TWO Newcastle-based social environmental researchers say the social impacts of Rio Tinto’s expansion plans for Mount Thorley Warkworth mines outweigh the socio-economic benefits of the projects.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Michael Askew and his sister Louise Askew have made a submission to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which is currently undertaking its second review into the projects.
In their written submission to PAC they state they were the primary social researchers who undertook the data collection and analysis for the Social Impact Statement (SIA) for the proposed Warkworth and Mt Thorley Continuation Projects.
The SIA, which is included in the project’s Environmental Impact Statement, was prepared for Rio Tinto by EMGA Mitchell McLennan.
However, the Askews were not involved in the development of the final version and submission of the SIA’s to the Department of Planning and Environment.
In their PAC submission they say, in their personal and professional opinion, the final version of the SIA had problematic inaccuracies.
“What is evident from the published reports, assessments and NSW Land and Environment Court findings, along with our own personal knowledge of the affected areas, is that the social impacts from the proposed projects would significantly outweigh the socio-economic opportunities if the projects were to proceed,” they say.
“Surrounding communities, like Bulga, are especially vulnerable to disruption, degradation and displacement from proximate extractive projects; at the same time, they hold the key to successful transition to the economies of the future (through agriculture, entrepreneurism, new and decentralised energy generation technologies etc).
“The proposed projects represent a direct and real threat to the future of Bulga and surrounding communities and the ongoing health and sustainability of the region.
“We trust that you, the Commissioners, will make the right and just decision regarding these projects.”
Commenting on the Askews’ submission Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association spokesman John Krey said it highlighted the need for the preparation of truly independent Environmental Impacts Statements (EIS).
“Proponents should no longer engage companies to prepare these reports,” he said.
“Perhaps PAC could be paid by mining companies to prepare a true independent EIS.”
Mr Krey described this development as our very own ‘Volkswagen’ moment.
The issues raised by the both the Askews were included in a letter from PAC to the Department of Planning late last month where they requested further information on a series of issues.
PAC wanted information regarding the consultation with relevant Aboriginal stakeholders, the proposed rehabilitation of the Warkworth Sands Ecological Endangered Community and cumulative impacts of the projects.
In their response to PAC, the Department of Planning, in a letter dated October 2, say all those issues have been adequately addressed in their existing reports.
Similarly Rio Tinto argues they have already addressed the issues raised by PAC.
EMGA Mitchell McLennan have responded to PAC about their SIA prepared for Rio Tinto by stating Michael and Louise Askew’s principal contribution to the SI was background research, initial consultation and reporting of these consultations activities.
“These tasks were undertaken in the early phases of the SIA process and their involvement in the project ceased during preparation of the technical studies, well in advance of finalisation, and incorporation of results into the SIA,” their letter states.
