The NSW Government introduced the Crown Lands Management Amendment (Statutory Review) Bill 2026 via Minister for Lands and Property Steve Kamper without consultation or notice on Tuesday 17 March. The move has sparked fierce resistance from Aboriginal land councils and legal authorities who say the legislation would reverse a landmark High Court decision and fundamentally weaken Aboriginal land rights.
The dispute centres on the Paddington Bowling Club site in Sydney's east, where the High Court ruled in a 3-2 decision that rent paid on the site since 2015 was not enough to stop an Aboriginal land claim. The court determined that land is only 'used' if, when the claim is made, the land is physically deployed for a purpose. The La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council is expected to take ownership of the land.
That September 2025 judgment appeared to clarify the law. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, land can be claimed when it is unused and unneeded Crown land, the foundation upon which land is returned to Aboriginal communities to enable economic, social and cultural outcomes. But the new Bill seeks to change that outcome.
The proposed new section of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 would deem the mere granting of a lease as 'lawful use for the purposes of another Act'. This could enable the Government to 'bank' any Crown land simply by granting a lease and 'sit' on that land without using it. According to the Aboriginal Land Council, there are more than 43,500 unresolved land claims across NSW.
The Bill was presented as minor procedural amendments with no detrimental impact on any group in the community. Yet the NSW Aboriginal Land Council confirms the Bill will hollow out Aboriginal Land Rights under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 and will significantly reduce public interest protections around the management and use of Crown land.
The government's approach has drawn criticism from unexpected quarters. The Law Society of NSW president Ronan MacSweeney said the provision could significantly affect land rights claims under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, noting the legislation fundamentally alters what has been long understood to be land claimable under the Act. MacSweeney said the proposed section was not subject to consultation before being introduced without notice, with the statutory review published only two days after the amending legislation was introduced.
The Bill seeks to override the recent High Court decision, known as Quarry Street, that upheld the longstanding legal position that land must be actually used, not just held under leases and land banked. This creates a genuine tension between different policy objectives. Government claims that active land management through leasing arrangements protects community assets and sporting facilities. Aboriginal councils argue that mere legal holdings without physical use should not block claims on disused properties.
What remains unclear is whether the government consulted widely with councils, sporting bodies, or other stakeholders who lease Crown land before introducing the Bill. Representatives of the Aboriginal Land Council met with both the Premier's Office and ministerial teams to oppose the legislation, but these meetings fell on deaf ears, including with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty, David Harris.
The measure highlights a fault line in land policy. Protecting community sporting infrastructure matters. So does honouring land rights commitments that have existed for 40 years. The question before Parliament is whether the Bill achieves that balance, or whether it tilts too far toward enabling indefinite government control of unused sites.