Reading the Planning and Assessment Commission’s (PAC) second review into Rio Tinto’s plans for the expansion of their Mount Thorley and Warkworth mines only took a few minutes.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
So why did two days of public meetings and hundreds, if not thousands, of submissions result in a review only 11 pages in length - that’s right 11 A4 pages which included a factual inaccuracy!
This is great if you want to put a quick story on the web, but one wonders how the people from both sides involved in the process feel about such a brief summation of all their work.
PAC appeared to give weight to fact the Mount Thorley Warkworth (MTW) complex was our biggest local employer and, yes 1300 jobs are vital to our economy.
So the most important question is will Rio Tinto or any future owner of MTW, as it is on market, keep those jobs?
Our community needs some sort of guarantee after all these years of conflict over the future of the mine complex that employment levels will remain in that vicinity and not suddenly slashed for whatever reason.
The other reason PAC appeared to view as an important reason for giving its consent was the $11million in Voluntary Planning Agreement between Rio Tinto and Singleton Council.
In that package Bulga was to receive $5-$6million for the construction of water and sewerage treatment facilities. Why?
Did anyone bother to ask the Bulga residents if that is want they want?
People often elect to live in small village just because they are not like urban areas - they have their own water supplies and on-site sewerage treatment. That’s the attraction of living in a rural area.
Or is it an admission by PAC that the drinking water collected from the rooves in Bulga is contaminated.
Furthermore, gaining approvals does not come cheaply to the proponents.
Anglo American has publicly admitted the cost so far for their Drayton South Project is $75million (which is still awaiting its third PAC outcome) one should therefore imagine Rio Tinto has spent in excess of $100m on the MTW proposals.
Surely there has to be a better way of overcoming landuse conflicts – one that does not divide communities, does not cost the proponent a fortune and provides our community with some economic certainty.
We must look to our future and planning must play a vital part in making that work successfully. The system at present is flawed.
