The NSW government’s plan to return land titles of national parks to traditional Aboriginal owners is not only a landmark policy move, it is, finally, a meaningful response to a long history of dispossession, writes Attwood Marshall Lawyers Property and Commercial Law Senior Associate Mieke Elzer.
The New South Wales government is aiming for 10 per cent of the state’s landmass to be put under Aboriginal ownership and joint management within two decades.
As a non-Aboriginal Australian, I support the proposal. The idea of returning land acknowledges historic injustices and provides opportunity for Indigenous knowledge and lore to become embedded within our country’s environmental and property governance frameworks. The move draws directly on recommendation 315 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and supports cultural and community healing.
Importantly, it sets the stage for a more respectful and sustainable future for everyone.
First Nations peoples have cared for this land for tens of thousands of years. Recognising that through title transfer and co-management arrangements is not only a moral imperative, but also a wise and sustainable policy choice. Aboriginal land management practices are deeply rooted in respect for the interconnectedness of all living things and offer solutions at a time when environmental degradation and climate change are the most pressing challenges of our era.
Some have criticised this plan, including Member of NSW Legislative Council John Ruddick, Libertarian Party, who publicly denounced the proposal, calling it “immoral” and “intellectually obscene” – language that prompted a wave of racially inflammatory responses online.
Ruddick’s remarks are not only offensive, they perpetuate the kind of racialised fearmongering that holds Australia back from progress. Ruddick frames the return of land to its original custodians as a form of exclusion, when in fact it’s a path to inclusion, healing, and mutual stewardship.
As a society, we need to move beyond zero-sum thinking. Transferring land titles does not mean locking non-Indigenous people out of national parks. Rather, it means recognising the sovereignty of Aboriginal people and making space for cultural practices and decision-making. It may mean some limitations on recreational access in certain areas, in accordance with Aboriginal protocols. As a non-Aboriginal person, I believe that’s a fair and respectful price to pay. A minor inconvenience.
In fact, one might reframe it as an opportunity for non-indigenous Australia to deepen their understanding of Aboriginal culture, history, and connection to Country, and to observe and show respect for cultural lore that has too long been disregarded or suppressed by colonial structures and thinking.
In a time when climate change demands radical new ways of thinking, we would do well to listen to and learn from the people who have managed this continent sustainably for millennia. Their knowledge, passed down through story, ceremony, and deep relational understanding, could hold keys to more resilient ecological futures.
That said, I do have reservations about the current model being proposed by the NSW Government.
The plan largely relies on a leaseback arrangement, where land titles are returned to Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) and then immediately leased back to the state for continued management as national parks. This structure raises questions about genuine self-determination.
If Aboriginal people hold the title but not real decision-making power, can we truly say that justice has been done?
Leasebacks often come with conditions that limit the full expression of cultural management practices such as traditional burning, hunting, or development of cultural infrastructure.
Governance often remains with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and Aboriginal representation is commonly limited to advisory or joint-management roles with little executive authority or resourcing.
Moreover, the fact that titles are returned to LALCs, statutory bodies created under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, rather than directly to Traditional Owner groups, can create tension and disconnect between legal ownership and cultural custodianship. In regions where the LALC and Traditional Owners are not one and the same, this arrangement risks replicating another form of exclusion.
There are also broader legal and political concerns. What happens if a future government decides to undo these arrangements? Will these transfers be protected in legislation that can withstand political change?
Without legal robustness and enduring commitment, even the best intentions could be unravelled.
So, while I support the intent and the ambition of this policy, I also urge caution: the implementation must be led by Aboriginal communities, not just designed around them. The title must come with the power to speak for and care for Country, not simply the right to be consulted about it.
Ultimately, this plan is not about division. It’s about unity through truth. It’s about acknowledging that justice, real justice, means restoring what was taken and rebuilding trust. It’s about creating space for Aboriginal people to speak for and care for their land, not as a symbolic gesture, but as a rightful act of sovereignty.
I spoke with my good friend Gumbaynggirr Man Bernard Kelly-Edwards who had a question for all communities across this nation:
“When was the last time Local Government Mayors, State Premiers/Ministers and Prime Minister been to your lands? Have they camped out under the stars next to a fire held by Traditional Custodians of unceded lands across this land?”
Bernard is speaking to the importance of policy and law makers to truly understand what is at stake. His invitation is for Members of Parliament to come and sit on Country with First Nations Peoples and really take in what Country has to say.
His parting comments about the proposal brought a smile to my face. He said: “I love the hope of returning home sis, come walk with us.”
Let’s be clear: the fear that land justice for one group necessarily means a loss for another is a product of colonial thinking. We can do better. We must do better. And this plan, if done properly, offers us a way forward.
