Robert
You talk about the State as if it has nothing to do with it's citizens but in a democracy it actually represents them. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs unfortunately and every new road ,bridge ,power station, power line, mine or factory is going to disadvantage someone. The nimby principle is alive and well in this country and that is normal but governments are not there to just make easy decisions. That said I believe that CSG and similar operations should pay some royalties to the landowners which would go a long way to defusing the issues. That seems common sense to me.

Neil Gibson, you claim that the state represents its citizens in a "democracy". How then do you explain the fact that 87% of Lismore residents voted against CSG exploration and mining at a plebiscite at the last local government elections and yet all the local members of state parliament still support CSG? The answer is clear: the state represents the corporate interests that fund the politicians of both major parties and that threaten politicians with massive campaigns of disinformation if they don't adhere to the corporate position (as evidenced in Kevin Rudd's first attempt at a mining tax).

You talk about NIMBY; I would like to hear your attitude to CSG if they were drilling next door to your house, polluting your landscape, air, water, and soil, and devastating your health and property values, rendering worthless all that you worked for during your life. I think you might have a different attitude. NIAB, Not In Anybody's Backyard, is what the people of the Northern Rivers are clearly saying about CSG; and "democracy" and the planning system has manifestly failed us.

Many years ago I worked as an environmental planner but left the field because the flaws in the system, such as an inability to assess and account for the cumulative impact of multiple development projects, became patently clear to me. The planning system in NSW has only got worse since then with all the "reforms" just giving more power to monied interests and less to the local communities that have to live with the impacts of developments. Amanda Kennedy points out just one example of this erosion of the planning laws.

Ironically, governments are desperate for royalties from resource developments precisely because their tax base has been devastated by tax avoidance/minimisation by the international corporations. In this desperation, our governments are not making decisions in the long-term public interest. It then falls to individual citizens to protect that interest even if it does regrettably involve breaking the law.

Neil, shouldn't you be publicly acknowledging your links to the mining industry lobby?

Neil, I urge you to look a little closer at what is considered a "democracy" currently in the western world. As a system it actually works from the top down, when it should work from the bottom up. Having a vote once every 4-5 years to choose between a group of hierarchically structured 'parties' (supported by a hierarchically structured bureaucracy) with little chance for participatory say and action is a far cry from what democracy ideally stands for. Many who do not vote or live in this democracy but have a business interest have a greater say in the halls of government than citizens do - they can lobby for their benefits in ways the people can not.
It is time to consider the basis of your argument. Why do we need more roads, bridges, power stations from the same past model we now know is not working or sustainable? We already know alternatives which can work better. You may have to break an egg to make an omelette, but it will only feed you in the present if you destroy the ecosystem the chicken relies on to lay future eggs.

At the end of the day each of these parties have to eventually face the people in an election. I agree that is a flawed system mainly because people actually get what they want which is more of everything and that is unsustainable financially. You say that business has a great say in government which is proper because it is only business that provides productive jobs in a sense of generating wealth which pays for the welfare of our citizens. The past models you refer to are actually working and sustainable but not according to your political philosophy. If you want to study doom-sayers start with Paul Ehrlich and his predictions all the way to the present global warming catastrophists . According to Ehrlich today's world shouldn't exist and his modern AGW Cassandras are flailing around to explain a 16 year hiatus in their calendar of doom. Prophets should not make prophesies which can be disproved in their lifetimes.

Robert, you state: "Australia wide, the legislation governing the whole approval process for resource projects was essentially written by.. you guesssed it... the resource industry and its lobby groups happily supported by politicians". Bollocks! In WA, the state that exports more minerals than virtually all the other states combined, the Mining Act gives an absolute power of veto to landowners of productive land. The Mining industry has opposed this for decades but politicians have always retained it in legislation so, in WA at least, your claims are patently incorrect.
If people concerned about the spread of new mines in the eastern states really wanted to balance up the power between miners and the community, they should be pushing for just one legislative change: to give the owners of productive land the same power of veto that exists in the west.

We have heard about an agricultural veto, but it's more mythological than a unicorn. In practice, the veto you mention has no teeth. The only real avenue for input provided to the public is through the environmental process and recent changes introduced to the EPA act in 2010 tried to limit that input by limiting comments to one paragraph on the EPA website.
Our area has been this process recently iincluding appeals and the wardens court, where we were told our arguments (I.e. social, economic and amenity) were 99% irrelevant at law.
So your assertion that this "veto" is an absolute, is laughable, as never once during the whole process including a major law firms legal advice was it ever brought up as a realistic option.
Is this a case of theory vs the real experience?

Robert McDougall, I think you need to find better lawyers. Section 29 (2) of the Mining Act states:

Except with the consent in writing of the owner and the occupier of the private land concerned, a mining tenement shall not be granted in respect of private land —
(a) which is in bona fide and regular use as a yard, stockyard, garden, orchard, vineyard, plant nursery or plantation or is land under cultivation; or
(b) which is the site of a cemetery or burial ground; or
(c) which is the site of a dam, bore, well or spring; or
(d) on which there is erected a substantial improvement; or
(e) which is situated within 100 m of any private land referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d); or
(f) which is a separate parcel of land and has an area of 2 000 m2 or less,
unless the mining tenement is granted only in respect of that part of that private land which is not less than 30 m below the lowest part of the natural surface of that private land.

So, unless the private landowner gives explicit approval for mining to proceed on his or her land, then mining of the top 30 metres of the property cannot proceed (unless government resumes the land under the Public Works Act and pays compensation but that's a different issue).

Of course, this leaves open the question of a mining company being able to mine (which includes fracking) at a depth greater than 30 metres and, for this to happen, there still needs to be government approval to mine plus access from an adjoining piece of private or public land. But the type of mining proposed by Whitehaven Coal could not occur if NSW gave its private landowners the same protection as is enshrined in the WA Mining Act.

Exactly Bernie, the top 30m of land.

However typically the mining companies aren't that interested in the top 30m of land, they want what's deeper down. The mining act also guarantees miners access to that land to explore and mine and the land holder has the right to negotiate a land access agreement or get taken to court to impose such. The landholders neighbor who may not have the mine surface footprint on their land has no say, although also potentially impacted.

So in summation yes there is a veto, for the productive use for the top 30 meters, but the landowner is required by law to provide access to mining companies to explore, construct facilities and mine on the surface of their properties.

Something you obviously were aware of when you replied, so when dealing with a coal mine at greater than 30 m depth, the veto is irrelevant.

Robert, can you please advise which section of the Mining Act requires landowners to provide access to a mining company against their will? I'm not aware of such a provision in the Act and, as Section 29(2) states, no mining activity can take place except with the explicit permission of the owner and occupier. And I've never heard of a landowner being taken to court to have mining company access imposed upon their private land if they have objected to the grant of a mining tenement as it applies to the top 30 metres of their land.
One possible exception may be where the land was uncleared native vegetation - 'unproductive' according to the Mining Act - but it is very easy to claim that such vegetation is in fact productive if the landowner is only mildly imaginative.
Most mining companies are in fact interested in the top 30 metres of land since open-cut mining is absolutely impossible unless this portion of a landowner's land is available for disturbance.
Sorry but your claim that "the landowner is required by law to provide access to mining companies to explore, construct facilities and mine on the surface of their properties." is just not correct if the landowner has denied the grant of a tenement over the top 30 metres of private property.

Ok Bernie, I think we need to clarify something. I am referring to Mining activities below th 30m level. While I dig up the section of the Mining act that requires land holders to provide access to the surface re leases below the 30m level, can you outline the rights of the lease holder to gain access to the surface for the purposes of exploration below the 30m mark and the rights to construct facilities to access such resource?

To be clear, the rights of access for a tenement below 30m to the surface land.

Philip Dowling, you cant be serious to compare what Jonathan Moylan did to what Anders Brievik did.

Thomas, I was not comparing actions but logic. The notion that a personal exemption from the law applies if one is motivated by a perceived higher morality can lead to the justification of all sorts of actions. To encourage those actions because one personally agrees with the aim is also questionable.
I chose Breivik as an extreme example of where such a path might lead.
One can find many others across the poitical spectrum. 9/11 bombing, the Unabomber, the Brigate Rosse, Aaron Swartz, Symbionese Liberation Army, Holsworthy Army Base conspirators.
None of these were motivated by greed but by beliefs.

"I agree with some of the other comments here in that Moylan and his cohort are hardly speaking on behalf of the majority of Australia." < the reason may be that the majority is largely ignorant about the issues and traditionally all change is initiated by an initial minority or individual - one cannot have an educated opinion on something one doesn't know anything about. In effect, environmentalists are speaking on behalf of all species, incl. humans, even if these do not realise it ... yet.