The question of whether Christians in a country where they are not the majority, should dictate rules for everyone is a complex issue that intersects with principles of democracy, religious freedom, pluralism and historical justice. In Australia, a nation with a historically Christian majority, but an increasingly diverse religious and cultural landscape, this question takes on unique significance when viewed through the lens of Indigenous Australian perspectives. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, with spiritual and cultural traditions spanning over 60,000 years, offer profound insights into governance, coexistence and the consequences of imposed systems. Their experiences of colonisation, often justified by Christian ideologies and their contemporary advocacy for self-determination provide a critical framework for evaluating the implications of a Christian minority dictating rules.

This post explores these perspectives in depth, arguing that Indigenous principles of balance, reciprocity and respect for diversity reject the notion of any minority imposing its values on a pluralistic society. Instead, governance in Australia must prioritise inclusivity, particularly for Indigenous peoples whose sovereignty was never ceded, to ensure a just and equitable future.

Indigenous Spiritualities and Governance Models

Indigenous Australian cultures are grounded in spiritual traditions that are among the oldest continuous systems of belief in the world. Known as the Dreaming or Dreamtime, these traditions are not merely religious but encompass law, ethics, kinship and environmental stewardship. The Dreaming is place-based, tying specific clans and nations to their lands, waters and ancestral beings. Each Indigenous group – over 250 language groups existed before colonisation – has its own stories, laws and protocols, creating a mosaic of governance systems that operated through consensus and mutual respect.

In pre-colonial Indigenous societies, governance was decentralised and relational. Elders, as custodians of Lore (customary law derived from the Dreaming), facilitated decision-making through dialogue, ensuring decisions reflected the needs of the community and the land. As Gunditjmara scholar Tyson Yunkaporta explains in Sand Talk (2019), Indigenous knowledge systems prioritise “patterns of connection” over hierarchical control, fostering balance between individuals, communities and the environment. This contrasts sharply with centralised, top-down models of governance, including those historically associated with Christian institutions in colonial contexts.

From an Indigenous perspective, the idea of a Christian minority dictating rules for all Australians is fundamentally at odds with these principles. Imposing a singular framework, whether religious or secular, disregards the diversity of beliefs and practices that Indigenous governance respects. Yuin Elder Uncle Max Dulumunmun Harrison has emphasised that Indigenous ways of being are about “living in harmony with the land and each other,” not dominating others’ worldviews. A Christian minority imposing its values would disrupt this harmony, echoing the colonial imposition of foreign systems that Indigenous peoples have resisted since 1788. Such an approach would undermine the relational and inclusive ethos of Indigenous governance, which values coexistence over control.

Historical Context: Christianity and the Colonial Project

The arrival of British settlers in 1788 marked a catastrophic rupture for Indigenous Australians, with Christianity playing a central role in justifying colonisation. The doctrine of terra nullius – the legal fiction that Australia was “land belonging to no one” – was rooted in Eurocentric and Christian assumptions that Indigenous peoples lacked recognisable systems of governance, spirituality, or land ownership. Colonial authorities, often in partnership with Christian missionaries, sought to “civilise” Indigenous peoples by converting them to Christianity and erasing their cultural practices. This was not merely a spiritual project but a mechanism of control, aimed at assimilating Indigenous peoples into a European, Christian social order.

Missions and reserves, established by organisations like the Aborigines Protection Board, were key instruments of this policy. Places like Hermannsburg in the Northern Territory and Yarrabah in Queensland became sites where Indigenous peoples were confined, their languages suppressed and their children taught Christian doctrines. The Stolen Generations, a policy spanning from the late 19th century to the 1970s, saw tens of thousands of Indigenous children forcibly removed from their families, often under the auspices of Christian welfare organisations. These children were placed in missions or foster homes where they were indoctrinated into Christian values, stripped of their cultural identities and subjected to abuse. As Arrernte and Kalkadoon scholar Marcia Langton has stated, “The imposition of Christianity was a tool of assimilation, designed to erase our identities and sever our connection to Country.”

This history profoundly shapes Indigenous perspectives on Christian influence in governance. For many Indigenous Australians, Christianity is inseparable from the trauma of dispossession, cultural erasure and intergenerational harm. The legacy of missions and forced conversions has left deep scars, with many communities still grappling with the loss of language, ceremony and kinship ties. Allowing a Christian minority to dictate rules risks perpetuating this legacy, imposing a framework that historically marginalised Indigenous voices and sovereignty. As Palawa writer Nakkiah Lui has argued, “The idea of any group imposing their beliefs on others feels like a continuation of the colonial project, which we’re still trying to heal from.”

Yet, Indigenous experiences with Christianity are not uniform. Some Indigenous Australians have embraced Christianity, integrating it with their cultural practices in syncretic ways. In Arnhem Land, Yol?u communities have blended Christian worship with traditional ceremonies, creating practices that honour both their ancestral Lore and Christian teachings. Similarly, Indigenous Christian leaders like Pastor Ray Minniecon, a Kabi Kabi and Gurang Gurang man, have used their faith to advocate for reconciliation and social justice. These perspectives suggest that Christianity, when practiced in dialogue with Indigenous values, can coexist within a pluralistic society. However, even these communities typically reject the idea of domination, favouring mutual respect over unilateral rule.

Contemporary Indigenous Advocacy and the Rejection of Imposed Systems

In modern Australia, Indigenous perspectives on governance are articulated through advocacy for self-determination, treaty-making and constitutional recognition. The 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, a historic consensus document endorsed by Indigenous leaders across the continent, calls for a First Nations Voice to Parliament, a Makarrata Commission for truth-telling and agreement-making and a process of healing colonial wounds. The Statement reflects a vision of governance that is collaborative, inclusive and respectful of Indigenous sovereignty while engaging with Australia’s diverse population. It explicitly rejects imposed systems, seeking “a fair and truthful relationship” between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

The Uluru Statement provides a critical lens for evaluating the question of a Christian minority dictating rules. Indigenous peoples, who comprise approximately 3.2% of Australia’s population (around 800,000 people according to the 2021 Census), have long been marginalised in Australia’s political and legal systems. The Statement’s call for a Voice underscores the importance of representation for minority groups, ensuring their perspectives shape national decision-making. If a Christian minority were to impose laws, it would sideline not only Indigenous voices but also those of other religious and secular Australians, contradicting the pluralistic ethos Indigenous leaders advocate. As Anangu leader Rachel Perkins has argued, “Our survival as First Nations peoples depends on systems that respect our differences, not erase them.”

Moreover, Indigenous perspectives highlight the interconnectedness of land, people and law, which often clashes with Christian or Western governance models. For example, Indigenous custodians like the Wangan and Jagalingou people have opposed projects like the Adani coal mine, asserting their custodial rights over Country against development supported by some Christian-aligned political factions. A Christian minority dictating rules might prioritise its moral or economic agendas – such as traditional family values or resource extraction – over Indigenous land rights, further disenfranchising First Nations peoples. This tension underscores the need for governance that respects Indigenous sovereignty and environmental responsibilities, which are central to their worldview.

The 2023 Voice referendum, though unsuccessful, further illuminated Indigenous perspectives on inclusive governance. The campaign for a constitutionally enshrined Voice was driven by a desire for structural inclusion, not domination by any single group. The referendum’s defeat, influenced by misinformation and political polarisation, highlighted the challenges of achieving consensus in a diverse society. From an Indigenous perspective, allowing a Christian minority to dictate rules would exacerbate these challenges, bypassing democratic processes where Indigenous advocacy is slowly gaining traction. As Wiradjuri journalist Stan Grant noted, “We seek a seat at the table, not to control it, but to ensure our voices are heard.”

Challenges and Tensions Within Indigenous Communities

Indigenous perspectives on Christianity and governance are not monolithic, reflecting the diversity of over 250 Indigenous nations. Some Indigenous Christians may argue that their faith aligns with broader societal good and could inform laws, particularly on issues like community welfare or reconciliation. For example, Indigenous Christian organisations like the Grasstree Gathering bring together Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander believers to advocate for justice within a Christian framework. Leaders like Brooke Prentis, a Wakka Wakka woman, emphasise shared values like compassion and healing, which resonate with both Christian and Indigenous principles.

However, even Indigenous Christians often frame their advocacy within a broader call for mutual respect, not domination. The tension arises when Christian values are proposed as universal, potentially clashing with Indigenous Lore or the beliefs of other Australians. For instance, debates over same-sex marriage or voluntary assisted dying have seen some Christian groups, including Indigenous Christians, oppose reforms that align with secular or progressive values. Yet, many Indigenous communities, particularly younger generations, support these reforms, reflecting a commitment to individual autonomy and cultural diversity. This intra-community diversity underscores the complexity of Indigenous perspectives and the need for governance that accommodates multiple voices.

Another challenge is the power imbalance rooted in Australia’s colonial legacy. Indigenous peoples remain under-represented in political and legal institutions, with only a handful of Indigenous parliamentarians (e.g. Senators Lidia Thorpe and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price) and no constitutional guarantee of their voice. Allowing any minority, including Christians, to dictate rules could deepen this marginalisation, as it bypasses the democratic processes where Indigenous advocacy is seeking reform. The lack of a treaty or formal recognition of Indigenous sovereignty further complicates this dynamic, leaving First Nations peoples vulnerable to imposed systems, whether secular or religious.

Toward a Collaborative and Inclusive Future

Indigenous perspectives offer a powerful critique of minority rule, grounded in both historical trauma and cultural principles of balance and reciprocity. They reject the notion of a Christian minority dictating rules, seeing it as a continuation of colonial imposition that disregards Indigenous sovereignty and cultural diversity. Instead, Indigenous governance models – rooted in consensus, connection and respect for Country – provide a blueprint for a pluralistic Australia where no group dominates, but all contribute to shared decision-making.

To incorporate Indigenous insights, Australia could draw on models of co-governance from other settler-colonial nations. In New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) has facilitated partnerships between M?ori and the Crown, ensuring M?ori voices shape policy while respecting broader societal diversity. In Australia, a similar approach might involve constitutional recognition of Indigenous sovereignty, as proposed in the Uluru Statement, alongside protections for religious and cultural pluralism. This could take the form of a First Nations Voice to Parliament, treaty processes, or co-management of land and resources, ensuring Indigenous authority is respected without excluding other communities.

For Christian communities, Indigenous perspectives invite reflection on their role in a multicultural society. Rather than seeking to dictate rules, Christians could engage in dialogue with Indigenous peoples, learning from their emphasis on community, land and consensus. Initiatives like Reconciliation Action Plans, supported by some Christian organisations, demonstrate how faith communities can contribute to justice and inclusion without domination. For example, the Catholic Church’s acknowledgment of past harms through the NATSICC (National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Catholic Council) shows a willingness to listen and collaborate, aligning with Indigenous calls for truth-telling.

Broader Australian society also has a role to play. The growing diversity of religious identities – 43.9% Christian, 38.9% no religion, 3.2% Muslim, 2.7% Hindu and 2.4% Buddhist in the 2021 Census – demands governance that balances minority rights with collective decision-making. Indigenous perspectives, with their focus on relationality, offer a framework for navigating this diversity. By prioritising dialogue over imposition, Australia can avoid the pitfalls of minority rule, whether by Christians or any other group.

Practical Implications and Policy Considerations

Implementing a governance model informed by Indigenous perspectives requires practical steps. First, Australia must advance the Uluru Statement’s recommendations, particularly the establishment of a First Nations Voice. This would ensure Indigenous representation in decisions that affect them, including those involving religious influence. Second, strengthening secular governance, as mandated by Section 116 of the Constitution, is critical to preventing any religious minority from dominating. This includes reviewing practices like parliamentary prayers, which some argue privilege Christianity in a pluralistic nation.

Third, education and truth-telling are essential for addressing the historical role of Christianity in colonisation. Incorporating Indigenous histories into school curricula and supporting initiatives like the Healing Foundation can foster understanding and reconciliation. Finally, fostering interfaith and intercultural dialogue, including between Indigenous communities and Christian groups, can build mutual respect. Programs like the Australian Intercultural Society, which brings together diverse faith leaders, offer a model for such engagement.

Conclusion

Indigenous Australian perspectives provide a compelling case against allowing a Christian minority to dictate rules in a diverse nation. Rooted in 60,000 years of cultural and spiritual wisdom, these perspectives highlight the dangers of imposed systems, drawing on the trauma of colonisation where Christianity was a tool of dispossession. Indigenous governance models, with their emphasis on balance, reciprocity and respect for diversity, reject unilateral rule in favour of collaborative decision-making. The Uluru Statement from the Heart and contemporary Indigenous advocacy further underscore the need for inclusive governance that respects sovereignty while engaging all Australians.

In a future Australia, where Christians may become a minority (with 43.9% identifying as Christian in 2021), governance must reflect the nation’s multicultural reality. Indigenous insights offer a path forward, advocating for systems that honour difference without domination. By learning from First Nations peoples, Australia can build a society where no group – Christian, Muslim, secular, or otherwise – imposes its will, but all contribute to a shared, equitable future. This vision, grounded in justice and mutual respect, aligns with the aspirations of a nation still grappling with its colonial past and striving for a reconciled present.

Post Views: 108

by Evan Urquhart

A report on youth gender medicine by the Drug Regimen Review Center, a little-known body operating out of the University of Utah, was released late last week by the Utah legislature. The Salt Lake Tribune and a small number of other news outlets have highlighted a few aspects of this report, particularly the finding that youth gender medicine is safe, effective, and comparable to other mainstream medical treatments. They’ve also mentioned its length, over 1,000 pages. But what’s actually in it?

The full pdf for the DRRC’s evidence review is available for download here.

A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence

“Notably, our searches yielded a larger number of primary studies than any of the systematic reviews that underwent data extraction,” the report states proudly on page 117. The authors found a total of 277 studies that included data on over 28,000 young people with gender dysphoria. 

The report focuses on 89 studies of puberty blockers or gender-affirming hormone therapy that looked at several “high-priority outcomes” around mental health, psychosocial changes, body changes and body image, and/or key health risks while weeding out case reports and purely descriptive studies. The methods and findings of these 89 were summarized, and each one was evaluated for risk of bias. The report also extracted data from seven previous systematic reviews and four published guidelines.

Here’s an example from one of the many tables that make up much of the report, in this case a table analyzing risk of bias:

The authors found a range of study quality in the data, from lower to higher. The conclusion section (which starts on page 116) strikes a note of seeming bemusement at the conventional wisdom, which has held that the evidence for this care is limited and of poor quality. “The conventional wisdom among non-experts has long been that there are limited data on the use of GAHT in pediatric patients with GD. However, results from our exhaustive literature searches have led us to the opposite conclusion,” the report states.

The report has two parts, with Part I being the main review of the evidence in published literature and Part II being a return to the previously gathered literature with a focus on studies reporting long-term (5+ year) outcomes. The second part found limited data, which is summarized with a note that the literature was not substantial enough to draw any conclusions.

One notable section deals with rates of regret, desistance, and detransition in the literature. A table from pages 109-114 includes 32 studies that reported rates of persistence, desistance, or regret in their findings. While it remains impossible to state a single “detransition rate” the collected studies provide a good way of thinking about the range of possibilities, from stopping treatment and restarting, to stopping/losing care due to insurance issues or an overly great travel distance to the clinic, to patients who stop because they now identify with their birth gender. 

Many mainstream media have misreported this data in ways that overstate the prevalence of detransition and misconstrue it as being synonymous with regret and re-identification with birth sex.

Here, the authors state in the conclusion section, “With regards to any misgivings that stakeholders may have about allowing pediatric patients to receive pharmacologic (and frequently surgical) treatments over concerns about future regret, we found (based on the N=32 studies) that there is virtually no regret associated with receiving the treatments, even in the very small percentages of patients who ultimately discontinued them. Reasons for discontinuing GAHT are varied, but changed minds about gender identities is only a very minor proportion overall.”

A Truly Independent Review?

Unlike the highly publicized Cass Review, which was released in the UK in 2024, the Utah review is low on opinion and high on reviewing the evidence. In the places where it does state some of the authors’ conclusions, such as on pages 116-118, it hews closely to what was found in the literature. This stands in contrast with the Cass Review, which opined on a wide variety of topics, from the cause of trans identity to the use of pornography, often departing widely from the evidence base to do so. A recent HHS Review, ordered by the Trump administration, did much the same, but with even less rigor. 

This more data-driven approach may be due to the nature of the DRRC and, by extension, the report’s authors. The opposite of high-profile, the Center is described on its website as a longstanding partner of the Utah State Department of Health with a focus on reducing costs associated with prescription drugs for Medicaid patients. The Center has no apparent connection to transgender health care, but it does have more than 20 years of experience evaluating prescription drugs and their evidence base.

Mainstream Media Silence

In contrast to the Cass Report and Trump’s HHS document, no national mainstream media organizations have run stories on the Utah evidence review as of this reporting. Major politicians who sponsored Utah’s ban on youth gender medicine (and commissioned this report) seem inclined to ignore it, according to reporting by the Salt Lake Tribune. As a political document, this review may make few waves due to its inconvenient conclusions, which would seem to go against the grain of popular opinion and conventional wisdom, not to mention mainstream media sentiment. 

For those whose primary interest lies in the actual evidence on gender-affirming care and best practices for treating young people with gender dysphoria, however, the comprehensive nature of this review may well make it an essential reference for quickly finding, comparing, and evaluating the many studies on youth gender medicine that were published between 2010 and 2023. 

On Tuesday May 20 the State Library of Queensland was set to announce the 2025 winners of the black&write! fellowship, which each year grants two Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander writers $15,000 and a publishing opportunity with University of Queensland Press.

But hours before the ceremony was due to commence, the announcement was abruptly postponed.

One of the selected winners was K.A. Ren Wyld, a Martu author based in south of Adelaide, for her unpublished novel Whichway Shimmering Dust. Wyld had flown to Brisbane ahead of the Tuesday evening ceremony, but upon arriving at the library that morning, was taken upstairs for an impromptu meeting with State Librarian and CEO Vicki McDonald.

“I was pulled in for this very brief, polite conversation,” Wyld tells InReview.

“I wasn’t given much information; just basically that my fellowship was being rescinded, the award ceremony was going to be cancelled, and they’ll begin the process of informing the black&write! team, judges, guests and other shortlisted writers.”

In the meeting, McDonald read from a tweet Wyld had posted in October 2024, following Israel’s killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

Wyld tells InReview she was not fully aware who Sinwar was when she posted the tweet, which described Sinwar as a ‘martyr’  who was “resisting colonisation”. Wyld says she posted the comment in an “emotional moment”, seeking to show solidarity with Palestinians in her feed after seeing graphic, widely shared footage of his final moments released by the Israeli government.

“I saw a video of a man who looked similar to my age, who was under attack, and was fighting back, one-armed, in a chair. All I saw this outpouring of emotion around the world of people who obviously loved and respected him.”

Wyld thought she deleted the post shortly afterwards.

By Tuesday afternoon, Queensland’s arts minister John-Paul Langbroek was citing the post in parliament while announcing the government had “taken the decision that this award should not be presented at the State Library”.

Langbroek told parliament that, “These comments are not only deeply offensive, but also risk dividing our multicultural community at a time when unity and respect are more important than ever.

“Whilst I support the principles of free expression and creative diversity, any perception that taxpayer funded awards being granted to individuals who justify terrorism undermines public trust both in our institutions and in the cultural sector more broadly,” he said.

Langbroek’s office told InReview it raised concerns with the State Library on Friday, May 16.

On Tuesday, McDonald published a statement saying: “media coverage and commentary today in relation to the personal views of the recommended recipient has overshadowed the intent of the awards”.

McDonald said the library would “undertake an independent review of the suite of awards and fellowships we administer”.

“It will have specific focus on how we balance our strong commitment to freedom of expression and our role as a State Government funded cultural institution.”

Wyld, who formerly published under the name Karen Wyld, has previously won a South Australian Literary Fellowship from the State Library of South Australia and Writer’s SA, a 2022 fellowship as part of the South Australian Literary Awards, and the 2020 Dorthy Hewitt Award for an unpublished manuscript for her novel Where the Fruit Falls.

She has also been a contributor to InReview, and serves as a mentor in the InReview First Nations Mentorship program.

Wyld has also revealed that a reporter from The Australian had seemingly been tipped off to the ministerial intervention – an email from the newspaper requesting comment arrived in her inbox shortly before the meeting with McDonald. The reporter disclosed that Queensland Arts Minister had “written to the State Library asking organisers to reconsider your appropriateness for the award”.

“They knew before I did, and they even knew before the black&write! team did,” Wyld says.

The broadsheet had criticised Wyld’s pro-Palestinian views and social media posts before. In two February articles published in the wake of Khaled Sabsabi’s high-profile removal as Australia’s Venice Biennale representative, Wyld was named in a list of past Creative Australia funding recipients who have condemned Israel’s campaign in Palestine. The black&write! program receives funding from Creative Australia and the Copyright Agency.

In those reports, columnists from The Australian accused Wyld of being a “lunatic” and “terrorist sympathiser” while highlighting the October tweet.

Wyld rejects The Australian and minister’s characterisation of her posts.

“It’s pearl-clutching hyperbole, and for what purpose? To silence me, a nobody. I don’t have a big spread of influence, I don’t have power and privilege.”

Wyld was one of two fellowship recipients out of a shortlist of six, selected by a First Nations judging panel based on the literary merit of their submitted manuscripts. Past recipients of the career-making fellowship include Claire G Coleman, Ali Cobby-Eckermann, Alison Whittaker and Nardi Simpson.

Coleman called on the State Library to reinstate the judging panel’s choice, and said she was “disgusted by this decision and the chilling effect it will have on Indigenous writers across the country”.

The Australian Society of Authors said it was “disturbed” by the government’s decision, writing in a statement that: “It sets a dangerous precedent for creators – irrespective of their political views – that opportunities awarded on the basis of literary merit can be retracted if the creator is subject to complaints about their political ideas and expressions.”

It is the latest high-profile example of Australian cultural institutions stripping opportunities from artists who have shared pro-Palestinian views, from the State Library of Victoria’s cancellation of a series of writers workshops in March 2024, to Creative Australia’s dumping of Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino in February.

Wyld says her winning manuscript, Whichway Shimmering Dust, had been written to highlight the legacies and ongoing injustice of the Stolen Generations.

“That book was to honour the Stolen Generations and to bring back up the discussions on justice before everyone passes away,” she says.

“Next week is the 28th anniversary of the Bringing Them Home report, and only 6 per cent of the recommendations have been actioned.

“This is what they’ve silenced. They’ve not silenced just me, a writer. They’ve silenced the calls for justice, both here and currently in Palestine. We cannot forget that we’re watching a livestreamed genocide; what are we supposed to do with those images that we see, with the horror that we wake up and witness day after day after day?”

Responding to questions from InReview, the minister’s office pointed to Tuesday’s parliamentary speech and suggested contacting the State Library regarding “their decision to withdraw the award”.

The State Library of Queensland was contacted for comment. However, its official statement, updated on Thursday, states the “decision was made by the Queensland Government”.

“State Library of Queensland complied with that decision and postponed the black&write! ceremony and rescinded the fellowship to K.A. Ren Wyld,” it read.

Builder Craig Eury and winemaker John Eason were fossil hunting near the Victorian town of Mansfield when they spotted some footprints on a slab of rock.

"It was literally the footprints that caught my eye — the light hit the rock in a way that cast a shadow on the footprints," Mr Eury said.

According to a study published today in the journal Nature, the footprints they discovered back in 2021 were made by an early relative of reptiles, birds, and mammals — known as an amniote.

John Long, a palaeontologist at Flinders University who led the study, said the fossil could help scientists understand when our animal ancestors first left the water to become land dwellers.

"It's the [evolutionary] line that leads to us," Professor Long said.

Claws 'dead giveaway' for amniote

Mr Eury and Mr Eason — both study co-authors — discovered the footprints on the bank of Broken River in Taungurung country in the foothills of the Victorian Alps.

Dated to be approximately 356 million years old, the trackway is 40 million years older than previous fossils.

This means reptile-like creatures were walking on land in the earliest Carboniferous Period, a time when vast swamp forests dominated Earth and most animals, like amphibians, lived at least partially in water.

Claw imprints in the trackway were the "dead giveaway" that the footprints did not belong to an amphibian, according to Professor Long.

"It's a characteristic of terrestriality, because it often implies you're climbing trees, or you need the claws of for digging … that amphibians just don't normally do."

Anne Warren, an emeritus professor of palaeontology at La Trobe University who was not involved with the research, agrees.

"This new track is undoubtedly from an amniote because there are five digits on the front foot, and these are clawed. In amphibians, there are four anterior digits without claws," she said.

"The find is of immense importance to our understanding of when and where the main vertebrate [group] evolved."

Not only is the fossil the earliest-known amniote, but Professor Long believes it may be evidence of the earliest-known reptile.

"It's almost certain that what we have are the earliest reptile trackways," he said.

Did the animal walk or swim?

The textbook-sized sandstone block shows two sets of tracks travelling in the same direction, one with well-defined paw prints and one with less-defined, claw-like marks.

The team suggests the well-defined footprints were made first and the claw marks came later when the ground had begun to harden.

But Anthony Romilio, a University of Queensland palaeontologist who specialises in trackways not involved in the study, was not so certain.

He suggests the animal may have been swimming, not walking.

"I see [tracks like these claw-like marks] across a variety of different animals, when the animal is supported by water," Dr Romilio said.

However, Professor Long disagrees.

"All of these thoughts were raised by reviewers and weighed up," he said.

"In our opinion … the sharp claws digging in the second trackway are too precise to suggest they were digging or clawing the sediment underwater."

More fossils from the same area and time frame might shed more light on the reptile-like creature, and whether it was walking or swimming through the mud.

Mansfield region could yield more fossils

According to Professor Long, more finds are likely in the area known as the Snowy Plain Formation.

"Certainly, the area is so vast that there is potential to find more of these trackways or even the bones of these creatures," he said.

This discovery is particularly special for Professor Long, who has a long-time connection to the location where the fossils were found.

"I'm so excited by this discovery because it comes from an area that I did my PhD and my honours thesis on 45 years ago," he said.

"You've got this big, vast area of red carboniferous rocks in the basin there in Mansfield and you can still find world-class fossils there."

Years ago, Professor Long started giving talks at the local Mansfield library about the area's fossils and had even gone on field trips out to the sites.

"You plant the seed and encourage people to go out looking, and eventually they find something truly wonderful," Professor Long said.

Mr Eason had been among those that had attended back in 2008 and retained his interest in fossil hunting, bringing Mr Eury into the fold.

Mr Eury said he found the experience "surreal".

He travelled to Sweden with the trackway so researchers from Uppsala University could study them.