A contentious land rights bill is expected to pass the New South Wales Parliament this week amid growing media coverage over the state's 44,000 unresolved Aboriginal land claims, which the peak body representing Aboriginal Land Councils has described as a "beat up".
The Crown Land Management Amendment (Statutory Review) Bill 2026, introduced to the upper house in March, has become a flashpoint in recent weeks, with media coverage focusing heavily on claims that Aboriginal Land Councils could take control of iconic public sites and community facilities.
NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) Chairperson Raymond Kelly has rejected the "outlandish" reporting, arguing the coverage has distorted the reality of how Aboriginal land claims work and overlooked the fact that many have been unresolved for decades.
"Why are they the ones now being aired in the media?" the Dhangatti / Gumbayngirr man said. "To me, it's just a beat up, and we can't make sense of it."
View this post on Instagram
The controversy comes as the NSW Government presses ahead with reforms that would give the Minister new powers to validate or vary certain land tenures, including in some circumstances from an earlier date — a key concern for NSWALC.
Known as the Crown Land Act, the Government says the reforms will "establish clear goals for the use and management of Crown land, provide stronger support for our land managers and encourage greater recognition of native title rights and interests".
The changes include closing a legal loophole to make it harder for land councils to take control of community facilities.
Its introduction prompted significant pushback from the NSWALC and individual land councils, emergency meetings and, eventually, a delay from the government to pursue amendments.
The ability for the Minister to retrospectively validate or vary Crown land tenures is a "major concern", Cr Kelly said.
"We're okay if you want to deal with the claims through proper process and use what means the minister has to validate those existing claims or validate the continued use of those claims," he told National Indigenous Times.
"We want you [Crown Lands Minister] to explain to us how you've used that measure...what it appears to me is this is an ability of the minister to be able to say 'you will not litigate because the land claim has been removed'.
"But historically, we've had the right to litigate if we don't agree with the minister's call on these things."
The concern
Discussions between NSWALC, the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Network (Network) and the state Government have taken place over five months.
The land council peak body says the Government has agreed to several safeguards, including removing the "lawful use" provision, providing affected Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) at least 28 days to comment on proposed validations or variations, and requiring relevant information about the tenure to be provided during consultation.
Decisions must be made personally by the Minister and cannot be delegated, while variations will be limited to correcting minor errors that do not significantly increase the area, duration or purpose of a tenure.
NSWALC said its participation in the consultation has been "aimed at protecting Aboriginal land rights if the Government proceeds".
However, they say this "should not be interpreted as NSWALC or Network support for the Bill".
Key concerns remain, including the retrospective powers, the fact that LALC consent is not required, and the bill not expressly preventing decisions that could prejudice undetermined Aboriginal land claims.
"Process safeguards such as consultation, reasons and reporting do not remove the retrospective power or provide sufficient protection for undetermined Aboriginal land claims," the peak body said last week, calling on the NSW Government to withdraw the bill.
Cr Kelly argued there should have been a longer consultation process, claiming NSWALC "virtually forced the minister's hand" into negotiations.
"We've acted in good faith," he said.
"We've allowed our members to raise their concerns, to speak directly with the minister around their concerns about the way in which this bill is being produced.
"Quite overwhelmingly... people have said this is not a proper way for a government to act in terms of making these changes to legislation."
View this post on Instagram
'Outlandish' reporting
Since land rights legislation was passed more than forty years ago, only 0.2 per cent of Crown land has been transferred to Aboriginal ownership, NSWALC says.
The focus on 44,000 unresolved land claims has intensified in recent weeks, with media reports highlighting claims over high-profile sites across New South Wales — including the iconic Bondi Icebergs — despite many being over a decade old.
Last week, Premier Chris Minns told News24 land rights legislation had moved away from its intended purpose.
"If these plots of land are handed over, we can't ever get them back," he said.
"We can't replicate our surf life saving clubs or our tennis infrastructure or our bowling clubs. I was hopeful of a landing. I suspect we are not going to get there. We still have to pursue the legislation ... I don't see an alternative, I genuinely don't."
A land claim does not result in the automatic transfer of land to an Aboriginal Land Council, with the Government having final say based on criteria in the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
If land is lawfully used or occupied, or is needed for an essential public purpose, it will not result in a successful land claim determination. When a claim is successful, the land is transferred to an Aboriginal Land Council as freehold.
2GB host Ben Fordham last week argued land councils "have figured out it only takes one glitch for these sites to become fair game".
"If the piece of Crown land was at any time unused or unlawfully used, their chances of success skyrocket," he said.
Asked about the reporting, Cr Kelly said many people he has spoken to have been "injured" by some of the framing in the media's narrative.
"I'm going to call them racist claims," he said. "Outlandish claims at the very least."
Some sections of the media have "whipped up" a narrative where "we're a bunch of land grabbers," he argued, "that we're only in it because the land is now valuable".
"Which is nonsense...many of these land claims have been in for 25 years."
