2019 –July updates

Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relate to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.

15 July

It is fascinating, but horrific what a web search will reveal. For instance, I have made note of Anne Bignell’s conduct on a page about her under “regulatory authorities” and “Anne Bignell”. A friend recently shown me a LinkedIn page where Anne is now running a company called “Anne Bignell & Associates”. In that LinkedIn page, she has made some very outrageous claims – some that are deceptively true, and some that blatantly false.

For instance, in regards to her claims that are deceptively true (viewed through the filter of her work in relation to her work with man X, man Y and CASACIR (certainly at their Neerim North quarry)):

  • Anne has certainly “[d]emonstrated [the] ability to negotiate successful outcomes, … coordinate technical and strategic reviews and translate them into meaningful and actionable recommendations”, including by ignoring facts and making decisions to the knowingly and absolute detriment of neighbours, especially my related parties and me;
  • She claimed that “[she has] years of experience across environmental and regulatory settings”, but, again, she has repeatedly ignored known facts and made decisions to the absolute detriment of neighbours, especially my related parties and me – and her level of knowing failure to act in good faith has been astounding;
  • she certainly does have a “[t]horough and confident knowledge of regulatory practices, legislative framework and policy” as well as a profound level of knowledge in how to get around and work it for the benefit of big business (at least, man X, man Y and CASACIR), to the absolute detriment of neighbours, especially my related parties and me;
  • Anne has had “[s]takeholder and client engagement at high levels [and] partnered with the skills to investigate in a timely, thorough and defensible manner” – Anne definitely did not work for those impacted, only those in government and the businesses involved to their benefit (perhaps it was in order to prepare for running her own company and gaining support from business);
  • Anne claims skills in “analysing performance concerning environmental, emergency management and operational risks”, but only as far as it allowed man X, man Y and CASACIR to get away with what they wanted to get away with, and certainly at cost to the environment and neighbours (especially my related parties and me);
  • Anne claims that she is “[p]articularly conversant with … writing any associated reports, guidelines, procedures strategy or submission documents” – while she may well be conversant with writing such documents, she in no way ensured compliance with them, or with legislation – unless man X, man Y and CASACIR were willing to comply, and such documents ignore the profound impacts of her decisions on others, particularly my related parties and me. 
  • Anne claimed serious role in the resolution of mine issues in the Latrobe Valley – she was however, just one of a number of people handling the issues, with the Project Control Group containing 11 people of whom Anne was just one, and the Technical Reference Groups containing 8 departments and/or groups[1].

In regards to her claims that are blatantly false (regarding her conduct in relation to man X, man Y and CASACIR):

  • Anne has exhibited, certainly in relation to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s quarries, a severe lack of her claimed “[c]lear and evident application of ethical, transparent and sound management practices”, as well as a significant uncaring attitude. My claim of Anne’s apparent lack of ethical conduct is exemplified by her seriously defaming me, by her lying before court and by her refusal to answer questions at VCAT, and by her level of ignoring of environmental issues – all astounding to me;
  • Anne claims “[a]n ability to assess critical technical information across a range of fields such as … environmental monitoring and management, geotechnical, structures engineering, surface and groundwater behavior, air quality and green house gas modeling” – she ignored dust billowing off the quarry site on frequent occasions (as noted by her but about which she did nothing), and she refused to require the mandatory demand for 12 months of air quality assessment before allowing the quarry (and in fact seeming to have covered up for them) and thus allowed man X, man Y and CASACIR to emit double the amount they were “allowed”; in spite of noting that the noise levels had been excessive at times, Anne refused to actually monitor the noise levels (or on the sole occasion when she did so, to do it in accordance with the law); she refused to have the water situation properly assessed (and blatantly ignored the impacts on us in particular, including by deliberately and repeatedly actively lying to me about the water situation – even to allowing man X, man Y and CASACIR to perform works that greatly impacted and polluted Kookaburra Creek and then allowed and assisted them in using the polluted levels as the “control” levels); she repeatedly lied to me about man X, man Y and CASACIR having illegally diverted Kookaburra Creek by repeatedly telling me (over a 10 month period) they had not done so (and only agreed that they had done so when afraid of legal action against her personally); she repeatedly refused to meet me on site and discuss the issues and ignored the ongoing and future impacts on us and the environment;
  • Anne claims she conducted “[w]ell managed and defensible compliance auditing for both private and government organisations” – the reality is that there was very little observable enforcement in spite of her own audits clearly acknowledging man X, man Y and CASACIR’ gross and continued failures to comply with the law and with her own instructions – hardly defensible!
  • Anne claims that she was “[r]esponsible for managing a team of inspectors delivering … compliance and approvals, including rehabilitation plans and liabilities” – but the extreme lack of compliance by man X, man Y and CASACIR under Anne’s supervision was astounding, and she ensured that her team of inspectors went along with her by also ignoring reality and covering up for man X, man Y and CASACIR under her guidance and authority;
  • Anne claims that she as responsible for “assisting with guideline and policy development, engagement with a diverse range of statutory bodies, industry and community and an intimate awareness of emergency management principles and response are also requirements for this position” – sounds great, doesn’t it? The fact is that Anne certainly appeared to ensure that she impacted council, EPA, WGCMA and other’s view of matters, and assisted them to especially ignore me and my complaints – even to the point of deliberately defaming me to EPA (see the page on Anne to see the details). As far as dealing with the community, (where it was in her power to do so) she seemed to go out of her way to ensure the multitude of lies that were handed out at community meetings were seen as truth by not correcting claims she knew were false (even when questioned about it); 
  • Anne claimed that “[a]s a government regulator risk assessment, and management of that risk, is crucial. Major approvals and incidents that have been directly managed whilst in this position on the basis of achieving asset protection and mitigating risk to community and employees” – in relation to the activities by man X, man Y and CASACIR, especially (but not solely) at their Neerim North quarry, Anne certainly appeared to ignore man X, man Y and CASACIR’s dangerous activities, ignored their serious and prolific ignoring of legislation, their work plan demands, their work authority conditions, and ignoring Anne’s own instructions contained in the audits. In fact, it could and I contend should, be claimed that Anne ensured that there was a risk to the community at large, and to my related parties and myself in particular;
  • Anne claims that she “[d]emonstrated [the] capacity to act in difficult, demanding or emergency situations, and able to determine and enforce appropriate responses and standards of operation”. I say that, in light of the above, and in regard to all the details of Anne’s failures on my specific page about her and what she has done, that the above is a further lie; 

I can’t say how she conducted herself in relation to other businesses, but I was extremely well and intimately acquainted with her conduct in relation to man X, man Y and CASACIR at the Neerim North quarry and what she not only allowed them to get away with, but what conduct of theirs she vigorously supported and with what she enthusiastically concealed about how they operated, including their significant lack of compliance. 

Anne may choose to take me on with what I have said, but I have the proof of her inexcusable actions (or appalling lack of action as the case may be) over a period of 7 very long and painful years for us while, in contrast to us, Anne said at the beginning of the quarry after she had done what she could to ensure that man X, man Y and CASACIR’s application for the Neerim North quarry was approved: “Now let the fun begin”.


[1]   www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/story/1592270/mine-stability-at-risk/

3 July

The government seeks a need to protect residents, visitors workers, and land owners, so their legal eagles create legislation that it said to protect you all. 

You then believe in the protections (because the government would not set into law things they did not intend to uphold, would they?) So you act upon these protections.

Big business comes along (mines, quarries, wind turbines, fracking, etc) and the state and local government regulatory authorities then appear to deliberately and knowingly turn their back on you and the law and go against the protective legislation in favour of big business – this is believed to be the correct thing to do because it’s considered far more important to assist big business than to make big business comply with the law.  It is considered just too bad for you if the big business wants to remove your pre-existing legislated rights, and big business and the regulatory authorities just say to you, “you are being vexatious in trying to protect your pre-existing legislated rights – just suck it up, you don’t matter, the law doesn’t matter, and big business has all the rights”.

Then, when you objection to your rights being ignored, the courts go with the legal team that is most convincing instead of taking the law and enforcing it. 

The long and short of it is that it is just too bad for you when you get stomped all over.

This is exactly what happened to me (and to my related parties) when man X, man Y and CASACIR decided that they would ignore the law and our pre-existing legislated rights – the regulatory authorities backed man X, man Y and CASACIR even though they were breaking the law deliberately and repeatedly, and the tribunal and the courts then backed them because the regulatory authorities backed them and made me out to be a nasty, vexatious, and bitter person … all because I had naively and foolishly believed the law. It has cost us over $2m so far, and man X, man Y and CASACIR have deliberately, determinedly and absolutely unapologetically, driven me into bankruptcy.

1 July

In addition to deliberately lying to Walton R of the Costs Court by claiming to be a representative of the trustee of my bankruptcy estate, and claiming that it was a “mistake” when called on it when he had reiterated the claim, Lionel Green of Meltzer Green (man X, man Y and CASACIR’s new solicitor), has steadfastly refused to tell me what man X and man Y intend to do about costs that have been taxed, and costs awarded to them by sending me bankrupt. Green keeps telling me to ask the bankruptcy trustee (he is assuming that the trustee can read Green, man X and man Y’s mind because Green has not told him either!) Apparently, man X and man Y are so nasty and revengeful that they intend to force me back into bankruptcy once I am clear in just over 2 years – but again they will get nothing because they have already taken what I had, proving that to take such further action would be the nasty and revengeful conduct of people who can’t past their own self-interests, don’t care abut the rights of others or the results of the impacts of their actions on others, have no or little empathy for those they have hurt, expect to be believed even when outright lying (including under oath), and are entirely unapologetic for the massive damage they have done to others.