Abstract
This report provides a comprehensive forensic and interdisciplinary analysis of the film NYAA WA and the fraudulent identity network known as “GuriNgai,” situating both within broader frameworks of settler simulation, spiritual mimicry, and cultic abuse. While presented as a documentary film rooted in Aboriginal culture, NYAA WA is in fact a ritual artefact of settler cultism, a performance of spiritualised imposture orchestrated by non-Aboriginal individuals falsely claiming descent from the historical Aboriginal figures Bungaree and Matora.
The film’s creators, Charlie Woods (performing as Charlie Needs Braces), Miri Woods, and their mother Rebecca Hird-Fletcher, assert genealogical links to Bungaree through a fabricated daughter named “Sophy,” a figure invented in the early 2000s by non-Aboriginal activist Warren Whitfield. No historical or genealogical evidence supports the existence of such a person, and the claims have been categorically rejected by Aboriginal Land Councils, verified descendants, and experts in Indigenous identity verification (Kwok, 2015; AHO et al., 2015; bungaree.org, 2025; guringai.org, 2025).
Through the lens of cultic studies, this report demonstrates how the GuriNgai identity network exhibits high-control dynamics involving pseudo-kinship, charismatic mythmaking, identity fusion, and ritual mimicry. Drawing on the work of Lifton (1961), Hassan (2016), and Lalich (2004), the analysis characterises NYAA WA not as a cultural artefact but as a spiritualised simulation—an aesthetic performance of Aboriginal cosmology with no lawful grounding in kinship, cultural authority, or Law. The report also documents the systemic harm caused by institutional complicity: how media festivals, arts bodies, and government agencies continue to endorse and fund identity fraud despite extensive public warnings. It concludes with strategic recommendations for cultural governance reform, including mandatory verification protocols, accountability measures for institutions, and redress for communities harmed by imposture.
Introduction
2.1 Context and Purpose
This report is authored on behalf of the Marramarra Carigal, bungaree.org, and guringai.org in response to the potential reinstatement and continued platforming of NYAA WA by the Melbourne Documentary Film Festival (MDFF) following an alleged intervention from Senator Lidia Thorpe. It aims to dismantle the public legitimacy of NYAA WA by demonstrating that the film is not a valid expression of Aboriginal culture but the performative output of a non-Aboriginal settler cult operating under the fraudulent banner of “GuriNgai.” The report integrates genealogical, historical, psychological, and policy evidence to trace the origins and operations of the GuriNgai simulation. It documents how this identity network emerged in the early 2000s from settler genealogical fabrication, was later spiritualised through New Age mimicry, and is now sustained by institutional endorsements, media exposure, and uncritical public reception. This analysis seeks to restore cultural integrity to the legacy of Bungaree and Matora by exposing the fraudulence of the so-called “Sophy” descent line and the performance-based identity claims that have proliferated from it.
2.2 Methodology and Sources
This report synthesises over 40 documents, including forensic genealogy, Indigenous community statements, cultural anthropological reviews, cultic psychology literature, institutional correspondence, and cinematic analysis. It draws on research published by bungaree.org and guringai.org, formal statements by Aboriginal Land Councils and the Aboriginal Heritage Office, and scholarly frameworks from settler-colonial studies, Indigenous sovereignty theory, and cult studies.
Primary sources include:
Genealogical refutations by Dr Natalie Kwok (2015), the Marramarra Carigal, and independent Aboriginal custodians.
Historical research from The Kuringgai Puzzle (Wafer & Lissarrague, 2010) and the Aboriginal Heritage Office (AHO et al., 2015).
Community-led media and documentation of identity fraud (e.g., bungaree.org, guringai.org).
Critical analysis of NYAA WA and the Coast Environmental Alliance through cultural, linguistic, and psychological lenses.
2.3 Terminology and Definitions
Aboriginal Law: The lawful cultural, spiritual, and genealogical authority passed through kinship systems, ancestral lineage, and custodial obligations not reducible to performative acts or aesthetic symbolism. GuriNgai: A fabricated identity group claiming descent from the historical figure Bungaree via a non-existent daughter, “Sophy,” invented by settler activist Warren Whitfield. The term is used in this report to refer specifically to the non-Aboriginal fraud network centred on Tracey Howie, Rebecca Hird-Fletcher, and Charlie Woods. Settler simulation: A term developed by this author and aligned with the work of Moreton-Robinson (2015) and Day (2021), referring to the mimetic performance of Indigeneity by non-Aboriginal people who adopt the aesthetics, language, and symbols of Aboriginal culture without lawful descent or community authority. Cultic identity fraud: A form of coordinated deception in which a settler group engages in spiritual mimicry, charismatic storytelling, identity fusion, and epistemic closure to simulate Aboriginal belonging and gain access to resources, power, or social legitimacy.
Genealogical Fabrication and the Myth of Sophy
3.1 The Bungaree and Matora Lineage
Bungaree, a Garigal leader from the lower Hawkesbury, is one of the most well-documented Aboriginal figures in colonial Australia. He and his wife Matora were known not only for their roles in early contact diplomacy, but also for maintaining cultural law and kinship governance amidst intense settler disruption (Cooke, 2025; Wafer & Lissarrague, 2010). Historical records consistently cite their daughter, Biddy, also known as Sarah Biddy Lewis or Sarah Wallace, as their only surviving child with known descendants. Biddy was born in the early 19th century and lived much of her life at Marramarra Creek, where she raised a family whose descendants, including this report’s author, continue to assert cultural continuity (bungaree.org, 2025; Cooke, 2025). Genealogical documentation and oral histories maintained by verified Marramarra Carigal families demonstrate an unbroken lineage from Bungaree and Matora through Biddy. Notably, Biddy’s descendants did not relocate to the Central Coast or Northern Beaches, nor do they claim association with the contemporary GuriNgai identity group.
3.2 The Invention of “Sophy”
The origin of the GuriNgai group’s fraudulent claim lies in the invention of a fictional daughter of Bungaree and Matora named “Sophy.” This name appears nowhere in colonial archives, oral traditions, or Indigenous community knowledge prior to its fabrication in the early 2000s by non-Aboriginal activist Warren Whitfield. According to documented evidence, Whitfield created the figure of Sophy as a mechanism to insert his own family into Aboriginal genealogy and cultural authority (guringai.org, 2024; Cooke, 2025). Whitfield’s niece, Tracey Howie, subsequently adopted this fabricated descent line, asserting that she and her relatives were descendants of “Sophy” and therefore inheritors of Bungaree’s cultural authority. This origin story has since been deployed to justify cultural, political, and financial claims by individuals including Rebecca Hird-Fletcher and her daughters, Charlie and Miri Woods (Guringai.org, 2025; Kwok, 2015). It has also been amplified by settler-led environmental organisations such as the Coast Environmental Alliance, further embedding the false narrative into public discourse.
3.3 False Descent Claims of the Woods–Hird–Howie Network
Charlie Woods, known artistically as “Charlie Needs Braces,” publicly claims Aboriginal heritage via the so-called ‘Ashby’ GuriNgai line. Her sister Miri Woods and their mother, Rebecca Hird-Fletcher, have made similar public assertions, often invoking their alleged “saltwater woman” identity and linking their ancestry to Bungaree through the fictitious Sophy. However, multiple lines of evidence demonstrate these claims to be categorically false. Genealogical analysis by Dr Natalie Kwok (2015) confirms that there is no descent line connecting the Woods–Hird–Howie family to Bungaree or Matora. The Kwok report details the absence of birth, death, or marriage records supporting the Sophy claim, and concludes that none of the individuals involved meet the three core criteria of Aboriginality: biological descent, self-identification, and community acceptance (Kwok, 2015; AIATSIS, 2014). These findings are supported by the Aboriginal community and our representative bodies. In 2020, a coalition of Local Aboriginal Land Councils (including Metropolitan, and Darkinjung) issued a formal joint statement to the NSW Premier rejecting GuriNgai identity claims over the Central Coast and Northern Sydney region (bungaree.org, 2025; Guringai.org, 2025). Aboriginal Affairs NSW has likewise confirmed that “Guringai” does not represent any known Aboriginal group historically associated with the eastern seaboard (NSW Aboriginal Affairs, 2023). Despite being presented with irrefutable documentation, the Woods–Hird–Howie network has continued to assert GuriNgai identity in public forums, cultural ceremonies, grant applications, and media projects. The performative basis of these claims is further evident in the Woods sisters’ active participation in NAIDOC events, acceptance of awards from the Archie Roach Foundation, and receipt of institutional arts funding from bodies such as Music Victoria (Guringai.org, 2024; bungaree.org, 2025). The perpetuation of this identity fraud has profound implications. Not only does it erase legitimate Aboriginal voices, but it also contaminates public memory and displaces lawful authority. As Cooke (2025) argues, the invocation of the “Sophy” myth represents more than genealogical error; it is an act of cultural theft and spiritual simulation, weaponised to secure resources, legitimacy, and control within Aboriginal domains to which the perpetrators have no lawful claim.
Cultic Dynamics in the GuriNgai Simulation
The fraudulent identity claims of the GuriNgai network do not exist in isolation. Rather, they function within a high-control social environment that exhibits the psychological, structural, and performative dynamics of a cult. This section applies established cultic theory to examine how the GuriNgai simulation mobilises charismatic mythmaking, pseudo-kinship, epistemic enclosure, and ritual mimicry to sustain its operations and recruit adherents. The cultural performance seen in NYAA WA is not merely a case of mistaken identity or naïve appropriation—it is a ritual artefact of cultic identity fraud.
4.1 Settler Simulation and Spiritual Mimicry
The concept of settler simulation refers to the performance of Aboriginal identity by non-Aboriginal actors through the adoption of aesthetic, spiritual, and ceremonial codes divorced from lawful descent and cultural governance. This simulation, as articulated by Cooke (2025), replicates cultural authority while displacing the actual holders of that authority. Unlike genuine Aboriginal practice, which is bound by ancestral law and kinship obligation, settler simulation operates through surface signs: language fragments, totemic animal motifs, and environmental rhetoric that invoke authenticity without embodying its responsibilities. Spiritual mimicry is central to this performance. It entails the ritualised imitation of cultural practices—such as Welcome to Country, smoking ceremonies, and Dreaming narratives—conducted by individuals with no verifiable connection to the traditions they are performing. Within the GuriNgai network, such mimicry is used not only for public spectacle but also for personal gain, including access to funding, media exposure, and institutional legitimacy (Cooke, 2025; bungaree.org, 2025). The Woods sisters’ repeated use of water motifs, sacred animals, and songs framed as “ceremonial” in NYAA WA constitutes an example of this mimicry. These performances are not grounded in relational responsibilities to kin or Country, nor are they supported by community protocols. They are settler-authored projections of Aboriginality that draw on popular aesthetic codes to simulate cultural depth.
4.2 Ritual Performance and Identity Fraud
According to Hassan’s (2016) BITE model (Behaviour, Information, Thought, and Emotional control), cultic systems maintain cohesion through mechanisms that regulate behaviour, isolate information, control narrative, and suppress dissent. The GuriNgai simulation exhibits all four dimensions. It enforces in-group loyalty, discourages questioning of descent claims, and cultivates a narrative of sacred legitimacy through invented genealogy and spiritual performance. Key figures in the network, such as Tracey Howie, function as charismatic authorities, centralising decision-making and reinforcing the “truth” of their lineage through repetition and community silencing (Lifton, 1961; Lalich, 2004). Performances by Charlie and Miri Woods, including their ceremony-like enactments at NAIDOC events and in NYAA WA, serve to validate and distribute the cult’s mythic origin story, positioning themselves as its living evidence. This ritual performance extends beyond visual media. As documented by guringai.org and bungaree.org, members of the GuriNgai network have engaged in pseudo-ceremonial activities across parks, protests, and art installations. These include the consecration of fabricated “sacred sites,” the use of ecological metaphors to invoke Dreaming lineages, and the performance of kinship roles that are culturally unverified. Such actions align with what Lifton (1961) describes as “ideological totalism,” in which belief systems are rendered immune to scrutiny by sacralising the group’s internal narrative.
4.3 Application of Cult Theory (Lifton, Hassan, Lalich)
Each of the three leading cult theorists—Robert Jay Lifton, Steven Hassan, and Janja Lalich, provides a framework that reveals the GuriNgai simulation as cultic identity fraud: Lifton’s Eight Criteria of Thought Reform: The GuriNgai network exhibits milieu control, mystical manipulation, demand for purity, confession rituals, sacred science, loading of language, doctrine over person, and dispensing of existence. For instance, dissenters are discredited or excluded, while invented terms such as “GuriNgai lore” are used to obscure critical inquiry (Lifton, 1961).
Hassan’s BITE Model: The network exercises behavioural control (e.g., requiring ritual participation), informational control (e.g., denying access to genealogical records), thought control (e.g., through the sacred status of “Sophy”), and emotional control (e.g., weaponising cultural shame or emotional appeal) (Hassan, 2016).
Lalich’s Bounded Choice: Members exhibit identity fusion, accepting the cult’s worldview as absolute and non-negotiable. This fusion is evident in Charlie Needs Braces’ refusal to retract false claims even when presented with irrefutable genealogical disproof (Lalich, 2004; guringai.org, 2025).
Additionally, the GuriNgai simulation deploys epistemic enclosure, a tactic used by cults to control the boundaries of acceptable knowledge. By positioning the group’s myths as “sacred,” they shield their claims from verification, rejecting any requirement for descent evidence as a colonial imposition—even while leveraging colonial institutions to receive grants, awards, and media visibility. These dynamics are not theoretical—they are operational. As Cooke (2025) demonstrates, the GuriNgai network’s cultic features are empirically observable in its rituals, its claims, its governance, and its harm. The group sustains its presence through spiritual theatre, social bonding, and the constant deferral of proof.
NYAA WA as a Ritual Artefact
The short film NYAA WA, presented as a First Nations children’s story, is not a work of authentic Aboriginal expression. It is a symbolic artefact of cultic identity fraud: a ritualised performance that encodes the fabricated genealogies, mythic structures, and charismatic deceptions of the GuriNgai simulation. While it deploys the language of Aboriginal cosmology—Dreaming animals, saltwater themes, and sacred landscape motifs—it is authored entirely outside the lawful bounds of Aboriginal kinship, descent, or cultural governance. This section demonstrates how NYAA WA functions as an aesthetic and spiritual extension of the settler cult described in Sections 3 and 4.
5.1 Cinematic Symbolism and Dreaming Simulation
The visual motifs in NYAA WA are drawn from widely recognised markers of Aboriginality: oceanic imagery, animal spirits, and feminine connection to Country. These elements are not grounded in Aboriginal Law or community-sanctioned cosmology but rather constitute a stylised simulation of Aboriginal spirituality, designed for emotive resonance and cultural recognition. Charlie and Miri Woods, who perform as protagonists, frame themselves as “saltwater women” and custodians of a cultural narrative that originates not in Country, but in the invented genealogy of Sophy—a figure that has been categorically debunked by forensic genealogists and Aboriginal communities (Kwok, 2015; bungaree.org, 2025). Their invocation of sacred animal figures, use of ceremonial music, and pseudo-initiation tropes within the film all mimic the symbolic grammar of Dreaming without the intergenerational authority or kin-based legitimacy required to hold or transmit such Law. As Cooke (2025) outlines, this is an instance of spiritual simulation: a settler-authored ritual using symbols of cultural depth to obscure genealogical fraud and recruit public sentiment. Just as fake sacred sites and faux Welcome to Country events are used to confer legitimacy on the GuriNgai cult, NYAA WA uses the cinematic language of Indigenous storytelling to mask the settler origins of its creators.
5.2 Performance of Faux Kinship, Ceremony, and Cosmology
NYAA WA operationalises the GuriNgai group’s invented kinship system through ritual performance. The mother–daughters triad of Hird-Fletcher and the Woods sisters is presented as an Aboriginal family line with deep cultural knowledge passed from matriarch to daughters. This narrative is not supported by any Aboriginal Land Council, genealogical evidence, or Indigenous community—indeed, it has been explicitly refuted by the descendants of Bungaree and Matora (bungaree.org, 2025; guringai.org, 2025). Within the film, “ceremony” is stylised for audience consumption. Ceremonial dress, music, and sacred objects are used without cultural authorisation. These are not expressions of Law but the aestheticised theatre of identity appropriation, enacted to secure institutional validation through visual and emotional appeal. Such performances align with what Lalich (2004) terms bounded reality: the use of symbolic acts to reinforce group mythologies and collapse the distinction between performance and belief. In NYAA WA, ceremony is not transmitted through kinship, but invented as narrative device. Cosmology is not inherited, but composed for screen. These acts constitute what Cooke (2025) defines as ritual imposture: the staging of sacred authority without the lawful relations that grant it.
5.3 Institutional Complicity and Cultural Laundering
Despite multiple public warnings, NYAA WA has been platformed by reputable institutions, including the Melbourne Documentary Film Festival (MDFF), arts funding bodies such as Music Victoria, and the Archie Roach Foundation. These platforms have awarded the Woods sisters with funding and accolades intended to support Aboriginal artists—despite the complete absence of verified Aboriginal descent. This process constitutes cultural laundering: the transformation of fraudulent identity into cultural legitimacy through institutional endorsement. The aesthetic qualities of the film—its music, cinematography, and emotive narration—create a persuasive illusion of authenticity that obscures the absence of lawful Aboriginal identity. In doing so, they enable a settler imposture to be celebrated as Indigenous truth. The cultural laundering of NYAA WA is not an isolated oversight. It reflects a systemic failure of verification, ethics, and due diligence across the arts and media sectors. When Aboriginal identity is reduced to performance, it becomes susceptible to simulation—and when institutions fail to verify identity claims, they become co-authors of the fraud. As shown by Aboriginal Affairs NSW, AIATSIS, and multiple LALCs, the so-called GuriNgai identity has no basis in cultural authority or genealogical fact (NSW Aboriginal Affairs, 2023; bungaree.org, 2025). To platform NYAA WA is to participate in a form of cultural deception that violates both the principles of Aboriginal self-determination and the protocols of ethical representation.
Systemic Harms and Institutional Failures
The platforming of NYAA WA and the continued legitimacy afforded to the GuriNgai identity network by arts bodies, festivals, and media outlets are not benign acts of cultural misrecognition. They are active contributors to a broader system of harm. Identity fraud within Aboriginal affairs has measurable impacts across cultural, psychological, social, and institutional domains. These harms are compounded when institutions fail to apply proper due diligence, thereby enabling perpetrators to displace authentic voices, misappropriate resources, and reconfigure cultural governance around settler simulations.
6.1 Cultural Displacement and Re-traumatisation
The most immediate harm caused by the GuriNgai network and its media artefacts such as NYAA WA is the cultural displacement of legitimate Aboriginal people. In regions such as the Central Coast and Northern Sydney, identity fraud has resulted in non-Aboriginal individuals assuming the role of Traditional Custodians, leading ceremonies, conducting cultural tours, and speaking on behalf of Country despite categorical rejections from recognised Aboriginal community-governed bodies (bungaree.org, 2025; Guringai.org, 2025). This displacement is not symbolic; it directly interferes with cultural continuity. Elders who hold genealogical and spiritual authority have been excluded from decision-making spaces, while simulacral claimants have taken their place. For example, members of the GuriNgai network have occupied seats on advisory boards, received invitations to participate in government-sponsored ceremonies, and issued formal “Welcome to Country” statements with no lawful custodianship to do so (NSW Aboriginal Affairs, 2023; AIATSIS, 2014). For actual descendants of Bungaree and Matora, such as the Marramarra Carigal, this constitutes a form of cultural erasure. As Cooke (2025) argues, spiritual imposture is not only a symbolic violation but a lived trauma that reproduces colonial logics of dispossession. The simulation of sacred relations and Dreaming knowledge by non-Aboriginal people inflicts spiritual and psychological harm on those whose identities are being overwritten.
6.2 Funding Injustice and Gatekeeping
One of the most quantifiable harms associated with identity fraud is the misallocation of funding and opportunity. Aboriginal identity is often a criterion for grants, awards, and institutional programs designed to redress historical injustices. When individuals such as Charlie and Miri Woods fraudulently claim Aboriginality, they extract resources from an already underfunded cultural sector, displacing legitimate applicants and undermining equity-based programs. Charlie Needs Braces has received multiple forms of institutional recognition, including the Archie Roach Foundation Emerging Talent Award, music festival slots reserved for Aboriginal artists, and grants from Music Victoria (guringai.org, 2024; bungaree.org, 2025). These accolades are premised on a false identity that has been repeatedly disproven by community statements, genealogical investigations, and institutional reviews (Kwok, 2015; AIATSIS, 2014). This pattern of statistical sabotage undermines data integrity within the cultural sector. When individuals with no Aboriginal ancestry are counted in Indigenous statistics—whether in health, education, justice, or the arts—the resulting data skews policy planning and resource allocation. As Watt and Kowal (2019) and Andersen (2019) have argued, the “race-shifting” phenomenon has emerged as a structural threat to Indigenous governance, enabling the colonisation of identity categories for settler benefit. Furthermore, the GuriNgai simulation acts as a gatekeeping mechanism that blocks legitimate Aboriginal people from cultural expression. Several known community artists have reported being excluded from exhibitions and ceremonial events when GuriNgai members assumed authority over the curation of “local Aboriginal representation” (bungaree.org, 2025). This transforms identity fraud from a personal deception into a systemic barrier to self-determination.
6.3 Epistemic Closure in the Arts, Media, and Policy
Institutions that platform settler simulations without scrutiny contribute to what Cooke (2025) and Day (2021) identify as epistemic closure, the foreclosure of truth-telling through systems that reward mimicry and suppress critique. Arts festivals, government agencies, and media outlets have shown a consistent reluctance to investigate Aboriginal identity claims, often citing privacy, cultural sensitivity, or “good intentions” as reasons for bypassing verification. In the case of NYAA WA, the Melbourne Documentary Film Festival (MDFF) considered reinstated the film after Senator Lidia Thorpe’s alleged intervention, despite having received clear genealogical documentation, community refutations, and formal objections from Aboriginal community and recognised legislated authorities (bungaree.org, 2025; guringai.org, 2025). This decision represents a systemic failure of institutional accountability, where settler authority is privileged over Aboriginal governance. Media organisations, too, have played a role in laundered representation. Outlets such as Coast Community News and ABC Radio have platformed the GuriNgai narrative without conducting due diligence, presenting Howie, Woods, and others as cultural leaders based solely on unverified self-identification (bungaree.org, 2025). This constitutes a form of epistemic violence, in which Aboriginal people are silenced by the amplification of settler voice. As Moreton-Robinson (2015) articulates, the white possessive logic embedded in Australian institutions facilitates such erasures by re-inscribing whiteness at the heart of Aboriginality. In this context, settler simulation becomes a vehicle for maintaining control over what counts as Indigenous knowledge, identity, and authority.
Legal, Cultural, and Ethical Implications
The case of NYAA WA and the GuriNgai network reveals serious breaches not only of cultural ethics and genealogical truth but of institutional duty, public trust, and the lawful protocols governing Aboriginal identity. This section outlines the policy, legal, and cultural frameworks that govern Aboriginal identification in Australia, then demonstrates how these have been violated or bypassed by the individuals involved in the GuriNgai simulation and the institutions that have enabled them.
7.1 Aboriginal Identity Verification Protocols
In Australia, formal Aboriginal identity is defined by three interdependent criteria: descent from an Aboriginal person, self-identification, and recognition by an Aboriginal community (AIATSIS, 2014). All three must be satisfied for an individual to be lawfully and ethically considered Aboriginal under government, academic, and legal frameworks. This tripartite definition is upheld by legislation, institutional policies, and Aboriginal-controlled organisations, including Land Councils and peak cultural bodies. Charlie and Miri Woods, along with their mother Rebecca Hird-Fletcher, do not meet any of these criteria. As established in genealogical reports (Kwok, 2015) and community statements (bungaree.org, 2025; guringai.org, 2025), there is no documented line of Aboriginal descent, and their claims to community recognition are based entirely within the GuriNgai network, a self-constituted settler simulation not recognised by any legitimate Aboriginal governance structure. Despite this, these individuals have been accepted by some arts institutions and festivals on the basis of self-identification alone. This violates established protocols for cultural engagement, including the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2010), which require verification of identity and evidence of community acceptance for individuals speaking or performing on behalf of Aboriginal heritage. The failure to uphold identity verification standards reflects a growing institutional vulnerability to what Andersen (2019) terms Indigenous impersonation: the uncritical acceptance of Indigeneity as a subjective state, rather than a lawful and relational one. This shift has significant ramifications for Indigenous sovereignty, data integrity, and cultural protection.
7.2 AHO, AIATSIS, and LALC Position Statements
Multiple Aboriginal-led institutions have rejected the legitimacy of the GuriNgai claims. The Aboriginal Heritage Office (AHO), in its publication Filling a Void (AHO et al., 2015), acknowledges the historic absence of a cultural group known as Guringai in the northern Sydney or Central Coast regions. It traces the emergence of this term to non-Aboriginal actors seeking to fill colonial gaps with fabricated continuity narratives. AIATSIS has also issued public guidance warning against the rise of identity fraud and cultural misrepresentation, reaffirming the tripartite criteria for identity and the need for verification in policy and funding contexts (AIATSIS, 2014). In 2023, Aboriginal Affairs NSW confirmed that “Guringai” does not correspond to any historically or culturally legitimate Aboriginal group in the regions it is now fraudulently applied to (NSW Aboriginal Affairs, 2023). In 2020, a joint statement was issued by multiple Local Aboriginal Land Councils explicitly refuting GuriNgai claims to custodianship of the Central Coast and Northern Sydney regions. The statement affirmed that individuals promoting GuriNgai identity were doing so without recognition from lawful Aboriginal bodies and that their activities were causing ongoing harm to community governance, truth-telling efforts, and cultural integrity (bungaree.org, 2025). These official rejections constitute clear evidence that the Woods–Hird–Howie network is operating outside Aboriginal law and protocol. The continued institutional recognition of their identity claims represents a profound ethical failure and a direct challenge to Aboriginal self-determination.
7.3 Failures of Due Diligence by MDFF and Arts Bodies
The Melbourne Documentary Film Festival’s potential reinstatement of NYAA WA, following alleged intervention from Senator Lidia Thorpe, is emblematic of a broader crisis in institutional accountability. Despite being presented with formal objections, genealogical refutations, and statements from Aboriginal custodians, the festival failed to conduct appropriate due diligence on the identity claims underlying the film. Instead, it accepted settler representations of Aboriginality on face value, contributing to the cultural laundering of identity fraud (bungaree.org, 2025). This failure is not confined to MDFF. Arts organisations including Music Victoria, and the Archie Roach Foundation, have all, at various times, endorsed or platformed the Woods sisters without conducting adequate identity checks. These lapses point to a systemic weakness in verification infrastructure and a reluctance to implement culturally safe but robust identity assessment procedures. In the absence of enforceable policy, settler claimants are incentivised to fabricate kinship, forge pseudo-lineages, and assume sacred cultural roles with impunity. Ethically, this constitutes a betrayal of Aboriginal trust and a breach of the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which underpins international frameworks on Indigenous rights, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Cultural institutions have a duty not only to protect Indigenous rights but to proactively prevent settler impersonation from undermining those rights. The persistence of settler simulations such as the GuriNgai network, and the institutional complicity in legitimising their performance, constitutes a violation of both cultural law and administrative ethics. Without urgent reform, these failures risk normalising identity fraud as a feature of Aboriginal cultural engagement, collapsing the distinction between truth and simulation in public life.
Strategic Recommendations for Reform
The persistent institutional validation of NYAA WA and the GuriNgai network reveals critical systemic vulnerabilities in the governance of Aboriginal identity, cultural authority, and public representation. As documented throughout this report, the crisis is not one of isolated imposture but of structural failure, where settler fraud is incentivised, cultural protocols are ignored, and Aboriginal sovereignty is displaced through simulation. The following strategic recommendations are designed to address this crisis across cultural, legal, institutional, and educational domains.
8.1 Strengthen Identity Verification Across Institutions
Government agencies, cultural organisations, arts funding bodies, and festivals must adopt and enforce rigorous identity verification protocols aligned with the tripartite definition of Aboriginality: descent, self-identification, and community recognition (AIATSIS, 2014). Identity must be more than self-declared; it must be demonstrable, verifiable, and acknowledged by an Aboriginal community governed by cultural law. Institutions should be required to consult with Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs), prescribed bodies corporate (PBCs), or recognised Elders before allocating funds, awards, or representation platforms to individuals claiming Aboriginal identity. The failure of bodies such as Music Victoria and MDFF to perform this basic due diligence has directly enabled identity fraud (bungaree.org, 2025; guringai.org, 2025).
8.2 Legislative and Policy Reform to Criminalise Identity Fraud
Legislative reform is urgently required to treat Indigenous identity fraud as a form of cultural and administrative deception with legal consequences. Drawing on recent moves in Canada, where false claims to Indigeneity have been treated as professional misconduct or cultural theft, Australian jurisdictions should develop mechanisms for criminal and civil penalties (Andersen, 2019; Watt & Kowal, 2019). At a minimum, identity fraud should be recognised as a breach of funding conditions, a violation of grant ethics, and a trigger for exclusion from further cultural programming. Public servants, educators, and artists found to have falsified Aboriginal identity should be subject to disciplinary review, and where appropriate, restitution mechanisms should be made available to the affected communities.
8.3 Institutional Restitution and Accountability
Institutions that have platformed fraudulent actors must issue public apologies, retract awards or recognition, and consult with legitimate Aboriginal communities on restitution processes. This may include public education campaigns, funding reallocations, and formal acknowledgment of the harm caused by settler simulation. Silence, delay, or equivocation constitutes complicity. A framework for institutional accountability should be co-designed with Aboriginal stakeholders and implemented through independent oversight bodies (Moreton-Robinson, 2015).
8.4 Protection of Cultural Sites and Sacred Knowledge
Simulated groups such as the GuriNgai network routinely invent sacred sites, misrepresent Country, and perform faux ceremonies to secure legitimacy (Cooke, 2025). This results in the desecration of actual sacred spaces and the commodification of cultural protocols. To address this, all cultural heritage sites and associated knowledge must be managed through verified Aboriginal governance mechanisms. National Parks and Wildlife Services, heritage consultants, and cultural tourism operators should be required to consult recognised Traditional Owners and verify that representatives have lawful cultural authority to speak for sites or conduct ceremony. The endorsement of fabricated custodianship, as occurred during the 2022 Brisbane Waters protest and in the performance of NYAA WA, must be identified and repudiated (guringai.org, 2024).
8.5 Community-Led Education and Cultural Literacy
Long-term reform must centre Indigenous-designed education on cultural governance, kinship law, and the ethics of Aboriginal representation. Schools, universities, media producers, and arts administrators should undertake cultural competency training delivered by recognised Traditional Custodians, not self-identified “community leaders” without proof of descent. Public education initiatives should also address the psychological tactics of cultic identity fraud, including spiritual mimicry, epistemic enclosure, and mythic narrative control (Lifton, 1961; Hassan, 2016; Lalich, 2004). A national curriculum module could be developed in consultation with Aboriginal educators and scholars to equip the public with the tools to identify and challenge settler simulations.
8.6 Creation of a National Register of Recognised Cultural Representatives
To prevent the ongoing platforming of fabricated Aboriginal identities, a voluntary, community-governed register should be established under the guidance of Aboriginal peak bodies. This would allow institutions to verify the cultural credentials of individuals claiming authority over Country, language, or ceremony, while ensuring that data sovereignty remains with Aboriginal communities. Such a register would not supplant community governance but support it, enabling institutions to distinguish between lawful representatives and self-appointed frauds. The register could also provide a transparent mechanism for dispute resolution, genealogical review, and archival preservation of verified kinship lines. Conclusion NYAA WA is not an Aboriginal film. It is a ritual artefact of settler simulation, produced and performed by non-Aboriginal individuals operating within a fabricated identity network known as the GuriNgai. Despite repeated genealogical refutations, the film has been celebrated, funded, and platformed by public institutions that have failed to uphold even the most basic standards of Aboriginal identity verification. This case is not an aberration; it is a warning. The rise of identity fraud, spiritual mimicry, and cultic dynamics within sectors of Aboriginal representation signals a broader crisis in cultural governance. When descent is replaced with fantasy, when kinship is replaced with performance, and when ceremony is commodified by impostors, the consequences are catastrophic: for truth-telling, for community healing, and for the sovereignty of Aboriginal people. The GuriNgai simulation, as exposed across this report, is a settler cult masquerading as cultural continuity. It deploys fraudulent genealogies, appropriates sacred symbols, and weaponises art to mask its illegitimacy. Its harms are not abstract they are lived. They exclude true descendants from ceremony, misallocate public resources, and inflict psychological trauma through the erasure of ancestral authority. Institutions, governments, and media bodies must not remain complicit. Identity verification is not cultural gatekeeping—it is ethical governance. Truth-telling requires the courage to name imposture, retract endorsement, and restore rightful authority. To do anything less is to sanction another frontier of colonisation: one enacted through symbols, stories, and stolen names.
Glossary of Key Terms
Aboriginal identity (tripartite criteria): The standard framework in Australia for determining Aboriginal identity, which requires (1) descent from an Aboriginal person, (2) self-identification, and (3) recognition by an Aboriginal community (AIATSIS, 2014).
Bungaree and Matora: Prominent Aboriginal ancestors from the Broken Bay–Hawkesbury region. Bungaree was a well-documented leader, diplomat, and explorer; Matora was his partner.
Cultic identity fraud: The strategic use of genealogical fabrication, charismatic leadership, and ritual mimicry to simulate cultural authority. It involves the formation of high-control social networks that displace legitimate Aboriginal voices through imposture and spiritual appropriation (Cooke, 2025; Hassan, 2016; Lifton, 1961).
Epistemic enclosure: A tactic of control that restricts access to information, delegitimises dissent, and sacralises narrative to insulate fraudulent claims from scrutiny. Common in cults and identity fraud networks (Day, 2021).
GuriNgai simulation: A fabricated identity group created by non-Aboriginal individuals claiming descent through a fictional daughter of Bungaree named “Sophy.” This group has been widely rejected by Aboriginal Land Councils, Elders, and formal genealogical investigations (Kwok, 2015; Aboriginal Affairs NSW, 2023).
Spiritual mimicry: The unauthorised imitation of Aboriginal ceremony, cosmology, or cultural practice by non-Aboriginal individuals. It constitutes a form of symbolic and psychological abuse when used to simulate legitimacy (Cooke, 2025).
Statistical sabotage: The corruption of demographic, funding, or institutional data due to the inclusion of false identity claimants. This undermines policy planning, resource distribution, and the measurement of Aboriginal outcomes (Andersen, 2019; Watt & Kowal, 2019).
A Long Con, Gone on Too Long. 
Leave a comment