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 his affidavit dated 6 September 2010 (with the approval of man Y and CASACIR) man X swore: “(48) Casacir has complied with each condition of its planning permit to the satisfaction of Baw Baw Shire Council, West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority and Southern Rural Water. Casacir has complied with the conditions of its Work Authority to the satisfaction of the Department of Primary Industries. (49) I have read the “Further Amended Statement of Facts of Alleged Breaches and Facts Relied Upon” dated 19 February 2010. I note that this document alleges breaches of 28 planning permit conditions and 19 Work Authority conditions. To the best of my knowledge, Casacir has complied with each of the conditions”.
Yet, as evidenced in the relevant web pages, this was a lie.
In his affidavit dated 8 November 2010 (with the approval of man Y and CASACIR) man X swore: “(9) In relation to the matter deposed to at paragraph 49 of my first sworn affidavit, I say I have now read the “Final Amended Statement of Alleged Breaches and Facts Relied Upon” dated 15 September 2010. Seventy-five alleged breaches of 32 planning permit conditions and 34 breaches of 32 work authority conditions. To the best of my knowledge, Casacir has complied with each of the conditions of the planning permit and work authority. I have not received any notification from the Responsible Authority, Southern Rural Water, West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority or the Department of primary Industries that Casacir Pty Ltd is not complying with any of the said conditions.”
Yet, as evidenced in the relevant web pages, this, too, was a lie.
In their statement of claim to the Supreme Court of Victoria, they unequivocally stated as truth that[1]: “Casacir does not have a history of non compliance with planning and/or work permit [sic] conditions. There have never been any enforcement proceedings issued against Casacir in respect of its operations at its Jindivick quarry; enforcement proceedings brought by the defendant in respect of the Casacir quarry operations at Neerim North were dismissed by the VCAT, and cost orders have been made against the defendant in other VCAT proceedings. Relevant authority requirements imposed on Casacir’s Jindivick quarry were in fact imposed as a direct consequence of the destruction of fencing on that land during the Black Saturday bushfires of 7 February 2009; repairs to that fencing took place within one month of those bushfires.”
Yet, as evidenced in the relevant web pages, this was an outright lie.
In his claims to the Supreme Court of Victoria[2], under Overarching Obligation Certifications, man X and man Y unequivocally stated as truth that: “(k) [man X[ has not sworn to things that are not so. [Man X] at all material times reviewed carefully the affidavits which he swore in the VCAT proceedings, was careful in giving his oral evidence, and was justified in making statements that he made at VCAT. The information which formed the basis of [man X]’s evidence at the VCAT proceedings (in both written and verbal form) had been checked carefully with the relevant local and State government authorities and experts retained by Casacir at appropriate times, and part of the information was also based on [man X]’s own observations and knowledge…”
Yet, as evidenced in the relevant web pages, this was a lie.
Baw Baw Shire Council
There are a number of things that council were not happy with, regardless of them failing to take enforcement application. The council representative, Peter McWhinney, the manager of statutory planning, stated at the tribunal hearing that council was not happy with the regimented rows of planting, and that there were a number of other failures to comply – showing that he was not “satisfied”.
However, it appeared to me that McWhinney either did not know the planning information, or he was deliberately covering for the quarry because council did not require, and would not in a timely fashion (if at all) require permits for the septic system or “holding tank”, the buildings, the dam enlargement, the works in the EMO …
I can make this assertion based on the fact that CASACIR had not been made to make any such applications to date (6 May 2011), and because McWhinney had made it very clear that the onus was on CASACIR to apply and not on Council to make sure they did apply!!!! How pathetic but typical – and CASACIR had a history of not applying when they didn’t want to (e.g. for septic, holding tank and works on waterways permits).
West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA)
Works on Waterway permits/licences are required prior to any and all works, activities and/or operations that are performed on or that affect or alter waterways or the land surrounding them in any way. This includes any works, activities and/or operations that may affect the aquifers which feed those waterways. However: the history is that WGCMA has not required applications and permits/licences before works, activities and/or operations were undertaken and, in at least one case, has not required applications or permits/licences even after the illegal and unauthorised works, activities and/or operations were undertaken, or for remedial actions to be undertaken.
This didn’t bode well when it came time for a further Works on Waterway application that was supposed to be provided by CASACIR before they commence stage 2, which they commenced in 2011!
As stated, there is a need for a further Works on Waterway application. This application is supposed to be submitted prior to stage 2 and was required in order to enable CASACIR to excavate through the aquifers, spring and upper catchment which feed Kookaburra Creek. If such a permit had been allowed it would, yet again, remove our water supply and we would, yet again, have not been able to have cattle. As it was, we couldn’t have cattle because man X, man y and CASACIR had shown themselves to be ready to: do works that took the flow from our property, mislead the tribunal about it, fail to keep agreements (even binding ones made at the tribunal), make statements and claims that they apparently have no intention of carrying out, and do things they are not lawfully allowed or authorised to do. Further, as stated, the various authorities failed to require compliance or to provide any penalties for non-compliance, but instead seemed to aid and abet, and help cover up what has been done, and did not invite community consultation or paid heed to any such input.
It was noted by the barrister for CASACIR, Graeme Peake, (at the November 2010 tribunal hearing) that we could stop the quarry if we objected to the Works on Waterway (required before stage 2, and was required by permit condition 28). But, since all the authorities appeared to have gone so far out of their way to permit the things that the quarry was doing and had done, without consultation, and for CASACIR to have provide such misleading, inaccurate, contradictory (etc) information, and to have already ignored the requirements for licences and permits (including the previous Works on Waterway permits) by performing illegal and unauthorised works, it would seem extremely unlikely that any of them would then turn around and take notice of the very things that we had been objecting to for the past 5 years.
Mr Peake, again on behalf of CASACIR told the 2008 tribunal hearing that all water issues would be done in consultation with us. This did not happen, in fact quite the reverse – they tried to keep us in the dark about what was happening and provided misleading information to the tribunals.
In fact, one has to wonder how full, proper and appropriate the process for the additional Works on Waterway permit will be since the various authorities have already showed that they have already allowed the destruction of the spring and of the upper catchment, and the breaching and removal of water from the aquifers which feed Kookaburra Creek, and upon which we relied:
Southern Rural Water (SRW)
Take and use licence were required prior to taking and using surface water. However: CASACIR took and used water from Kookaburra Creek and the “settling dam” for 6 months before applying for a licence to take and use water from the “settling dam”, and for 9 months without a licence. They still did not have a permit to take and use water from Kookaburra Creek, and tried to say that they did not need to because it was “stock and domestic” use (which it is not – there is no house for the “domestic” side and they ran no cattle for the “stock” side).
Take and use licences were also required prior to taking and using groundwater. However, in spite of CASACIR’s ownhydrogeologist saying that there was groundwater currently going into the “settling” dam which required a licence – which they had been and are taking and using – they still did not have a licence to take and use it and apparently had no intention of applying for any such licence and SRW apparently has no intention of requiring one – until I put the pressure on.
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
Discharge licences are legislatively required. However, EPA did not require them. This allowed CASACIR to discharge their drainage off site, into Kookaburra Creek and into and through our property – all without our permission or consent and in the face of our adamant objections. Further, EPA did not require a permit for the quarry wastewater and further drainage that CASACIR intended to discharge into and through Kookaburra Creek and our property. Nor was our permission sought or provided, and it is a requirement before any such discharge can take place.
Department of Primary Industries (DPI)
There are a number of things that both DPI (were not happy with, regardless of them failing to take enforcement application – subsequent information from DPI such as field notes, notices of breach, and periodic assessments, all showed that CASACIR had not complied in a number of areas, so DPI were not “satisfied”.
To say that CASACIR had “complied with each of the conditions” was blatantly untrue (and was therefore misleading and deceptive). See the other headings to see the extent to which CASACIR as failed to comply at Neerim North, and at their Jindivick quarry.
Man X and man Y had already significantly and detrimentally impacted us, and they (and persons acting on their instructions), have made misleading statements and concealed facts regarding agricultural impacts. This is yet further proof of man X and man Y’s misleading and deceptive conduct.
[1] 20 “as to the Casacir Statements” and 29 “as to the Casacir Representations”
[2] 20 “as to [man X] statements” and 29 “as to [man X] representations”