MUCH has been said and written about the State government's new Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (ACH) Act and its potential affect on landowners.
I have also attended public meetings on the issue since the regulations were tabled a month ago.
The intent seems reasonable enough - to protect sites of Aboriginal heritage.
What has been delivered, however, is something that potentially goes far beyond that simple intent.
The result is a regional community that is highly concerned about the potential impacts of the new act on their businesses and land.
I do not want to add to the anxiety that exists by exaggerating the risk, and we need to avoid hysteria at all costs, but it is a simple fact that there are plenty of genuine reasons to be concerned without needing to embellish the issue.
For example, under the new act, Aboriginal cultural heritage can include "intangible" elements, which according to the dictionary means something with no physical presence.
That makes it hard to exclude anywhere.
Tangible heritage is something you can see and touch, so it has to have a specific area and boundaries, whereas intangible heritage could rely simply on attachment or emotion.
The act defines "intangible heritage" this way - "intangible Aboriginal cultural heritage means the intangible elements of Aboriginal cultural heritage, including knowledge, or oral expression, of Aboriginal tradition".
Given this, there has been something missing from the Aboriginal cultural heritage debate - that is how the Aboriginal community intends to use the new powers the Cook Labor government has given them.
The act and regulations are so loose they could either be used or misused.
They could provide genuine protection for tangible Aboriginal heritage sites in a positive interaction with landowners, but they could alternatively be misused as a grab for power over land or cash.
The government has been all over the place trying to tell landowners the first option will apply, but there is no doubt their legislation is so poorly designed it is unlikely to prevent the second outcome if it is pursued.
The government's inability to explain exactly how the legislation will impact on landowners has been both obvious and embarrassing.
Which is where the intent and actions of the Aboriginal community, especially those setting up Local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Services (LACHS), becomes critical.
LACHS that want to work co-operatively with landowners to protect genuine, tangible heritage sites without making reasonable progress difficult or impossible for landowners should be welcomed and supported.
The entire community has a vested interest in the development and support of such a body, and hopefully all LACHS will head down this path.
Once they are formed, they quickly need to let the community know their intent.
Until the LACHS are formed, the body in the hot seat is the area's native title holder, and they need to be telling the wider community what their intent is as well.
Because, should LACHS want to use the ACH Act as a grab for power over private property or money as their primary goal it will do enormous damage to the process and alienate landowners across the State.
Sadly, the incompetence of the Cook government in the implementation of its act means there is no choice for Aboriginal communities and their leaders but to step up and reassure the rest of the community that these laws are not going to be misused.
They can no longer stay silent as the anger and concern in communities grows.
Theirs is the missing voice in the debate, and the longer it is silent the more concern will grow.
The Aboriginal community cannot rely on the government to get this right; that much is obvious.
It is time for some truth-telling on the implications of this act, and the government can't or won't do that.
They have let both the Aboriginal community and the whole community down.
