In these sad times of heightened social division in Australia, public commentary should reflect our collective and significant obligations to avoid fuelling discord between racial, ethnic, religious and social groupings in our country. This includes a responsibility towards Aboriginal peoples. Media, organisations and individuals have an ethical obligation to avoid language that risks constituting hate speech or racialised harm against minority communities. Public statements that question the legitimacy, identity, or existence of Aboriginal people, particularly when directed at a specific language group, nation or community, are not neutral or impartial acts. They cause real and measurable harm, undermining safety, community wellbeing, social cohesion and public trust.
This document examines and fact-checks wrongful claims made during a 2GB radio interview on Friday, January 16, 2026, concerning Aboriginal identity and identification and in particular, the existence and legitimacy of the Dharug language and people.
Self-Identification and Census Data
The interview notes “[…] the Aboriginal population grew by 25% between 2016 and 2021 in the census”. The interview goes on to state this increase is linked to “[…] a growing number of people who are self-identified […] trading and supposedly being paid as cultural providers.” The interview asserts in the introduction (and elsewhere) that these claims specifically involve Dharug: “The group of people is well known in the Australian landscape as the Darug people or Dharack people.” (The spellings render the speaker’s different pronunciations).
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has clearly explained that changes in census counts of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are influenced by multiple factors, including improved census coverage, demographic change, and increased willingness to self-identify over time (ABS, 2022). These trends are observable nationally and are not unique to Sydney or Dharug
Critically, census population data does not disaggregate Aboriginal identity by language group or nation. Indigenous respondents can only identify that they are Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. The only question pertaining to languages, Indigenous or overseas, asks, “Does the person use a language other than English at home?” This does not collect data about people identifying or affiliating with that language (ABS, 2021). It therefore provides no mechanism by which a land council or any other organisation could determine whether population growth relates to any specific group, including Dharug (ABS, 2022).
Further, census language data, based on language use at home, is partial and inconsistent. Responses of Dharug and some other languages surrounding the Sydney basin, such as Gundungurra and Darkinyung, as well as many other Indigenous languages, have not been separated in published census outputs up to and including the most recent 2021 census (Seymour et al 2025). Claims about increases in any of these uncounted languages, including Dharug, are entirely untenable (ABS, 2022).
Self-identification is also a protected right under international law. Article 33(1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirms that Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity and membership in accordance with their customs and traditions (United Nations, 2007). UNDRIP was endorsed by Australia in 2009 (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2021).
Historical context is essential. Many Aboriginal families avoided overt or public identification during the twentieth century due to child removal policies, racial regulation, and fear of state intervention. Contemporary reconnection with Aboriginal identity is a well-documented phenomenon across Australia (Bauman et al., 2013).
Finally, in the interview, land councils were proposed as entities for judging Aboriginal people’s identity. Land councils are not legal arbiters of Aboriginal identity. Identity in Australia is generally assessed through descent, self-identification and community recognition. No single land council holds exclusive authority to validate or invalidate the identity of an entire language group, community or nation. This does not come under the purview of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, the state’s peak representative body in this area, or the regional councils beneath it (NSWALC n.d.).
Claims that Dharug have “No Proven Language”
The interview makes numerous inaccurate assertions that the Dharug language did not exist, “They never had a cultural language known as Darug, but it’s taken over”, “Daruk’s never existed” and that Dharug have “[…] no proven actual realities of having a language, having any culture […]”.
Linguistic scholarship overwhelmingly contradicts this claim. Researchers consistently identify a single Aboriginal language across much of the Sydney Basin, recorded under various names and spellings and exhibiting dialectal variations (e.g. Troy, 1993; Dixon, 2002; Wilkins & Nash, 2008; Wafer & Lissarrague, 2008; Attenbrow, 2010). We call it Dharug; some researchers refer to it as “the Sydney language,” owing to its place here.
The presence of dialectal variation does not indicate separate languages: Linguistically, dialects are recognised variants of the same language, comparable to the relationship between Australian and New Zealand English (Dixon, 2002). In Dharug, the language of Sydney, this is largely a matter of accent and whether speakers pronounced consonant clusters or not, such as mb versus m , e.g. wambady or wamady for ‘wombat’ (Wilkins & Nash 2008).
Copious historical evidence demonstrates constant successful communication across both sides of the harbour and between coastal and inland Sydney groups, reinforcing the existence of a shared language rather than discrete, unrelated entities (e.g. Collins, 1798-1802; Dawes, 1791; Hunter, 1793; Phillip (in Hunter), 1793; Tench, 1793). A century later, ongoing language continuity between these early colonial records and later speakers is recognised, “Many of the words reported by Mr Collins and by Capt. Hunter […] are still in use, and recognisable, among the Dharruk natives.” (Mathews, 1901, p. 128)
“-gal” Groups and Claims of Cultural Authority
Dharug people and culture are described as “made-up,” “inauthentic,” and “a lie,” “Daruk’s never existed” etc particularly in relation to their public acknowledgement in displays, festivals and ceremonies.
An unsubstantiated claim is made that “This [Dharug] is a bastardisation of the actual culture of Sydney, be they the actual -gal groups who identify with the common word eora [sic].” It is asserted that the only people to have a “cultural language” are the -gal groups while “They [Dharug] never had a cultural language known as Darug […]”.
All -gal groups spoke the Dharug language, called the Sydney language by some (e.g. Dixon, 2002; Troy, 1993; Wafer & Lissarague, 2008). This is amply attested in records of interactions of Aboriginal individuals from -gal groups north and south of the harbour, and from coastal and inland -gal groups (e.g. Collins, 1798-1802; Dawes, 1791; Hunter, 1793; Phillip (in Hunter), 1793; Tench, 1793].
The suffix -gal in the Dharug language (aka the Sydney language) denotes ‘dwellers’ or ‘people of‘ and refers to local residential groups, not separate languages, cultural groups or nations (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015). Early colonial writers interpret the -gal term somewhat inconsistently, but they never assert a different language or culture for each -gal grouping (e.g. Tench, 1793; Collins, 1798-1802; King, 1793).
In the Dharug language speaking area, many of the original -gal names have been documented in the archival records of colonial Sydney. Due to the profound early devastation of the population, it is likely that not all -gal names were recorded. The Australian Museum lists 16 -gal names as “clan” names (not language names), along with their (likely) locations and the many attempts to render these in various English spellings (from which they have selected one): Bediagal, Birrabirragal, Borogegal, Boromedegal, Buruberongal, Darramurragal, Gadigal, Gahbrogal, Gamaragal, Gameygal, Gannemegal, Garigal, Gayamaygal, Gweagal, Wallumedegal, Wangal.
Observationally, the use of the -gal names seems to have displaced the presence of Dharug in public discourse (Seymour et al., 2025).
The term “Eora” is an Englished spelling of the Dharug language word yiyura (Dharug) people. It is often heard nowadays applied to the original Aboriginal peoples of Sydney. In fact, “Eora” has only relatively recently emerged as an alternate descriptor of Dharug people and/or the nasal dialect of Dharug. The term “Eora” was popularised in the mid-twentieth century with its first use being attributed to Fred McCarthy in the 1960’s who used it in reference to his work for the Australian Museum in Sydney (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2015).
Allegations of “Made-Up Culture”
Such claims disregard internationally recognised principles of language and cultural revitalisation following colonisation induced disruption. Revitalisation is a legitimate cultural process grounded in historical documentation, community transmission, and contemporary practice (Wafer & Lissarrague, 2008).
Dharug people were the first to be colonised in Australia and with the longest experience of colonisation are understandably in the position of reviving their language and culture -as are all other groups in NSW (Wafer & Lissarrague, 2008).
The right to “revitalise, develop and transmit” language and culture is enshrined in the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2007), which is endorsed by Australia (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2021). Assertions that revival equates to “inauthenticity” echo earlier assimilationist narratives that deny continuity where colonisation caused rupture (Bauman et al., 2013).
It is a stated goal of the peak national Indigenous policy, Closing the Gap, that “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and languages are strong, supported and flourishing” (Target 16). The federal government acknowledges the adverse effects of colonial policies and actions on Indigenous cultures and languages, with the majority requiring revival. It also cites the importance of revival and maintenance for “the physical, social, emotional, cultural, spiritual, ecological and economic wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities”. Initiatives under Target 16 are supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across Australia in their revival efforts (Australian Government n.d.).
In line with international, national, state and local government declarations, laws and policies supporting language and cultural revival of Indigenous peoples, Dharug people today are actively engaged in education, language teaching, cultural work, the arts and community organisations. Aboriginal land councils are not responsible for language revival and do not work in this space. The peak body is First Languages Australia. Aboriginal land councils hold no cultural authority over language groups whose languages they do not speak.
R.H. Mathews and the Recording of Dharug
The interview describes R.H. Matthews as “an untrained person with no background in anthropology or history” who first recorded that Dharug name as “D-H-R-R-O-K”. It claims erroneously that his work on Dharug lacked Aboriginal sources “There is no source for Dharug”, likewise the name “But at the start is R.H.Matthews didn’t have a verified informant for the word [Dharug] he just wrote it down[sic]”.
Firstly, we can only assume a mis-speaking in the interview as there is no spelling of Dharug as “D-H-R-R-O-K’ in Mathews’ writings, in his publications or his unpublished notebooks.
Mathews is widely recognised as a foundational and prolific figure in Aboriginal language documentation, having recorded approximately 50 Aboriginal languages across New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland (Dixon, 2002). His work is routinely cited as a source for other Aboriginal languages including those neighbouring Dharug, such as Gundungurra, Darkinyung and Dharawal (Wafer & Lissarrague, 2008). His role in documenting these languages does not lead to their existence being called into question.
Mathews was a trained surveyor and so it is correct to say that he was not a trained anthropologist or historian. However, most historical archival records of most Aboriginal languages were not undertaken by trained specialists (Thieberger, 1995). The attempt to undermine Mathews’ work in this interview appears to be made to undermine the existence of the Dharug language, including its name.
While Mathews’ publications do not always mention the Aboriginal people who provided language information, language researchers know that his extensive notebooks contain records of Aboriginal language speakers and the places where he met them. Mathews recorded members of the Maria Lock family as Dharug language informants in the Blacktown, Sackville and Camden areas, recording their names and locations consistent with his documentation practices elsewhere (Mathews, 1900, 1901).
It is factually incorrect to say that “Dharug” is a term not recorded from Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are also in published records talking about the Dharug language. Jimmy Lowndes is explicity named (“very old Dhar’rook black fellow, named ‘Jimmy Lowndes’ only recently deceased”) and his experiences of communications between Gundungarra and Dharug people are cited (Mathews & Everitt, 1900, p. 265). Werriberrie William Russell (1991 [1914]) is another Aboriginal man who put the name Dharug on the record.
Native Title and Claims of “Non-Existence”
The interview inaccurately and repeatedly asserts that “They [Dharug] have failed on multiple occasions in native title claims,” the "facts that native title they [Dharug] failed on numerous occasions seems to have been forgotten by many," “Dharug failed Native Title” or claims were “rejected by the courts.”
This characterisation is factually incorrect. The principal native title application associated with Dharug people was withdrawn (discontinued) after a final hearing, not dismissed or determined against the claimants (National Native Title Tribunal [NNTT], n.d.).
Discontinuance of a native title claim does not constitute a judicial finding that a people did not exist, lacked culture, or failed to meet Aboriginal identity criteria. Native title claims are frequently withdrawn due to cost, evidentiary burden, early colonial disruption, or strategic decisions (ALRC, 2015; Strelein, 2009).
Native title is not a test of Aboriginal existence or identity. It is a legal mechanism to claim land, requiring proof of uninterrupted continuity, an evidentiary burden widely recognised as ill-suited to capital cities (Bauman et al., 2013).
The Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic) explicitly acknowledges that native title law has proven ineffective in heavily settled regions (Victorian Government, 2010). The Australian Law Reform Commission has similarly recommended reform of continuity requirements due to their inequity (ALRC, 2015).
Across Australia, Native Title claims have proven difficult or impossible in capital cities:
Northern Territory
In Darwin, the Larrakia people’s claim was rejected by the Federal Court, with subsequent appeal proceedings. The Court’s reasoning centred on whether the claimants could establish the required continuity of traditional laws and customs in a context of profound colonial disruption within a capital city.
Queensland
In Brisbane, native title claims brought by the Turrbal and Yugara/Yugarapul peoples were rejected, and later proceedings resulted in a determination that native title does not exist over Brisbane and the surrounding areas. These outcomes turned on findings that continuity of laws and customs had not been demonstrated to the standard required for recognition, rather than on any finding that the peoples themselves did not exist.
Western Australia
In Perth, litigation concerning the Noongar claim for the metropolitan area resulted in findings that the claimants had not proven a connection to the Perth metropolitan footprint as litigated at that time.
After the Perth metropolitan litigation found that a native title connection had not been proven over the Perth metro footprint, the Noongar people pursued and secured a comprehensive negotiated settlement with the WA government, rather than a court-determined native title outcome.
This resulted in the Southwest Native Title Settlement (SWNTS), finalised between 2016 and 2021, which is widely described as Australia’s largest and most comprehensive native title settlement.
Victoria
The Yorta Yorta case in the Murray–Goulburn region remains a leading precedent. In 2002, the High Court dismissed the Yorta Yorta appeal, leaving in place a finding that native title did not exist in the claimed area. The majority confirmed that native title requires proof that rights and interests are possessed under traditional laws and customs that have continued to be acknowledged and observed since sovereignty, allowing for adaptation but not a break in continuity. This case is frequently described as emblematic of the “southern states problem,” where early and intense colonisation makes meeting the Court’s continuity framework particularly difficult, an issue that becomes even more acute in urban settings.
South Australia
In 2018, the Kaurna people achieved recognition of native title over parts of the Adelaide Plains, widely described as the first positive native title determination over a capital-city area since the commencement of the Native Title Act. It took 18 years.
The Kaurna determination demonstrates that urban native title is not impossible, but rather often depends on careful tenure mapping, strong and well-documented connection evidence, and recognition of specific parcels or areas that remain legally capable of sustaining native title (Native Title Services South Australia, n.d.).
Multiple Spellings of Dharug
Multiple spellings of Dharug were intimated to be evidence of the illegitimacy of this language.
Spellings of language names have no bearing on the existence of a language. (Note that there are also multiple spellings of the -gal clan names which in this interview are (inaccurately) asserted as the authentic cultural languages of Sydney (Australian Museum, n.d.)). Orthographic variation is a universal feature of Aboriginal language documentation, reflecting English spelling limitations and inconsistent transcription practices (Dixon, 2002; Wafer & Lissarrague, 2008).
Comparable spelling variation exists for the names of many Australian languages, which do not have their legitimacy questioned on this basis. This spelling variation is exemplified by the following data from the AUSTLANG database hosted at the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS):
- Dharawal, just to the south of Dharug has more than 10 historical spellings recorded in the AUSTLANG database: Dharrawal, Tharawal, Thurawal, Dariwal, Dharawa, Thurrawal, Turuwul, Turrubul, Turuwull, Turawal, Dharawal, Darawal, Darawa:l, Thurrawall, Turu wal; plus other alternate names: Bidjigal, Wodiwodi, Ta ga ry, Five Islands tribe
- There are two official spellings for the Dhanggati/Dunghutti language in the AUSTLANG database and over 20 alternate spellings for this coastal NSW language: Dunghutti, Dhanggatti, Djan gadi, Thangatti, Dyangadi, Dainggatti, Dainggati, Dhan gadi, Thungutti, Dangadi, Danggetti, Dhangatty, Thangatty, Dangati, Tangetti, Dhanggadi, daati, Djangadi, Dunggudi, Thungatti, Djaingadi, Dang getti, Danghetti, Danggadi, Dhang atty, Tang gette, Dhunggutti, Dhunghutti; as well as the following alternate names (over 10): Ngaku, Burgadi, Boorkutti, Yuungai, Yunggai, Burugardi, Nulla Nulla, Amberu, Himberrong, Jang, Yung
- Similarly, more than 10 spellings and names are associated with Birrpai: Birpai, Birpay, Worimi, Birbay, Biripi, Biribi, Birippi, Birrapee, Birripai, Birripi, Bripi, Brippai, Waw wyper, Biribai, Birrbay, Gathang, Kattang
General statement from Bayala Aboriginal Corporation
Claims made during the interview rely on misinterpretations of census data, misunderstandings of linguistic evidence, misuse of native title law, and unsupported assumptions about cultural authority. Aboriginal language legitimacy is not negated by colonisation-induced disruption and revival of these languages and cultures are supported by international and Australian human rights agreements, federal government policy and New South Wales legislation (Aboriginal Languages Act 2017 No 51, NSW, 2017). Aboriginal language, culture and identity is not determined by land councils.
The Dharug language and people are extensively documented in historical, linguistic, and genealogical records. There was one language spoken across much of Sydney, with some minor dialectal variations. This Sydney language is termed “Dharug” by us and “the Sydney language” (in English) by some others. The -gal names and the term “Eora” do not pertain to a language, other than they are Dharug words: -gal is an ending meaning ‘dwellers’ and “Eora’ is an English spelling of yiyura ‘(Dharug) people’.
Sydney experienced some of the earliest and most intense impacts in all of Australia, including rapid population decline, forced displacement and the disruption of language and cultural transmission. In the generations that followed, Aboriginal in-migration from other regions contributed to the emergence of pan-Aboriginal identities within the city, shaped by shared experiences of dispossession, activism, and survival (Bauman et al., 2013; Martinez, 1997).
While pan-Aboriginal solidarity has played an important political and social role, particularly in urban contexts, it cannot be used to negate, override, or delegitimise the original Aboriginal language and people of place. Urban Aboriginal presence and mobility do not extinguish pre-existing language groups, nations, or relationships to Country. Recognising both pan-Aboriginal identities and the continuing existence of local Aboriginal Nations is essential to accurate history, cultural integrity, and responsible public discourse.
References
Attenbrow, V. (2010). Sydney’s Aboriginal past: Investigating the archaeological and historical records (2nd ed.). UNSW Press.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Language used at home (LANP). ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/census/guide-census-data/census-dictionary/2021/variables-topic/cultural-diversity/language-used-home-lanp
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2022). Understanding change in counts of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: Census of population and housing, 2016–2021. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/understanding-change-counts-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians
Australian Government (n.d.). Socio-economic outcome area 16 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and languages are strong, supported and flourishing. Closing the Gap. Information Repository [Website]. https://www.pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard/outcome-area/culture-and-languages/
Aboriginal Heritage Office. (2015). Filling a void: A review of the historical context for the use of the word “Guringai”. In Aboriginal language group and clan names. Aboriginal Heritage Office.
Australian Human Rights Commission (2021). Implementing UNDRIP. https://humanrights.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0014/55004/Implementing_undrip_-_australias_third_upr_2021.pdf
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, AIATSIS (n.d.). AUSTLANG database. https://aiatsis.gov.au/austlang
Aboriginal Languages Act 2017 No 51 (NSW) Whole Act (2017). Retrieved from https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2017-051
Australian Law Reform Commission. (2015). Review of the Native Title Act 1993 (DP 82). Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/review-of-the-native-title-act-1993-dp-82/
Bauman, T., Strelein, L., & Weir, J. (2013). Living with native title. Aboriginal Studies Press. https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-09/living-native-title-book.pdf
Collins, D. (1798). An account of the English colony in New South Wales (Vol. 1). T. Cadell & W. Davies.
Dawes, W. (1790–1791). The Dawes notebooks on the Aboriginal language of Sydney. Unpublished manuscript, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. Retrieved from https://www.williamdawes.org/
Dixon, R. M. W. (2002). Australian languages: Their nature and development. Cambridge University Press.
King, P. G. (1793). Journal of a voyage to New South Wales. John Stockdale.
Martinez, J. (1997). Problematising Aboriginal nationalism. Aboriginal History, 21, 133-147. Retrieved from: https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p72631/pdf/article0815.pdf
Mathews, R. H. (1900). The organisation, language and initiation ceremonies of the Aborigines of the south-east coast of New South Wales. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 34, 262–281.
Mathews, R. H. (1901). The Thurrawal language. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 35, 127–160.
Mathews, R. H., & Everitt, M. M. (1900). The organisation, language and initiation ceremonies of the Aborigines of the south-east coast of NSW. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 262-281.
New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (n.d.). Our organisation [Website]. https://alc.org.au/our-organisation/
Russell, W. W. (1991 [1914]). My recollections. The Oaks, NSW: Oaks Historical Society
Seymour, J., Norman, C., & Angelo, D. (2025). A Dharug perspective on the Dharug language ecology. In C. O’Shannessy, J. Gray, & D. Angelo (Eds.), Projecting voices: Studies in language and linguistics in honour of Jane Simpson, pp. 1085-1128. Canberra: ANU Press.
Thieberger. N (1995 [2005]). Paper and Talk. Aboriginal Studies Press.
Tench, W. (1793). A complete account of the settlement at Port Jackson. G. Nicol & J. Sewell.
Troy, J. (1993). The Sydney language. Pacific Linguistics.
United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://social.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/migrated/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
Victorian Government. (2010). Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic). https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/10-62aa026-authorised.pdf
Wafer, J., & Lissarrague, A. (2008). A handbook of Aboriginal languages of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Muurrbay Aboriginal Language and Culture Co-operative.
Wilkins, D., & Nash, D. (2008). The European “discovery” of a multilingual Australia: The linguistic and ethnographic successes of a failed expedition. In W. McGregor (Ed.), The history of research on Australian Aboriginal languages (pp. 485–507). Pacific Linguistics.