Mr TOYNE - 2000-05-10
The CLP proposes to dam Darwin Harbour tributaries such as the Elizabeth River and Wood’s Inlet for Gold Coast style marina developments, severely impacting on the environment, particularly fish nurseries. Labor has promised the Territory’s large recreational fishing community - no dams for our harbour. Will the minister now stand up and match Labor’s commitment by unequivocally saying that there will be no dams in Darwin Harbour.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I think it is worthwhile for Territorians’ sake to put this into context. Labor seems to be running a bit of a line, going around saying the sky is falling, the sky is falling, that the CLP want to dam the rivers and tributaries of the Darwin Harbour.
For the sake of Territorians listening to this broadcast, in 1990 plans were developed for future options of the development of Darwin to a population of one million people. 1990, 10 years ago.
A member: So all Leanyer swamp there is still current too then.
Mr BALDWIN: That is a good point, whether the Labor Party should be ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: A good point, picking up on the Chief Minister, is that Labor should explain to Territorians their dam proposal from their 1994 elections. 10 years ago we developed conceptual plans for the Darwin Harbour for Darwin to expand to one million people over time. If you are a planner and you want to maximise the total use of land available, you would have a look at putting dams across some of the tributaries to maximise all of the land around Darwin Harbour. They are conceptual plans by planners, they have no imprimatur of government, they are not government policy. But now that this matter is raised ...
Ms Martin: ... as government policy.
Mr SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BALDWIN: Picking up on that point, it shows you how the Leader of the Opposition, who is also the shadow minister for Lands and Planning – and I am not sure why the member for Stuart is asking the question – understands about the process. This is not land use objectives, they have no imprimatur as land use. This is a land use structure plan. One day, when she wants to come to a briefing, I will explain the difference to her, but its no point trying to do it here. I am trying to explain to Territorians that these are concepts that would allow the maximum use of land around Darwin Harbour.
Perhaps it is time that we go and ask Darwinites where they prefer to live. Do they want to live in strip development down the Stuart Highway, as Labor is proposing? Do they want to go and live only in Batchelor? Do they want to see the next Palmerston in Batchelor, Adelaide River, Acacia? Have they done their homework on where the facilities would come from, where the infrastructure would come from, and where the effluent would flow, down the Adelaide River? Have they had a look at that? They should explain their policy to Territorians. Perhaps it is time that we went out with land use objectives to have a look at how Territorians, Darwinites in particular, would prefer to live in and around this pristine harbour precinct.
The 1990 land use structure plan is not there to tell Darwinites how they should live. It is an option that has been presented for the future development of Darwin. It’s an option, and I think the opposition should take note of that word. It is an option. It is not the only option, and I am sure Darwinites would continue to want to live and look into the harbour as the next process of any development for the continuation of the development of Darwin would be to develop land use structure plans. And I will explain that the to the Leader of the Opposition one day, how they work. But Central Darwin Vision is a good case in point. You go out to the people, you develop plans in conjunction and consultation with the people, and perhaps it is timely that we start doing that, to look at all options. Ten years ago a plan was put in to develop options for consideration.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I think it is worthwhile for Territorians’ sake to put this into context. Labor seems to be running a bit of a line, going around saying the sky is falling, the sky is falling, that the CLP want to dam the rivers and tributaries of the Darwin Harbour.
For the sake of Territorians listening to this broadcast, in 1990 plans were developed for future options of the development of Darwin to a population of one million people. 1990, 10 years ago.
A member: So all Leanyer swamp there is still current too then.
Mr BALDWIN: That is a good point, whether the Labor Party should be ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: A good point, picking up on the Chief Minister, is that Labor should explain to Territorians their dam proposal from their 1994 elections. 10 years ago we developed conceptual plans for the Darwin Harbour for Darwin to expand to one million people over time. If you are a planner and you want to maximise the total use of land available, you would have a look at putting dams across some of the tributaries to maximise all of the land around Darwin Harbour. They are conceptual plans by planners, they have no imprimatur of government, they are not government policy. But now that this matter is raised ...
Ms Martin: ... as government policy.
Mr SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BALDWIN: Picking up on that point, it shows you how the Leader of the Opposition, who is also the shadow minister for Lands and Planning – and I am not sure why the member for Stuart is asking the question – understands about the process. This is not land use objectives, they have no imprimatur as land use. This is a land use structure plan. One day, when she wants to come to a briefing, I will explain the difference to her, but its no point trying to do it here. I am trying to explain to Territorians that these are concepts that would allow the maximum use of land around Darwin Harbour.
Perhaps it is time that we go and ask Darwinites where they prefer to live. Do they want to live in strip development down the Stuart Highway, as Labor is proposing? Do they want to go and live only in Batchelor? Do they want to see the next Palmerston in Batchelor, Adelaide River, Acacia? Have they done their homework on where the facilities would come from, where the infrastructure would come from, and where the effluent would flow, down the Adelaide River? Have they had a look at that? They should explain their policy to Territorians. Perhaps it is time that we went out with land use objectives to have a look at how Territorians, Darwinites in particular, would prefer to live in and around this pristine harbour precinct.
The 1990 land use structure plan is not there to tell Darwinites how they should live. It is an option that has been presented for the future development of Darwin. It’s an option, and I think the opposition should take note of that word. It is an option. It is not the only option, and I am sure Darwinites would continue to want to live and look into the harbour as the next process of any development for the continuation of the development of Darwin would be to develop land use structure plans. And I will explain that the to the Leader of the Opposition one day, how they work. But Central Darwin Vision is a good case in point. You go out to the people, you develop plans in conjunction and consultation with the people, and perhaps it is timely that we start doing that, to look at all options. Ten years ago a plan was put in to develop options for consideration.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016