Over the years we have made our best friends from our neighbours: Karen the international artist, Simon the boilermaker (who can make anything with wood, metal or steel), Shuba the accountant/fashion designer, and Pete the winemaker whose shiraz is elixir from heaven.

Every weekend we gather at each other’s houses to celebrate the joys of life, work and friendship.

Our grandchildren get to watch baby echidnas and emus frolicking in the bush, and red-tailed black Carnaby’s nesting in the trees.

Together we watch the beauty of Julimar unfold through spring, summer, autumn and winter.

Baby echidnas waddle and spotted quolls squeak.

All of our dreams have been shattered by Chalice Mining, which wants to destroy the forest and build an open pit mine right next to our bush property.

In the few years since Chalice Mining has been here (and it is only exploring now), its workers already make 24-hour noise and light pollution, and create endless traffic that destroys our gravel roads, the only entrance to our properties.

In summer, the dust from Chalice Mining’s cars and trucks covers our houses and fills our drinking water.

Our lives and our businesses have either been ruined or put on hold.

Who wants to come to a writers’ retreat, an artist’s studio or a winery when you have 24/7 noise, dust and rutted gravel roads?

It breaks my heart to see my friends’ lives and dreams ruined.

It breaks my heart to think of all the animals who cannot speak up for themselves.

Who will look after the baby echidnas that nest next door to our house?

Where will the red-tailed black cockatoos nest?

Where will the echidnas and quolls hide?

Where will the baby emus and wallabies lie down to sleep?

If Chalice Mining has its way, it will destroy the forest.

The miner wants to make a lot of money for its shareholders and does not care about the forest, animals, or local residents.

In 20 years’ time, when the forest is gone and another huge open scar covers the Earth, will our grandchildren curse us for not leaving them a living inheritance, for not speaking up for the forest?

Each has a spiritual ‘creator’, and all have practice and protocol.

Now, with the Voice Referendum upon us let’s remember that it is a heartfelt request from Aboriginal Australians (after more than a decade of discussions across Australia) asking to be heard about things that impact them.

The Voice may not be the answer to all Australia’s problems but it is a step in the right direction.

So, while the result may mean nothing to many, it means everything to some.

Don’t confuse the Federal Voice Referendum with recent publicity about the State Heritage Act and a local prosecution.

They are different.

And it’s important to remember that it was a neighbour – not Aboriginal people – who set this prosecution in motion.

But it’s Aboriginal people who are bearing the full brunt of a public backlash, including the mocking of their beliefs and culture on this page.

Aboriginal people here have never in the history of the WA Aboriginal Heritage Act chosen to raise it against any local landowners.

As for the Voice referendum, Aboriginal people are simply asking all of us to walk alongside them to help make a lasting and positive change for their future generations.

It would be a shame if those to whom the Voice didn’t matter crushed the dreams of those for whom it could mean the world.

If the Voice vote is rejected, I hope new Truth in Politics and Media laws proposed by Independent Federal MP Zali Stegall (NSW) succeed, with the Referendum providing a clear example of why such a law is so desperately needed.

As Chalice says in its recent corporate presentation, ‘The Gonneville Resource occupies around only two kilometres of the more than 30km long Julimar Complex – its development could be a province opening play’.

A ‘province’ in mining-speak is a geographic area containing particular mineral deposits.
Chalice’s statement implies that the plan is to first mine Gonneville, as a way to open up mining in the rest of the ‘province’, namely the Julimar State Forest.

Keep in mind that the Gonneville mine will be a hole in the ground approximately 1.7 cubic kilometres in size (1.9 x 1.5 x 0.6 km).

It will generate huge amounts of tailings and contaminated water, along with requiring 18 million litres of water per year for processing.

We do not know where this water will come from, nor do we know whether or how that hole in the ground will be filled, and somehow revegetated, at the end of the mine’s life – or who will pay for that.

Now, imagine if similar holes in the ground are dug out along the ‘30km long Julimar Complex’, as Chalice calls it.

It would cause horrific environmental destruction and must never be allowed to happen.
It is one thing to develop a mine on private land that is already partially cleared; it is quite another to do so on public land consisting of mature forest.

The Julimar forest has survived more or less intact after previous extractive industries such as selective logging for timber and tannin.

But there is no way it could survive a new assault of this magnitude.

Chalice offers soothing words about ‘offsets’, but as pointed out in the excellent article by Bethan Lloyd in last month’s Herald, offsets are largely a sham.

The fact is, we need all the forest we can get.

We are in the middle of global climate and biodiversity crises threatening the very survival of our modern civilisation.

Healthy forests are essential to halting both of these crises.

The more we destroy our forests, the more we will destroy ourselves.

We cannot extract ‘green metals’ at the expense of green forests.

The best way for Chalice to earn community trust would be for it to publicly declare a permanent end to its exploration of the Julimar Forest.

The Julimar is non-negotiable, and we must reinforce its protection by urging government to confirm the Julimar as a national park.

The reveal from a parliamentary leader that Indigenous leader Marcia Langton is calling all No voters “racist and stupid” is a clear indication of how divisive the Voice actually is.

(I don’t like the leader concerned but I read it the same way as him this time.)
It’s really a step too far.

Then I find our own Toodyay Herald is being, unheralded, used as a platform to promote the Yes vote – this is really the last straw.

Nobody with any compassion or sense of fair play would deny first nations people a say in what affects them or challenge the fact that their individual entitlement should be equal to any other Australian.

There should be no ‘gap’ – politicians already have all the power they need to ensure there isn’t.

However, this doesn’t require any knee-jerk amendment to the Australian Constitution – just listening and action by the various governments that have been in power for the past, say, 50 years.

As I see it, the Yes vote’s stance is that we should grant this government and all future governments an enormous increase in power by the appointment of people, not necessarily representing any particular First Nations group, but vulnerable, as they would be reliant on the government of the day for their continued access to the golden trough without explaining how that power would be used.

Just ‘trust us’.

I’m suspicious of anyone asking me to take things on trust, especially governments that have consistently failed to put the interests of the electorate before their own political ends.

I am disinclined to hand them more power until they learn not to abuse the power they already have.

It’s all far too much unicorns and rainbows for me.

Until I am given sufficient information to allow me to vote Yes, I’ll be voting No.
I urge anyone who is even slightly uneasy about the situation to vote No.

I urge anyone who, like me, has actually lived under Apartheid elsewhere and seen the divisive and dehumanising results of this disgusting, race-based system, to vote No.

I urge anyone who is uncomfortable about further division in Australia on racial lines, to vote No.

I urge anyone who is even vaguely uncomfortable at handing more unchecked power to government, present and future (ie: we get to vote them out only once every three years) to vote No.

And lastly (thank you Page 17, September edition), I urge anyone who is indifferent, incurious or has no strong opinion to vote No.

Because history is calling and voting No won’t take away anything from First Nations people, just, perhaps, force governments to listen and act (as they should have been doing for the last 50 years without changing the Constitution).

As a letter from Helen Shanks says in last month’s Herald, “Know what you are voting for” and “please make it an informed one”.