How to make a submission opposing proposed Coffs by-pass changes

For those not familiar with, or confident enough to get going on a submission, then the template document reproduced below this introduction may help.

By Rod McKelvey (Former Deputy Mayor)

  • The template below has number of headings which are strong points that need to be made to inform local, state and federal politicians; the NSW Department of Planning;tThe RMS; media and; affected people as to why we are opposing this ugly and poorly conceived concept design.
  • The last four pages of the document comprises the references (again) if you want to send them and the list of the names and email addresses of key people for you to choose to send your email to.
  • The polite way to do it is to personally address a submission to each on the contact list, by copying and pasting the contents of either document and attaching the name and contact email addresses, into an email you can easily do this. The other way is to simply email the project team version to other email recipients when you email your submission to the Project Team.
  • Make sure you include your name and address, the recipient’s name & details and a subject line which could be “Submission against the RMS Preferred option for the Coffs Harbour Bypass”
  • Try to avoid, directly copying and pasting, it’s always better to use your own language if possible.
  • Someone might like to print off some addressed copies to key people, and provide them to people who may not have the necessary skills who can then hand write their address, sign the bottom and post them.
  • Submissions must be lodged by October 26 2018.
  • Share via your email lists

Thanks and good luck,



Copy what is below and adjust as per the suggestions above for your email submissions. 

Make your views heard loud and clear!




Your name



Post Code


The Project Team

Coffs Harbour Bypass.

21 Prince Street

Grafton NSW 2460





Re: Submission against the Current RMS Pacific Highway Upgrade Design for Coffs Harbour.


To Whom it may concern,

The following is a submission against the current RMS design proposal for the Pacific Highway upgrade in Coffs Harbour. The submission has a number of subject headings which are the critical points of opposition to this design and the process undertaken by RMS. At the end of my submission I request that you consider the matter carefully and treat Coffs Harbour a community of 75,000 people with due respect and support the reinstatement of our previously agreed concept design. Our principle concern is RMS has not provided any of the repeatedly requested information related to the new design but have already made a decision that this is their preferred design. As a community we need to challenge how this is allowable? The longer this non-disclosure is allowed to drag out, the harder it becomes to make changes to that design and this may be the unfortunate desire of RMS and the NSW Government.



Our town is the last link in the Pacific Highway upgrade program and for the past ten to fourteen years (2004-8), Coffs Harbour’s residents and businesses have been under the assumption that when a bypass of our town did occur, it would be based on all the community consultation that had taken place previously and all we had to do was wait for the funding. In 2008 Connell Wagner released a concept design which included three tunnels and a lower grade line.


Fast forward to 2018 and the NSW Government releases a statement that it has secured $1.2 billion to fund this project. Coffs Harbour rejoiced and assumed that the previous agreed concept would now go on public display and provide the basis for community discussion, refinement and the final detailed design. The community waited and RMS did nothing, publically that is.


Behind the scenes much was been done in secret. In August 2018, rumours began circulating that RMS had been undertaking a radically new design and this one did not include any of the previous features of our last design. No community consultation had occurred at all. None of the other government departments knew what was been planned.


The RMS CEO and the Minister for Roads both publically denied that there were any changes to the previous design and arrogantly downplayed and dismissed any opposition or concerns to anything proposed by RMS.  When the first community display took place on Thursday 27th September, the community discovered that the rumours were true and all three tunnels had in fact been removed. The road was also higher and there was a complete absence of any reports or detailed materials at that display. A publically convened meeting of 395 concerned Coffs Harbour residents and community representatives on Thursday 11th October condemned the current RMS process and called on the Minister and all concerned to revert the design to the agreed 2008 Connell Wagner Concept Design.


RMS staff and politicians all attended the event and must have noted the community’s concerns. The second display which was on Saturday 13th October had even less information than the first. The three tiles there at the first display, showing a 3D view of the cuttings and interchanges, had mysteriously disappeared and were replaced by even more vegetated drawings. Is the RMS so arrogant as an organization that they think the community would miss this point and who told them to remove additional information?


Key Points-RMS Planning &Design Process:

  • The new RMS design does not meet the acceptable standards for community engagement and endorsement. The meeting of the 11th unanimously endorsed the view that the NSW Department of Planning undertake an ‘adequacy review’ to ensure that RMS complies with all the relevant processes before submitting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the department for endorsement.


  • RMS have a legal responsibility to undertake planning and design aspects of a bypass with a high level of community consultation (Preparing an EIS, Dept. of Planning).


  • This new design has all taken place in secret. No community groups, local council or concerned/affected residents have participated in the design. This is contrary to Department of Planning’s guidelines for the preparation of EIS’s and RMS’s own mission statement of community engagement and participation. Of great concern is that at this late stage i.e. when a concept design is tabled as a preferred design, RMS is still refusing to release any of the documents in order for the community to assess the impact of this new design. To proceed any further with this design or to put an EIS on display would severely compromise the actions and due processes of both RMS, the Minister for Roads, the NSW Government and the Department of Planning.


  • Furthermore this new design by RMS is completely dismissive of the NSW Government’s own agenda as described in RMS’s document Pacific Highway Upgrade, Coffs Harbour Bypass, – State significant infrastructure application report (May 2016). On page 13 and 14 of this document (attached for your information), under Project Description it states clearly that there would be
    • Upgrade of the existing Pacific Highway between Korora Hill and the southern Sapphire to Woolgoolga upgrade project to achieve motorway standard: however now RMS creating spaghetti interchange there and inserting two sets of traffic signals to further hamper access to and from the highway. Traffic signals are a cheap solution to reduce the need for a more robust engineered design. We are seeking to remove our traffic signals not install some more.
    • Two tunnels at the northern end of the project and a tunnel south of Coramba Road at Robert’s Hill.
    • While the preferred project would be refined as part of the environmental assessment and concept design process, the project would include the features as generally described below… and these go onto page 14 to describe in detail under Tunnels, that The Project is therefore expected to include two tunnels at the northern end of the project and a third tunnel at … Roberts Hill Ridge. The three tunnels would be relatively short at less than around 500metres


  • The previous design agreed by Coffs Harbour residents for a Pacific Highway Bypass included three tunnels at Roberts Hill, Shepherds Lane and Gately’s Road.


  • The previous design had a much lower road elevation (approximately 22 metres) which the 2008 Connell Wagner Concept report indicated was required to minimize the noise issues for the surrounding community. “With the provision of tunnels it would be possible to substantially lower the proposed vertical alignment in that vicinity, allowing the bypass to be lowered more sympathetically into the existing terrain either side of the major ridgelines, with consequent aesthetic and acoustic benefits”.


  • This new design has all taken place in secret. No community groups, local council or concerned/affected residents have participated in the design. This is contrary to RMS’s own statement of community engagement and participation.


  • Both the NSW Minister for Roads and the RMS CEO have previously mislead the public as to the outcomes of the new design and the process.


  • At a meeting of 395 concerned residents convened on the 11th October, the community unanimously supported tunnels as the best option, (even those who still thought a western bypass would be better) because the RMS preferred option which removes all tunnels, raises the grade line of the road, scars the landscape with ugly huge rock cuttings and fills, impacting the landscape of the area, creating a 14km trench across the ridgeline; destroys significant local Aboriginal cultural heritage and impacts substantially on our local agribusiness to the point of rendering the majority of farms affected, unviable. We demand the design of the upgrade carefully considers the impacts on the landscape and the revert to the three tunnels in the communities preferred design, to reduce the impact on the landscape of the area, as was the case for the Tintenbar to Ewingsdale Upgrade


  • The lack of transparency and secrecy involved in this new design does not meet the acceptable standards for community engagement and endorsement. The meeting of the 11th unanimously endorsed the view that the NSW Department of Planning undertake an ‘adequacy review’ to ensure that RMS complies with all the relevant processes before submitting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the department for endorsement. This extends to the points below which highlights the lack of information supplied to the community by RMS on this design.


  • The lack of transparency has extended to a direct and repeated refusal by RMS to supply any of the required documentation to the public, in order for the community to assess the risks and merits of any design. RMS has refused to supply the following documentation:
    • Noise and vibration report which would indicate the number and extent of residents affected by the new design
    • Traffic and transport assessment report
    • Aboriginal cultural heritage
    • Urban and Landscape design
    • Biodiversity
    • Flooding and hydrology
    • Geology, soils and contamination
    • Ground water and surface water quality
    • Socio economic land use and property assessment which would indicate how many farms and how much agricultural land will be required for this now wider project and what impact this has on our community, now and into the future
    • Waste
    • Air quality
    • Sustainability (how sustainable is the project)
    • The RMS business case or justification for the design change.


Key Points noise and vibration:

  • RMS have repeatedly refused to release the Noise and Vibration report.


  • A higher elevation and steeper grades with between 20,000- 35,000 vehicles per day (17% of these being heavy vehicles/trucks) grinding uphill and downhill using exhaust brakes will all result in a disastrous level of road noise in particular for homes in West Coffs and one that will reverberate throughout the valley.


  • An estimated between 600 -1000 homes will need to be treated for road noise which is a lot of homes and a lot of people significantly affected by this new design. Many more homes will be significantly affected but NOT TREATED.


  • Treatment usually consists of air conditioning, maybe some windows. Residents will be condemned to a life indoors.


  • RMS generally spend between $15,000-to a maximum of $55,000 on treatment at each house which equates to approximately $45million to be spent on noise treatment on this project alone. That amount would be better spent lowering the road and providing tunnels.


Dangerous Goods:

The Minister for Transport Melinda Pavey, stated on local radio (Triple M) that the community wanted the trucks out of the main street of Coffs Harbour. While this is true, the issue of dangerous is a contentious and emotive one, designed to make the community afraid of the potential for a major incident involving a dangerous goods carrier in a city area. The Minister and the CEO for RMS also pointed out that if there are tunnels then dangerous goods will continue to go through town and therefore we cannot have tunnels. This is misleading for our community.


Key Points Dangerous Goods:

All manner of dangerous goods go through tunnels every day.


Only two classifications of dangerous goods are not allowed to go through tunnels and there are Class 1 (explosives) and Class 2:1 (flammable gases).

2004 Connell Wagner traffic and transport report indicated that there were less than 20 dangerous goods vehicles in those classifications on the highway through Coffs and an estimated third (1|3) terminate or originate in Coffs.  This is less than 14 dangerous goods vehicles per day pass through town. To overstate this in the context of all vehicles is misleading.


Petrol tankers go through tunnels every day.


As a major regional centre, Coffs Harbour will continue to have dangerous goods come through our town and Coffs Harbour will continue to have trucks come through the centre of town.


NatRoad the peak body for transport operators recently met with Transport for NSW, RMS and road transport operators to look at improving access for heavy vehicles carrying dangerous goods. The group discussed running a potential trial removing restrictions for dangerous goods in Sydney” (and later elsewhere due to very low risk)


Key Points Traffic and Tunnels – Designing for Current and Future use:

  • As previously noted this new design by RMS is completely dismissive of the NSW Government’s own agenda as described in RMS’s document Pacific Highway Upgrade, Coffs Harbour Bypass, – State significant infrastructure application report (May 2016), under Project Description it states clearly that there would be:


  • Upgrade of the existing Pacific Highway between Korora Hill and the southern Sapphire to Woolgoolga upgrade project to achieve motorway standard: however now RMS creating spaghetti interchange there and inserting two sets of traffic signals to further hamper access to and from the highway. Traffic signals are a cheap solution to reduce the need for a more robust engineered design. We are seeking to remove our traffic signals not install some more.


  • The Interchange at Englands Road appears to be so poorly designed it will force all B-Doubles to travel North to the Korora Interchange, then return through the CBD, to access Isles Drive, because currently B-Boubles cannot turn left into Isles Drive at the Hospital Lights.


  • Two tunnels at the northern end of the project and a tunnel south of Coramba Road at Robert’s Hill.


  • While the preferred project would be refined as part of the environmental assessment and concept design process, the project would include the features as generally described below… and these go onto page 14 to describe in detail under Tunnels, that The Project is therefore expected to include two tunnels at the northern end of the project and a third tunnel at … Roberts Hill Ridge. The three tunnels would be relatively short at less than around 500metres.


  • Lack of a third lane or provision for one, will constrain highway traffic and potentially redirect it back through Coffs Harbour.


  • Lack of a third lane will increase noise substantially on the bypass through trucks grinding gears on the long steep climbs and steep descents of which there will be several. The previous design had flatter lower grades and tunnels designed to substantially reduce noise.


  • Lack of a third lane coupled with steep and long steep grades (climbs and descents) will result in some heavy vehicle traffic (trucks) always occupying the right-hand lane and therefore reducing the efficiency of travelling on the highway. In the left-hand lane, heavy vehicles will lose speed over long distance climbs and will be unable to get it back. This will be made much worse if and when B-Triples are allowed to travel on the Pacific Highway once it’s upgraded.


  • Long steep climbs will also impact significantly on the costs of operating heavy vehicles and may result in those trucks reusing the old Pacific highway through the main street of Coffs Harbour because this has a flatter grade. This in turn will impact on the cost of maintenance to that road which will when handed over by RMS, be worn by Coffs Harbour Council.


  • Substituting three tunnels with cuts and fills will create a visual eyesore extending across the Coffs Harbour’s ridgeline.


  • Assuming that the rock from the cuts is used in the fills, the result will be a complete lack of vegetative growth along this now current biodiverse ridgeline. Nothing but weeds grow in rock.


  • Lack of tunnels will have substantive negative impacts on local fauna especially the current Koala population which are integral to the biodiversity of Coffs Harbour and to ensuring the viability of healthy Koala populations.


  • This community wants ownership of decisions affecting our current and future generations.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The Coffs Harbour and District Local Aboriginal Council and Aboriginal Focus Group are the

only group in our community to have received any report on the impacts of the highway upgrade and the new design in order for RMS to state they have complied with Department of Planning requirements. However the reality is that no consultation has taken place and the community were just as shocked to learn that the tunnels were removed as the rest of Coffs Harbour.

The Aboriginal community have participated in discussion on a new highway for many years and until recently were also under the assumption that any upgrade would respect a living Aboriginal culture by preserving significant Aboriginal songlines, storylines, pathways and artefacts in these areas. Under the new design, all of this will be destroyed and/or removed and the best the Aboriginal community can hope for is a few signs pointing to what once was there. These pathways are also significant as fauna crossings.


  • The wilful destruction of Aboriginal culture is unacceptable and ware united in supporting the Aboriginal Community, the Gumbaynggirr people in their quest to respect and save thousands of years of their culture.


  • The Coffs Harbour and District Local Aboriginal Council are opposed to the current design.
  • The current design proposal will mean the destruction of significant Gumbaynggirr songlines.
  • The current design will have significant impact on physical Gumbaynggirr heritage (Artefacts, Stone tools).


  • Aboriginal values and culture should be respected by RMS and the NSW Government and not adversely destroyed for current and future generations. We all have a responsibility to ensure the heritage of the world’s oldest living culture.


Background-Agriculture and Socio-economic impacts:

The city of Coffs Harbour is surrounded by rich farmlands which provide economic growth and stability in our region. Banana plantations and blueberry farms are large employers and social supporters in the area.


The current design undertaken with NO consultation with farmers and peak bodies, will most likely result in the destruction of key farms which as a result of the design, and will be rendered unviable. This will have multiple flow on affects in our community. RMS have refused to release Socio -economic and land use report which would identify these impacts.


Key Points-Agriculture and Socio-economic impacts:

  • The current design will mostly likely result in a significant loss of key farmland and agri-business. A quick survey of a West Korora Valley would suggest a potential negative economic impact of some $10-$15million. This figure is calculated using a multiplier of 6 as per Coffs Harbour Council guidelines. This is just in one valley. If the losses were added up from all the farms lost over a ten-year period, that more than justify the cost of a tunnel.
  • Advice to agribusiness from the NSW Department of Primary Industries supports minimal earthworks to limit potential disease risks from soil movement. This advice, told repeatedly to RMS staff has fallen on deaf ears.


  • Tunnels will help limit soil movement, lessen environmental impacts and ensure the valuable farming sector can continue with reduced impacts.


  • The cost of loss in this sector must be fully understood in long term financial losses to the community as a whole as well e.g. it is not just the loss of a farm today but in the next ten years.


  • A socio-historical loss is that of the forced removal of pioneering farming families in this area, many of which could remain with the construction of tunnels as their properties would not be rendered unviable.


In conclusion:

The residents of Coffs Harbour have grave and justifiable concerns about whether proper process has been followed by RMS and NSW Government in putting a new design on the table without any community consultation. The repeated refusals of RMS to issue any of the relevant documentation related to the key aspects of the project so that we as a community may make informed decisions and seek clarification is also of grave concern as we believe this is contrary to the principles of community engagement and good government.


Of significant concern is that RMS have not provided this repeatedly requested information but have already made a decision on the design which they are calling a ‘preferred design’ – preferred by whom?. How is this legitimate or acceptable? The longer this is allowed to drag out the harder it becomes to make changes to that decision. 


Also of concern is the extent to which senior public servants such as the CEO of RMS and the Minister for Roads have sought to provide misleading information to our community in order to deflect any criticisms of the new design or detract from their agenda.


Case in point is the cost of tunnels. The only way to know the true cost of maintaining tunnels or any other infrastructure is firstly to know what the tunnel design detail is, the tunnel components and how they will be managed.

The RMS have repeatedly refused to release the concept design to provide justification for anything. However it is very difficult to believe that three short simple tunnels with mechanical ventilation, the latest in LED lighting, managed from the purpose built Tunnel Control Centre at St Helena Byron Bay, (which already manages two tunnels remotely), could cost anywhere near $10-15million per year.

Statements like this is designed to mislead. RMS need to provide the detailed costings for the project so this can be individually peer reviewed. Only then can the community trust what they say. Anything else is pure speculation.


Coffs Harbour residents want the bypass and we want is as soon as possible but, we don’t want it to suit a state and federal government election calendar.


We want and deserve something that enhances our chosen lifestyle and amenity; maintains Coffs Harbour’s cultural and environmental beauty and; is a source of pride for our strong community – three tunnels, a lower grade line, actual Twenty First Century motor way standard interchanges, that align the junction of two or more surface transport axes at different heights (grades) so that they will not disrupt the traffic flow on other transit routes when they cross each other, two lanes each direction (three lanes up any long inclines with a gradients over 4%) with sufficient median width to accommodate future upgrading to three lanes in each direction, and significantly less impact on agribusinesses and local Aboriginal cultural heritage.


We reject the current process as an abomination of due process and engineering excellence in design. The RMS design looks very much like the NSW Government and RMS are proposing that Coffs Harbour should accept a ring road full of trenches.


Thank you for the opportunity to comment.


Yours faithfully




REFERENCES for this submission

Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement – Draft Guidelines, Department of Environment and Planning, 2017


Concept Design Report Coffs Harbour Bypass, Connell Wagner, 2008


Coffs Harbour Highway Planning – Coffs Harbour section, Dangerous Goods Transport Comparative Risk Assessment, No8, 2004


Coffs Harbour Highway Planning Coffs Harbour Bypass State Significant Infrastructure Application Report 2015. Page 13 dot point 4 Tunnels, dot point 8 Tunnel Infrastructure (written words not map drawings).


Coffs Harbour Highway Planning Coffs Harbour Bypass Working Paper Urban Design and Visual Assessment – Inner Bypass Options, Connell Wagner, 2004


Coffs Harbour Highway Planning Coffs Harbour Section, Geotechnical Desk Study and Field Mapping Report, Working Paper No 3, Connell Wagner, 2004


Coffs Harbour Highway Planning, Community Involvement Summary Report, Coffs Harbour City Council’s Preferred Corridor, PRAMAX 2004


Noise Criteria Guideline, Roads and Maritime Services, 2014


Noise Mitigation Guideline, Roads and Maritime Services, 2014


Road Noise Policy, NSW Environment Protection Agency, 2011


Environmental Noise Management Manual, RMS, 2001


Transporting Dangerous Goods – Natroad.com.au, August 2018


Operational Noise Report – Banora Point, RMS, 2013


Banora Point completed project, RMS Pacific Highway, RMS website


Meeting Notes July 2011, Tintenbar-Ewingsdale Upgrade- Bangalow Interchange. Where the Govt/RTA(RMS)wanted tunnels. In the Q&A section they say cuttings will make a huge impact on the landscape of the area. They were also happy to direct  7-15 Class 1 and Class 2.1 Dangerous goods trucks through Bangalow.



From the RMS website: “Roads and Maritime Services has responsibility for maintaining three tunnels in Northern Region – the St Helena, Tugun Bypass and Cudgen tunnels”. All three tunnels are managed from the St Helena tunnel.



Urban design Guide for Tunnels – RMS, 2017 (definition of tunnels and variations including international examples)


Environmental Protection Authority NSW, Overview of Dangerous Goods, EPA website


Coffs Harbour City Council Local Environmental Plan (LEP), 2013


Coffs Harbour Developmental Control Plan, 2015














Contacts and email addresses for Submissions to the

RMS Coffs Harbour Bypass Preferred Concept Design



It is important to put something in the subject line otherwise the various government servers reject the emails as SPAM


in subject line put:

Coffs Harbour Pacific Highway upgrade – Rejection of RMS Design and process.


NSW GovernmentNSW Premier, The Hon Gladys Berejiklianwilloughby@parliament.nsw.gov.au


or you can go to Contact NSW Premier and fill out an email form there or contact her office directly for an email address

 Minister for Roads, Melinda Pavey


Member for Oxley







 Minister for Planning

Anthony Roberts




 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs

Sarah Mitchell





 Minister for Environment – Gabrielle Uptonoffice@upton.minister.nsw.gov.au




 Minister for Transport and Infrastructure – Andrew Constanceoffice@constance.minister.nsw.gov.au


NSW opposition


Opposition Spokesperson for Roads and Transport


Jodi McKay



 Opposition Spokesperson for Planning


Michael Daley




 Opposition Spokesperson for Environment & Heritage


Penny Sharpe




 NSW Opposition  Leader

Luke Foley




NSW GreensJeremy Buckingham MLC


David Shoebridge






 Australian Greens National Officegreensoffice@greens.org.au


Coffs Harbour City Council













Federal Government


Deputy PM and Federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development

Michael McCormack.



 Federal Minister for Environment  – The Hon Melissa Price MPMelissa.Price.MP@aph.gov.au


Federal OppositionAnthony Albanese MP

Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional development



Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)Ken Kanofski








 Jeff Mccarthy


Executive Director -technical and Project services (chief engineer but without civil engineering qualifications)






 Roy Wakelin-king

Regional and Freight Division




 John Alexander

Regional Manager -Northern



Friends of the Koala info@friendsofthekoala.org


NSW Department of PlanningCarolyn McNally – Secretary


Brendan Nelson – Deputy Secretary


Northern Regional office (Grafton)








NSW Farmers FederationJames Jackson – president


Michael Collins – regional services manager – northern





NSW Office of Heritage and EnvironmentChief Executive. Anthony Lean


In subject line put:

Coffs Harbour Pacific Highway upgrade design rejection





Federal department of Environment & EnergyDean Knudson – deputy secretary Environmental Protection


Finn Pratt – Secretary






Australian Blueberry growers AssociationAlex Smith – Executive Director.You’ll need to ring 0409200926 to obtain his email address
Australian Banana Growers CouncilStephen Low – Chair


Jim Pekin – CEO








One Comment

  1. Tad Soroczynski

    (public documents September 2018)

    In my opinion, the current proposal simply moves the Pacific Highway from one location to another without any allowance for the future extension of Coffs Harbour. The relationship of the proposed project to the future development of Coffs Harbour is, apparently, not even considered.

    The Australian Bureau of Statistics projects the doubling of the Australian population by 2075, so it is probable that the population of Coffs Harbour will double also. On this basis, it can easily be seen that, by 2075, the proposed bypass will be in the middle of urban development, in a similar way to the existing Pacific Highway which goes through the middle of town. Future urban development will, necessarily, have to be built to the west of the proposed bypass. Obviously, this section of the proposed new Highway will necessarily have to be used by both interstate and local traffic.

    As projected, on the basis of the traffic study, the highway should reach its capacity by 2034, which is approximately 10-12 years after completion. This certainly means that, by the time the highway reaches capacity the two lanes in one direction, as proposed, will already be insufficient and the proposed bridges and tunnels will then be certain to cause constraints or “bottle necks” to future traffic.

    Further, it is obvious that bridges and/or tunnels should be designed for additional lanes, at least three lines in one direction, which is what will certainly be required in the future. Unfortunately, it must be concluded that the presented concept has not been designed with any consideration of what will be required in the future.

    It must, therefore, be concluded that the currently proposed project is short sighted and, as such, represents a cynical and short sighted waste of public money.

    Tad Soroczynski (PhD)
    (strategic planner)

    ABS, (2013) Population projection Australia 2012(base) to 2101,
    (Catalogue number 3222.0, 26 November 2013)

    Soroczynski, T. (1999), Integrated Systems Analysis of Population, Land and Water Resource, PhD thesis, University of New England, Australia, (unpublished).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *