It's a Glorious Day - QCAT Confirms My Aboriginal Identity
By Brian AJ Newman, LLB
Principal Employment and Human Rights Advocate9 October 2026
Today, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal delivered its decision in Newman v Mye, proceeding ADL043-24.
The referral was dismissed.
However, one of the central factual issues in the proceeding was resolved clearly and expressly in my favour:
The Tribunal found that I am Aboriginal.
The Tribunal stated:
“The evidence before the Tribunal established on the balance of probabilities that Mr Newman is Aboriginal.”
At paragraph [29], the Tribunal further found:
“The weight of the evidence indicates that Mr Newman is Aboriginal.”
That finding matters.
Not because I needed QCAT to tell me who I am.
I did not.
I have always known who I am, where my family comes from and how I understand my ancestry.
But after years of public allegations questioning my Aboriginal identity, I wanted the issue tested properly and placed on the public record.
That has now happened.
What the Tribunal found
The proceeding arose from public Facebook comments made by Ian Mye in which he accused me of falsely representing myself as Aboriginal.
The Tribunal’s reasons reproduce comments in which I was variously described as a “fake blackfella”, a “fraudster”, not Aboriginal, and as having a supposedly fake Certificate of Aboriginality.
The Tribunal accepted that the Facebook comments were public acts because they were made on public Facebook pages.
Importantly, the Tribunal also accepted that the comments attacked my integrity.
The reasons record Mr Mye’s own evidence that falsely claiming Aboriginal identity — sometimes described as “blackfishing” or "blackcladding" — is regarded as a particularly serious and offensive act within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
The Tribunal further accepted that, if believed, Mr Mye’s accusations would cause distrust of me within Aboriginal communities and the wider community.
Those findings are significant.
To accuse a person who publicly identifies as Aboriginal of fabricating that identity is not a trivial accusation.
It goes directly to ancestry, family history, community standing and personal integrity.
The evidence concerning my Aboriginal identity
The Tribunal heard oral and written evidence about my family background, upbringing and community connections.
The reasons record my evidence that I am a descendant of the Anaiwan, Ngarigo and Wiradjuri peoples and that I was raised on Gamileroi Country and within Aboriginal family and community settings in northern New South Wales.
Two witnesses gave oral evidence and were cross-examined.
The Tribunal found that their evidence appeared genuine.
Anthony Austin gave evidence about knowing my family for decades, knowing members of my family to be Aboriginal, and always knowing me as Aboriginal.
The Tribunal recorded his evidence that I was regarded as Aboriginal by members of my family and the broader community network.
David Reid also gave evidence that he had known me since approximately 1992, had always known me to be Aboriginal, and had observed my longstanding connection to Aboriginal people, Aboriginal community matters and cultural issues.
The Tribunal found his evidence credible.
By contrast, the Tribunal recorded that Mr Mye did not call witnesses or provide evidence supporting his assertions that I was not Aboriginal.
The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the weight of the evidence established that I am Aboriginal.
The Certificate of Aboriginality
One issue that featured prominently in the dispute concerned my Aboriginal heritage certificate.
An important fact recorded in the reasons is that I did not tender or rely upon that certificate in the proceeding.
The document was filed by Mr Mye.
The Tribunal recorded that Mr Mye was initially reluctant to disclose how the document came into his possession and ultimately identified my former partner as the source.
I regard that evidence as significant.
However, I am deliberately not using this article to speculate about matters that were not determined in this proceeding.
Other complaints and concerns relating to private information are being dealt with through separate processes and should be determined in those forums on the evidence.
What the Tribunal did not find
Given the amount of public commentary surrounding this dispute, it is important that the decision be described accurately.
The Tribunal did not make a general finding that Ian Mye is dishonest.
I do not suggest that it did.
Nor did the Tribunal determine every dispute, allegation or complaint that has arisen between us.
The decision concerned the racial vilification referral before QCAT.
Equally, the dismissal of the racial vilification claim should not be represented as a finding that Mr Mye was correct about my Aboriginal identity.
He was not.
The Tribunal expressly found that I am Aboriginal.
That distinction is important.
Why the racial vilification claim was dismissed
Section 124A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) prohibits a person, by a public act, from inciting hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of another person or group on the ground of race or another protected attribute.
The Tribunal accepted that Mr Mye’s Facebook comments were public acts.
However, it concluded that the statutory requirements for racial vilification were not established.
In particular, the Tribunal reasoned that although I gave evidence about the stress and concern caused by the comments, there was no objective evidence that hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule had actually occurred.
The Tribunal also reasoned that the comments did not criticise me on the basis that I was Aboriginal.
Rather, because Mr Mye was denying that I was Aboriginal, the Tribunal characterised the accusation as one of dishonesty.
It is that aspect of the reasoning that I am now examining closely.
Appeal under consideration
I am presently considering an appeal against the dismissal of the referral.
No appeal has yet been filed and no final decision has been made.
However, there are important questions concerning the interpretation and application of section 124A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) that warrant careful consideration.
One issue is whether the statutory test requires proof that members of the public were actually incited to hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule, or whether the relevant question is whether the public act was capable of producing that response in an ordinary member of the relevant audience.
A second issue concerns the Tribunal’s treatment of the racial nexus.
The publications did not simply accuse me of dishonesty in some unrelated context.
They accused me of falsely claiming Aboriginal identity.
The comments included expressions such as “fake blackfella”, assertions that I was not Aboriginal, and accusations concerning a supposedly false Aboriginality certificate.
The subject matter of the alleged dishonesty was therefore my Aboriginal ancestry and identity.
Whether those matters were properly characterised and whether the correct statutory test was applied are questions that I am now reviewing.
Any appeal will be pursued on proper appellate grounds.
It will not be an exercise in simply disagreeing with the Tribunal because the ultimate referral was dismissed.
Why I pursued the proceeding
This matter was never about asking QCAT for permission to be Aboriginal.
I did not become Aboriginal when this decision was published.
I was Aboriginal before Ian Mye challenged my identity.
I was Aboriginal before this complaint was made.
I am Aboriginal today.
What I wanted was a formal determination.
I wanted serious allegations about my identity to be tested in a forum where evidence mattered more than repetition.
Social media makes allegations easy.
An accusation can be published, repeated and shared until repetition itself begins to resemble proof.
A Tribunal is different.
Evidence is produced.
Witnesses can be cross-examined.
Assertions can be tested.
That is what happened here.
The Tribunal heard the evidence.
It considered the competing positions.
And it found that I am Aboriginal.
That finding is now on the public record.
Why the written finding matters
There is an important difference between knowing who you are and having years of public allegations formally tested.
I did not need QCAT to create my identity.
No Tribunal could do that.
My ancestry did not begin on 9 October 2026.
My family history did not begin with this case.
But the written finding matters because it answers a specific allegation that had been repeated publicly over a lengthy period.
The allegation was tested.
The evidence was considered.
The Tribunal found that I am Aboriginal.
That is precisely why I wanted the matter determined.
Accountability matters
I also believe the case demonstrates a broader point about public allegations.
People are entitled to disagree.
People are entitled to criticise.
People are entitled to raise genuine concerns.
But serious allegations about another person’s identity, ancestry or integrity should ultimately be capable of being substantiated.
Repetition is not evidence.
A social media pile-on is not evidence.
The fact that an allegation has been repeated by several people does not transform it into a proven fact.
Where allegations are sufficiently serious, there are proper processes available to test them.
That is what I chose to do.
Remaining matters
There are other matters involving Mr Mye that are separate from this decision.
I do not propose to use this article to prejudge them.
Some involve allegations that remain to be considered through human rights or other processes.
Other matters have been reported to police.
Those matters must be dealt with independently and according to their own evidence.
The discipline I expect from others is the same discipline I intend to apply publicly:
A proven fact should be described as a proven fact.
An allegation should be described as an allegation.
A matter under investigation should be described as a matter under investigation.
That distinction is particularly important where reputations and ongoing proceedings are involved.
What happens next
I am now undertaking a detailed review of the Tribunal’s reasons, the relevant legislation and the authorities governing racial vilification under Queensland law.
The question under consideration is not whether I am disappointed with the ultimate order.
The question is whether appealable error can properly be identified in the reasoning that led to the dismissal.
If I determine that an appeal should be filed, that appeal will be pursued through the appropriate QCAT process.
Until then, it is properly described as under consideration.
Final thoughts
I did not need Ian Mye’s permission to be Aboriginal.
I did not need QCAT’s permission to be Aboriginal.
But I wanted an independent Tribunal to examine the evidence after years of public challenges to my identity.
It did.
And it found that I am Aboriginal.
I was Aboriginal before this decision.
I am Aboriginal today.
And I will be Aboriginal tomorrow.
QCAT did not give me my identity.
My ancestors did.
What QCAT gave me was something else:
A written finding that the evidence established that I am Aboriginal.
That finding is now part of the public record.
And that matters.
Play Hard, But Fair.
Brian AJ Newman, LLB
Principal Employment and Human Rights Advocate
Chief Executive Officer – NATSIC-AS
Decision
Newman v Mye
Queensland Civil and Administrative TribunalProceeding: ADL043-24
Decision delivered: 9 October 2026
Decision of: Member Bellamy
QCAT published decisions:https://www.qcat.qld.gov.au/qcat-decisions/published-reasons
Comments