The response from the public was initially quite good. Meetings were held at first about every three months then dwindled to an occasional basis, with the time between meetings dropping off markedly during 1999 and 2000. In addition, BHP held an open day, and made available to the public information about their local operations.

What form did these "Consultation Meetings" take? By the above definition, one might have expected that BHP would have been expressing their regard for your and our interests (forget not that this is a catchment-wide issue, not just local) by hearing and responding to concerns. To give them credit, they did listen, and they did hear, it is just what they did with what they heard that should give us all grave concern, if not make us fighting mad! In fact, it demonstrates a lack of concern bordering on arrogance for the environment and for the wishes of those whose immediate environment will be adversely affected.

BHP certainly told the community what they were currently doing, and what they were planning, but that is where it stopped. No consultation to establish a means of meeting the needs of both community and Company – just the Company.

When it was pointed out that extensive damage was likely to occur if BHP maximised its option to mine under the river, rather than stop short of it, the meeting was told that this was the Government’s coal, and they, BHP were simply mining it. We were reassured that all would be carefully and fully "monitored"! In fact, the BHP answer to all potential damage is to "monitor". At this rate, we will have fully documented records to show our grandchildren, indicating that the damage was acceptable because, while it was happening, it was being "monitored".

As an example, a BHP representative stated that if they, BHP, found a significant Aboriginal site, and it was considered in danger of being damaged by the mining, they would fully record it, and then go on mining. But we would have a record of it!

Questions about a possible repetition of damage as occurred in the Cataract River following longwall mining were met with assurances and reassurances that the Georges was different, and these things would not happen again. As time went by, and "these things" did happen in the Georges, questions from those attending the "Consultation Meetings" became more insistent, but responses indicated that the problems were simply the result of slight inaccuracies in the predictions, and the figures were going back to the consultant to be looked at again. That was supposed to make it alright!

The meetings were basically, "We are telling you what we are going to do. We are not open to changing the method or the extent of the mining in order to meet community needs". The only time BHP responded to local community pressure was in the rehabilitation of a walking track destroyed by a BHP contractor and then, only that part of the damage that the public could see. The rest of the damage was left unremediated. We continue to negotiate for full remediation.

One might ask, why is BHP bothering with this charade of "Community Consultation"? I suspect that BHP’s experience in the Cataract was hardly conducive to good community relations, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that these meetings serve simply to allay local concerns. They are possibly also to deflect attention from the very real damage occurring, and which BHP now acknowledges is very likely to occur – damage which they cannot even accurately predict, nor prevent.

Can we blame BHP for what they are doing? Well, one could make an argument for not doing so: the coal belongs to the Government, and BHP is only mining it. If anyone/anything is to blame, perhaps it is our Government’s lax environmental standards as applied to mining applications which allow the destructive practice of longwall mining to continue. Perhaps in the future, if we the community insist, this can be changed, but for now BHP is doing no more than pursuing what they are legally entitled to pursue, while we’re being informed, and we’re wearing it!