In the picturesque landscape of Toodyay, 85 km northwest of Perth, a man's attempt to restore access to his property led to a costly legal battle.

This man's experience should be a stark reminder of the importance of cultural heritage laws in the country.

Property owner Tony Maddox found himself in deep waters after reconstructing a bridge over a creek on his 14-acre estate.

Tony initially saw the bridge as a necessity so he could enter his home.

His home's original crossing was heavily damaged by floods, which prompted the construction of the bridge.

Tony Maddox with the bridge he constructed for his land. Image Credit: Facebook/Pauline Hanson

Maddox built a concrete bridge and removed silt from the creek.

Unbeknownst to Maddox, the act inadvertently breached the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

The act disturbed a site of significant cultural importance to the Noongar people—the Waugul, a 'mythical rainbow serpent'.

The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage took the matter seriously, as they charged Mr Maddox.

Under the said legislation, Aboriginal heritage sites are protected from excavation, destruction, concealment, or alteration without proper approval.

The potential penalties for Mr Maddox's action included up to nine months in jail and a $20,000 fine.

Fortunately, the Perth Magistrates Court handed down a more lenient sentence—a $2,000 fine, a spent conviction, and $5,000 in costs.

Magistrate Andrew Matthews emphasised that while the damage was not significant, the site had been altered.

Prosecutor Lorraine Allen also echoed the sentiment and hoped that Mr Maddox's case could serve as a deterrent against the destruction or alteration of Aboriginal heritage.

Despite the reduced sentence, it took an emotional and financial toll on Mr Maddox.

'I literally haven't worked all year; I've been fighting this for a year. This destroys your heart. Destroys your head, destroys your soul,' Mr Maddox shared in an interview.

'And what is the outcome? The outcome is going to be an awful lot of money piling up. For what?'

'There is nothing in the Act that tells them they have the power to ask me to remove the crossing,' he further lamented.

Learn more about Tony Maddox's experience in this video:

Source: Sky News Australia/Facebook​

Tony Maddox's story should be a cautionary tale for all Australians about awareness and respect towards cultural heritage laws.

It highlighted the need for due diligence and seeking appropriate approvals when undertaking any work that may impact heritage sites.

For our readers, particularly those who own property or are considering development, this incident underscored the necessity of familiarising heritage legislation.

It's not just about compliance; it's about respect for the rich cultural history that predates modern development.

Key Takeaways

• A Toodyay man has been fined for inadvertently breaching the Aboriginal Heritage Act by building a bridge on his property.
• The bridge's construction disturbed an Aboriginal sacred site associated with the Rainbow Serpent, a central figure in Noongar mythology.
• Although the bridge did not cause significant physical damage, the court ruled that the site had been altered.
• The property owner stated that the legal battle took a significant mental and financial toll on him.

Have you ever encountered similar issues on your property? How can we better balance property management with the protection of cultural heritage? Please share your thoughts about this matter in the comments section below.

 

[Knell]

I think you entirely miss the point. This is all about the fact that he did not build a simple bridge. It is quite a structure (with a beautifying fountain in a lake-type thing)…both he and the contractors would absolutely have known that council approval is required for such works. He just took it upon himself to do what he pleases, i.e. illegally build a structure potentially affecting the water flow as per its naturally occurring state. (Like the flooding that occurred in areas of Brisbane that had never flooded before - because development and roadworks had changed levels and the environment) - every change we make has consequences). Why not submit plans and get approval? Who knows, perhaps he is just the type of person who thinks he is above the laws. I doubt he would have had any problem getting a permit as long as the plans were appropriate. The Indigenous aspect was just politicking. Regarding the creek/waterway and the Aboriginal Heritage Act - Avon River and its tributaries, it is a conservation matter, as is most of the land titled to First Nations People, really to keep some check on the destruction of Australia’s natural environment - whether that be due to mining or other destructive behaviour - not about having any sovereignty over his land. I know some people don't care about our environment, but many do. No-one owns the waterways on their properties. When people say "most indigenous people don't know about this or that" - this is true, and is why they have educated leaders in positions to advocate. Most Aussies don't know much about a lot of things either and that is why we have professionals in their various fields for consultation. This is most certainly politically driven. No, I don't think it is a good idea to let people do what they will without consideration to the preservation of the environment.

I sold a house many years ago. It was in a small street full of post-war housing. Very quaint and while not heritage-listed houses, it certainly had a building code about keeping within the style of the area. I did not realise that the buyer was a developer at the time. He knocked down the house and constructed a 3-storey, ultra-modern and very ugly construct - without building approval. I feel great guilt to this day as the whole community was appalled. It was the subject of much objection and I do not know what was settled, but the house is still there. The damage is done and lasting. Why can’t people just follow the rules - there are usually very good reasons.

 

[Knell]

why do you not bugger off to somewhere like you told me to go to nz. are we not allowed our opinions? who says you are correct "dickhead"?

ah yes, you are a class act!

 

[Jennie]

Help me here please?
If the property is so important and precious... why the hell did they sell it in the first place?

Bloody good question.

 

[Knell]

Bloody good question.

Really??? It was not about the land - it was about the WATERWAY! Is that not clear enough?

 

[Knell]

Bloody good question.

who or "they" that sold it????