I WOULD like to comment on two points raised in last month’s Herald letters page.
In Waugal non-existent, the writer stated that “if the Wagyl is mythical it equates to nothing, since a myth is not real” … and “their mythical entity is non-existent cannot feel, see or be…”
I feel it needs to be pointed out that all cultures and religions have a spiritual or mythological ‘being’, including Islam, Christianity, and Indigenous peoples.
Read more
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.
Helen Shanks
Toodyay
