Along with the proposed referendum for an aboriginal voice, the word ‘makarrata’ – a Yolngu word – has become a noticeable feature in the proposed three stage process of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australia.

But as with the voice, confusion surrounds the notion of makarrata. What it is and how it will work, should makarrata along with the voice enter Australia’s legislative framework, remain unanswered. Will the result of the process be good law making or the anthesis of it?

An internet search yields a myriad of meanings to explain makarrata:

‘“Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle,” says the 2017 Uluru statement…‘

“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.”


“The Yolngu concept of Makarrata captures the idea of two parties coming together after a struggle, healing the divisions of the past. It is about acknowledging that something has been done wrong, and it seeks to make things right”. (Noel Pearson)


‘At its core, makarrata is a reconciliation process; a matter of settling our differences and moving forward together as one’.


‘Makarrata is a word in the Yolngu language meaning ‘the resumption of normal relations after a period of hostilities’. Some people have preferred the word Makarrata because they felt the word treaty was too divisive and more often describes agreements between countries rather than within countries between different parts of the population’.


‘An Aboriginal ceremonial ritual symbolizing the restoration of peace after a dispute…”a peace making event; to bring about reconciliation; peace and harmony” (Galarrwuy Yunupingu)…A makarrata ceremony would traditionally involve the infliction of pain on a person who had committed a wrong. Once blood was shed, the dispute was resolved and the healing process could begin. It was only in the last century that the word was used interchangeably with the word ‘treaty”.

Of these various explanations for what makarrata is the prevalent definition and the one taken up by governments, media and commentators is ‘treaty’. The wordsmith Kel Richards concurred with this view on Credlin on Sky (9/8/23) that ‘treaty’ is a valid meaning of the term.

But while treaty may express some of the characteristics of makarrata, from those definitions much more is encompassed by the latter word than is envisaged by the former term.

Of course it is true that over time all words evolve; even words taken in from other languages can evolve their meaning the longer they spend in the recipient language. Changes to language matters little if all the speakers understand the change in the same way because they speak the same first language. Consequently, any definitional artefact carried into the new language from the old would be moderated because of the lack of personal experience of the term by its adopted speakers.

But is this the same process – can the process be said to be similarly benign – if a term enters another language through the speakers of the original language who themselves still retain their mother tongue, including a large part of the original cultural understanding? And what if at its entry into the inheritor language or quickly thereafter, this “new” word became a legal instrument and central to a negotiation between two parties, only one of whom has the understanding of the original language’s nuance and milieu? Any negotiation under such circumstances would have the potential to undermine one side and their interests.

Makarrata is just such a term. Introduced into Australian English in a top-down approach by government, academia and aboriginal activists, makarrata has little if any word recognition or commensurate understanding within the wider Australian population. It is easy to see that for that population they would miss the word’s nuances and expect that it’s supposed English counterpart – treaty – would cover all that it is.

But the various explanations listed above show that makarrata in the Yolngu language/culture means much more than treaty. To restore/improve relationships by inflicting actual and permanent physical injury on the adjudged guilty party is what occurs during a makarrata ceremony. There is no corresponding concept – much less that scenario, as an expression of treaty – in a western liberal democracy, such as Australia.

Treaty, however, is a full resolution by way of ‘an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state’. So treaty brings about the resolution of all negotiated matters.

In the Australian legal system, the most obvious comparison with makarrata is in the criminal justice system and in the concept of a custodial sentence. Though even then the Australian legal system understands that once a sentence is completed the guilty party is restored fully to society. In makarrata, that full restoration is unknown and unavailable. Makarrata is permanent and is a ongoing reminder of the transgression and the consequences for others if they too err. The injury stands as a permanent witness to the continuing “wrongness” of one side in the dispute, despite the supposed ability of the two sides to be restored to each other as equals.

Therefore, can it be reasonably argued that the makarrata resolves the dispute? Given that the injury is permanent and despite the avenging clan/tribe taking in the maimed and caring for him/her, none of this remotely defines ‘treaty’ in the western tradition, which includes Australia.

In my internet search for a definition of makarrata I came across another understanding of the word. In the journal, Oceania (1987) and the article ‘Treaty, Compact, Makarrata…??’ by L. R. Hiatt. Here, makarrata is described as a penalty to be extracted by one party from another party, and speaks of retaliation and vengeance, not reconciliation and amity. From this understanding of makarrata, in no sense is there any completion of matters and return to accord:

‘...makarrata means a pay-back (i.e. revenge) and does not necessarily imply forgiveness or the end of a quarrel’. Hiatt, L. R. (1987). Treaty, Compact, Makarrata . . .?? Oceania, 58(2), 140–144.

Hiatt reports (p.140) that the Australian Government had previously rejected the idea of a treaty as being impossible between different groups of citizens – aborigines were no different to any other Australians. Consequently, the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC), wanting to further discussions with the government, proposed makarrata after receiving permission to use the term from the elders at Yirrakala in Arnhem Land.

According to Hiatt, in 1981, the Yirrakala elders advised the Australian Senate’s Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which at the time was inquiring into a compact with aborigines, that makarrata ‘…was a completely inappropriate choice [because] the word means a pay-back (i.e. revenge)’. The elders further advised that makarrata does not ‘necessarily imply forgiveness or the end of a quarrel’ and went on to say that they were wrong to have given the NAC permission to use the term. Hiatt reports that Senator Missen, one of the senators on the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, noted that ‘…the use of a vernacular term [makarrata] aroused suspicion in communities speaking other languages.’

The Prime Minister’s support for the three stage process of Voice, Treaty, Truth, shows that if the referendum gets up the country will have a long way to go to “achieve” what is being promised. To date we have gone through Kevin Rudd’s apology, the annual National Sorry Days, NAIDOC weeks, endless WtCs, and the ongoing re-naming of Australian sites. If true to its definition makarrata will not be the end of the quarrel. If makarrata does enter the Australian legal system through a “yes” vote it will be only the beginning of much worse to come.