It is a creation story passed down through millennia and all human cultures have them.

Across Australia, all Aboriginal language groups (about 320 of them) had creation stories prior to British occupation.

Most were similar and involved water and serpents.

Serpents are pivotal in Christianity, Islam and dozens of lesser-known creation stories.

The story of Adam and Eve tempted by a serpent to eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden is a classic example that exists in every Christian bible.

Please be mindful that words such as ‘myth’ are English words derived from ancient Greek and have no equivalent in any Aboriginal language.

Mr Maddox’s case highlights the continual clash of language and culture.

In defining the Waugal as a mythical serpent, the State prosecutor, has erred – it is a creation story.

Explaining Mary and Jesus to Muslims can elicit the same incredulity – even hate, or worse.

The fact that the Northam magistrate and defence lawyer failed to challenge the prosecution’s use of the term ‘myth’ is testament to widespread ignorance of Aboriginal cultural heritage.

By default, Mr Maddox cannot be held to account.

This Farmer’s Weekly article seems very well researched by Mel Williams and I read it this way: if you have a farm, you won’t be able to scarify for weeds with mechanical equipment, build stockyards, create watering points, install new fencing, rip or plough your land without a permit from a LACHS office.

If you want to establish a new farm, clear land, do contour cultivation, new forestry plantation, scarifying, ripping, new yard construction, watering points or infrastructure you will require “an approved or authorised plan” from a LACHS office.

We can only assume that any transgressors will be jailed and fined tens of thousands.

So, if you are a farmer, grazier or pastoralist, you’d better get a hard-working secretary on staff to process the application and pursuit of the myriad of permits and plan approvals that the LACHS offices will require.

It is likely that many of your everyday farming activities will be delayed for months pending approval.

And if you are a small land holder and you want to plant a lemon tree or sink a pine post to swing that important gate – don’t get too excited – you’ll need prior approval from your closest friendly LACHS office first.

The cost to taxpayers?

Estimates in the latest State Budget put establishment costs over the next four years at a mere $77 million.

And a series of LACHS offices, when established across the state, a mere $300,000 each annually.

If this bill does get up, one wonders if its full outline and penalties will be properly promulgated to all of the appropriate stakeholders.

The Handbasket just pulled in. All aboard, we’re going to hell.

All have mythology and protocols.

These are shown in sacred stories handed down through generations, and all have places where respect needs to be shown – whether it be in a church or mosque, sacred waterway or religious relic.

In a second letter titled Embarrassed to be Australian the writer asked, “how can it be that 3.2 per cent of the population (2021 census) can drive legislation about what amounts simply to a cultural myth … and how can this myth impact on every waterway …?”

Both letters refer to a State law passed by the WA Parliament decades ago to recognise 45,000 years of human culture and protocol.

There is nothing new about this.

WA’s Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA) is not designed to create barriers for land-owners.

The legislation recognises traditional cultural beliefs and practices to ensure that the country and its natural waterways are managed and protected for all West Australians and for future generations.

Healthy waterways with unrestricted flow is something we aspire to preserve, no matter whether you are Noongar, an environmentalist or a local farmer.

The Noongar Kaartdijin Aboriginal Corporation stated in last month’s Herald that members had spoken with local real estate agent Tony Maddox who is being prosecuted by the WA Government for building a vehicle crossing over Boyaggering Brook on his property without seeking State permission.

“It is clear to us in those conversations that the AHA is a little-known law, and that land holders in the region may not have had any prior knowledge of the AHA until this case,” the article said.

The corporation said many Toodyay properties were likely to have some form of artificial structure across waterways, and these would have been built with no intention of knowingly breaching State Aboriginal heritage law.

So, let’s just reflect for a moment.

The complaint about the alleged Toodyay breach was not made by Aboriginal people – it was made by a neighbour.

But it’s Aboriginal people (and their belief system) that have felt the brunt of offensive chatter here and on social media.

It seems to me that in all of this it’s Aboriginal people who are reaching out with respect and kindness.

They are the ones who are hoping to see the case positively resolved and that it be used to promote cultural awareness rather than be seen as prosecution.

I was going to enquire at the information office, but the young man said that he lived in Wundowie, so he could drop me off on his way home.

At the time he was having a coffee with friends at the corner coffee shop at the Coles shopping centre in Mundaring.

It is comforting to know that there are still some kind and unselfish people around.

The Toodyay Police called and fronted up on the Wednesday with my purse that had been left on the front step of their Station that morning.

No details of who found it was left at the Station so we would like The Herald to publish this heartfelt thank you from us to the kind person who found it and handed it in intact.

How can this myth impact on every waterway, river, stream, creek, swamp and soak in WA, and be the subject of the obscene penalties outlined on the March front page?

This calibre of legislation makes me embarrassed to be an Australian.

Many of Toodyay’s land owners are waiting eagerly and anxiously to see if the judiciary has the courage and common sense to make the appropriate amendments.

“It carries away the floodwaters and it provides a living, ever-changing element to the landscape of our towns and farms along its banks,” Mr Morgan said.

“This is the way the Avon River was in my youth.

“In the 1950s I also learnt something else about the Avon River – it was a river in trouble.

“The waters became polluted with salt and chemicals, many plants and animals began to disappear, and the pools began to fill with sand and silt.

“The river began to change from a living ecosystem into a drain.”

It is clear from Mr Morgan’s comments that the health of the Avon River has quite obviously been on a slow downward spiral since colonial occupation 190 years ago.

It’s gone from a healthy fresh water source stocked with edible fish to being salty, degraded, and devoid of fish bigger than minnows.

Why is that?

And why is it today’s landholders believe they know better how to manage the river and the land than the Aboriginal people who managed, respected, cared for, and lived off the land for thousands of years before?

How hard would it be for all Australians to turn to each other and say “We’ve made many mistakes, we didn’t know, we didn’t ask, but now we’re ready to listen.”