[stubish]

As a thought experiment, how would a a site gain such a designation? Could the Commonwealth of Australia designate it as such, or apply on behalf of the traditional owners to UNESCO or similar registry? Would the traditional owners be somewhat pissed? And are there reasons it isn't already designated as a world heritage site, such as Kakadu (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/147), which is often in the news due to its uranium deposits?

[Someone]

“World Heritage Site” is a title countries apply for at UNESCO.

Once on a list, treaties require countries to protect the site.

Because of that, the decision whether to ask UNESCO to put that sticker on a site is a political choice.

[prawn]

And for that reason, generally Australia would favour protecting something especially notable or with tourism potential. Seems this is down the scale a bit.

Nearest Western-international parallel might be Bears Ears in the US. There are specific features likely to hold off development, but other areas are sparse or remote wilderness less likely to survive political assault?