So now the older 1972 Aboriginal Heritage Act remains in place with a few positive amendments under Section 18.

The State Government will also fund heritage surveys in high priority areas – a good outcome.

Let’s now support Aboriginal people having a Voice on ‘things that matter to them’.

The referendum question is simply seeking to ‘enshrine a Voice’ through recognition of Aboriginal people in our Constitution.

That’s it.

It won’t take anything from non-Aboriginal people.

It can’t make laws, it can’t impose taxes, it can’t demand reparations and it can’t claim anybody else’s privately owned land.

It’s a Voice that can make representations to the Federal Parliament on matters impacting on Aboriginal people and communities.

By listening to those most impacted, change will begin.

If you are concerned about detail, know that Australia is not voting on a fixed structure of an advisory body.

The Government of the day, whether it be Labor, Liberal or some other parliamentary majority, will determine the ‘Body’ and how it will work.

The detail of how it works can be changed by Government.

One Government could make a weak structured advisory Body, and another could make it stronger.

But having an advisory ‘Body’ of some sort will be enshrined in our Constitution and, as such – unlike with lobby groups – it will be transparent.

If you are concerned about division, Australia is already divided by race – Aboriginal people remain the other race.

The No campaign has added to the division.

The Voice will be an inclusive process whereby Aboriginal people will be acknowledged in our Constitution for the first time.

A Voice to Parliament will be a big step towards true reconciliation, not division.

If you are concerned about wasted funding, then vote Yes to help change how money is spent, and for better policies and decisions.

It will be Aboriginal voices at the consultation table instead of non-Aboriginal people and organisations making policies without hearing them.

Voting No is just voting for more of the same failed outcomes of the past 50 years, and surely nobody wants that.

Yes means a positive change for our nation’s future, No means more of the same things that don’t work.

I am voting Yes but whatever your vote, please make it an informed one.

This pomposity should certainly either distinguish or embarrass them.

Oh, and as an aside, our local government is now referred to by our administration as an industry.

The Local Government Act (LGA) was passed in 1960 and the Road Board district became the Shire of Toodyay.

At that time the administration was arranged with three departments, finance, planning and works, each with a manager reporting to the Shire Clerk.

Later on, the Shire Clerk became the Chief Executive Officer and a few years ago the managers were designated under section 5.37 of the LGA as ‘senior’ employees.

This was done by resolution of Council because by doing so it gave Council some say in their hiring and firing.

However, although the senior employees have now been bestowed with the titles of executive managers, nowhere in the LGA are they mentioned.

Furthermore, not only do we now have informal executive managers, they are in charge of informal directorates, about which the Act is also silent.

One could be forgiven for assuming that their new importance would command a higher salary, but the question is can we now expect a higher level of efficiency and service from them and the staff under their control?

As an example, we will soon have a new Works Manager who will head the ‘Infrastructure, Assets and Services Directorate’ (Shire Depot).

The internal flow chart shows a very ‘top-heavy’ staff of an executive manager, a second-tier manager, five officers, a couple of coordinators and a dozen workers.

Will we now see mechanics working on shire vehicles in their fully equipped workshop, as opposed to the present practice of sending simple mechanical work out to sub-contractors?

Being on a roll, I would bet the next move will be to rename the executive managers as directors with the CEO as managing director.

Despite all this self-grandiosity, presumably the staff do more or less the same jobs that have been done since the days of the last Shire Clerk about 30 years ago.

He managed to adequately service our population of roughly of 4,600 with far less staff than we now employ, and without a 5 per cent to 9 per cent rate increase each year.

For us people that work late and need to go to IGA late, the lack of lighting is dangerous as when reversing you cannot see anybody walking in the dark.

I’m in a big four-wheel-drive and I nearly ran over someone even though I really took my time to make sure that the road was totally clear.

You can’t see a damn thing, and it’s only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.

It’s an absolute disgrace that nothing has been done as I do know they have been out for some time.

It would be particularly dangerous, especially for elderly people that need to go to IGA or the takeaway next to IGA.

Even in the reversing camera you can’t see a thing.

And that direction has been enthusiastically led by our political and civic leaders themselves.

It would seem that any questioning of the details and stance of these political pieces is met by as disrespectful and vicious put-down as possible.

Given the lead shown by the politicians is it any surprise that comment in social media is in a similar vein?

Any questioning of the scope, intent or procedures seems to be met with an unfounded accusation of racism, and that from some people that really ought to know better.

Having let this particular genie out of the bottle it will leave Australia the poorer –whatever happens to those two political pieces.

I have contacted the magazine about the error and asked that it be publicly corrected.

Misinformation such as this is concerning for farmers, miners and Aboriginal people alike, and in fact for all Australians.

The letter also went on to say it was “likely that everyday farming activities will be illegal” without the approval of a Local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Service.

This also is incorrect.

In a recent opinion piece by WA Aboriginal Affairs Minister Tony Buti in The West Australian newspaper ‘The hard facts on the new Aboriginal cultural heritage laws’, Dr Buti said: “Where there won’t be any impact to Aboriginal cultural heritage, no approval is required.

“A farmer will not require approval to plant a crop, run livestock, replace a fence or other infrastructure …”.

The fact is that most local farming activities will be exempt under the new Aboriginal heritage protection law.

Land in our local Toodyay area used for crops, pasture and stock is likely to have destroyed any remnant Aboriginal cultural heritage through clearing, damming, grazing and cropping over many decades prior to the new the law taking effect.

What the Act does do is give Aboriginal people – for the first time ever – an opportunity to ‘protect’ what little remains of their centuries-old cultural heritage.

The State Government is the biggest WA landholder affected by the new law.

For all new land development and mining activities, there now is a three-tiered system for obtaining heritage approval.

This follows extensive public consultation over the past five years, including with WA agricultural and mining industry representatives.

Due to confusion and misinformation, I believe that a six-month extension prior to this month’s implementation would have helped allay unwarranted fears and concerns.

We are all trying our best to preserve all forms of remaining heritage – both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal – in our historic region.