Vickery Mine Extension

no more fossil fuel expansion

No more mines!!

Please do not proceed with this project through Koala habitat.

To the Planning and Assessment team,

I have a strong objection to this assessment. This expansion will lead
to cumulative impacts that have a huge impact on the local community's
water and air quality.

This proposal to expand coal is out of time, it is time to keep the
coal in the ground in order not to overreach our required action to
prevent the worst of climate change.

I'm worried about pollution in the local river system. The pits now
come close to the edge of the Namoi's alluvial aquifer, the productive
groundwater that underlies the river, and feeds it. The pits will
induce leakage from the alluvial aquifer and the Namoi River itself.

People in the small community of Boggabri believe the community cannot
handle a fifth mine in close proximity to the town. They're concerned
that the scale is too large for the town to cope with.

The mine will be located close to the historically significant
property and homestead "Kurumbede" which was the inspiration for
several Dorothea Mackellar poems including the famous "My Country."
One outbuilding at Kurumbede will be destroyed by mining and the
homestead could suffer from the vibration of blasting and the loss of
scenic value.

The area adjacent to the proposed mine is strategic agricultural land
and the impacts of dust and noise will make this land unliveable and
likely impact the quality of crops grown there.

I object to any new coal mines or continued coal mine infrastructure
being built in my home state of NSW but particularly to this mine with
its proposed railway cutting through vital koala habitat.

CountryMinded does not support the application. The EIS has been found to
be inaccurate and unfit to reliably inform the genuine discovery of
risks to land air and particularly water resources adjacent to the
development and further downstream.

In the current economic paradigm there is conflict around the
prioritisation of resources based on the finite production of
extractive industries as opposed to the comparatively infinite
production of agricultural industries.

Australia has enjoyed an abundance of agricultural lands with little
regard for food security based on consistent export surpluses.
However, the global food challenge paints a bleak picture for regional
food security into the future. Future demands on agricultural
production demand that the natural resources that underpin that
production must be protected for future generations.

Extractive industries must operate with a genuine "do no harm"
commitment that is not time-framed.
Clearly the threats to agricultural land vary between the nature of
the extraction method, the intensity of the agricultural enterprise
and the ability of the two activities to coexist.

It is increasingly apparent that the larger issue around extractive
industries and their impact on agricultural productions systems is in
relation to direct and collateral impacts on ground water assets.

In most agricultural landscapes, water is the most limiting resource.
The complexity of the hydrology in ground and, in this case, surface
water systems presents difficulties for the assessment of impacts of a
particular activity until after the activity is undertaken and even
then it is not always clear what the causes and effects are.
CountryMinded does not trust the EIS assessment in these matters.

CountryMinded is committed to the prioritisation of agriculture and
the protection of agriculturally important natural resources.
CountryMinded is also committed to objective evidence based policy. In
the situation of extractive industries and the conflicting science,
biased as it may be, the precautionary principle must prevail.
Consideration must be given both to the likelihood of a particular
outcome and the severity of a particular outcome.

In relation to disruption of essential ground water supplies and its
impact on current and future production, CountryMinded is conservative
in its view and would necessarily oppose any extractive industry that
poses a threat to these resources.
The onus of proof must lie with the extractive industry proponents to
prove that their intended activity will have no lasting impact on the
productivity of the agricultural landscape.

There is simply no justification to "relax" environmental standards
for harm and compliance for any resource company or enforce lesser
standards on an industry sector like mining.


The mine managers have a track record of breaching environmental
standards in relation to noise, water and pollution management as
reported widely and confirmed by the NSW EPA. This demosntrable
culture for deception and non-compliance indicates a corporate culture
that undermines trustworthiness of the EIS and attitude and adherence
to the objectives of environmental protection legislation generally.


Given the integrity of the EIS is culturally compormised, the
timeframe for exhibition period for the EIS is inadequate to allow the
rigourous public feedback to robustly inform an objective
determination other than to oppose the application.

1. The proponent states this is just an extension to the already approved
Vickery mine however this proposal includes new infrastructure to
service much bigger needs than for Vickery itself. For example a new
rail crossing across the river and the establishment of a new large
coal handling facility that will service other mines in the region.
The scale of infrastructure proposed could service much greater mining
in the region. As such it seems like approval creep where a minor
application actually opens the door for new and other expansions. This
makes tracking the true cumulative impacts of all developments a
challenge.

2. The Department has no guidelines for mining companies to follow
when undertaking a 'cumulative assessment' under NSW law. This is
particularly important for Vickery extension which has not considered
the combined impacts of the existing approval in the current EIS.
Whilst the Extension identifies a 2m groundwater drawdown caused by
the Extension, it is unclear if that is taking into account the
cumulative impact of the original approval as well as the other major
mines in close proximity.

3. The proponent stated they responded to community concern over the
close proximity of the coal pit to the river, and moved the pit a
little further away from the Namoi River. However the mine footprint
is still perilously close to the critical water source of the Namoi.

4. The proponent has been responsible for a raft of environmental
breaches, created significant social impacts in the local township of
Boggabri and left a string of broken promises to neighbours and
locals. Much controversy surrounds the water impacts caused by the
proponent's Werris Creek and Maules Creek mines. Their Maules Creek
mine was recently given the poorest rating possible (1 of only 3 mines
in the state with that rating) in terms of environmental problems.
They are not a fit and proper proponent to be allowed to build another
mine.

5. This proposal is seen by many as the "tipping point" for the small
community of Boggabri with locals believing the infrastructure of the
community cannot handle the fifth mine in close proximity to the town.
They are concerned that the scale is too large for the town to cope
with. Another 450 operational staff are proposed for the mine and yet
any local who seeks to work in the industry already does, leading to a
need to import large numbers of workers, further disrupting the town.

6. The mine will be located close to the historically significant
property and homestead "kurumbede" which is the inspiration for a
number of Dorothea Mackellar poems including the famous "My Country".
One outbuilding will be destroyed by mining and the homestead is
likely to suffer the effects of blasting. This important culturally
significant site must be protected for future generations.

7. The area adjacent to the proposed mine is strategic agricultural
land and the impacts of dust and noise will make this land unlivable
and will likely impact the quality of crops grown there. This is the
first project seeking approval so close to strategic agricultural land
and sets a dangerous precedent.

8. Whilst more in depth science is yet to be done on the water impacts
of this proposal, it is sufficient to assume that this mine, combined
with the others in the close proximity will have a significant and
dangerous impact on the water resources of the region.

9. There is a serious lack of information in the EIS about the rail
crossing across the Namoi River and the floodplain. This crossing will
be the second one in close proximity causing serious concerns about
the risk of debris build up during flooding and the flow on impacts
created.

10. 76 family farms have already been purchased in close proximity to
the town if Boggabri. This has hollowed out the township, caused
suffering to businesses and seriously changed to social setting of the
area. This proposal will likely cause more of the same, irreversibly
changing the town and the area.

10. This stretch of the Namoi River that runs on the boundary of the
project area is a permanent waterhole even in times of extreme drought
and has already been noted for its biodiversity and natural assets
that must be protected from the impacts of mining. The proponent
proposes to leave a strip of vegetation along the river which will
mitigate any negative impacts on biodiversity but the proposed bridge
crossing will impair the movement and wildlife including the koala.

11. No offsets areas for biodiversity loss are being proposed and so
the issue of the impact of the mine on biodiversity has not been
resolved. A lack of suitable local remnant vegetation raises questions
as to whether this can be resolved. Whitehaven has a poor record of
meeting offset requirements. They still have not fulfilled their
requirements at Maules Creek five years after approval. The community
has little faith they can fulfill their obligations at Vickery.

12. A report issued 7th October, by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), says the planet will reach the crucial
threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above
pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of
extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of
millions of people. They recommended that Australia and the rest of
the world must virtually eliminate the use of coal for electricity
within 22 years if there is to be a chance to save even some of the
Great Barrier Reef. This project must not add to a continual demise
into climate change problems.

SUBMISSION from Mrs Louise Somerville

As a married mother of four and citizen of Australia I ask that the
Vickery mine extension Environmental Impact Assessment outright be
rejected.

For our future generations, the Vickery mine poses the risk of
irreversible or catastrophic harm to the Namoi River, and its
surrounding surface water and groundwater systems, and the health and
well-being of human populations in the Boggabri region as well as the
habitat of the endangered koala and the Commonwealth-listed Murray
Cod.

This is not my full submission

I wish it to be known that my Submission is not complete, due to the
onerously short Public Exhibition period. This means I have not been
able to provide as full as Submission as is called for given the size,
complexity and lack of public awareness of the Vickery Coal mine
extension project. I believe that the relatively short Public
Exhibition period has compromised the right of the public to comment
on this important State Significant Development and is an incorrect
decision by the Minister for Planning who refused to extend the Public
Exhibition to 90 days to allow more expert consideration and community
comment.

Cumulative impacts have not been considered

The Gunnedah Basin in the vicinity of Boggabri is also the location
for 22 Million Tonnes per Annum of Approved coal mining. The 10 MTPA
proposed Vickery mine is surrounded by other Exploration Licences
which will, in the course of time, be sought to be developed,
including a licence which covers the Vickery State Forest itself.

Vickery Coal Mine Extension is another megamine the scale of Maules
Creek, and in close distance from the Leard Forest Coal Mining
precinct. Yet the EIA does not make any attempt to apply the
Precautionary Principle to its assessment of the cumulative impacts.
There are many examples where the EIA has ignored or misstated the
cumulative impacts. Eg locals are already badly affected by blasting
vibrations and dust from Whitehaven's Rocglen and Tarrawonga mines.
This is not alluded to in the EIA. The EIA also is misleading about
the distance between Vickery and Tarrawonga, stating they are 11km
apart when in fact there is just 4km distance between Tarrawonga and
the proposed Vickery borefield.

In view of pre-existing concerns about dust from the Leard Forest coal
mines, I am of the view that cumulative impacts of dust pollution and
the risk to the health of communities in the Gunnedah Basin are not
adequately assessed.


Social impacts of Vickery must be assessed with existing local mining
operations in mind

Social impacts of the mine includes health and well-being, including
physical and mental health. According to the Social Impact Assessment,
existing local mining operations form part of the basis of assessment.
Many impacts are not quantified, such as for example the effect of
mine noise on sleep disturbance and quality of life is completely
ignored in the Social Impact Assessment, yet widely known since a very
large number of Boggabri and Maules Creek residents lodged moving
objections to the Maules Creek noise modification last year.

Health

The Social Impact Assessment does not refer to the growing evidence
about rising bronchial ill-health in Boggabri and Narrabri towns,
reported anecdotally by GPs, and is consistent with health problems in
the Upper Hunter Valley. The reported increase in bronchial
medications has occurred since the time of the Maules Creek mine, and
Boggabri extension. Furthermore I am exceptionally disappointed that
the recently established Namoi Air Quality Monitoring System does not
incorporate dust monitoring in or near the town of Boggabri.

Mental health

The SIA makes much of the fact that "anxiety" is a national problem.
However, I believe that anxiety in coal-affected communities is based
on real triggers that emanate directly from the coal mining industry.
Examples include:

The threat of loss of livelihood and property rights
Dividing neighbor against neighbour is a common tactic of Project
Delivery personnel to break down a bloc of landowners who deny access
to their land
Night-time noise and sleep disturbance is bound to result in some
anxiety

Therefore, to blame the anxiety in coal-afflicted communities on a
general national mental health problem fails to properly assess mental
health impacts of the Vickery coal mine itself on the local community.

Loss of farming families from the region

Over 70 farms have been sold to coal mines in the area around the
Boggabri and Maules Creek region. This has caused leakage of long-term
resident population and replaced them with tenants in the most part,
many of whom do not bring their families with them. Many more tenants
are employees of the mines, and do not farm. Farming land is either
grazed by arrangement with other parties, or left unfarmed, often
because the property has been deemed a biodiversity offset.

Community groups such as the NSW Rural Fire Service, the Country
Women's Association, Meals on Wheels, etc suffer due to the decline in
permanent residents.

This has led to a downward economic spiral in Boggabri.

Employment forecasts unreliable due to the prevalence of drive-in,
drive-out workers

It is a well-observed fact that even mine staff who have an address in
Boggabri are Drive-in, Drive-out workers. They tend to leave their
families in places such as the Hunter Valley towns, and commute weekly
to their work. This has not been addressed in the SIA. Boggabri has
not received an influx of population, and Whitehaven are understood to
encourage workers to live in Gunnedah instead, adding to road traffic.


Threats to the town of Boggabri

Boggabri is a town in slow decline, despite the assurances that were
made by the coal industry when the Maules Creek mine was being
proposed that prosperity would come.

Despite strong support in the community for a dust monitor in the town
of Boggabri, which is supported by Boggabri Coal (Idemitsu Resources),
Whitehaven has opposed this plan. Although a Dept of Planning
representative recently blamed this on the NSW EPA, there is written
evidence that Whitehaven refused to support the Boggabri dust monitor
unless it were paid for by the NSW Government.

Loss of population has an impact on housing occupation levels.

The CIVEO worker camp benefits to Boggabri are overstated - CIVEO
never patronized the Boggabri butcher, for example, and bought their
meat from elsewhere.

Businesses in Boggabri have not seen the benefit from decade of coal
mines, if anything the reverse has happened. Only one pub out of three
remains in operation.

There is no child care centre and furthermore Whitehaven Coal
approached Narrabri Council and advised them not to invest in child
care in Boggabri, which is a disincentive to young families who may
wish to relocate there. Community bitterness surrounding the child
care centre has caused extreme distress to the Boggabri Business and
Community Progress Association, which strives to secure the survival
of the town.


Noise

The Noise Impact Assessment has extremely significant ramifications
for the surrounding community, with impacts that will extend to the
town of Boggabri, based on my knowledge of other coal-affected towns
such as Wollar and Bulga, which are being gradually depopulated due to
mine encroachment and noise issues.

The construction of a coal handling and processing plant at the
Vickery coal mine is an additional threat, as it will produce
unacceptable levels of low-frequency noise. This is well-known to
occur, and is well-documented that CHPPs produce highly disturbing
noise in the 16-25Hertz range. Whitehaven's Maules Creek coal mine has
intractible noise problems at the 50 Hz frequency.

In addition, the Noise Impact Assessment is lacking an All Years Worst
Case Scenario, and fails to include key noise producing infrastructure
in its modelling.

I do not find it credible that the 10 MTPA mine will be quieter than
the 4.5MTPA version that was previously approved in 2015.


Coal railway and rail loop

No modelling has been provided as to the movement of surface water
once the railway were to be constructed, and inadequate details of the
construction of the 14 km rail spur. There are inadequate indications
of what sections will be elevated, and which will be embankments.

"The final vertical alignment of the rail and the sizing of the
openings (bridges and culverts) will be determined during the detailed
design stage."- Appendix C Flood Assessment, page 38.

This has very serious ramifications for flood risks and makes it
impossible for anyone to make an informed submission.

Further, acccording to the Dept of Planning, "this is a flood
modelling much different than other developments .. without explicitly
stating where each structure is.... It's certainly a key issue."
[Source: Stephen O'Donoghue, Team Leader, Resources Assessments, Golf
Club meeting 26th Sept 2018]

I do not have confidence in modelling which is based on such vague
assumptions, with no details about where each structure is.

The rail loop itself is particularly too close to the Namoi River and
the riparian vegetation and koala habitat will be lost.

The community has been living under the assumption that there would be
no Namoi River crossing associated with this project, since Whitehaven
Coal was advised the Commonwealth of the Environment that a river
crossing would not be acceptable under the Environmental Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

The coal railway is one of the most serious concerns about this
Vickery project.


Biodiversity - koalas

The entire locality where the Vickery mine is intended to be built is
prime koala habitat, including the area where the rail loop is to be
built.

Koalas are listed as an endangered species under NSW and Commonwealth
legislation. I do not believe that any mitigation measures, such as
relocation of the local koala population can be viable because
alternative habitat is being destroyed throughout NSW and in any case
relocating koalas is known to have a high failure rate.

Impacts on the Koala have also been understated because of
insufficient consideration of impacts upon the full extent of suitable
habitat within the Approved Mine area. Like other cumulative impacts,
the effects on koala habitat have been dealt with poorly in the EIS.
There does not seem to be any limit of the extent of impact being
considered and matters in relation to landscape impacts have not been
considered adequately.

Right now, some of the most important and large nearby koala habitat,
being Vickery State Forest and Leard State Forest are either being
actively destroyed by coal mining, or else they are slated for
destruction in the medium-term.


Road Transport

The Road Transport Assessment uses survey data collected in 2012 which
is outdated. It predates the establishment of the Maules Creek coal
mine, the extension of the Boggabri and Tarrawonga mines.

There has not been a thorough assessment of road usage or an
up-to-date road traffic audit identifying cumulative impacts.

Road transport since 2012 has grown dramatically, including mine
workers, transportation of heavy plant and equipment, and increased
road haulage of coal from Tarrawonga mine which gained approval
subsequent to 2012. These are not accounted for in the Vickery Road
Transport Assessment.

Since 2010, the Dept of Planning has continued to approve increases in
truck movements on the Highway from 2MTPA to 3MTPA to 4MTPA, rather
than building the Kamillaroi Highway overpass as promised.

I believe there should be no new coal on the Kamillaroi Highway.


Not a "fit and proper person"

The Chief Executive officer of Whitehaven Coal, Mr Paul Flynn, does
not have the "character, honesty and integrity" to satisfy s 83(g)
"fit and proper person" test of the Protection of the Environment
Operations Act. Here is the relevant legislation:

45 Matters to be taken into consideration in licensing functions
In exercising its functions under this Chapter, the appropriate
regulatory authority is required to take into consideration such of
the following matters as are of relevance:
...
(f) whether the person concerned is a fit and proper person,
Note.
See section 83 for provisions relating to the determination of whether
a person is a fit and proper person for the purposes of this section.

83 Fit and proper persons
...
(g) if the person is a body corporate, whether, in the opinion of the
appropriate regulatory authority, a director or other person concerned
in the management of the body corporate is of good repute, having
regard to character, honesty and integrity,

At the company's 2017 Annual General meeting the CEO responded to
questions about the Maules Creek high-risk rating, telling
shareholders that the Level 3 risk rating was the result of complaints
from just one nearby landowner who wanted more for his land, which was
an untruth. The Level 3 risk rating was due to a history of noise
exceedances and pollution problems. The CEO's statement was false, and
has been denied by the NSW EPA. I believe that this makes the CEO not
a "fit and proper person" within the definition of the Protection of
the Environment Operations Act 1997 to hold an Environmental
Protection Licence as a Director of Whitehaven Coal, of which Maules
Creek Coal Pty Ltd is a subsidiary. As a result, Whitehaven Coal
should not be granted approval for the Vickery Coal Mine Extension.

In addition, the history of non-compliance of the Maules Creek coal
mine, the fact that Whitehaven has had a Mandatory Noise Audit at
Maules Creek Coal mine, and a Pollution Reduction Program at the
Gunnedah Coal Handling and Processing Plant, I believe that NSW cannot
afford to take the risk.

Water trigger

This Project is a controlled action under the Environmental Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and is a "large coal mine" under
the terms of the EPBC Act.

This EIA does not provide an adequate amount of detail to enable
decision-makers at the State or Commonwealth level to properly assess
the likely impacts of the mine, and the railway, on the Namoi River,
and the surrounding surface-water and groundwater.

Elsewhere, the EIA provides factually inaccurate or incomplete
information which may a tendency to be misleading.

I do not have confidence that the Namoi River is safe from severe
damage if this mine proceeds, and fear that water quality and
downstream flows will be damaged to the detriment of downstream users.


Indigenous culture

From the experience of the Maules Creek mine, Whitehaven continually
ignore their responsibilities in relation to cultural heritage as it
is set out in the Burra Charter and the Policies relating to
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Valuations set out by the Office of
Environment and Heritage. There has been a lack of any consultation
with the First Nation's People's Knowledge Holders, within the Red
Chief Local Aboriginal Land Council boundaries. Consulting with
Registered Aboriginal Parties is not enough.

I object to this proposal because of the impacts it will have on the
local environment, local farmers, and the global environment (via
emissions of fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere).

I object to this proposal in the strongest terms.

I object strongly to this proposal .
It is a totally inappropriate development .

I object to the Vickery Extension Project...

The much larger mine footprint will a mean concomitant increase in
impacts from noise, dust, blasting, surface water and groundwater
losses, night lighting, flooding changes and visual impacts. These are
not compatible with environmental sustainability nor with the health
and well-being of residents.

Apart from the interruption of the mine on the land, the big issue
relating to mining and burning coal is the impact on oceans that is
rarely discussed. Over the past 5 decades the acidity of the oceans
worldwide is on average 32% higher. This is a significant threat to
life in the oceans and starting by destroying the food chain based on
phytoplankton and krill which is vulnerable to the acidity. If new
coal mines continue to be developed, it demonstrates that those who
have the power to allow them are not providing their duty of care to
the population and to the life support systems of the planet that
sustains us all. New technologies are advancing quickly and
alternative forms of energy are becoming cheaper every year. Under no
circumstances must there be new coal mines developed anywhere in the
world and Australia especially can provide those alternatives.

The EIS Summary 5.11 Conclusion records the statement that, on balance of
the predicted impacts and benefits, approval of the Project is in the
public interest.
This statement is patently wrong. It is not in the public interest to
exacerbate global warming. It is imperative to keep the warming as low
as possible. This entails the rapid shift from fossil fuels to
renewable energy. The recent IPCC report does still give a 12 year
window for a radical fundamental structural change in production and
consumption of energy to avert worst case scenarios for the future.
State and Federal bureaucracies have a responsibility to act to the
fullest extent of existing legislation while the public arouses the
Governments to effective action.
The Executive Summary Conclusion that approving more coal mining and
burning is in the public interest becomes a self-evident fact that the
assessment is faulty. It must be rejected.
I strongly object to this proposed Mine Extension.

* Mining will cause alterations to, and lowering of, groundwater aquifers
and associated groundwater pressures. This will have a very serious
adverse effect on adjacent existing groundwater licences and present
an unacceptable risk to the economic viability of existing adjacent
irrigation farms.
* The proposed rail spur across the Namoi River Floodplain is a
totally unacceptable cost. This will cause major alterations to the
direction of floodwater flows, and impede the flows of floodwaters.
* The large area this mine requires for access to 179 Mt of ROM coal
reserves is an unacceptable and an irreversible cost on the landscape
and the environment in this region.
* Construction of 10 water supply bores and use of up to 396 ML/year
of groundwater, is not acceptable because it further reduces the
groundwater reserves of the Upper Namoi catchment - and the Murray
Darling Basin for an unacceptable purpose.
* Pump construction and pumping on the east bank of the Namoi River to
extract up to 1,752 ML/year of surface water is not acceptable, nor a
responsible use of water, depleting the upper Namoi surface waters of
the Murray Darling Basin.
* Construction and operation of a coal handling and preparation plant,
and a train load-out facility is unacceptable.
* Unacceptable impacts from general noise, dust, blasting, surface
water and groundwater losses, night lighting, flooding changes and
visual impacts.
* The haulage to the site coal from other Whitehaven operations for
processing will further cause adverse impacts.

Reference by the IPC to the recently published findings of a Senate
Inquiry into 'Adequacy of the regulatory framework governing water use
by the extractive industry". will indicate that this EIS application
does not meet many of its recommendations.

This is a small farming community
The impact mines have on these areas is vast and destructive

Whitehaven will provide more jobs for the community

Please do not build a coal mine and rail line through the Vickery Forest.
This is the habit of many animals including koalas. Building a coal
mine at this critical point in time when we should be reducing carbon
emissions is ludicrous and idiotic.

PLEASE READ THE IPPC REPORT!!! To extend or start any more coal
mines/fossil fuels!! Is a a sure way to kill our planet. NSW
GOVERNMENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHY IS $$$ Quick money more important
than Us The people the wildlife of Australia? COAL HAS BEEN KILLING US
FOR CENTURIES SO WHY ARE YOU CONTINUING TO SELL COAL? For the small
amount of job created by this is not worth the dire effects climate
change is bringing right now to Australia YOUR DEFORESTATION LAWS HAVE
DECIMATED NSW AND QLD. YOU HAVE KILLED TOURISM AND YOU ARE KILLING ALL
THAT MAKES AUSTRALIA A BEAUTIFUL UNIQUE PLACE IN THIS WORLD?! WHY WHEN
WE WERE LEADERS IN CLEAN ENERGY WOULD YOU DO THIS AND STUNT A NEW
INDUSTRY THAT DOESNT DESTROY THE PLANET!? I TRAVEL FROM UP HERE(Far
Nth QLD down to there. My office extends all the way. I HAVE SEEN IN
THE PAST YEAR PYRES OF OLD GROWTH FORESTS HECTARES BURNING SO CATTLE
CAN BE RUN ON THAT LAND FOR LIVE EXPORT. I HAVE SPOKEN TO SMALL
BUSSINESS IN BOWEN WHERE THE ADANI MINE IS ! I HAVE WITNESSED TERRIBLE
DESTRUCTION OF TOURISM .PEOPLE DONT TRAVEL THIUSANDS OF KLMS TO SEE A
COAL MINE DRIVE THE A1 TO SEE FILTHY COAL TRAINS ALL UNCIVEREDLOADS! I
HAVE SEEN LITTLE COUNTRY TOWNS DIE BECAUSE THEY RELIED ON TOURISM TO
KEEP THEM AFLOAT!BESIDES BEIG ECOLOGICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE YOU ARE
DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING AUSTRALIA DOWN THE WRONG PATH!WAKE UP
TO YOUR SELVES ! NO AUSTRALIAN BUSSINESS PERSON FARMER EVERYDAY PEOPLE
WANT TO COOK TO DEATH AND SEE THIS MISMANAGMENT KEEP HAPPENING. I AM
ASHAMED AS AN EDUCATED BUSSINESS OWNER TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT IN POWER
THAT CHOISES MONEY OVER US AND I MEAN EVERY SINGLE LIVING BEING!!NSW
GOVERNMENT AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT YOU ATE A DISCRACE.