A 72-year-old Western Australian farmer battling blood cancer has been fined $2,000 for constructing a bridge on his own property, after being found guilty of breaching the state’s Aboriginal Heritage Act.
Tony Maddox, a real estate agent and long-time Toodyay resident, built a concrete crossing over Boyagerring Brook, a tributary of the Avon River, in 2020 to improve access to his land. However, in 2023, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage charged him with altering a “culturally sensitive site” without approval.
The prosecution argued that Maddox’s actions disrupted the Waugul, a mythological rainbow serpent central to Noongar beliefs, which is said to inhabit waterways in the region. In his defence, Maddox claimed he had no prior knowledge of the Act or the cultural significance of the site.
After a lengthy legal battle spanning over a year, the Perth Magistrate’s Court ruled that while the bridge construction did not cause significant damage, it did alter the site.
Magistrate Andrew Matthews dismissed Maddox’s defence that he was unaware of the need for ministerial approval and imposed a fine of $2,000, along with an order to pay $5,000 in legal costs. The court also issued him a spent conviction, meaning the offence will not appear on his record.
Outside the court, Maddox expressed frustration over the ruling, labelling it “unbelievable.” The legal proceedings, he said, had taken a significant toll on his health and finances. Diagnosed with blood cancer, he has been undergoing chemotherapy every three weeks.
“This just destroys your heart, your head, your soul,” Maddox said. “I’ve been fighting this for a year. Even if I’m found guilty, the Act doesn’t say they can make me remove the crossing. What was the point?”
During the trial, Noongar elder Rod Garlett testified about the cultural importance of the waterway, likening its tributaries to the blood vessels of the human body. He explained that disrupting these sites could have profound spiritual consequences.
Prosecutor Lorraine Allen stated that the verdict should serve as a deterrent, warning others against altering or damaging Aboriginal heritage sites.
Maddox, however, remains deeply critical of the process, particularly the repeated court delays and what he perceives as an overzealous application of the law.
“The ramifications of this will flow right through the farming community,” he warned. “If we have to ask permission every time we need to cross a creek, how are we supposed to farm?”
The case has reignited debate over the application of Western Australia’s Aboriginal Heritage Act, with some arguing for more clarity and engagement with landowners to prevent similar disputes in the future.
Vote For the WA National party on the 8th of March election and they can fight to fix the damage done by the Labour Party. You didn’t mention that Mr Maddox had engaged with the local tribal elders of toodyay prior to construction as was report by Sky news 5 months ago.
RUFKM !!
Seriously, what’s this country coming to. Concern over a mythical things blood vessels compared to lack of concern over a humans well being. Maybe the creature will turn.
Best wishes to the farmer. I don’t know how they keep knocking themselves out to put up with this B S.
I hope you are not disparaging indigenous folks religious beliefs because, as you may not be aware, to disparage, insult, mock or generally belittle a persons or groups faith beliefs is akin to ‘hate speech’. Many Christians or Muslims or Hindus would be deeply upset and offended by the ridiculing of their faith beliefs. Under legislation in Australia that is dangerously close to causing ‘offence’ according to the Act. All religious ideas are deserving of respect. You may not agree with their beliefs but there is no need to ridicule them – according to current legislation. Would you like your faith based beliefs to be ridiculed? Maybe, maybe not.
It is unfortunate that this farmer has been fined. However this is not why I write.
My concern is the AGEIST comment in the headline. ELDERLY MAN.This man is 71yo. He is NOT elderly. He is a farmer, a real estate agent and a man battling cancer and a long term resident of s country town in WA.
As a organisation publishing articles about matters regarding aged care, I would think there would be more understanding of the terminology used in your publications related to the population as they age.
I am 71, I am active, involved in my community and yes, ageing but not Elderly. Please educate reporters, editors and readers.
Well… that just goes to show, doesn’t it!
You disrupt the cultural significance of land, altering the spiritual effect of the “lifeblood” flowing through the waterways, and you end up with blood cancer… Sounds like YOU didn’t listen Mr. Maddox…
There are deep connections between country and those who make it their home.
Always was, always will be…
I’m not sure of the point of this article. First, the law applies to each and all. It’s not relevant to mention the age of the offender or his medical history. I’m not sure if you can break some laws if you have a serious illness or are elderly, but I’m guessing you can’t – hence, why is his age and medical condition mentioned. Second, I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think ignorance of the law excuses your breaking of it. If you own land then you need to be aware of all relevant factors impacting on your ownership of said land. Third, you may not agree with the law, and if you don’t well that’s fine, so you can work toward getting it changed. I personally think it’s a good idea to protect significant land this way, but that’s just my opinion. Others may have a different view. Not sure why this article appears on this website, but it was interesting all the same.
I drive past the site all the time the big concrete farm bridge and water feature lawn etc did look out of place TBO. If it was timber and higher and didn’t stop the flow it may not of caused a problem