Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates 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.
In the making and updating of this website, I have created a record of underlying discrimination against me, and others like me; the kind of discrimination that many could find easy to dismiss as minor or irrelevant. Some would possibly say such nonsense as: ‘the offenders didn’t meant it’ or ‘they didn’t understand’ – it is my option that this is not true because all parties are aware of what they were and were not doing.
For me it was really just a matter of claiming our legislated rights and thereby standing up for a cause I believe in. I know it’s valuable to record what has happened, and is happening, so that others learn what to expect and what can happen. I have found that I am contributing to the bigger picture, because there are many others out there in my situation.
My motives for this website is to reveal the injustice system. It is certainly not to attack any person, company or entity. Everything I have said here is true and provable, and I will certainly prove it if required above and beyond what is written here. I have used court transcripts, court orders and directions, and documents supplied by the other side. I have pulled it all together and, in some cases, have inserted my own opinion as well.
What do I want? Not just in our situation, but generally, I want those with authority: the regulatory authorities, the tribunal, the bankruptcy trustees (including AFSA), the courts, and the Legal Services Commissioner to change, to own up to their mistakes and actually be a force for justice, honour, compliance and protection, as is their duty. They need to step up to the mark and take responsibility instead of bowing to what big business wants – it only then that the courts can properly administer justice. Aristotle said: “The high minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think.” Are there none who would be brave enough to step out from the group, and rise to the challenge?
In relation to my previous website, certainly the other side put motives and attitudes on me that were not mine, yet they convinced the tribunal and court that they were right and I was wrong – all in order to hide the truth and mask what really happened. There are also a number of other reasons for my former website, and I have addressed these issues on various web pages.
Certainly many questioned my motives in fighting the proposal for, and then the advent of, the basalt quarry that had been proposed to be next to our property and only 140m from our house. Many have exhibited an attempt to be mind-readers in regard to my motives – and completely failed. Why would I spend vast amounts of money just to be vexatious – it does not make sense and was not so.
My motives were (and are) as follows:
- In relation to the application against the planning permit, I was objecting to: the numerous inaccuracies, inconsistencies, contradictions and vagueness of information and lack of substantiation of claims within the documents that CASACIR and its specialists had provided; the failure to provide the clearly defined mandated buffers and control or own them; the failure to provide the other planning scheme protections, and the impacts that the council planner had identified would occur [and did occur]. If CASACIR had provided accurate, consistent, clear information that had the claims substantiated and with no contradictions, and which met the requirements of legislation, including the planning scheme, then the outcome may have been that we would not have needed to object. Or, if council (the so-called “responsible authority”) and DPI (the so-called “regulatory authority” overseeing quarries), had required information that was accurate, consistent, and clear and that had the claims substantiated and no contradictions, and which met the requirements of legislation including the planning scheme, and if they had enforced legislation, then the outcome may have been that we did not need to object. Consequently, it was the behaviour of CASACIR and the authorities that necessitated that application – I was just trying to protect our property and the legislated amenity because CASACIR, council and DPI were not doing so.
- We commenced an application requesting cancellation of the quarry’s planning permit. We were particularly objecting to: the numerous breaches and substantial failure to comply with the conditions of the permit and the work plan and the work authority, and material misrepresentations and concealments of fact in relation to the application for the permit, and material mistakes in the granting of the permit. If man X, man Y and CASACIR had simply complied with the permit, work plan, work authority, and with legislation (including the planning scheme), and if man X, man Y and CASACIR and their specialists’ documentation had been accurate, consistent, and clear, and that had the claims substantiated and was without contradictions, and which met the requirements of legislation including the planning scheme, or if council and DPI had required compliance with the aforesaid, then the outcome may have been that we did not need to submit any such application. Consequently, it was the behaviour of man X, man Y and CASACIR and the authorities that necessitated the application – we were just trying to protect our property and amenity because man X, man Y and CASACIR, council and DPI were not doing so.
- We commenced an urgent stop work order application because the location of the planned blasting was, according to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s own specialists’ reports (as well as the plans that were (and are) part of CASACIR’s permit, work plan and work authority) all indicated that the location of the immanent blasting could well be into one of the aquifers affecting us and our water supply, and we felt that we had to stop the blasting until the issue was resolved. Of course, if they had provided accurate information in their work plan, planning report and specialists’ reports we would not have had to take out this application! And, if council and DPI had required accurate, consistent, clear information that had the claims substantiated and no contradictions, and which met the requirements of legislation including the planning scheme, we would not have had to take out this application! Again, we were just trying to protect our property and water supply because man X, man Y, CASACIR, council and DPI were not doing so. It must be noted that CASACIR did not stop work and wait for the results of the urgent hearing regardless of it being a legal requirement that they do so, and about which Russell Byard (tribunal member) did nothing!
- In relation to the water applications, these applications were initiated to have the natural flow of spring water reinstated because man X, man Y and CASACIR had illegally and in an unauthorised manner in direct disregard to the demands of the Water Act 1989, diverted the flow so that it did not flow where it used to, thereby removing it from our property. This resulted in us not being able to have cattle on the property and put so much caution in us that we didn’t trust them to not do it again. This legal action was supposedly resolved by a binding Terms of Settlement Agreement made before the tribunal. Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failure to meet the binding terms of that Agreement resulted in the need for me to threaten of further legal action, and it was this threat that made them actually and finally comply with the terms – after almost 6 months (by that stage we had been without the flow of water for a full 18 months because of their unlawful conduct). Of course, if man X, man Y and CASACIR had not illegally and in an unauthorised manner taken our water in the first place, we would not have had to take out these applications! And, if council, DPI and WGCMA had enforced legislation we would not have had to take out those applications! Again, we were just trying to protect our property and the water supply because man X, man Y, CASACIR, council, DPI and WGCMA were not doing so. It must be noted that man X, man Y and CASACIR made it abundantly clear that they had no intention of ever complying with the Terms in the long term – making git a case of fraud.
- In relation to the application against the Works on Waterway permit, we were objecting to the fact that man X, man Y and CASACIR performed many unlawful and unauthorised works and operations (including the unlawful and unauthorised diversion noted above). While man X, man Y and CASACIR had retrospectively obtained one Works on Waterway permit for one lot of illegal and unauthorised works and operations, there were a number of Works on Waterway permits that they had not sought or obtained, and that the one obtained had not been subject to community consultation as was required by law. It should be noted that during the hearing Byard noted that CASACIR had performed works and operations that were “illegal” (his terminology, not mine). If man X, man Y and CASACIR had not performed the illegal and unauthorised works, or if council, DPI and WGCMA had required compliance with legislation prior to such works and/or operations, then the outcome would have been that we would not have needed to object. Consequently, it was the behaviour of man X, man Y, CASACIR and the authorities which necessitated the application – we were just trying to protect our property and the water because man X, man Y, CASACIR, council, DPI and WGCMA were not doing so.
- In relation to the application for enforcement of conditions, this application was the direct result of Byard telling us 5 times to that more appropriate action was by an enforcement order application – therefore, it was at his repeated instigation and suggestion that we removed the breaches of conditions from the cancellation application (thus removing the oomph out of that application, and having it subsequently fail!). Not only did we have over 200 pages of photos and FOI results that proved our case, but there were admitted breaches – yet Byard ignored all this and decided not to enforce the conditions for some reason. Regardless, if man X, man Y and CASACIR had complied with the conditions, the work plan, the work authority and the requirements of legislation including the planning scheme, or if council and DPI had required compliance with the above, then the outcome would have been that we would not have needed to object. Consequently, it was the behaviour of man X, man Y, CASACIR and the authorities, and Byard’s advice that necessitated the application – we were just trying to protect our property and amenity because man X, man Y, CASACIR, the council and DPI were not doing so.
No wonder man X, Mann Y and CASACIR seemed to feel that they could continue to not comply.
Some have implied that I was just trying to sell our property and get an inflated price for it – not so at all. We bought a peaceful and lovely property to eventually retire on and, since the authorities and man X and man Y wanted the quarry, we were prepared to move, and all we wanted was the amount of money that would enable us to buy a property with the equivalent ambience, infrastructure, water supply, rainfall, soil quality, and no quarry. In addition we wanted the money for costs of buying and selling, legals (etc), and all this was in accordance with the MRSDA “compensation” clauses. We didn’t want to sell, we wanted our property with the attributes that it had had (prior to the quarry), but if we had to move, then we needed the money to do so. Nothing sinister or vexatious about that – any fair-minded and reasonable person would consider that both fair and just. Failing any such sale, we were forced into the position of having to fight for the protections that man X, man Y and CASACIR were ignoring and the authorities were refusing to enforce.
It is clear from submissions from man X, man Y, CASACIR, council and DPI, and other documents, that they wanted to put it out that I was being vexatious and, just “out to stop these poor people who just want to operate on their permit”. It seems to me that Byard tried to do likewise, based on his judgment. My aim was never vexatious, only to be protective of our property, our legislated amenity, and our legislated rights.
Other than where they have made statements showing their intent, I can only guess at the motives of Byard, man X, man Y, CASACIR (and their team, and the authorities (who, as said previously, all seem to think they are mind-readers).
Some people believe that I am against quarries and mining. I most certainly am not. Quarries and mines have a place in society because we need the resources. I am against those who lie to the authorities, those who lie to the community, those who lie to the courts and tribunals (including under oath), those who lie to those affected, those who lie about compliance, those who make undertakings they subsequently prove they had no intention of complying with, those who ignore legislation, those who ignore those lies, those who choose to look the other way when breaches occur, and those who ignore the horrendous impact on those around such quarries and mines. Those are the things and the people who do them that I am against.