The Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation's plan to sell the Ayers Rock Resort to a U.S.-owned operator has caused deep concern across Indigenous business circles. The ILSC, a government statutory body, is in exclusive negotiations to transfer the resort, along with the Mossman Gorge Cultural Centre, to Journey Beyond, a tourism company backed by an American venture capital fund. The transaction, understood to be worth about $300 million, would place control of one of Australia's most important tourism assets in foreign hands. Such a move sits uneasily with the ILSC's founding purpose and risks undermining decades of work to advance Indigenous ownership and self-determination.

The ILSC's founding vision

The ILSC, originally the Indigenous Land Corporation, was established in 1995 by the Keating Government following the Mabo decision and the native title debates of the early 1990s. Its mandate was clear: acquire and return land to Indigenous Australians, ensuring it was managed for their lasting benefit. Prime Minister Paul Keating, speaking to Parliament, said: "The purpose of the Government's Bill... is to enable Indigenous people to acquire land and to manage and maintain it in a sustainable way, to provide economic, social and cultural benefits for themselves and for future generations of their peoples."

The ILSC was designed as a statutory authority with an Indigenous-controlled board, funded through a land account so it could act independently of short-term politics. Its vision was that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would enjoy the opportunities that land ownership and management could provide. It was under this purpose that the ILSC acquired the Ayers Rock Resort in 2010, purchasing it for $300 million. At the time, the acquisition was hailed as a nation-building investment that would create jobs, deliver training, and ensure Indigenous control over tourism near Uluru.

Why selling to foreign interests is wrong

The sale of the Ayers Rock Resort to Journey Beyond, backed by American investors, undermines the ILSC's statutory purpose. Naomi Anstess, CEO of the Northern Territory Indigenous Business Network, expressed her frustration clearly: "From our perspective, a sale to an international entity feels at odds with that purpose." She has stated that the sale risks disenfranchising Indigenous communities and eroding hard-won progress. Her position is shared by many who believe this decision contradicts the ILSC's founding mission.

The resort sits on land of immense cultural and global significance. Uluru is a World Heritage-listed site, recognised both for its natural values and as one of the world's most important cultural landscapes. It is sacred to the Anangu people and is a national symbol of reconciliation. In 1985, title to Uluru–Kata Tjuta National Park was handed back to Traditional Owners, an act that showed respect for Indigenous custodianship. More recently, Uluru was the site of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a vision for Indigenous self-determination. To transfer control of the resort, the economic hub of Uluru tourism, to foreign ownership sends a damaging message. It signals that Indigenous Australians are still being sidelined from control of assets on their own land.

It makes little sense that a statutory body established to secure land for Indigenous Australians would put up for sale a globally significant icon and hand it to an American venture capital fund. This is not the purpose for which the ILSC was created.

Alternatives are possible

Indigenous business leaders argue that the ILSC did not properly explore alternatives that would have kept the resort in Indigenous hands. The NT Indigenous Business Network has said it would have welcomed discussions with the ILSC to develop a consortium or strategic partnership model. Options such as maintaining ownership with the ILSC while outsourcing operations, or creating innovative joint ventures with Aboriginal-owned entities, could have been pursued. These models would have allowed Indigenous Australians to retain ownership while benefiting from professional management expertise.

Instead, the ILSC has defended the sale by pointing to a strategic review and consultations that concluded a sale was the best alternative. Chief Executive Joe Morrison has argued that the ILSC is moving away from operating businesses directly and sees the sale as part of a broader plan to return the Yulara land to the Anangu. While returning the land title is important, it will mean little if the business operating on that land is controlled by a foreign company. Ownership of the land without control of the resort's operations leaves Traditional Owners with limited economic power and influence over the future of tourism in their own country.

As Naomi Anstess has pointed out, Indigenous Australians have the skills, capability, and will to run major enterprises. What is lacking is not capacity, but opportunity and support. It is precisely the role of the ILSC to create those opportunities, not to withdraw from them.

Government should intervene

The federal government has so far been reluctant to act. Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy has described the matter as a commercial decision for the ILSC board. That response underestimates the role of the ILSC as a government-created body with a social mandate. It is not a private corporation free to act without regard for the national interest. The ILSC's decisions must be guided by its mission to advance Indigenous ownership and control. Selling Uluru's resort to an American hedge fund-backed operator does not meet that test.

The government must take leadership. The Prime Minister should intervene to ensure that the ILSC reconsiders this sale and engages with Indigenous stakeholders on alternatives. The Minister for Indigenous Australians should convene discussions between the ILSC and Indigenous business groups to create a consortium capable of purchasing and managing the resort. Financial support, whether through Indigenous Business Australia or loan guarantees, could make such a solution viable. The Treasurer should also exercise the powers of the Foreign Investment Review Board to block the sale on national interest grounds. If Australia can prevent foreign takeovers in the name of national security, surely it can do so to protect the custodianship of Uluru.

A symbol too important to lose

This issue is not only about a commercial transaction. It is about ownership and control of cultural and economic treasures. Uluru is sacred land, a UNESCO World Heritage-listed site, and a global symbol of Indigenous culture. The resort is the gateway through which millions of visitors encounter that heritage. Allowing it to pass into foreign hands diminishes Indigenous control over how Uluru is experienced and how its benefits are shared.

The Keating Government recognised in the 1990s that justice required a mechanism to return land to Indigenous Australians. The ILSC was that mechanism. By contemplating this sale, the ILSC risks betraying that founding vision. Its duty is to strengthen Indigenous control over land and enterprise, not to weaken it. If the current board cannot uphold that mission, then the government must step in to correct course.

Indigenous Australians are ready to own and manage iconic destinations. What is needed is commitment from our institutions and political leaders. The call is clear: keep Uluru's economic future in Aboriginal hands. Anything less would dishonour the legacy of land rights, reconciliation, and the spirit of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Reece Harley, Managing Director and Editor, Indigenous Business Review