Anne Bignell

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.

Anne Bignell, a previously high ranking officer of the then Victorian DPI, deliberately and knowingly defamed and otherwise lied about me (she now operates her own company “Anne Bignell & Associates (see Updates for July 2019 on 15 July for my comments on Anne’s claims)). Further she actively protected and supported man X, man Y and CASACIR and, in addition, on occasion actually acted as their agent. Anne even saw nothing wrong in lying under affirmation in order to protect man X, man Y and CASACIR. Read further and see for yourselves Anne’s extraordinary lack of good faith and unconscionable actions and attitudes. See if you can find a proper reason for her actions, because I certainly can’t. I further share my opinion of her conduct below.

Anne is one who, within her realm of control, was a major contributor to the obstruction of justice and injustice perpetrated against us, especially against me. She was the primary representative in relation to the Neerim North quarry. In fact, Anne affirmed at the Supreme Court that:

I’m the manager of operations, Gippsland, for Department of Primary Industry, Earth Resources. … I’ve held that position for nearly six years[1].

As such, Anne had the responsibility to ensure that any application for an extractive industry (quarry) provided accurate information that met the requirements (as provided in (e.g.) the relevant legislation, regulations and various guidelines and checklists).  However, contrary to her responsibilities, Anne acted in the following manner.

Anne deliberately and purposefully defamed me to EPA: in an email dated 19 June 2012, Anne stated as unequivocal fact that:

We are aware of this particular complaint which we also received today. Our approach to complaints from [her] is to record them for future reference when preparing a site audit. We no longer respond specifically to any one complaint regarding noise, dust or water quality.

We invariably have not been able to verify [her] claims regarding these issues and maintain our normal regulatory audits based on the risk profile of the site. This means that we audit the site around 2 [to] 3 times per year for compliance with work plan an other requirements.

 From the photographs provided by [her] we see no need to change our protocol or otherwise respond. The run-off appears to be from the paddock adjacent to the quarry and would be no different to surface run-off from any farm paddock. From our last visit sediment control from the quarry operations itself seemed more than adequate and downstream water was not adversely affected.

What she was clearly saying was that she had never been able to substantiate anything I had complained about and that I had lied, and continued to lie, to her about what was happening at the site. She made this blatantly inaccurate accusation after and in spite of:

  • all the photos I sent proving what I claimed;
  • her own email to me of 2 December 2009 stating [emphasis mine]:

The excavator tipping rocks into the hopper could be easily distinguished and possibly should be monitored by EPA.

The loading of road trucks … was of a similar intensity….

Proving that there was noise of such extent as for her to say that EPA should be monitoring it (and this contention that EPA should be brought in commenced in 2009 but then she only brought them in once), and

  • her own email to me of 15 April 2010 stating [emphasis mine]:

I subsequently visited the site on Thursday 25/03/10 and made observations regarding discernible and audible noise at various points around the WA boundary, with particular attention to the surrounding residences. … quarry noise was considerable and could have been at/over the noise limit at the driveway entrances at the end of Pearce Rd.

Even at the entrances of the driveway, it was well outside the WA boundary at which Anne said the performance standards had to be met (see later for details of this)

  • DPI’s own audits specifically noting noise and dust issues (including having served a 110 Notice for dust emissions as a direct result of my complaints and their own subsequent observations. In fact, Anne personally wrote to Peter McWhinney of council on 12 August 2011 and stated [emphasis mine]:

[She] did make her concerns known to us. We have since done a scheduled compliance audit on wA1347 and dust is one of the issues that has been noted. We are following up on the dust issue in particular and if not resolved shortly will be issuing a Notice on Casacir to stop work until the situation is rectified. Dust levels observed on the day were unacceptable. … I haven’t communicated our actions to [her] at this time but I intend to do so when we have resolution on the dust issue.

This letter to Peter was sent in spite of having already served man X, man Y and CASACIR with a s110 Notice.

So we can see that (1) there was no truth in Anne’s defamation and that she deliberately and determinedly lied to EPA about my claims having no validity and (2) therefore Anne defamed me by strongly implying that they should not listen to my complaints because she falsely claimed that I had lied. Anne clearly believed that defaming me was a proper method of trying to “handle” me and my complaints (you have to ask “why?”) – this was further exemplified when she saw nothing amiss with man X deliberately defaming me to her after I had complained that workers at CASACIR had worked on a public holiday in breach of their permit and work authority (in fact, she actively supported man X in this in spite of his illegal activities).

Anne repeatedly favoured the quarry in breach of honesty and openness, and often acted too often in bad faith and with malefides.

Anne told VCAT and the other authorities as absolute (but knowingly false) fact, that the reason that CASACIR’s work plan was unendorsed was because of our new house. The reality (of which Anne was fully aware) was that the unendorsement was actually because of the lies in the document that DPI had knowingly endorsed as being factual and true. For example, I had pointed out to Anne just a couple of the lies that man X, man Y and CASACIR had fraudulently claimed:

(1) that the watercourse (locally known as Kookaburra Creek) flowed directly into the dam (“This spring discharges in a south-easterly direction and the water is captured in the existing rehabilitated quarry sump”)[2]– which meant that it had to flow uphill in order to do so (this fraudulent claim was made so that (i) the authorities would disregard any impact on us and (ii) so that they would not require the licences that I would have objected to and thereby could have stopped the quarry); and

(2) that they were not going to do any land disturbing works (“There are no planned land disturbing activities in the area covered by the EMO”)[3]in an area where they intended to dig a very a large dam – it would have been very interesting to see how they could dig a dam without disturbing any land!

Those were the real reasons for the unendorsement, not because of our house that DPI had previously been consulted about and about which they had stated that they had no objection to (and had stated that they had no objection 2 months prior to the endorsement of the work plan they later unendorsed). In fact, Anne told me that there was no mechanism for un-endorsing a work plan and maintained her stance until I told her that they would all look very silly when it went to VCAT … and then she found a way to un-endorse it – the first work plan ever to be unendorsed in Victoria! It is to be noted that the second work and third work plans were missing those false claims, proving that they were the real reason the work plan was unendorsed, not her deceptions about our house.

Anne even went to far as to try to deliberately mislead me about buffers by telling me that [emphasis mine]:

The buffer is considered to be the area between the proposed extraction limit to the point at which performance standards appropriate to the adjoining sensitive land use are attainable and are as required by the various statutory authorities. WA1347 proposal is that this criteria is met at the WA boundary or within. This should not to be misconstrued as the proposal claiming the Boundary Setback as the buffer. The proposed buffers are controlled and owned by [man X, man Y and CASACIR].

By claiming this, she thereby clearly identified that the legal requirements for the performance standards[4] had to be met at the work authority (“WA”) boundary, when all along she had no intention of ensuring that they were met there. In addition, much of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s documentation showed that they had no intention of meeting all the performance standards at or within the WA boundary! In addition, Peter McWhinney of council refused to require the mandatory “clearly defined buffer”, and Peter and Anne totally ignored the requirement for CASACIR to “own or control” the entire real buffer. It would seem that, by not requiring the buffer to be defined, they felt that the “waters could be muddied” and that man X, man Y and CASACIR therefore avoided the legal requirement of “own or control”!

The average person, looking at illegal diversion works performed on Kookaburra Creek by man X, man Y and CASACIR, would see that the flow then went underground instead of in the bed and banks where it used to flow. In spite of reality, Anne repeatedly told me over an 9-month period that Kookaburra Creek had not been deviated and that it still flowed in its (previous) bed and banks. Two examples follow where she unequivocally stated:

[The flow] is not visibly diverted, interupted [sic] or otherwise impeded[5].

I have confirmed with Bob Duncan my observations regarding spring water flow into the culvert under Pearce road as being unimpeded[6].

But she refused to meet me on-site (at a time and date specified by her) in order to observe what she had repeatedly claimed. I believe that she tried to “gaslight”[7] me to make me believe what was blatantly a lie and that it was me who was going mad. She maintained her false stance for over 9 months until I told her she was not acting in good faith – she knew what that meant[8] and, because she then understood that her gaslighting had not worked, she did a back-flip by finally agreeing that the flow had been diverted:

I think we finally have clarification on this issue, which is not at odds with your own observations[9].

Man X told Anne to tell me to keep off the quarry property. Anne answered his directive and did tell me that I had to stay off the quarry site[10] when she had no such right to do direct me, and she indicated a threat if I ignored her. Not very unbiased – and it is easy to see who actually ran the show!! Again, you have to ask: “why?”

I had repeatedly complained about the level of noise coming from the quarry site. As a result, Anne repeatedly claimed that she had been out to the site and had monitored the noise levels. At no time would she let me know she was coming, and at no time would she tell me the levels monitored, the locations of the monitoring, or the equipment used for the monitoring. Anne repeatedly tried to fob me off by such as provided in her email of 2 December 2009:

There is no requirement to furnish investigative information to you directly or to have to  “prove” to you to your satisfaction that our actions are justified.

In other words, she could claim to have done proper readings and taken my allegations seriously without having in fact done so. The next day I responded with the following:

Firstly, it has taken months of me asking you for noise reading details from 1st September, with you avoiding my very direct and clear questions. Now you are stating that “there is no requirement to furnish investigative information”. So can you now address the following topics:

1. If this is your response to my requests fo details, why have you failed to inform me of your position from the outset, rather than putting me in the position of having to repeatedly ask you?

2. Upon what basis are you claiming that results from investigation into claims can be withheld from the concerned party? It seems reasonable to me, that if I am claiming excess noise, you would furnish me with results to prove otherwise?

3. Even if you are refusing to provide the actual measurements, I am still seeking clarification as to where you took the readings, for how long, and what equipment you used. Or is your refusal to answer even that because you merely listened rather than taking precise readings?

4. Even if you are not required to provide readings (and I am questioning that position as per the second point above), you are not saying that you are not allowed to do so. So I am asking, again, for the readings. Or are you refusing to provide them even though you may provide them if you choose?

She repeatedly refused to respond, so I came back with my repeated request for information, on 15 December 2009:

I would like the following information regarding those and only those readings:

1. The locations of each of those readings (on 1 September), and

2. The readings for each f the locations (on 1 September), and

3. The length of time for each of those readings (on 1 September), and

4. The type of unit used for each of those readings (on 1 September).

After many months of claiming to have done the investigations, refusing to provide me with this information, and telling me that she didn’t have to provide the information (and after a number of FOI requests having netted nothing), she finally admitted during a community meeting that she had not used a monitoring unit and did not actually know how to use one, but she had just “listened”.

I made the following notes regarding what happened at the community meeting:

  1. it was identified at the meeting but was not noted in the “record”, that significant time was spent on the contention that DPI had provably not taken the noise monitoring seriously;
  2. it was identified at the meeting but was not noted in the “record”, that Anne had previously and repeatedly, misled the questioner (me) by inferring that she had performed noise monitoring when she had not, and it was identified but not noted in the “record” that she just “listened” to the noise to assess whether it was within the limits according to her;
  3. the “record” did note [emphasis mine] that Anne admitted that she was “not qualified to do the testing”, but the “record” failed to state or clarify that the testing she said she was not qualified to perform was the simple operation of a monitoring unit. It is also not noted in the “record” that when Anne was asked at the meeting how loud 45dB(A) was that she was unable to say;
  4. it was identified at the meeting but was not noted in the “record”, that in response to Anne’s implication that EPA had been out a number of times, it was identified that EPA have, in fact, only come out once, and that they did not perform the monitoring for an Leq at any location; and
  5. it was identified at the meeting but was not noted in the “record”, that DPI have noted in field reports that EPA should be required to perform noise monitoring in relation to certain activities but that this has not been done.

Again, why was Anne so willing to be deceitful about having monitored the site when she clearly and admittedly had not done so, and why was she so willing and determined to cover for man X, man Y and CASACIR? How could she possibly know whether or not the noise was over the limit? It is my opinion that her conduct was grossly incompetent, misleading and deceptive – and that she was certainly acting in very bad faith.

Anne denied that the emissions of dust was an problem and tried to deflect the issues. This was in spite of a number of DPI’s own audits detailing unacceptable dust emissions over time. In fact, I provided Anne with a photo of dust exiting the site in significant amounts (and caused in part by the water cart that was supposed to control the dust). In spite of the photo clearly showing that the bund was between the cause of the dust and me and she could see that I was on the external road (i.e. outside the site), she said: “I hope that you had not entered the site without permission to take this photo”, and [emphasis hers] “dust within the quarry site is not a non compliance”. She clearly, deliberately and totally ignored the dust that she could see pouring over the bund and off site making it a non-compliance issue! This total avoidance of doing anything about the dust issue remained an issue until she was aware that her name was in my previous website as having ignored man X, man Y and CASACIR’s many non-compliances – then and only then, did she issue a 110 Notice (over 2 years late!) and there is plenty I could say about that, including, but certainly not limited to, the fact that:

  1. at court she testified that the dust was now controlled (it hadn’t been before and her previous denials in the face of reality make me extremely dubious of the validity of her evidence),
  2. in spite of a number of DPI’s previous audits detailing DPI’s acknowledgement of unacceptable dust emissions and noise issues,
  3. her email to council detailing unacceptable dust emissions,
  4. her defamation of me to EPA by telling them not to believe me because she said she had been unable to substantiate any of my claims, including claims of dust emissions[11]!

How can justice be done when Anne, together with Karen from EPA, went to the quarry site and let quarry manager know she, Jaclyn and Karen were doing an inspection (so naturally the noise level and dust emissions immediately dropped). I had observed that they were at the site and went to meet them on the road. They asked about my complaint of sediment going into the waterway. I pointed out some of the erosion – and they said that they could not see any of the erosion that was clearly staring them in the face – yet they later took a photo of some of what they “hadn’t been able to see” (obtained through FOI and dated the same day). At the same time, Jaclyn and Karen produced an acoustic monitor to register the noise levels. There are a number of problems here:

  1. They had been to the quarry site to tell the manager that they were there to do monitoring with the result that the quarry stopped the noisiest and dustiest activities so that the levels were lower,
  2. Jaclyn and Karen only turned on the monitor when the noise was lower, and did not turn it on for the mandatory 30 minutes to get the average of the noise levels. It was an entirely unrealistic and false procedure that was meant to shut me up. But, (1) their reading was deemed by them to be accurate in spite of being selective and not in compliance with legislation, and (2) the monitoring unit I had was deemed by them to be inaccurate when I did readings of the required timing when the quarry did not know it was being monitored.

It must also be noted that, while they were fully aware of the fact that they were coming to the site at that time on that day, they did not notify me or give me the opportunity to prepare – I only discovered them at and around the site because I was out driving around the external boundary of the site at the time and saw them – such was their level of un-cooperation.

In relation to the enforcement hearing at VCAT in 2010[12]:

  1. Anne had previously actively requested that DPI be a “party” to the proceedings, then took along a barrister to the hearing to waste significant time and say that DPI did not want to be a party and should not have to be a party – of course she had to get DPI out of being a party so that they did not have to account for their lack of insistence on compliance.
  2. Anne and an officer from Melbourne, Sarah Hill, said that they would not answer questions unless asked to do so, and then, when we asked questions, they refused to answer them!
  3. Anne refused to say whether there were any breaches or not, but implied that there were not. However, a later FOI request revealed that there were still a number of breaches identified by Bob Duncan of DPI(!).
  4. Anne failed to address my affidavits containing 200+ pages of photos and FOI results proving many of the multitude of failures to comply!!
  5. Anne and Sarah provided a “submission” to the tribunal which totally refused to address whether or not there were breaches (in fact the submissions emphatically stated [emphasis mine]:

This submission does not comment on the merits of the application in dispute between the parties

– this was in spite of Anne’s confessed role of overseer of the quarry, and in spite of the fact that her submissions were made (in absolute protection of man X, man Y and CASACIR, and of her own significant failures to ensure compliance) at an enforcement application hearing! Further, Anne’s submission provided a lot of “inaccurate” information – such as: (a) the fact that DPI’s role was “Ensuring that mineral and stone resources are developed in ways that minimise the impacts on the environment and the community” [however, the reality was that the impacts were not minimised and there certainly was a negative impact on the community (and on us in particular), with those impacts totally ignored and/or diminished]; (b) that there was “monitoring and response to complaints” [however, there was no monitoring by DPI, nor did they request that EPA perform any proper monitoring in spite of acknowledging that such monitoring was required, and my complaints were frequently totally ignored – including by Anne deliberately defaming me to EPA and telling them to ignore my complaints on the basis that she fraudulently claimed that she had not found any validity in them]; (c) that “The enforcement policy provides the guiding principles necessary for a fair, safe and equitable application of the law in the day to day dealings of authorised persons with the general public and others. The policy is also a clear indication of what the public will receive from law enforcers by way of information, choice and public safety” [however, there was nothing “fair, safe and equitable” in Anne’s dealings between the quarry and me (in spite of significant proof of my claims, and in spite of her (and Bob)’s admissions in their reports and audits) – until the event of my previous website (then and only then was dust dealt with – two years late). Further, there appeared to be no, or very little “application of the law” at all, and the only “clear indication of what the public will receive” was that Anne was more than prepared to let man X, man Y and CASACIR pretty much get away with what they wanted to. Further, “information” was actively concealed, there was no “choice” for those impacted, and “public safety” appeared to be very little concern]; and (d) that “It is also equally clear that extractive industry development should be compatible with social and environmental objectives. To this end, government policy requires that for development to occur, associated negative social or environmental impacts need to be eliminated or managed to acceptable levels” [however, “negative …impacts need to be eliminated or managed” meant that she assisted in eliminating or managing me. Further, the only relevant “acceptable levels” were those defined by man X, man Y, CASACIR and Anne.] Anne also failed to tell the tribunal that things in man X’s sworn affidavits[13] were not true – thus covering for man X, man Y and CASACIR’s false evidence, and effectively becoming part of the deception.

On 26 July 2011 Anne sent me the following email, which I found quite extraordinary:

Your concerns have been recorded and will be followed up on the next scheduled site audit. This site remains a priority site, because of it’s proximity to neighbouring properties such as your own, and as such will continue to remain on our scheduled priority site audit program. Should there be compliance issues that arise from the site audit that could have a direct impact on you then we consult with you at about those issues before deciding on the appropriate regulatory action to take.

My response was:

(1) When is the next “scheduled site audit” please? you have previously failed to be prepared to answer this question. Since it is “scheduled” you must have the answer – so please provide the answer. (2) I find it difficult to believe your comment that “Should there be compliance issues that arise from the site audit that could have a direct impact on you then we consult with you at about those issues before deciding on the appropriate regulatory action to take” because to date compliance failures had not been an issue to you and complaints have not been taken seriously (so please don’t say they have been).  In addition, you have not only not consulted with us but have actually refused to do so on a number of occasions and regarding a number of issues. Rather, you have actively denied: reality, provable failures and impacts. (3) You make all the right noises here Anne, but, sadly, reality has not only been very different to your claims, but recently there has been even less concern than earlier. So, unless you intend to do things very differently to how you have handled them in the past, I find your comment very annoying. Still, the whole sad sage is documented and is now out there for all to see. I await your answer to when the next ”scheduled site audit” will be.

Anne’s response came back:

Priority sites are scheduled to be audited usually over an operations period of 3 [sic]for the purpose of managing our resources. However specific dates are not necessarily allocated until closer to the audit as we have to remain flexible to respond to incidents and so the audit schedule has to work within our regulatory obligations for response to urgent situations. Never the less, over the 12 month period of July 01 to June 30 each year we have to deliver on priority site audits. It is not possible or plausible to give you a firm date and I reiterate that only should compliance issues that directly impact you arise would you be made aware of the audit. I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

This certainly did provide her answer, and I responded:

That absolutely clarifies the situation Anne – i.e. nothing changed.

Clearly the site was not actually “priority” in spite of Anne’s claim; a “scheduled visit” was apparently not scheduled at all; and there was no apparent concern about the very serious detrimental impacts!

Anne gave affirmed testimony in 2013 (in active support of man X and man Y in the Supreme Court) where she testified that:

  • she had only looked at the website twice then went on to list 4 separate times she had done so (2 with a planner and 2 with her daughter);
  • her own daughter didn’t know Anne’s phone number (if they were so close, why wouldn’t her daughter remember her mother’s number or that she worked for DPI (and contact DPI for her mother’s number?))
  • Inter alia, Anne affirmed the following additional testimony:
    • In relation my allegations in my former website about her conduct:

Ms Bignell: My recollection is basically general but I recall pretty much fairly scathing comments concerning all the regulators that had been involved with the approval of the quarry site and subsequent regulation of it and of the owners and the operators. … [O]ne [aspersion] in particular that of course was a concern to myself was allegations that they were in cahoots, so to speak, with the regulators and that’s pretty much – I stopped pretty much reading after that[14].

Ms Bignell: [A]fter viewing it again with my daughter I was a little more concerned because I had looked at it in a little further detail. I had actually mentioned it to our legal counsel at DPI. … [W]e had a discussion along the lines of whether it was appropriate to take action. I put this in the context that as regulator it’s acknowledged that we need to have a bit of a thick skin about such things but I was concerned that if it went any further than what was on that website, I was getting very uncomfortable[15].

But at no time did she actually dispute my allegations and she did not change her behaviour!

  • In relation to how many times Anne actually had EPA come out to the site:

Me: How many times have you attended the site, the quarry site, with an acoustic monitor to actually monitor the site, please?

Ms Bignell: The only time we have appeared with an acoustic monitor was with EPA.

Me: That was just one time?

Ms Bignell: Yes.[16]

This was in spite of acknowledging a number of times in reports, audits and correspondence that it would be in order for DPI to get EPA to come and check, but only did so once and even then, assisted them in providing false information. Anne proved another of her obstructions of justice and strong contribution to the injustice that resulted.

  • In relation to her claims that there was no dust because it had been raining:

Me: The rock at the Neerim North quarry, that’s basalt?

Ms Bignell: Correct.

Me: That’s a very hard rock?

Ms Bignell: It is.

Me: It’s not porous?

Ms Bignell: It depends on circumstances.

Me: You’ve got a big lump of basalt and you soaked – you put it in water, it would absorb some of the water?

Ms Bignell: It would not be porous but the actual deposit has fractures and joints in it from which water does flow.

Me: I’m talking about if you’ve got a piece of rock?

Ms Bignell: No, I wouldn’t expect it to be porous.

Me: Would it be reasonable to say even if it’s been raining and rock has been sitting in water, that during the crushing process it could be dusty – I’m not saying would, could?

Ms Bignell: If it’s surface damp I wouldn’t expect it to be dusty.

Me: But if the inside is dry?

Ms Bignell: I wouldn’t expect it to be dusty, it’s not our experience if rock is actually surface wet[17].

Anne had previously claimed that my allegations of significant dust pouring off the site was inaccurate because it had been raining. Logic tells you that, even if the surface of the rock was wet, the insides, because it is not porous, would produce dust unless kept damp. But, of course, she had to protect man X, man Y and CASACIR – although, again, one has to ask “why?” Anne proved another of her obstructions of justice and her contribution to the injustice that resulted.

  • In relation to her claims about compliance:

Ms Bignell: Neerim North quarry, like all quarries, from time to time will have small regulatory issues. It’s very rare that there’s a perfect site but nothing of the ilk that will warrant serious regulatory enforcement. We usually manage these issues when they arise by bringing them to the operator’s attention, voluntary compliance usually follows and that’s been the case at Neerim North[18].

Me: If I can just go to that last question that you answered, please, Ms Bignell, small regulatory issues, nothing of the ilk that would require sort of action or – I’ve forgotten the exact words that you said. So dust coming off the site is enough to require a 110 notice under the MRSDA isn’t an issue?

Ms Bignell: Dust is a regulatory issue constantly for all sites, all quarry sites. Neerim North has not exhibited anything more extreme than any other site and it has been managed.

Me: So even after I’ve shown you photographs of dust still pouring off the site on occasion, not all the time, on occasion, that’s not an issue for you?

Ms Bignell: When we have been present on the site, when we have done spot checks, when we have looked at dust monitoring reports, for example, we haven’t seen anything that’s exceeded the regulatory requirements.

Me: What are the regulatory requirements, please, Ms Bignell?

Ms Bignell: I couldn’t state them for you at this point in time.

Me: If I give you some figures would that perhaps ring a bell?

Ms Bignell: Without the EPA’s guidance notes in front of me I wouldn’t be able to confirm or otherwise[19].

Again, she had to protect man X, man Y and CASACIR. She admitted she didn’t even know the limits of dust allowance. I am not a professional in that area, yet I know them. If she didn’t know them, this accounts for one of the reasons why she allowed man X, man Y and CASACIR to be in blatant breach so often – if you don’t know the limits, how can you enforce them? I say that if she didn’t know the limits she was supposed to be controlling, she should find a different job – one where she actually knows what she is doing. However, she showed one of her obstructions of justice and thereby contributed to the injustice perpetrated against me.

  • In relation to Anne requesting that DPI be joined as a party to the VCAT enforcement application:

Me: We had an enforcement hearing, as you know, and you applied to be a party, or you applied on behalf of DPI to be a party to that hearing, is that correct?

Ms Bignell: From recollection, yes, I think DPI did actually apply to be a party, yes.

Me: Can you tell me then why you went to lengths to remove DPI as a party?

Ms Bignell: That was a decision from our legal counsel so I wasn’t party to that.

Me: You were just there as one of the spokespeople?

Ms Bignell: I was just there as a representative from DPI to inform VCAT[20].

One has to ask why she fought to have DPI joined as a party, and then actively fought to have them removed. Was it to threaten me? Was it to take up valuable time (she certainly did that in spades)? Was it because, having become a party she realised that she would actually have to do more than just sit there, but would have to answer as to any breaches and her failures to demand compliance – and she certainly did not want to do that! So she proved one of her obstructions of justice and thereby contributed to the injustice perpetrated against me.

  • In relation to her site visits:

Me: How many times have you visited, actually visited the site, you or one of your colleagues since August 2011?

Ms Bignell: Without our detailed records in front of me, I would be talking generally.

Me: Yes?

Ms Bignell: But I would say on an average between six to eight times a year since the quarry started, averaged over that period.

Me: Okay, but I’m talking specifically – say in the last year, so you say six to eight times?

Ms Bignell: In the last year probably three to four times.

Me: So less than – – -?

Ms Bignell: Less in the last 12 months.


Me: So less than average after the website started?

Ms Bignell: As I said, without our detailed records in front of me, I couldn’t say when but I wouldn’t attribute any change to the actual website.

Me: Thank you. Have you had any – have you put any additional regulatory requirements on because of the website?

Ms Bignell: It would be fair to say that – look, our regulatory effort is driven by a risk based assessment of sites. We don’t have 1,000 people, we only have half a dozen of us to regulate so we have to choose high priority sites. Due to the website, I would say our regulatory practice did not necessarily change although it would be fair to say we were particularly sensitive to the issues that might arise out at Neerim North.[21]

By her testimony she actually proved that man X, man Y, CASACIR, Smith and Southall had all colluded together and deliberately lied to the court in their statements of claim about the purported but fraudulent claims about the claimed impact of my former website – she inadvertently proved one of their obstructions of justice and thereby contributed to the injustice perpetrated against me.

  • In relation to the issues of dust where she proved that her claims to EPA that my claims were fraudulent were defamatory:

Me: So there was a 110 notice on the quarry, is that
 true?

Ms Bignell: There was one notice which was about requiring blast monitoring.

Me: Are you telling me there wasn’t one for dust?

Ms Bignell: There was one for dust, sorry, I apologise, but again it was about monitoring.

Me: That was dust coming off the site?

Ms Bignell: Yes, monitoring of dust coming from the site.

Me: And the need to control it?

Ms Bignell: It needs to be controlled, yes[22].

By this testimony she proved that man X, man Y, CASACIR, Smith and Southall all colluded together and deliberately lied to the court when they repeatedly and fraudulently stated that no 110 notices, and specifically no 110 notices for dust, had been served on man X, man Y and/or CASACIR – again, she inadvertently proved one of their obstructions of justice and thereby contributed to the injustice perpetrated against me.

  • In relation to the evidence given to VCAT:

Me: When you were a party to the enforcement hearing, you would have received documentation from my side of things and from the other side of things; did you receive two affidavits from the other side? They were both from [man X] on behalf of Casacir and himself and [man Y]?

Ms Bignell: I can’t say for sure because I didn’t necessarily see all the documents that were furnished because they went through our legal counsel.

Me: So there was no discussion with you about those documents by [man X or man Y]?

Ms Bignell: No, there was no discussion. Even if I had seen them, there was no discussion. I have no recollection of that at all.

Me: What about with regard to [man X]’s testimony, was there any discussion with you with regard to what was in it?

Ms Bignell: Not that I’m aware, not that I can recall[23].

By this testimony she proved that man X, man Y, CASACIR, Smith and Southall had conspired together and lied to the court when they unequivocally and fraudulently stated that the authorities, including DPI, had checked and approved the sworn evidence given at and to VCAT – again, she inadvertently proved one of their obstructions of justice and thereby contributed to the injustice perpetrated against me.

On 8 February 2014 I sent Anne a final email (we had been forced to sell our property for a number of reasons, not the least being that it was unbearable to be there because of the impacts that Anne allowed and ignored[24])

Yesterday I was at our property – I am rarely there now because of the quarry’s on-going lack of compliance. Taking yesterday, for example, dust was leaving the site and heading in our direction, the noise was well in excess of even the construction levels, machinery was being used that had ordinary reversing beepers (not the broadband beepers required by their permit), machinery and equipment was being operated close to the southern edge of the work authority boundary and was causing additional noise, the rock-breaker certainly sounded as if it was on an upper level, with very loud and clear ringing.

As the person in charge of the supervision of the quarry and its compliance, you know that the quarry’s work authority requires compliance with the planning scheme. The planning scheme states that (1) the air quality had to remain the same as prior to the quarry (or be improved) – and it is certainly not nearly as good as it was, and (2) the noise environment had to remain the same as prior to the quarry (or be improved) – and is is certainly far worse than it was. Please do not insult my intelligence by saying that these things are not an issue. These things may not be a problem to you, but for anyone who has to spend anytime near them they are shocking and emotionally debilitating.

You told the Supreme Court during testimony in the witness box, that you took the issues at the quarry seriously – how seriously do you take the issues when you tell others that you have never found any truth in what I have complained of, yet I have sent you photos and you put a 110 Notice on them because of the dust that I complained about? 

To not act on the problems makes what you told the Court untrue testimony. So, what are you going to about the noise and dust please??? Failure to take action is also to choose to fail to act in good faith.

Of course, in sadly typical fashion, Anne failed to respond.

The above are only some of the ways that Anne obstructed justice and strongly contributed to the injustice perpetrated against us and particularly against me. One really has to ask why she was so willing to look the other way and protect man X, man Y and CASACIR – was she reallyso grossly incompetent, or what(?) – because she certainly blatantly, repeatedly and deliberately lied to me to protect them.

Anne’s failures to uphold the work authority (my comments were valid as at February 2014[25] – who knows what the situation is now?)

2.1    The Work Authority holder must carry out work in accordance with the Approved Work Plan and any subsequent Approved Work Plan Variations.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 2.1: Works were performed that were not consistent with the work plan and which were therefore in breach; and works were not performed in accordance with the work plan in disregard to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s own undertakings, and which were therefore also in breach. But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance condition. Various of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failings to comply are listed in this page, Bob’s page and other website pages (there are just so many breaches).

4.1    The Work Authority holder must erect and maintain posts along the boundary of the Work Authority so that the boundary of the Work Authority is clearly identifiable.

4.2    The Work Authority holder must ensure the posts required at 3.1 meet the following specifications:

* the post is not less than one metre high above the ground;

* the post is painted white;

* the Work Authority number is painted within the top 20cm of the post, is legible and in a contrasting colour to the white post;

* the posts must be situated so that each post is clearly visible from each post on either side of that post.

4.3    The Work Authority holder must erect and maintain a legible sign at the entrance to the Work Authority that contains the following information:

* the name of the Work Authority holder and the Work Authority number;

* the Manager of the Work Authority; and

* emergency contact details.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 4.1–4.3: It is noted in various of Bob and Anne’s reports and audits that this has not been complied with, certainly to the fullest extent. There are failures such as only half posts are painted, many of the posts are not marked with the WA number, many posts cannot be seen from the ones on either side (you would have to have the same x-ray vision claimed by man X when he swore that he could see every marked post from the ones on either side). The emergency number was not provided for a significant time period in spite of Anne and Bob both making that complaint. But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

[5.1] The Work Authority holder must ensure that public safety is maintained within the Work Authority area at all times, including through the use of fencing, gates and signage as required around the work area.

[5.2] The Work Authority holder must ensure that all fences are maintained to prevent access to the work site and that all gates are locked when the work site is unattended.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 5.1–5.2: Man X, man Y and CASACIR allowed some of the fencing to go slack, some was only 3 strands, some of the gates were not locked (in fact, some were never locked and are possibly still unlocked), some of the gates had large holes in them, and each and every gate and fence would be easy to get through or over (being that they are farm fences and all but one are farm gates). But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

6.1    The Work Authority holder must take all reasonable measures to prevent the ignition and spread of fire.

6.2    The Work Authority holder must ensure that all buildings, fixed plant and mobile equipment are fitted with fire-fighting equipment, such as fire extinguishers, fire blankets, knapsack spray pumps and rake-hoes.

6.3    The Work Authority holder must develop and implement a fire response and readiness plan.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 6.1–6.3: both Bob and Anne’s audits and/or field reports reveal the steadfast refusal of man X, man Y and CASACIR to comply over a period of at least 2 years with a number of these requirements (and who knows if they have complied with them all yet? Their failures to comply were in spite of having been subject to going through the Black Saturday fires at their previous Jindivick quarry). But Anne, as oversight (and in spite of being one who assisted in fighting the Black Saturday fires) revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

7.1    The Work Authority holder must provide designated parking areas for employees and visitors at the work site.

7.2    The Work Authority holder must ensure that the designated parking area is of sufficient size to accommodate the expected number of vehicles that employees and visitors may bring to the work site on a daily basis.

7.3    The Work Authority holder must ensure that designated parking areas are designed and constructed to provide safe access for vehicles and people.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 7.1–7.3: even though the car park areas were marked in various audits and field notes as not being compliant and not having a safe separation, Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

8.1    The Work Authority holder must establish and maintain a complaints register.

8.2    In response to a complaint, the Work Authority holder must record the following information in the complaints register:

* the date and time of the complaint;

* who the complaint was from;

* the specific issue/s raised in the complaint; and

* the actions taken to address the specific issue/s raised in the complaint.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 8.1–8.2: Even though Anne knew that I had complained directly to the quarry about various of their breaches, Anne did not take action against man X, man Y or CASACIR for not having entered my complaints into the register – she, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

9.1    The Work Authority holder must as soon as is practicable after becoming aware of any non-compliance with the conditions of the Work Authority and/or Approved Work Plan, and/or an environmental incident that will, or is likely to cause, material harm to the environment, notify the relevant District Manager of the non-compliance and/or environmental incident.

9.2    The Work Authority holder must also notify any other relevant government department or agency of the non-compliance and/or incident.

9.3    Where requested to provide a written report on the non-compliance or environmental incident, the Work Authority holder must provide a written report within 5 business days of the request that includes the following information:

* the date and time of the non compliance and/or environmental incident;

* the cause, or likely cause of the non-compliance and/or environmental incident;

* the impacts, or likely impacts of the non-compliance and/or environmental incident;

* the actions that have been taken to prevent, minimise or otherwise manage the impacts, or likely impacts of the non-compliance and/or environmental incident; and

* the actions that will be taken to prevent such a non-compliance and/or environmental incident from happening again in the future.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 9.1–9.3: it was noted by both Anne and Bob in various of their audits/field reports that there were such environmental incidents and that there had been no such reporting to anyone about the incidents, yet Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

10.2  The Work Authority holder must not open up any area for quarrying and ancillary operations except where approved in the Approved Work Plan.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 10.2: even though man X, man Y and CASACIR had been told to remedy works performed outside the area designated, and in spite of their continued failure to comply with both their work plan and with DPI directions, Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

11.1  At the commencement of excavation, the Work Authority holder must ensure that topsoil to a depth of 150mm below the natural surface is removed and placed in stockpiles not exceeding 2m in height.

11.2  The Work Authority holder must ensure that topsoil stockpiles are protected from erosion and compaction.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 11.1–11.2: in spite of the fact that man X, man Y and CASACIR had not stockpiled topsoil in breach of their work plan, and in spite of the fact that they had not been entirely honest about the amount of topsoil in stage 1, Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

12.1  The Work Authority holder must design, install and maintain erosion and sediment controls to prevent erosion of areas of disturbed land and sedimentation of waterways.

12.2  Where quarry activities are being conducted in waters or on the banks of waterways with water in them, the Work Authority holder must ensure that sedimentation of the water in the water way is minimised to an acceptable level.

12.3  The Work Authority holder must prevent contaminated runoff from entering receiving waterways.

12.4  No water is to be discharged from site without approval by the Department after consultation with the relevant authorities.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 12.1–12.4: Anne not only overlooked the sediment entering the waterway, but in fact excused it (including by denying that it was happening). She also ignored the fact that man X, man Y and CASACIR had deliberately and illegally diverted the flow of Kookaburra Creek (the watercourse they had polluted and contaminated). Anne also ignored the fact that the water quality monitoring did not commnece until the water flows and sources had been polluted and contaminated by man X, man Y and CASACIR’s works – thereby allowing and permitting a polluted and contaminated “control” level to be set against which the results of other and future works and other activities would be monitored. But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

13.1  A copy of any flow and water monitoring programs and other management plans and licences as required by West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority is to be delivered to the District Manager prior to the commencement of associated or affected works.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 13.1: again, Anne did not actually require the licence to be obtained or delivered to DPI prior to any such works. Indeed, she, as stated earlier, assisted man X, man Y and CASACIR in the denying of works done illegally by repeatedly attempting to gaslight me by trying to make me believe that man X, man Y and CASACIR had not acted without a licence and had not diverted the flow of Kookaburra Creek (without the required permit, making it illegal). Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found man X, man Y and CASACIR’s fraudulent conduct entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

16.1  The Work Authority holder must avoid, minimise and/or offset the removal and disturbance of native vegetation and faunal habitats.

16.2  The Work Authority holder must erect and maintain posts or star pickets painted yellow to stand not less than 0.75 metres in height at intervals of not more than 50 metres around the final approved limits of extraction.

16.3  The Work Authority holder must not undertake any excavation work, or remove any vegetation, whether in part or in whole, within any buffer zone shown on the Approved Work Plan.

16.4  The Work Authority holder must maintain the buffer zone to ensure that an effective screen is provided between the relevant quarry works and surrounding land and/or buildings.

16.5  Unless otherwise agreed, the Work Authority holder must use species that are Indigenous to the area and are appropriate to the areas Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) when establishing plants within the buffer zone.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 16.1–16.5: man X, man Y and CASACIR removed a number of large, old and beautiful live eucalypts in an area outside the WA boundary (in the eastern buffer), without a permit, licence or permission to do so. The limits of extraction were not marked out in spite of repeated demands by both Anne and Bob for it to be done. There was no sufficient screen between the works and surrounding land and/or buildings.  But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found all these failures to be entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

17.1  The Work Authority holder must establish and implement a program to control and/or eradicate noxious weeds and pest animals within the Work Authority area.

17.2  The Work Authority holder must take measures to prevent the spread of declared noxious weeds, pest animals and plant diseases within the Work Authority area.

17.3  The Work Authority holder must ensure that all mobile machinery is thoroughly cleaned prior to coming onto, or leaving a work area affected by noxious weeds and plant diseases.

17.4  The Work Authority holder must ensure that all soil that is imported into and exported out of the Work Authority area is free of disease and noxious weeds.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 17.1–17.4: there was no program to eradicate either noxious weeds (or anyweeds) or pest animals. Man X, man Y and CASACIR said that they had delegated it to a local farmer who did very little in the way of control let alone eradication, and man X, man Y and CASACIR did not oversee it even though it was their responsibility to do so. The machinery was rarely washed, if at all. But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

18.1  The Work Authority holder must prevent a dust release that causes adverse impacts to the surrounding area and residents.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 18.1–18.3: man X, man Y and CASACIR frequently allowed the releases of significant amounts of dust that caused adverse impacts – and they did so without care, concern and often very little control (as evidenced by the fact that both Anne and Bob had noted such significant releases during some of their infrequent site visits – including noting that the dust was such that it missed the monitoring unit). But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

19.1  The Work Authority holder must ensure that noise emissions are minimised as far as is practicable and comply with the requirements of the approved Work Plan.

19.2  The Work Authority holder must avoid causing unacceptable noise.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 19.1–19.2: Man X, man Y and CASACIR most certainly did nottry to minimise noise as far as was practicable (inter alia, they did not use the broadband beepers demanded by the planning permit; they used the entirely unsilenced drill they undertook not to use; rather than using the fully shrouded specific silenced drill they undertook to use, they had a thin three-sided cover put on the front of a section of the unsilenced drill which had very little silencing effect; they failed to face the drill in the directions that minimised the noise; they failed to use any additional shielding; they failed to line hoppers and haul trucks until finally made to do so; and so on). They caused noise that went far over the limits allowed, and they caused totally unacceptable noise much of the time during working hours. But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

22.1  The Work Authority holder must prevent contamination of the environment by the release of fuels, lubricants and/or hazardous materials.

22.2  The Work Authority holder must ensure that all fuels, lubricants and/or hazardous materials are stored in accordance with the relevant requirements of AS1940: 2004 The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids.

22.3  The Work Authority holder must ensure that any drainage from an area where fuels, lubricants and/or hazardous materials are stored, and/or used is directed to a sump or interceptor trap.

22.4  The Work Authority holder must ensure that spill prevention and clean up equipment is readily available in the vicinity of all plant and machinery, including mobile and fixed fuel storages.

22.5  The Work Authority holder must ensure that 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 contaminant into waterways.  Equipment and soil contaminated by fuels, lubricants, hazardous materials and clean up substances which cannot be salvaged must be disposed of in an approved waste facility.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 22.1–22.5: man X, man Y and CASACIR refueled equipment and machinery in the quarry pit and around the site (in contravention of their work plan and planning permit), with spillage and leakage of hydrocarbons and other contaminants being noted in the water monitoring reports. Man X, man Y and CASACIR failed to store their fuels, lubricants and other hazardous material in accordance with AS1940:2004 and this was noted in various of Anne and Bob’s field reports and/or audits. Man X, man Y and CASACIR refused to install a triple interceptor trap until well after we took enforcement action against them, and their failures to install it were noted in Anne and Bob’s reports and audits. Man X, man Y and CASACIR refused to have a spill kit ready or available in spite of repeated demands for it from Anne and Bob (even 2 years after the requirement of it, it was still not provided, and who knows if it is provided even now, in 2018). The end result is as noted in the water monitoring reports: hydrocarbons and other spills were entering the dam and waterways. But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

23.1  The Work Authority holder must ensure that all slopes/batters including excavations, roadways, stockpiles and dumps must be designed, constructed and maintained to ensure stability.

23.2  If there is a significant slope failure event, the Work Authority holder must cease all operations, notify the relevant District Managerand not recommence operations until authorised to do so by the relevant District Manager.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 23.1–23.2: certainly the bunds and many of the stockpiles, had slippages and rills which allowed sediments to travel into Kookaburra Creek, thereby polluting and contaminating it. But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

24.2  The Work Authority holder must construct any roads on the Work Authority area in accordance with the direction provided by the DPI Inspector, the Crown Land manager or private land owner/occupier.

24.4  The Work Authority holder must ensure that all roads on the Work Authority area are properly formed, surface treated, drained and maintained to provide for the safe operation of the road.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 24.1–24.4: the roads were not drained as required, and there were no silt or sediment traps installed on the road, thereby allowing the silt and sediment to be transported down and into the dam from which Anne and Bob both admitted that it leached into Kookaburra Creek. The silt and sediment traps were part of the undertakings in man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work plan and thereby formed part of their work authority (governing their entire quarry), but Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

25.1  The design and construction and landscaping of any wall/fence erected along or on bunds on the southern side of the internal pit access road to address specific visibility issues and supplement the height of the bund along any section of the internal pit access road must be approved by the Department, in consultation with Baw Baw Shire Council, so that the subsequent profile is of minimal visual impact.

25.2  Design of the bund to the south of the internal pit access road is to locate the construction of the this bund and other associated screening structures as far to the north of Pearce Rd as feasible and to the satisfaction of the Department.

25.3  A planting layout and maintenance program for the vegetation of noise and screening bunds including appropriate expert advice regarding the measures to be undertaken to achieve successful landscaping on the vegetation of the rock screening bund is to be approved by the Department, in consultation with Baw Baw Shire Council, prior to landscape planting commencing and the erection of any wall/fence to address visibility issues along the bunds on the southern side of the internal access track.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 25.1–25.3: None of the planting were done in a timely manner, done in accordance with figures 3 or 5 of the work plan, or done in accordance with the planning permit. Certainly until February 2014 when we were forced to sell or property due to, in part, Anne’s (and Bob’s) failures to enforce the conditions (and then Anne’s failure to tell the truth at VCAT and then the Supreme Court), it was easy to see into the quarry from many locations outside the site. The bund to the south of the access road was not located as far to the north of Pearce Road as possible. There was no planting layout or maintenance program, no expert advice, and no rock screening bund anyway. But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

26.1  Location and scale of buildings, fixed plant and equipment is to be approved by the Department after consultation with Baw Baw Shire Council.

My observations of Anne’s failings in relation to condition 26.1: The location and scale of all fixed plant had to be provided, but was not provided according to Bob’s audits. But Anne, as oversight, revealed that she found this entirely satisfactory because she did not enforce compliance.

Email dated 25 August 2011 from Anne Bignell to Peter McWhinney stated:

Attached is Bob Duncan’s Field report for your information – he has noted some non-compliances that are Council’s domain to enforce or follow up on. We are continuing to pursue the issues recorded that are within the WA. Also attached is a copy of the subsequent S110 Notice issued regarding dust. We will visit the site again next week to determine compliance with the notice.

The above email was in response to one from Peter to Anne dated 23 August 2011 which stated:

Re: our previous emails is it appropriate to let her know what is happening if you are taking action at your end. I don’t want to speak out of turn. If so, what should I be telling her. Your advice would be appreciated.

 All this was in response to another of my complaints abut the dust, to Peter and to Anne both.

Anne deliberately told VCAT that she was not addressing any issues of non-compliance, Peter told VCAT that there was no non-compliance except for regimented tree planting – yet (1) notes from Peter’s file reveal this was untrue, and (2) Anne above told Peter that Bob had found many non-compliance issues.

Anne’s failings in relation to field site visits

Field report dated 16 November 2009 by Anne, stated:

Condition 4 Work Plan Boundaries: 4.1/4.2 Roadside WA boundaries have been marked but posts are still to be surveyed and erected for the remainder of the WA boundary within the property.

Condition 6 Fire Risk Management: 6.2/6.3 Fire fighting equipment and fire response plan require attention particularly as the construction/development phase is nearing completion.

Condition 11 Topsoil Management: 11.2 Excavation has involved the removal of rehabilitation material over the old working face. Topsoil is minimal, extremely variable in quality and depth and has been used in noise bunds. Topsoil from previously undisturbed parts of the WA will be subject to this condition.

Condition 16 Vegetation Management and Buffer Zones: 16.2 Limit of extraction posts are still to be surveyed and erected.

Condition 18 Dust Emissions: 18.1 Only observable dust was in area being accessed by haul trucks for the purpose of building the southern noise bund – it was not practicable to wet this small section due to the slope and subsequent decrease in traction. Dust did not appear to be excessive or likely to move off site. Water truck was in attendance.

Condition 30 Airblast and Ground Vibration Limits: 30.3 Monitoring report has been viewed but copy has not been forward to DPI at this date.

Recommendations

1. The boundary and limit of extraction be surveyed and erected prior to commencement of production.

2. Fire fighting equipment and appropriate signs, training and fire response plan be implemented on site immediately.

3. Designated parking areas be complete and required signs erected prior to commencement of production.

4. Copy of airblast and vibration reports be forwarded to DPI immediately.

My comments and observations in relation to Anne’s November 2009 field report:

  • In relation to conditions 4, Anne noted that the boundary of the WA still had to be completed – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to conditions 6, Anne noted that the fire plans and equipment were not satisfactory, in spite of man X, man Y and CASACIR having had the Black Saturday fires burn through their Jindivick quarry, and in spite of Anne having taken part in fighting the Black Saturday fires herself – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to conditions 11, Anne noted that the topsoil not being stockpiled but used in the bunds against the terms of the condition, and she ignored the fact that the northern bund was created just from previously undisturbed rich topsoil – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to conditions 16, Anne noted that the boundary of the extraction limits still had to be surveyed, and posts erected – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to conditions 18, Anne noted that the there was dust and no watering to control it, but then excused it – so clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to conditions 4, Anne noted that the blasting report had not been provided – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her recommendations at point 1: Anne stated that the limit of extraction had to be surveyed and the posts erected prior or commencement of extraction, yet in her report of 16 December 2009 9one month later) she admitted that the extraction commenced days prior to writing this November report (and, in actual fact, the extraction commenced in September (and arguably in August) of 2009 – she therefore knew that they had not complied but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her recommendations at point 2: Anne demanded immediate action on the fire issues, yet her “recommendations” were not complied with (even 2 years later according to bob’s reports and audits) – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her recommendations at point 3: again, the car parks, signage and so on had to be completed prior to the commencement of extraction which, as noted, had (as admitted by Anne) commenced earlier(!) – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her recommendations at point 4: The blasting report should not have had to be demanded – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.

Field report dated 16 December 2009 by Anne, stated:

Purpose: Observe works for compliance to WA and planning consent Conditions with particular regard to impacts experienced at [her] residence.

Observations: The site is considered to have moved out of construction phase and into production since 13/11/09. The following observations and comments are made after viewing the site, observing operations and visiting [her] residence and discussing concerns with her.

Portable crushing plant was in operation, excavator loading into crushing plant hopper loader removing material to stockpile.

Noise: Crushing plant noise was discernible from [her] residence although unlikely to exceed limit. Loading of material into the hopper was considerably louder.

Dust: Dust was observed crossing the boundary with Pearce Road to the west of [her] residence (and dust monitor). Site was well watered although crushing plant was not using sprays. Dust monitors are in place and monitoring has commenced.

Blasting (air blast):Concern that air blast limits are at risk of being breached due to locations of [her] residence. Last monitoring report had been viewed but copy had not been forward to DPI at this date.

Water Flow from spring adjacent to access track:Water flow observed to be uninterrupted from spring through to the southern site of Pearce Rd (ie pre quarry construction entry point).

Recommendations:

Outstanding from previous report:

1. The boundary and limit of extraction be surveyed and erected proper to commencement of production.

2. Fire fighting equipment and appropriate signs, training and fire response plan be implemented on site immediately.

3. Copy of airblast and vibration reports be forwarded to DPI immediately and prior to any further blasting.

Additional

1. Noise mitigation measures to be adopted to reduce noise of loading the crusher plant hopper (eg. Rubber lining, do not completely empty) as soon as possible. Copy of report to DPI on finalisation. …

2. Water spray to be used on crushing plant as soon as possible.

 3.Copy of dust monitoring report to DPI on finalisation

My comments and observations in relation to Anne’s December 2009 field report:

  • Anne noted that the extraction had commenced on 13 November 2009, 3 days earlier than her previous report (and which actually commenced in September (and, arguably, in August)) of 2009.
  • Anne noted that she was performing Peter McWhinney’s job for him by [emphasis mine] “Observ[ing] works for compliance to WA and planning consent Conditions
  • As noted above, Anne was supposed to be observing works for compliance with the WA conditions, yet she noted breaches and did nothing about them.
  • Anne stated that her response was after having had discussions with me – makes her sound cooperative and helpful, doesn’t it? However, the truth of the mater is that she did not tell me she was coming to the site or make any arrangements to discuss anything with me at all. We only met because I happened to be sitting on a hill outside the site and saw Anne and 2 EPA personnel first of all on the site (telling the quarry personnel that they were there to monitor and view). I then saw them leaving the site and driving along my road. I went and met them and that is the reason why there were any discussions at all. It must not be considered that Anne had come out to try to be reasonable or helpful because she had actually steadfastly refused to come to the site and meet me at a time and date of her choosing. In addition, see further details above for what Anne and the 2 EPA personnel did while there on that day.
  • In relation to her comments on noise, as stated, Anne and the EPA personnel had been to the office to tell the quarry staff that they were there to monitor and therefore the noise level dropped and some of the machinery and equipment was not used while they were there. Further, Anne noted that the noise was unlikely to be over the limit, she made that determination when she and the EPA personnel were there and after the noise level had dropped. She did note that the noise from loading the hopper was much louder than the noise that was “unlikely to exceed limit” – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her comments on dust, Anne noted that dust was observed crossing the boundary with Pearce Road to the west of my residence and to the west of the dust monitor (therefore not being monitored) – and yet Anne personally later defamed me to EPA by telling them that such accusations by me were without any credibility! Anne also said that the dust emissions were in spite of the fact that the site was well watered. Anne also admitted that man X, man Y and CASACIR were not using the sprays they swore at VCAT, and assured the Supreme Court as absolute fact, they were using at alltimes (Anne therefore proved some of man X. man Y and CASACIR’s fraudulent misrepresentations and negligent misstatements. Anne also proved that the dust monitoring had only very recently commenced (the dust had been exiting the site for the 4 months previous to the monitoring) – but clearly none of this warranted any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her comments on the blasting report, Anne noted she still had not received it one month after demanding it – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her comments on the spring flow, it was an attempt by Anne to state that man X, man Y and CASACIR had not illegally deviated the flow, which they most certainly had. Anne kept up her pretence that there had been no change to the flow until 9 months later after I had accused her of acting in bad faith and then, and only then, did she admit that the flow had been diverted – but clearly their actions did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her recommendations at point 1 of “outstanding” issues: Anne noted that the demand for the surveying and marking of the extraction limits still had not been complied with – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her recommendations at point 2 of “outstanding” issues: Anne stated admitted that the fires issues still had not been complied with and had to be complied with “immediately”, yet some of them were still not complied with 2 years later – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her recommendations at point 3 of “outstanding” issues: Anne stated that the blasting report still hadn’t been received – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her recommendations at point 1 of “additional” issues: Anne stated that the hopper had to be lined, but if it was not too loud according to Anne, why bother? She knew it was too loud and demanded the change, which was certainly not done on 9 March 2010 according to Bob Duncan – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.
  • In relation to her recommendations at point 3 of “additional” issues: Anne stated that the water sprays had to be used as soon as possible, again proving that man X, man Y and CASACIR had actively, deliberately and concertedly misled both VCAT and the Supreme Court when they claimed that they had always used the water sprays at all times – but clearly this did not warrant any enforcement according to Anne.

In spite of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s multiple, ongoing and repeated breaches, Anne testified in the Supreme Court about them and on their behalf:

I have no concerns as far as their standing in business, if that’s what you are asking. We have no concerns other than normal regulatory issues across any of the other sites managed by Casacir, so, no, no real concerns, no. They are known as business men in the area, neither one way or the other strong opinion[26].

It is absolutely amazing (1) what and how many breaches are acceptable to Anne, and (2) that she had no concerns about their continued blatant disregard for DPI’s directives, or their deliberate disregard for their WA conditions and the law. No wonder she refused to tell VCAT whether or not there were breaches (which would have assisted us in our enforcement application – necessary because Anne refused to insist on compliance). Which bring us to the reason that Anne acted as she did. Clearly Anne found both new and ongoing breaches not worthy of a demand for compliance. No wonder man X, man Y and CASACIR believed they could get away with pretty much whatever they wanted to. It is very clear to see that, for some reason Anne was more than willing to turn a blind eye to what man X, man Y and CASACIR were and are doing. The question I ask is: was Anne just a “toothless tiger”, or inept, or incompetent, or slack, or what? There was certainly some reason for her continued choice to look the other way – I make no hints, assertions, assumptions or accusations, I am merely noting what happened and asking “when her job was to oversee and enforce the conditions and legislation, why was Anne so willing and eager to look the other way and do nothing?” and “why was Anne so willing to throw us (and me in particular) under the bus so that man X, man Y and CASACIR were not held accountable for their breaches and their impacts on us and others?”

Why?

There is so much more that could be said about all Anne’s failings, inter alia, (1) to act in good faith, (2) to uphold the law, and (3) to enforce compliance. Some of her failings are expressed on other pages, but I’ll leave it at that on this page, for now.

[1]   T296:26–T297:1 (the 6 years taking her back to her commencement in 2007 when the quarry was still in the proposal and formative stage – she had the power right back then to ensure that its proposal was in accordance with legislation and she failed to do so, and then continued to fail to ensure that it operated in accordance with the law at all times, or even at most times)

[2]   Section 1.4 of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s first (later un-endorsed) work plan

[3]   Section 1.7 of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s first (later un-endorsed) work plan

[4]   Remembering that a buffer is the distance from the outermost source (bunds, stockpiles, benches, faces, vehicles, machinery, equipment, roads, etc) of emissions (dust, exhaust, gases, vapours, odours, noise, ground vibration, air vibration, etc) to the outermost of impact of the performance standards (45dB(A), 115dBL, 5mm/sec, …)

[5]   9 March 2010 email from Anne to me

[6]   10 March 2010 email from Anne to me

[7]   Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity[Wikipedia]

[8]   i.e. that she could personally be sued for failing to act in good faith

[9]   25 June 2010 email from Anne to me

[10]  I had only been on the site 3 times, all for legitimate purposes and in accordance with their work plan: (1) to ask if they had a permit to perform the illegal works they had performed by deviating the flow of the watercourse upon which our property relied, (2) to ask why they were illegally working on a public holiday, and (3) to hand them a letter.

[11]  As well as a number of other pollution issues

[12]  Taken out by my company because Anne refused to enforce conditions, as did Peter of council

[13]  Sworn on behalf of CASACIR and acknowledged as being approved by man Y.

[14]  T299:3-7, 11-14

[15]  T299:23-37, T299:28–T300:3

[16]  T302:23-27

[17]  T302:28–T303:14

[18]  T301:4-11

[19]  T301:15–T302:5

[20]  T302:13-22

[21]  T303:25–T304:18

[22]  T304:19-28

[23]  T305:8-22

[24]  Other reasons being (inter alia) because of (1) Anne’s failure to properly oversee the quarry and make sure it complied with legislation and its work authority, and (2) Anne failure to tell the truth at VCAT, we lost the enforcement application and then had to sell the property to pay for legal costs.

[25]  When we were forced to sell our property, in part because of Anne’s failures to enforce compliance by man X, man Y and CASACIR.

[26]  T300:8-15