Debate over crown land management intensifies
Intense debate over New South Wales crown land management has intensified, with local Aboriginal land councils expressing deep concern about legislative changes that could retroactively affect Indigenous property rights. The state parliament passed the Crown Land Management Amendment bill on Wednesday, after months of advocacy and strong opposition from traditional owners. They argue the new regulation will reduce the total area of land that can be claimed under NSW Aboriginal land rights law.
NSWALC suspends participation in national agreements
In protest against this legislation, the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council suspended its participation in national gap-closing agreements. According to organisation representatives, this move led to some textual adjustments, but the core issue remains: the lands minister would gain power to retrospectively alter land legal regimes, including in areas where a claim has already been lodged and awaits final determination.
Context of unresolved land claims
This tension is fuelled by weeks of media reports highlighting the high number of areas subject to unresolved claims in NSW, including the famous Bondi Icebergs location. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, local Aboriginal land councils have the legal capacity to claim eligible crown land as freehold title, in recognition of the massive dispossession suffered by the state’s Indigenous people.
Low rate of land return since 1983
Since the act came into force, only 0.2% of total crown land in NSW has been returned to Aboriginal ownership. Currently, over 44,000 land claims remain unresolved, some dating back decades. Raymond Kelly, president of NSWALC and a man of the Dhangatti and Gumbaynggirr clans, said his organisation was not consulted before the bill was introduced to parliament, noting that both NSWALC and all local Aboriginal land councils strongly opposed the changes.
Characterisation of claims criticised
The organisation criticised the characterisation of Aboriginal land claims as a threat to public assets or facilities, describing this approach as offensive, irresponsible, and deceptive. They emphasised that land legally used, occupied, or needed for an essential public purpose has never been eligible for claim. Kelly stated the changes would „reduce the volume of land accessible to Aboriginal people” and added: „Surely this was not done in a manner we consider good faith, open and transparent. We have desperately tried to negotiate and work with the government and opposition, urging them to be mindful. We are not asking them to scrap the bill entirely; what we want is to introduce certain safeguards.”
Premier defends reforms
Speaking to 2GB radio on Wednesday, Premier Chris Minns said he did not want to be „antagonistic” towards NSWALC, but insisted the reforms were necessary to protect crown land. He explained: „The current structure has led, in recent years, to community land becoming the subject of land claims. The reality for us is that, if community land is transferred from government ownership to other forms of ownership, its use can be changed, for example, to housing. A tennis club could become a housing block, rent could increase, or the mode of use could change so that operations become impossible. As a result, we could lose a significant amount of community land in our state. So we do not want to be antagonistic towards land councils, but we believe this was an important reform for our state.”
Government responds to concerns
A spokesperson for Lands Minister Stephen Kamper did not respond to specific questions sent by Guardian Australia, but said the state government had taken into account feedback received from NSWALC and that the bill had been amended to „ensure that community and sporting facilities established on crown land remain in public hands” and would „continue to be used for their original purpose.” The spokesperson added: „Community and sporting facilities should remain available for the communities that rely on them. The proposed changes aim to address cases of technical non-compliance, such as invalid sub-leases, on well-used crown land sites by the local community. They said the changes would modernise the crown land management system and provide certainty to rights holders.”