It is a comment that is sure to bring him and his department some intense headaches in the future, particularly given yesterday’s Warkworth Mine decision.

Twice the court system has rejected the original approval by the Department of Planning for the Warkworth mine expansion.

Now an almost identical plan to mine exactly the same area is in the planning process.  The difference this time round is that the rules have changed.

The State Environmental  Planning Policy now takes into consideration the significance of the resource.

Yes, the system will consider the environmental and social impacts but the major consideration will be the significance of the coal resource.

Now, you don’t have to be an economist or a geologist to realise that particular area of coal is worth an absolute fortune.

Why else would Rio Tinto agree to protect an area of the Woodland Sands for perpetuity in its ‘strict’ conditions of consent back in 2003?

This agreement was signed by the government and the mining company to allow the mine to move to where it is now and that was where it was expected to stop.

For a whole raft of reasons, this country’s court system has agreed with that expectation.

But the company wants to proceed and it is obvious that it will go to every length to ensure the mining continues and the jobs of the 1300 employees continue and now the saga continues for all involved.

If the significance of the coal resource comes into the debate, and it will,  it will be very hard for anyone to successfully argue against the project.

NSW Planning Minister Brad Hazzard said yesterday major mining developments in NSW are determined at arm’s length of Government by the independent Planning Assessment Commission. 

 When it is the NSW Resources and Energy Department making the call on the value of the resource, how is that an arm’s length of the government?