James Doogue

This Real Estate agent and country property owner, Tony Maddox, has been taken to court for building a bridge over a creek on his own property.

This is an alleged breach of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. This act requires any landowner of plots greater than 1100 sq metres to consider Aboriginal Heritage before making any changes to their land. The land owner can make a judgement that the proposed changes have no effect on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, and proceed without an official permit, but then risks being taken to court by local Aboriginal groups who have an endless supply of funding for such legal actions.

The Aboriginal groups also have no risk of costs being awarded against them if their action is rejected by the court.

If the court finds the land owner did breach the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, then in addition to returning the land to the previous condition, the land owner will be fined, bear all court costs, and potentially do jail time.

Alternatively, before taking action to manage their own property in the way they see fit, the landowner can pay for the local Aboriginal group to check out the proposed work and decide whether or not to grant the land owner a permit. Which could cost thousands of dollars months or years of delay, and still might be rejected.

In this case, the prosecution claimed the works, which included the removal of a large amount of silt from the Boyagerring Brook running through his property, disrupted the Waugul (often spelt Wagyl) — a rainbow serpent central to Noongar mythology.

The prosecution's 'statement of facts', states that any alteration to the Waugul's home could scare it from the water, causing it to dry up and causing harm to the surrounding environment and people.

It remains to be seen how the prosecution will prove the Waugul has been disrupted.

If I were the land owner, I think I might say I had a vision where the Waugul appeared to me. It said that gunning my 4WD and other farm vehicles across the creek was somewhat disturbing. The Waugul said it would be much less disturbing if I simply built a bridge across the cteek.

Since the bridge was built the Waugul appeared in another vision telling me how much more peaceful it is since the bridge was built.

I would also point to the countless bridges which have been built over waterways across Western Australia, yet the Waugul has never appeared to show it's displeasure.

Seriously, I get that we should try to preserve places of significant Aboriginal Cultural heritage and artefacts. But to take seriously a claim that a mythical creature has been disturbed, is beyond the pale.

Whose version of Aboriginal mythology are we supposed to believe or respect anyway? Because there seems to be quite a few different versions. The Aboriginal people who brought this action would have us believe the Waugul resides in that creek.

'any alteration to the Waugul's home could scare it from the water, causing it to dry up and causing harm to the surrounding environment'

But most traditional Aboriginal mythology refers to watercourses as the path carved out by the passage of a Waugul.

Wikipedia informs us that 'The Wagyl (also written Waugal and Waagal and variants) is the Noongar (A Western Australian Aboriginal grouping) manifestation of the Rainbow Serpent in Australian Aboriginal mythology, from the culture based around the south-west of Western Australia.

The Noongar describe the Wagyl as a snakelike Dreaming creature responsible for the creation of the Swan and Canning rivers and other waterways and landforms around present day Perth and the south-west of Western Australia.

Wikipedia continues: The Darling Scarp is said to represent the body of the Wagyl, which meandered over the land creating the curves and contours of the hills and gullies.

The being is strongly associated with rivers, lakes and is supposed still to reside deep beneath springs.

As the Wagyl slithered over the land, his track shaped the sand dunes, his body scoured out the course of the rivers; where he occasionally stopped for a rest, he created bays and lakes.

Piles of rocks are said to be his droppings, and such sites are considered sacred. As he moved, his scales scraped off and become the forests and woodlands of the region.

So there's nothing in the Wikipedia description which contains relevant citations, which suggests the Waugul resided in that land owners creek, and assuming his bridge did not involve the removal of a large pile of rocks, no sacred snake poop was disturbed.

I referred to the Australian Year 7 curriculum material, 'YEAR 7 WATER IN THE WORLD - WATER IN ABORIGINAL CULTURE'
https://lib.corpus.wa.edu.au/c.php?g=746368&p=6595595

In this material the Rainbow Serpent is female.

Students are taught the Rainbow Serpent exited the Earth from a long slumber at a time when nothing moved, grew or lived. She traveled far and wide leaving deep tracks wherever she went. Then she went back to her place of slumber.

She called to the frogs to come out, their bellies full of water they had stored during their long slumber. [So there were other creatures? What did they eat? Where did that water come from? Mysteries not revealed in the text.]

The Rainbow Serpent tickled the frogs and out gushed the water filling in the marks the Rainbow Serpent had made. That's how the lakes and rivers were first formed.

Given that we know that isn't how the lakes and rivers were formed, I'm assuming Year 7 students are taught this story as an example of ancient Aboriginal myths. Not as something that is either factual, or that is taken seriously by any Aboriginal person who has some basic primary level education.

So why should a court take seriously a claim that building the bridge may have disturbed the Waugul who by most accounts doesn't reside there? And why should taxpayer funds be used to finance this farce?

If this is what's happening in Western Australia with the newly minted Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, what joys do we have to look forward to if the Aboriginal 'Voice To Parliament' gets up?

Tim adds:

If the Aborigines can veto anything done to improve private property it means there IS no private property. Rather an "owner" is but a caretaker for the society at large. That is Socialism, plain and simple.

Patrick Doogue adds:

So religious studies are taught in state schools?

James Doogue responds:

Mythical studies. There are three cross-curriculu

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:47 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1136 words, total size 8 kb.