Australian law imposes certain responsibilities on landholders to protect environmental and economic values of the land, however native title has significant consequences for understanding and attributing these land management responsibilities. In 1992, the High Court recognised Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests in land could survive the assertion of British sovereignty, effectively introducing a new category of land tenure into Australian law. Reporting on both law and management practice, we consider the implications for the collective provision of land management functions across Australia – including reforms required for legislative rationale and regulatory models. Relying on a test‐case, we found native title holders are substantial landholders who appear, at least in some circumstances in most jurisdictions, to owe the same legal obligations as other landholders. Much ambiguity remains, especially regarding ‘non‐exclusive’ possession native title. Together, the legal uncertainty and poor policy alignment necessitate a substantial revision of Australia's land management laws and governance.