The Gardens of Stone Stage 2: presentation to Lithgow Council, 18 April 2006

The Society is most concerned at the reception given to the GoS2 proposal by Lithgow Council. The tone of the meeting, apparently reflecting insufficient consultation before the launch of the proposal, was indicated by your prejudicial comments about perceived inaccuracies (to which you allowed negligible time for detailed written response) within a substantial document principally produced by volunteer organisations. At one point you even implied that the carefully produced maps might be deliberately misleading. Furthermore, having used your microphone-aided position to present your largely destructive comments, you used the power of your position to restrict attempts to respond to the matters raised by you and other Councillors.

It would seem that much time was spent searching for debateable errors, rather than attempting to understand the scope of the proposal and its broader implications for the future of Lithgow and the western Blue Mountains. Negligible consideration was given to the time and effort put in by dedicated proponents, who seek to protect the magnificent values of the region; certainly not to receive ‘donations’ from the Emirates or Centennial, as implied in the Lithgow Mercury (02/03/06). It is instructive that Len Ashworth reported (Lithgow Mercury, 20/04/06): “The session was held in an atmosphere of undisguised hostility…with Councillors accusing the lobbyists of engaging in hidden agendas, half-truths and outright lies”.

Disregarding the unsatisfactory way in which the meeting was conducted, Councillor’s questions largely focused on the implications of the proposal for the coal industry, the methods of achieving better environmental protection from irresponsible trail-bike and 4WD use (versus their ‘right’ to use the land unimpeded), the implications for the ‘local’ timber industry, and the Bells Line of Road Superhighway. No significant attempt was made to examine the implications for Lithgow in terms of the protection of a beautiful region with unparalleled values and its potential to sustain an expanding tourist industry

Much was made of Centennial’s refusal to endorse the proposal. This was based on the argument that Government already heavily controls operations, and reservation within an SCA might place further constraints on underground mining. The emphasis is on ‘might’! Centennial’s attitude is a classical expression of corporate risk-aversion. In essence, why take the slightest risk when the company has nothing to gain? Why give the ‘environment’ a free kick? In fact, why do anything for the benefit of the environment that isn’t mandated by Government? The fact that underground mining is compatible with an SCA, and that SCA protection was chosen for that precise reason is disregarded.

The impact on open-cut mining was raised. An SCA is incompatible with open-cut coal mining or sand extraction. A small tract with open-cut coal potential in the upper Cox’s River-Long Swamp region would be affected by the proposal. However, because this involves water supply, environmental groups, concerned local residents, the EPA, State Water, and the Federal DEH (in relation to protection of endangered swamps under the EPBC Act) would probably oppose a development application. Granting an SCA could therefore save everyone substantial amounts of time. In any case, it should be realised that the State Government can excise any portion of the proposal that it deems inappropriate.

A sand/kaolin mine was recently approved and the Boral property remains on care and maintenance. The Society is opposed to the mine and to any additional sand extraction. Granting an SCA over the unaffected region would preclude further development applications.

The view that people have a ‘right’ to use 4WD vehicles and trail bikes on crown land and apparently within a State Forest was strongly put. Councillors did not reject this. They acknowledged the need for better environmental protection, but questioned whether an SCA could provide it.

There is a ‘right’ to use established roads and tracks unless opposed by appropriate signage. There is no ‘right’ to use vehicles off-road in a way that damages the ecosystem and imposes mechanical noise to the detriment of others. The argument that ‘they have to go somewhere to practise their sport’ is spurious; bona fide clubs can negotiate access to private property or perhaps State pine forest for their members. It is not the role of GoS2’s proponents to organise this. Rejecting the potential protection that an SCA offers, because some irresponsible use will be ongoing, is akin to abandoning drink-driving regulation because there are still some offenders.

The proposal requires that forestry activities progressively stop. Council emphasised the loss of associated jobs and considered it unacceptable. Appropriate compensatory measures would be needed, and a mechanism was mentioned at the meeting. But this is the role of Government, not that of the GoS2 proponents.

The Bells Line of Road Superhighway is more far-reaching than the GoS2 proposal. It is primarily rejected for its impact on the World Heritage Area, greenhouse gases, climate change and any cost/benefit analysis. However, it cuts through Newnes Plateau and thereby adversely affects the GoS2 proposal. To that extent, Council is correct in seeing the proposal as opposed to Superhighway aspirations.

Lithgow Council is apparently more concerned with immediacy, scare-mongering and ‘freedom’ to wreak environmental mayhem, than it is with a sustainable future. Council can have its coal industry, AND an expanding and sustainable tourist industry, AND preserve its magnificent environment.

Instead, the baby is going out with the bath water!

Dr Brian Marshall, President,
For the Management Committee.

Cc: Hon Bob Debus, Minister for the Environment,
Hon Sandra Nori, Minister for Tourism,
Hon Gerard Martin, Government Whip,
Mr P. Anderson, GM, Lithgow Council.
Mr Len Ashworth, Lithgow Mercury,
Ms Jacqui Knox, BMG,
Ms Danielle Post, Prime Television.

THE GARDENS OF STONE STAGE 2 PROPOSAL

Brian Marshall

The proposal (a ring-backed book) by the Colong Foundation, BMCS and the Colo Committee was launched in late 2005 and reported in the December issue of Hut News. It covers 40,000 hectares extending from Medlow Bath north-northwest to Capertee and requires the creation of State Conservation Areas (SCAs) over regions with exploitable underground coal resources, and extensions to National Parks in other portions (Fig. 1).

A second book (Stage 2 Illustrated) has ‘joined’ the proposal and both are under consideration by Government through the Department of the Environment and Conservation. Copies of the proposal have (inter alia) gone to the Premier, appropriate Ministers and local Members, pertinent members of the Opposition and Greens, the Mayors and General Managers of the Blue Mountains (BMCC) and Lithgow Councils (LCC), and the Aboriginal Tribal Council.

Plans are in train to develop further awareness of and support for the proposal through a range of meetings with politicians, conducted tours of the region, presentations to organisations such as the Aboriginal Tribal Council, Bushwalking Clubs and the World Heritage Institute.

The World Heritage Area Advisory Council support the proposal and have commended it to the BMCC. It would seem that BMCC will support the broad thrust of the proposal, although they may possibly prefer to retain small portions of the National Park extensions under Council management. The Blue Mountains tourist industry and the Emirates (Wolgan Valley Resort) are supportive. So also are environmental groups in the Lithgow and Capertee regions, and organisations such as the National Parks Association

Opposition to the proposal has predictably come from coal mining and sand extraction companies, off-road 4WD and trail bike organisations, and other forms of vested interest.

LCC has opposed the proposal in principle and has adopted an intensely critical and destructive approach. This is surprising, since the Lithgow community has much to gain (including employment and diversification) from a sustainable tourist industry that would be enhanced by passage of the proposal. Aspects of LCC’s opposition are detailed in a separate article.