It must be realised and accepted that the 1983 Act has not relieved the general poverty of New South Wales Aboriginal people. It has however been effective in delivering about 79 000 hectares of land into the clutches of land councils since their inception. There are 122 local Aboriginal land councils in the State. In August 2004, 11 were under the control of a government-appointed administrator and the peak body, which had been operating under a cloud of accusations of financial and administrative mismanagement for several years, was also under the control of an administrator (Jopson and Ryle 2004: 30). From a series of reviews and inquiries, it is clear that New South Wales land councils have, since their inception, suffered ‘problems with misappropriation and mismanagement’ (Bayles in Chalk 1988a: 4)

When the 1983 Act was created, it did two things. First, it created a fund to finance the 122 local Aboriginal land councils by setting aside 7.5 per cent of all land tax collected for 15 years. Some of these funds were used to finance the land councils. The balance was set aside to provide funding for the future. When the scheme ceased in 1998, this fund amounted to approximately $500 million. It was planned to pay a stipend to each council of around $110 000 per annum.

Secondly, the new Act enabled the Indigenous people of New South Wales to claim any Crown land that was not needed for an essential public purpose. Local government councils resisted this move until 1991, when the peak body, the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, pointed out to them they could collect rate payments on any lands granted to local Aboriginal land councils. More than 2100 land claims have since been awarded to local Aboriginal land councils. This has made some of them very large property owners. This is particularly so for some operating along the coast and within the Sydney region. The Office of the Registrar of the Land Rights Act conservatively values these lands at $770 million. The administrator of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council believes the figure could be closer to $3 billion. These local Aboriginal land councils could collectively be a larger landowner than Lend Lease or Mirvac. Recent enquiries have revealed that a serious lack of necessary infrastructure has left the door open to corruption. One report makes the claim that land councils have been drawn into questionable dealings by lucrative offers from real-estate developers (Jopson and Ryle 2004: 30).

Many land councils are controlled by families and factional groups. Under the 1983 Act, a quorum of just 10 is needed for a legally constituted meeting. Of that number just eight can vote to legally approve a multimillion-dollar land sale (Jopson and Ryle 2004: 30).

There is little monitoring of the lands successfully claimed by local Aboriginal land councils and it is impossible to determine what lands they have inappropriately sold. Given their dealings are poorly monitored and are regularly conducted with little, or no, input or consultation with the traditional people of the lands in question, some of the coastal Aboriginal land councils’ land sale dealings are of serious concern.

Individual members of land councils have publicly voiced their concerns about some of the mis-dealings that occur within their institutions (see e.g. Bayles in Chalk (1988a) quoted above). Other concerns include decision-making processes, powerful factions, and strivings for personal gain rather than the betterment of local Aboriginal people. For example, members have made the following claims which are not exhaustive. First, that notices of meetings are often ‘tucked away’ in obscure publications that most members never read. Secondly, powerful factions organise to meet alone and take various steps to prevent the attendance of others, so as to ensure voting delivers the outcomes desired by that particular group of members. Thirdly, most members of local Aboriginal community groups and councils are kept out of the ‘deals’ as they are not members of local Aboriginal land councils. While some make voluntary decisions not to associate with land councils, others are precluded on the basis that they do not meet the necessary criteria. The reasons for this exclusion are rarely disclosed. And finally, only a select few seem to receive any benefits from their membership of local Aboriginal land councils, be they financial or otherwise (Jopson and Ryle 2004: 30, 2004b: 31).

The 2001 census revealed that 135 319 people living in New South Wales identified as Aboriginal (ABS 2002). Almost half of this group was living in financial stress. Most of them were existing on incomes classified as being below the poverty line. Almost one in five was unemployed and one-third lived in sub-standard housing. Of the 135 319 Aboriginal people in the State, only 20 459 or 15 per cent are members of Aboriginal land councils (Jopson and Ryle 2004a: 30). As previously mentioned, the logical deduction is that the great majority of Aboriginal people in the State are not receiving any flow-on benefits from the 1983 Act. Despite their chronic poverty, they have not received any benefit from the 79 000 hectares of land granted to Aboriginal people or the sale of prime coastal property by Aboriginal land councils.

Land lies at the heart of Indigenous cultural heritage. If the land is being managed (and sold) by a small minority of Aboriginal people who have no historical connections with that land—be they spiritual, cultural, intellectual, ceremonial or economic—then surely the claim can be made that the New South Wales Aboriginal land councils are little more than real estate speculators. They are by their own actions usurpers.