8 Interviewee story summaries Sarah described a stressful and disempowering Bidjigal Reserve co-management committee process where the Dharug people felt that the committee gave no respect or priority to their knowledge, expertise or values, or to their agreed right to have a say. Sarah’s family were involved but left because of how they were treated. Sarah later heard that the committee was disbanded after many ongoing problems with the local council. Sarah spoke about how her family, and the Dharug people more generally, have been excluded from consultations and cultural heritage work on Dharug country. Sarah described a complex legislative picture, which in her experience does not work to the benefit of Traditional Owners. Specifically, Sarah explained how the ‘registered Aboriginal party’ system operates in the context of cultural heritage work in NSW. Leanne’s family campaigned for the right to be consulted regarding developments on Aboriginal land for decades, and when it was finally legislated, Sarah said ‘within 5 years, it was terrible.’ Sarah discussed how the opportunities for development on the traditional Country of the Dharug people – the Sydney basin – are significant, and there are therefore a lot of people claiming an ‘interest’ in paid cultural heritage work on Dharug land, including many without any connection to the relevant Country. This has limited the availability of paid cultural heritage work for Dharug organisations, which in turn has reduced the funding that Dharug people have to conduct their education and community work. Sarah also noted that this means that cultural heritage site work is not being done properly and Country is not being properly protected. Sarah explained how, at the end of the cultural heritage assessment process, Traditional Owners have an opportunity to review the report in an unpaid capacity. As such, Sarah finds herself still working in the cultural heritage system, but only in an unpaid and uncompensated capacity, meaning she has to use her own funds from the sale of her artworks to fund her organisation’s education services. Sarah felt that in Sydney, native title not only provides very little to Traditional Owners who are given determinations, but can also result in groups being worse off than before if engagement with the native title system fails to deliver a determination. Sarah spoke about the interpersonal, community, and institutional tensions that the exclusion of Dharug people from the native title system has created. In particular, Sarah expressed her frustration that other Aboriginal people, some of whom occupy positions within land councils, have expressed the view that because the Dharug people do not have native title, they do not deserve any recognition or participation rights at all.82 Sarah described the significant clout and legislative primacy of land councils and how this maintains their preeminent position as owners of Aboriginal land in Sydney. She reported her experience of having the historicity and ongoing existence of the Dharug people challenged by Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council, as well as having her request for membership denied because her Dharug identity is considered ineligible. Despite feeling that another native title claim would create a new forum in which the Dharug people could potentially find themselves in harm’s way, at the time of publication, Sarah and her family, along with other Dharug women, had been working with NTSCORP towards a native title claim. She hoped that such a determination, however limited, might improve their recognition as the right people to speak for Dharug Country. In her interview, Sarah was also hopeful that long-awaited legislative reform in the area of Aboriginal cultural heritage would be enacted soon. However, at the time of publication, that legislation had been shelved by the NSW Government. Australian Human Rights Commission 97