This is based on the assumption that the Aborigines want private property. Are the Abors. not allowed to hold private property now? If not, why not? (And why no hue-and-cry from those wanting to?) If they are allowed, then the fact that -- relatively speaking-- so few do own private property can only mean there is no overwhelming desire to own property. So right here you have a problem.
And how will the Abors. get this (initial) private property? They will be allowed to buy it? Well, isn't that a possibility now? Or will they be given some land by the (who else) government? Then isn't the government adding another link to the chain of Abor. dependency? And as for these new landowners will they also not demand building materials, seed, plows, cement, wiring, etc. etc. not to mention endless man-hours of "assistance" paid for and supplied by the government. All for the improvement and maintenance of land they (the Abors.) probably didn't want in the first place....since they had not bought the land i n the first place.
============================
There will be problems when the individual Aborigines who having become dependent on the government for their subsistence are suddenly land rich decides to take advantage of their windfall and are taken advantage of by land developers.
This is too be expect, and will most certainly be taken advantage of by various "isms"(socialism, conservatism, liberalism, etc.) to their own advantage. Why wouldn't the Abors. -- generally speaking -- sell their newly acquired land at foolishly low prices to land developers?
After all, the fact that they (the Abors.) have no historical reputation of putting down their own hard earned money for real estate can only mean there is no driving desire to be property owners. And if this be the case who can fault the land developer from approaching these people with an offer to take off their hands a thing they have no real regard and/or desire for? The price they (the land developers) get for these parcels of land may been scandalously cheap to us, exploitive even. But so long as they were not physically forced into the deal, the price was perfectly acceptable to the seller. (the Abor.)
Oh? The government should step in before,during, and/or after the land transfer to make sure the Abors. don't get "exploited"? Well, then we come to the question of: Then isn't the goverment adding another link to the chain of Abor. dependency?
The British explorers happen upon the Continent of Australia during the Colonial period and find it sparsely inhabited by a semi-nomadic people who live largely as hunter gathers. These people have no sense of land ownership and the British explorers claim the continent for the British Crown.
The Native Australians having no notions of land ownership and having no government organization beyond the tribal level have no inclination to object to this invasion. In effect all of the land of the Australian Continent becomes the property of the British Government by the law of Conquest.
Cut to the 1970’s Australia has become an independent country and member of the British Commonwealth. White guilt is all the rage in the land. The Australian government decides that the Aboriginals have been treated poorly in having there land taken from them in the colonial days.
Large tracts of land are deeded to the aboriginal tribes with no possibility of land being deeded to individual tribe members.
This has the effect of has the effect of giving one the pride of ownership with none of the financial benefits. The land can not be sold, borrowed against or improved upon with out tribal consent. More or less it is a private reserve for the tribal members.
To the best of my knowledge there is no prohibition to aboriginals owning property outside of the reservations. It seems likely that Mr. Mundine as the owner of a title service would be a property owner.
As for the land coming from the government, it already has, only problem is that it is held in common by the tribes and cannot be bought or sold.
As for increasing dependency at least it would put a time limit on part of the dependency. Eventually the tribal land would be all apportioned to the tribal members.
And the point of exploitation of the new land owners and government adding another link to the chain of Abor. Dependency. Deed restrictions are nothing new. I see no problem in having a deed restriction giving tribal members the right of first refusal on the sale of tribal land for a finite period of time. This would provide some insurance that tribal land would not be low balled to land speculators.