability in initiatives such as Closing the Gap.

Statistical Distortion:
Between the 2011 and 2016 censuses, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population grew by over 18 percent, largely due to new identifiers without verified links (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017; Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). Apparent statistical improvements often reflect the inclusion of socially advantaged new identifiers, not genuine progress for Aboriginal communities.

Broader Harm:
This undermines public trust in data and policy, delegitimizes Indigenous recognition, and perpetuates settler-colonial gatekeeping over Aboriginal identity (Cooke, 2025; The Stewart Simulation, 2025).

---

References

AIATSIS. (2020). AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research. https://aiatsis.gov.au/ethics

AHO (2015). Filling a Void: A Review of the Historical Context for the Use of the Word ‘Guringai’. Aboriginal Heritage Office. https://www.aboriginalheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/AHO-Report-Guringai-Filling-a-Void.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population: Census of Population and Housing, 2016 (Cat. No. 2071.0). https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-population/latest-release

Australian Government. (2000). Repatriation of Indigenous Remains: Statement by the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP, 7 August 2000. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media/pressrel/J5X26%22

Bainbridge, R., Tsey, K., McCalman, J., Kinchin, I., Saunders, V., Watkin Lui, F., & Cadet-James, Y. (2015). No one’s discussing the elephant in the room: Contemplating questions of research impact and benefit in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian health research. BMC Public Health, 15, 696. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2052-3

Central Coast Council. (2023). Statement on Aboriginal Partnership and Heritage Consultation.

Cooke, J. D. (2025). V5 Epistemic laundering and settler simulation: A critical analysis of Ryan Stewart’s thesis and the endurance of the GuriNgai fraud [PDF].

Courtman, N. (2020, August 21). Letter to the President, National Native Title Tribunal. In 21082020_NC_NNTT_FINAL (3).pdf.

Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC). (2021). Aboriginal Cultural Authority on the Central Coast of New South Wales [Letter]. https://dlalc.org.au/

Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC). (2022). DLALC submission into the Central Coast Council’s First Nations Accord [PDF]. https://dlalc.org.au

Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC). (2022). Submission to NSW Government Inquiry into Aboriginal Land Rights and Heritage [Unpublished manuscript, cited in Guringai.org, 2023].

Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC). (2023). Letter to Central Coast Council on Cultural Heritage Partnerships.

Debunking the GuriNgai Humbug in Ryan Stewart’s Writing the History of Contact on the Central Coast of New South Wales (2025) [PDF].

Fogarty, W., Bulloch, H., McDonnell, S., & Davis, M. (2018). Deficit Discourse and Strengths-based Approaches: Changing the Narrative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Wellbeing. The Lowitja Institute.

Guringai.org. (2023–2025). Genealogical critiques, identity exposés, and investigative research on the GuriNgai identity. https://guringai.org

Johnstone, M.-J. (2007). The ethics of consent to research participation by Indigenous Australian peoples. Contemporary Nurse, 23(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2006.23.1.21

Kennedy, A., Tsey, K., Bainbridge, R., McCalman, J., & Brown, C. (2022). Indigenous research methodologies in Australia: Principles and processes. In S. L. Chilisa (Ed.), Indigenous Research Methodologies: International Perspectives (pp. 163–186). Sage.

Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (Eds.). (2016). Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda. ANU Press.

Lowitja Institute. (2020). Research Impact and Benefit: An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Researcher’s Guide.

Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective & The Australian Indigenous Governance Institute. (2018). Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Policy Statement. https://www.maiamnayriwingara.org

Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, Awabakal LALC, Bahtabah LALC, Biraban LALC, Darkinjung LALC, Mindaribba LALC, & Worimi LALC. (2020, June 3). Letter to Hon. Gladys Berejiklian, Premier of NSW. In Premier NSW Final Draft MLALC letter Re Guringai claimants 3rd June 2020_ (7).pdf.

National Health and Medical Research Council. (2018). Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/resources/ethical-conduct-research-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-and-communities

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Universities Australia. (2018). Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018

New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) & NTSCORP. (2011). Submission by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and the NTSCORP Limited in response to the Reform of Aboriginal Culture and Heritage in NSW. https://alc.org.au

Office of Local Government (NSW). (2023). Guidance on Aboriginal Partnerships and Identity Verification. https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au

Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books.

Taaffe, M. (2008). Indigenous health research in the Kimberley: Lessons from the past. Medical Journal of Australia, 188(10), 558–560.

The Stewart Simulation: How a PhD Thesis Repackaged the GuriNgai Fraud (2025) [PDF].

Turnbull, P. (2000). Science, museums and collecting the Indigenous dead in colonial Australia. In L. Johnson & J. Jacobs (Eds.), Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism and the City (pp. 121–135). Melbourne University Press.

Walter, M. (2019). Data, power, and Indigenous sovereignty. In M. Walter, T. Kukutai, S. Carroll, & D. Rodriguez-Lonebear (Eds.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy (pp. 1–10). Routledge.

Walter, M., Lovett, R., Maher, B., Williamson, B., Prehn, J., Bodkin-Andrews, G., & Lee, V. (2021). Indigenous data sovereignty in the era of big data and open data. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 358–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.149