Aboriginal land councils fear new NSW law will cut amount of land open to traditional owners’ claims

By the Editorial Team · Friday, September 18, 2026

The New South Wales parliament passed the Crown Land Management Amendment Bill, granting the lands minister retrospective powers to alter land tenures, which local Aboriginal land councils warn could reduce the land eligible for Indigenous claims. This has led to protests from traditional owners and the suspension of NSW Aboriginal Land Council’s participation in national agreements, highlighting ongoing tensions over balancing Indigenous land rights and public land use.

Local Aboriginal land councils in New South Wales have voiced strong concerns over recent legislative changes to crown land management that they say could retroactively restrict the land available for Indigenous claims. The NSW parliament passed the Crown Land Management Amendment Bill on Wednesday despite sustained opposition from traditional owners and Aboriginal organizations, who warn the law will diminish the area accessible under the state’s Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983.

The legislation grants the lands minister the authority to retrospectively alter land tenures, including on parcels where claims have already been lodged and remain unresolved. This has alarmed the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC), which suspended its participation in the national Closing the Gap agreements in protest against the bill. Although some amendments were made after advocacy efforts, the core issue around retrospective powers remains.

Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, local Aboriginal land councils can apply for the return of eligible crown land as freehold title, a legal recognition intended to address historic dispossession. Since the Act’s inception, only about 0.2% of crown land in NSW has been returned to Aboriginal ownership. Currently, more than 44,000 land claims remain unresolved, with some dating back decades. Notably, these include high-profile sites such as the Bondi Icebergs.

Raymond Kelly, chair of the NSWALC and a Dhangatti and Gumbaynggum man, said the council was not consulted before the bill’s introduction and strongly opposed the changes. He criticized the government’s framing of Aboriginal land claims as a threat to public assets, calling it “offensive, irresponsible and misleading.” Kelly emphasized that land lawfully used or needed for essential public purposes has never been eligible for claim under existing legislation, and warned that the bill will reduce the land accessible for Aboriginal ownership.

“We’ve tried desperately to negotiate and work with the government and opposition to be considerate,” Kelly said. “We’re not asking for the entire bill to be repealed; we want safety measures put in place.”

NSW Premier Chris Minns acknowledged the concerns raised by the NSWALC but defended the reforms as necessary to protect community land. Speaking on 2GB Radio, Minns said that current land tenure arrangements have resulted in some community lands becoming subject to claims that could lead to changes in use, such as conversion of recreational spaces into housing, or increased rents that might force closures.

“The reality is that if community land is transferred out of government ownership to other forms of ownership, its use can be altered,” Minns noted. “We don’t want to be antagonistic to land councils, but we believe it’s been an important reform for our state.”

A spokesperson for Lands Minister Stephen Kamper said the government had taken NSWALC feedback into account and amended the bill to ensure established community and sporting facilities on crown land remain publicly owned and continue to be used for their intended purposes. The spokesperson described the reforms as modernizing crown land management, providing greater certainty to tenure holders, and addressing issues such as technical non-compliance on leases while preserving community access.

The legislative changes come amid increasing public attention to unresolved land claims in NSW, underscoring the ongoing challenges in balancing Indigenous land rights with broader public land management objectives.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.