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.
Man X, man Y, and CASACIR made many fraudulent claims about the storage of hydrocarbons and refuelling:
Man X, on behalf of man Y and CASACIR (and with their admitted approval and authorisation), gave false testimony in affidavits and on the witness stand.
Man X, man Y, and CASACIR’s planning report (endorsed as part of the planning permit), and presented as fact to the 2008 tribunal, stated [emphasis mine]: “(4.10) Precautions will be undertaken to ensure that hydrocarbons or other chemicals are not spilt within the excavation or around the site. Diesel fuel for the mobile equipment will be stored in a bunded above ground storage tank in the vicinity of the workshop. Mobile equipment will be refuelled out of the excavation near the proposed workshop. This will be undertaken on a bunded concrete pad fitted with a triple interceptor trap. Minor servicing and maintenance tasks will be also undertaken on this pad or in the workshop which will also be on a concrete surface fitted with a triple interceptor trap. All oils, lubricants, chemicals and acetylene bottles etc. Are stored in a secure shed in accordance with the requirements of the Dangerous Goods (Storage And Handling Act).”
Man X, man Y and CASACIR’ planning specialist’s statement of evidence, presented as fact to the 2008 tribunal stated [emphasis mine]: “(4.13) Diesel fuel for the mobile equipment will be stored in an above ground storage tankin the vicinity of the workshop. All oils, lubricants, chemicals and acetylene bottles, etc. are stored in a secure shed within the vicinity of the workshop”.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s hydrogeological specialist’s witness statement, presented as fact to the 2008 tribunal stated: “(4/4.1) I am satisfied that the measures proposed in the Work Plan for addressing hydrocarbons, other chemicals, and sewage are satisfactory, and hence there will not be a detrimental impact to other potential beneficial uses within the local area”.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s second work plan (presented to the 2008 tribunal as fact), and third work plan (the basis of their work authority and endorsed as part of the planning permit) stated [emphasis mine]: “(2.5) Evidence from the previous quarry operation indicated that there was minor groundwater infiltration into the excavation. This water, along with any storm water collected around the site was stored in sumps at the base of the quarry. Stored water was used in dust suppression around the site. The stored water maintained a fairly consistent level, with groundwater escaping into fractures in the ground. …it appears that any sub surface water originating from the north of the road (ie [sic] within the proposed quarry development area) flows along permeable horizons towards the south [Kookaburra Creek]. … (5.3) Diesel fuel will be stored in a bunded, above ground storage tank, located near the workshop. Oils and lubricants will be stored appropriately in a shed according to the requirements of the Dangerous Goods (Storage and Handling) Act. … (7.8) Precautions will be taken to ensure no hydrocarbons or other potentially dangerous chemicals are spilt in the excavation or around the site. Mobile equipment will berefuelled near the service facility/workshop located out of the excavation on a bunded concrete pad fitted with a triple interceptor trap. Any minor servicing and simple maintenance tasks will also be undertaken on this pad or in the workshop which will also be on concrete surface fitted with triple interceptor trap”.
In their affidavit dated 6 September 2010 man X swore (with the admitted approval and authority of man Y and CASACIR) that [emphasis mine]: “(41) Fuel for machinery is stored in an aboveground tank that is located on a bunded concrete pad. Machinery is refuelled from a bowser located on this bunded pad. At the time of preparing this statement, the bunded refuelling pad was being constructed adjacent to the fuel storage pad. This refuelling pad will include a triple interceptor pit”.
In their affidavit dated 8 November 2010 man X swore (with the admitted approval and authority of man Y and CASACIR) that [emphasis mine]: “(8) In relation to the matter deposed to at paragraph 41 of my first sworn affidavit, I say that the refuelling pad and triple interceptor trap were completed in September 2010”.
Man X swore on behalf of himself, man Y and CASACIR (with the admitted approval and authority of man Y and CASACIR) to the following in this examination [emphasis mine]:
Peake: While I’m on the issue of the fuel tank, can I hand up to you a photograph… two photographs that Mrs Giles produced in her evidence and then I’m handing up these two photographs which are the fuel tank and the associated bunded area. [Man X], is that photograph of your equipment …?
Man X: That’s right. That’s the diesel reservoir and bowser near the office and toilet at the top of the plant.
Peake: [She] gave evidence that the… firstly, that the refuelling area isn’t bunded what do you say about… with that, the refuelling pad itself is it bunded?
Man X: There’s two rows of concrete bricks surrounding the diesel storage and that storage or dam created or the bunding created underneath the diesel tank has to be able to store the quality of diesel in the tank, which it does, that bund has also been waterproofed and, yes, it would… it is bunded.
Peake: What do you say about the area outside the bund where the vehicle was kept?
Man X: It’s normal practise to have a concrete and it’s also a requirement to have a concrete pad for machines or the fuel line and if there’s any spillage, then it then proceeds to an interceptor trap[1].
A number of serious issues arise here:
- Man X noted that the bunded “dam” or reservoir had to be built to be able to hold the entire contents of the bowser should it empty or spill – however, while admittedly eventually having two levels of concrete blocks: (i) the reservoir or “dam was not built for many months, thereby allowing the hydrocarbons to clearly disperse directly onto the ground; (ii) there was an “overflow” hole that is at the bottom of the reservoir therefore allowing the majority if not the entire contents of the reservoir to empty out and flood the area – so for man X to swear that the “dam” or reservoir does hold the entire contents of the bowser was clearly false testimony; and (iii) the reservoir was not “waterproofed” or sealed, and concrete blocks were clearly very porous and fluid leaked through – so for man X to swear that the “dam” or reservoir was “waterproofed” or sealed was clearly false testimony.
- Man X noted that it was “a requirement” that the bunded concrete pad be built – yet they did not even commence to build it until over a year after they commenced works and, I contend, only built it at all because it was one of the issues I had raised in my application for enforcement orders; but even then they delayed building it until close to the “last minute”.
Man X swore on behalf of himself, man Y and CASACIR (with the admitted approval and authority of man Y and CASACIR) to the following in this cross-examination, acknowledging the long delay in eventually complying [emphasis mine]:
Barrister: [Man X], you say that the triple interceptor trap and refuelling pad were completed in September 2010.
Man X: Yes[2].
The DPI “Work Plan & Conditions – Assessment Protocol” dated 2 August 2011 states that the requirements of the “Dangerous Goods (Storage and Handling) Act” were still not met: “Containment to be installed for hazardous materials. Spill kit for in pit emergencies to be located in the pit. Service bay is not provided for mobile plant. The use of, and servicing of in pit crushing plant needs to be managed. Service bay/bays required for mobile plant”.
This assessment was made 3 years and 7 months after having claimed (including presenting as fact to the previous 2008 tribunal) that the precaution would be met and implemented.
Even having finally installed the concrete pad and triple interceptor trap, vehicles, machinery and equipment werestill refuelled and serviced in the paddocks, in the pit and around the site, including at the entrance and close to a dam and water monitoring bores!
In addition, we contended at the 2010 tribunal hearing that a patch near the bowser was hydrocarbons that had been spilt on the ground, but man X swore that it was likely to be water because the water cart had stopped there previously. The very interesting thing about this was that 17 days later, the exact same shaped mark was still in theexact same location – it was either very clever of the water cart driver to leave the exact same mark in the exactsame place, or man X gave false testimony and it was a hydrocarbon spill. This spillage affected us because CASACIR acknowledged that water and drainage from the site enter the groundwater system and impacts Kookaburra Creek: “[I]t appears that any sub surface water originating to the north of the road (ie [sic] within the proposed quarry development area) flows along permeable horizons towards the south trending [Kookaburra Creek][3]”.
It must be noted that they call the waterway (locally known as Kookaburra Creek) a “drainage line” in an effort to avoid their responsibilities to the flow as a waterway under the Water Act 1989 and other legislation, and in an effort to try to void our rights to the flow: i.e. or rights to have the flow uninterrupted and unpolluted.
As quoted earlier, man X swore that: “It’s normal practise to have a concrete and it’s also a requirement to have a concrete pad for machines or the fuel line and if there’s any spillage, then it then proceeds to an interceptor trap”. Yet for over a year they did not provide one, knowing that the hydrocarbons were going onto the ground, and where, additionally, there was a water-monitoring bore in close proximity! Further, from aerial photos, there certainly seems to be the ability to allow hydrocarbons to escape between the pad and trap. Vehicles, machinery and equipment were still being refuelled within the pit and on other locations around the site – i.e. not on or near the pad and trap! This is also identified in the quarterly and annual monitoring reports.
In addition, there was no “secure shed” for “oils, lubricants, chemicals and acetylene bottles etc” in 2009, in 2010, in 2011, and construction on it did not commence until the end of June 2012 – and it was not clad until the end of August 2012 (who knows if it is “secure” even yet!)
The DPI “Work Plan & Conditions – Assessment Protocol” dated 2 August 2011 states that the requirements of the “Dangerous Goods (Storage and Handling) Act” were still not met (2 years after the commencement of works at the site, and 9 months after man X swearing his false testimony): “(17.1 – 17.5) Containment to be installed for hazardous materials. Spill kit for on pit emergencies to be located in the pit. Service bay is not provided for mobile plant. The use of, and servicing of in pit crushing plant needs to be managed. … Service bay/bays required for mobile plant. The licensee must ensure that all fuels, lubricants and/or hazardous materials are stores in accordance with the relevant requirements of AS1940:2004 . The storage and handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids: and EPA guidelines Flammable liquids above 5000L or combustible liquids above 10,000L – Work in progress. Diesel tank is 9,200 litres. The licensee must ensure that all spills of fuels, lubricants and/or hazardous materials are cleaned up as quickly as practicable. Such spillage must not be cleaned up by hosing, sweeping or otherwise releasing such contaminants into waterways” – but the hydrocarbons were not cleaned up properly as shown in the 2011 4th quarter monitoring report (pages 13 and 14): “Sheen of hydrocarbons was visible at the sampling point of the Pit Sump during the December 2011 event … According to the quarry manager, Hydrocarbon contamination in the Pit Sump is likely to be related to a burst hydraulic hose on one of the machines in the pit which was not properly cleaned up. … Contamination of the Pit Sump is likely to be related to a leak from machineries working in the crusher area, next to the surface water feature”. Further, it seems that they were still not using the concrete pad and trap as undertaken (page 15) where he said: “Refuelling and maintenance of machineries should be undertaken on a dedicated concrete pad, away from any potential receptor”. All this conduct, including the false testimony which swayed the members, constituted obstruction of justice, was grossly misleading and deceptive conduct and is conduct that has impacted me (and my related parties).
Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s activities and lies certainly did significantly and detrimentally have an impact on me (and my related parties), and all of this was done under the supervision of the regulatory authorities and with their assistance and approval. This sort of conduct is just one example of man X, man Y and CASACIR, and the regulatory authorities’ attitudes: (1) their apparent abhorrence of the truth, (2) man X, man Y, and CASACIR’s willingness to lie under oath, (3) their entire willingness to ignore legislation, (4) man X, man Y, and CASACIR’s willingness to ignore their permit and work plan conditions, and their own undertakings – in order to get the result they want. As said, all this occurred with the regulatory authorities’ support and approval (while some of the regulatory authorities made note of breaches, they did nothing about enforcement, and also refused to stand by us in taking out enforcement orders).
Instead of taking responsibility for their actions and try to mend their ways, man X, man Y, CASACIR and the regulatory authorities all “victim blamed” me and made it all my fault for revealing what they do and don’t do – in fact, man X testified: “We have always done something but you’ve had to bring it to our attention and everybody’s attention again”[4] – in other words it is the revelation of their faults, not the things they have done wrong that is at issue and, to them, the problem.
Clearly man X, man Y, and CASACIR have made fraudulent claims and denials. As we have seen, this is nothing new – and the regulatory authorities do nothing. The above is a strong indication about how relaxed they all feel about attempting to pervert the course of justice (and perverting the course of justice), obstructing justice, abuse of the court’s processes, making collaborated fraudulent claims and denials, and why they won the VCAT cases and the associated appeal costs, and also won hundreds of thousands of dollars in court in damages, interest and costs: by determinedly conspiring and colluding to obstruct justice and commit fraud upon me and the court.
[1] T8:23–T9:6 (26 November 2010)
[2] T40:7-8 (26 November 2010)
[3] Excerpt taken from their work plans at section 2.5 – it must be noted that in the claims for injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct, they claimed that they had never said this when it is clearly evident that they lied in their claims.
[4] T220:14-16