The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for Makarrata. So what is it, and what hope does it give for the future of Australia?
Makarrata can be used in a bait and switch way to punish invaders. The bait is to define the word as "peace after a dispute," but the switch is to discover it's fuller meaning is that of violent payback.
Makarrata literally means, "spear penetrating."
According to the ABC's explainer, "Makarrata literally means a spear penetrating, usually the thigh, of a person that has done wrong… so that they cannot hunt anymore, that they cannot walk properly, that they cannot run properly; to maim them, to settle them down, to calm them — that's Makarrata."
A crippling blow to subdue the criminal conduct. If this is what is being asked by the Uluru Statement, then that's quite an alarming switch we need to be wary of. A profound danger for the future of reconciliation in Australia.
But wait.
There is more to Makarrata, which actually has profound promise for the future.
As my dearly departed Aboriginal Elder mate Ron Williams told me, within Aboriginal law, in such "spear penetrating" situations, a substitution can be made. If an uncle steps forward to offer his own thigh be speared on behalf of the offender, the offender can be reconciled to the tribe by the spearing of the substitute. The shedding of the uncle's blood reconciles the offender.
If you haven't already noticed - that is exactly what we need! There is no way that people today can atone for the wrongs done by people of the past to other people of the past. Yet a debt must be paid. It can only be paid by a substitute for the people of the past. And that substitute must be good, preferably having no guilt of his own to atone for, yet be willing to pay the price in full for the offender. 
And we have such a substitute.
Only one. Yet the perfect substitute.
It turns out he already has paid Makarrata, for us, and paid it in full. Literally a "spear penetrating" into his side, and blood and water flowed that proved he had made the ultimate sacrifice of death. As a substitute. On behalf of... us. You, me, "them," everybody. Not just for crimes against indigenous peoples, but for crimes against non-indigenous too. Not just for our crimes against other people, but for our crimes against the Great Creator of all things! Who could be such a worthy sacrifice for that, but God himself in the flesh?
This once-for-all Makarrata substitute introduces into our current debates the one thing necessary, yet mostly excluded: the one way to forgiveness. Mutual, true, heartfelt forgiveness. Because the Makarrata has been paid in full. By no less than the Great Creator Spirit in Person. Let that penetrate your mind. And then your heart. And then awaken your soul.
It takes humility to realise that we are guilty of crimes requiring Makarrata. It takes humility to repent from them. And yet more humility to accept that we can't make amends ourselves and never can, the offence is too great - that we are totally dependent on a substitute.
It takes humility to realise that when the substitute has already paid in full, I can no longer exact revenge from the offenders.
In this case, humility is needed all round. Humility also to learn whether this Makarrata actually happened in fact - if you're ready, look here. Because substitutionary Makarrata is the only way to the "peace after a dispute" that Australia really needs.

Here is an excellent review of the movie Oppenheimer. I haven't even seen the movie, I'm not even advocating you see it either, it's not family friendly including some gratuitous sex scenes apparently. So why am I recommending this review?
Because the review names some very important questions that need answering about immanent dangers in our own time, like AI and biotech, and more importantly whether we can or will listen to wisdom from minority voices, rather than simply cancel them.

Same with any big issues, like referendums. It's better to get all the facts & ideas on the table...

Here, look, just read: Two Lessons from Oppenheimer | Evolution News

A current case in point. Hollywood is cancelling a needed view: ending Child Slavery requires open conversation about the facts, yet some players in Hollywood have resisted the release of the movie Sound Of Freedom by Angel Studios (The Chosen), labelling it 'controversial.'

Ha! I'm booking my tickets to this one:
  Sound of Freedom - Daily Declaration (canberradeclaration.org.au)

It matters to a lot of people: about half of Aussies surveyed said the matter of science and evolution prevents them from taking the claims of Christianity seriously. 

First let me caution anyone in that situation, don’t make creation timing the issue that determines your eternal destiny.
The eternity-breaker is whether or not you trust the living God.
There are other good & sufficient reasons to believe in and trust the Creator. Such as: 
. the manuscripts and archaeology of the Bible, which indicate it was reliably transmitted.
. the prophecies and storyline within it which indicate a divine source. 
. the historicity of the life, death & resurrection of Jesus, the latter giving further evidence of the divine.
Thus a supernatural Creator is still evident even without addressing the timing issue.
Maybe that's why I used to be ambivalent about creation timing - because I had those other anchor-points for trusting God through Jesus. Maybe that's why other Christians leave the timing question unanswered too, or even settle on long-age interpretations, because they have these other good foundations for their faith instead.

However... for Aussies without any of those anchor-points, it’s understandable that "science and evolution" is a problem for their belief, because what we read in Genesis 1 is so shockingly different from what most of us are taught in school about billions of years and evolution.
So it is fair to ask, “which timing is right?”

Let’s start here: "it is reasonable to expect the Creator's Account to interpret ALL observations consistently.”
I'll defend that, but for now I'm saying we do not have to discard the Bible in favour of simplistic assertions about what "the science says.” If truth is true, truths from both sources should match.
Truth should be able to research-and-uphold ALL the legitimate observations, of both sciences and the Bible.
But equally logically truth should not be able to uphold all interpretations, because some interpretations will contradict others.

So when I finally did examine enough of the observations (both Biblical and scientific), I found that when it comes to origins, most of us were not given some critical information. Like: 

1. Interpretations are not observations.
   Once you start watching for the difference between observations and interpretations, you'll see it everywhere. Like all those nature shows that bluntly say, "this took billions of years..." That's just their interpretation of observations. For example, layers in the geological column are the observations. Interpretations differ. One interpretation is slow layering of particulates over billions of years. Another interpretation is catastrophic global flooding over a few years. Same observation, different interpretations. Most of us were unaware there are different interpretations - since we were only told "billions of years," as if it were observation, when it was really only one interpretation. Moreover, in 1980 when Mt Saint Helens erupted, science did observe geological layering in mere days. Those actual observations were more consistent with the faster interpretation of geological layers. And less consistent with the slower interpretation.
2. Historical science is more interpretive than Observational science.
   Observational sciences (producing technology, medicines etc) are based on repeated observations in the present. But Historical sciences (about unrepeatable past origins) are based more on interpretations of observations. Direct observations of the past can't be made, so assumptions must be made to support various interpretations, which can mistakenly be presented as observations. All this happens under the name of "science."
3. Special creation has no conflict with scientific observations.
   It only has conflict with some interpretations of the observations. Biblical interpretations can fit all scientific observations.
4. We should not exclude an interpretation that might yet reveal the truth.
   Super-natural dimensions should not be ruled out unless proven otherwise. Because they may in fact be the reality. And ruling it out will, a priori, prevent you from identifying that truth.
   
5. The interpretation that consistently fits ALL the observations is most likely to be true.
   The interpretation with global explanatory power, able to explain observations across all logical disciplines including history, archaeology, Biblical study... is likely to be the most reliable reflection of reality.
6. ALL relevant observations should be included for interpretation.
   We don’t exclude observations simply because they have implications that don’t fit our interpretation. This seems obvious, yet observations from history, archaeology, and Biblical prophecies, are excluded by naturalists as if they don't exist. But these observations still do exist and thus should be properly explained.
7. Relevant observations include scientific observations. Eg:
   . Geological layers - with dead/drowned remains all over the earth
   . Mt Saint Helens eruption layering.
   . Genetics and natural selection - only within kinds/genus
   . & genetic entropy - losing genetic information over time
   . Biology, life coming only from life - not non life
   . Entropy - physical things lose available energy and order over time
   . Relativity, something produces physical things - not nothing
   . Biblical manuscripts & archaeology
8. Relevant observations also include Biblical observations. Eg:
   . Biblical prophecies - how are they reasonably explained?
   . Biblical storyline - how so coherent, comprehensive, despite diversity?
   . Biblical content about timing - and not just Genesis 1. Include also: Exodus20:11. Mattew19:4-6 (Mark10:6). 1Corinthians15:22 and others confirming there was no death before human sin. And passages about the needed solution to that sin-&-death problem, like Romans6:23. 1Peter2:24 (and the Isaiah 53 prophecy 700 years earlier) and 2Corinthians 5:21.
9. Interpretations derived from Biblical observations do have global explanatory power.
   That is, the Biblical observations align with observations from all other disciplines including the sciences. This is consistent with the Bible’s claims to be reliable revelation from the Creator.
10. Biblically-derived interpretations often interpret scientific observations better than naturalistic interpretations. For example, some scientific observations require supernatural origins of the universe for consistency:
    . Entropy requires a beginning of energy and order, and a source of that energy & order.
    . Relativity requires physical reality came from something, not nothing. So before the beginning of physical reality, the Something that caused it had to be other-than-physical. Other-dimensional.
    . Biology requires life only comes from Life.
    . Genetic entropy shows genetic material degrades, not evolves.
    Biblical interpretations fit these scientific observations better than naturalist interpretations do.
11. Historical accounts often provide an interpretation consistent with all the observations.
    So a historical account such as Genesis 1 can provide a legitimate interpretation if it proves consistent with all the available observations. And it does.

So where can normal people like us find specific observations with interpretations that are Biblically consistent? I recommend creation.com.

On closer inspection as an adult, contrary to what I was taught at school and most media outlets, I have found that Bible-based interpretations of origins involving special creation are more consistent with all the relevant observations than any naturalistic interpretation.

After all, it's reasonable that The Creator’s Account would interpret ALL observations consistently. 

60,000 years? Over the last few years I have heard this so often, I decided to check it out. Every time Australian Aboriginal heritage is mentioned, it comes with the supposed fact that “The world’s oldest living culture has been here for 60,000 years!” It is said as fact. But is it a fact? Or just an interpretation? How do we know it's true?

The 60,000 years is meant to imply nobility, resilience, and knowledge. Of course it doesn’t logically follow that just because a group has been here a long time, it demands they were good, bad, or indifferent, resilient or noble. Indeed there are some 300 Aboriginal nations across Australia, some better than others, so however long aboriginal peoples were here, it wasn't all unified...

But today I am not questioning the implications of the 60k claim, but the claim itself. Partly because it cuts against the 6,000 year chronology of a plain reading of Genesis 1-11 (which, by the way, can successfully interpret every scientific observation ever made.) But moreover simply as a matter of questioning and probing the 60k claim itself.

For such a claim to reach the status of “fact”, it must be verifiable, falsifiable, not based on circular assumptions. What I found is that the 60,000 year claim is not a fact but merely an interpretation, because: the claim is based on tests with interpretive assumptions; the claim ignores the only test with a measurable rate; the claim ignores the written historical records we have of human history.

1) Interpretive Assumptions
The list of evidence given to support the 60k claim appears strong at first, offering so many tests:
Archaeology, ancient tools, rock art, burial sites, campfires in certain soil strata, geological changes, climate changes, mega-fauna extinction. But these are all based on cross-referencing each other, or circular reasoning. The way out of the circle is supposed to be Carbon-14 dating. But C14 dating itself is based on interpretive assumptions, such as the ratio of C14:12 at the start of the timeline, or that the C14:12 ratio is entirely based on radioactive decay, not other contamination or leaching, or carbon-capture event, such as a global Flood. Similar interpretive assumptions apply to Thermoluminescence, Electron-spin resonance. And Thorium-uranium and Protactinium-uranium tests likewise rely on interpretive assumptions about ratios not being affected by environmental factors as if it is a ‘closed system.’  https://creation.com/the-dating-game. creation.com/how-carbon-dating-works. creation.com/carbon-dating-fooling-whom.
Mitachondrial DNA tests have had to be revised down too from 100,000 years to 50,000 years since that’s the upper limit of how long we can imagine DNA can survive. The truth must be much lower than that since DNA in sub-optimal conditions could not last that long. https://creation.com/was-adam-from-australia-the-mystery-of-mungo-man. But testing MtDNA is on the right track...

2) The One Test with a measurable rate - Ignored
In 1998 Mitochondrial mutation rates were finally measured, and they mutate much faster than expected. Calculating at this measured rate, back in time to a point of perfection, yields an age of some 6,000 years. Why do you think this test is ignored, the only one with a measured rate?
 https://creation.com/a-shrinking-date-for-eve ; https://trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.php

3) The Oldest Written Histories we have - Ignored
The Biblical accounts are among the oldest written histories we have. Back to the times of the Pharaohs, and before to Ur, takes us to a historical date of around 2000 BC. And chrono-genealogies take us further to the time of Adam around 4000 BC. These historical documents have proven reliable archaeologically time and again. Why ignore them? https://creation.com/how-old-archaeology-conflicts-bible.

Why would one prefer the results of dating methods based on assumptions and interpretations? I imagine for credence with one’s peers, I understand, but truth is not determined by social pressure.
Why ignore dating methods with measurable rates, using verifiable observations? Is it just because they yield results that don’t fit the peer-narrative? https://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa

My interpretation of these observations is that 60,000 years is not a fact, it’s just an interpretation, ultimately based on self-serving assumptions. What’s your interpretation of the actual facts? And what foundation is it based upon? 

Update: 3 Feb 2024
Someone asked about Dendrochronology (tree rings) as a way of verifying C14, but this is caught in the same circular loop. https://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology. So my doubt about the basis of the 60k claim still stands. 

Is the Biblical 6000 years a recent invention? No, and I say that in light of the perspicuity of the text itself (creation.com/6000-years) [always wanted to use 'perspicuity' in public, now I have!], but also in light of more thorough reading of the past authors themselves, including Augustine. creation.com/old-earth-or-young-earth-belief

To approach scientific observations with the Creator’s Account as your hypothesis is not anti-scientific, it’s a quick way to find good hypotheses to test, because we can expect the Creator’s Account to interpret all observations consistently. Such an interpretation should be the true goal of science.

To approach scientific observations with long earth hypotheses is just as pre-deterministic as critics claim creationists are, but worse because it is based not on God’s Word but Man’s words. And it is a reductionist approach because it excludes data that hints at God because it hints at God (more circularity.) In other words, such a mindset is an atheistic stronghold. It is naive to think that this naturalistic ‘scientific method’ is altruistically self-correcting and open-minded, specifically when it comes to interpreting the past. creation.com/scientists-wrong . creation.com/its-not-science .

As you can see, I’m now just the go-between for you and the search bar at creation.com. Cut out the middle man and take your further questions there. I find they reference more facts, with footnotes, and do so with more clarity about the difference between observations and interpretations, and more self-awareness of their own bias. Seek answers that interpret ALL the observations consistently, Biblical & scientific.