Mr HATTON - 1999-10-14
My question concerns a whole-of-government issue. We are aware there are a whole range of things coming together. We have the planning process that is taking place in the central business district and the central precinct. There are the East Arm port development, the relocation of the oil tanks to East Arm, developments in the offshore oil and gas industry and the prospect of an LNG plant - combined of course with the need for offshore supply services in the East Arm area - and the railway project, hopefully imminent, which will require further development of the East Arm port. Can the Chief Minister please advise what the state of affairs is in respect of the development of East Arm as an offshore supply base, the relocation of the oil tank farm and preparations to facilitate the railway project?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, members who have been out to East Arm lately will have seen the extensive development that has occurred, not only in the immediate port area but also in the general area of the Trade Development Zone, showing the strong vote of confidence that business is giving to the potential of the port facility.
It was particularly pleasing for me on Tuesday to open the Aker Shore Base facility. This is another excellent example of a joint venture between a local Territory company and a large multinational corporation.
Mr Stirling: It’s a pity you didn’t know who the chairman of Aker Marine was, instead of making a fool of yourself.
Mr BURKE: I pick up the remark of the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I can’t figure out which one is the leader. Mr Peter Dove is the chairman of Aker. I have met Peter Dove on only one other occasion, and I was not quite sure whether he was the operations manager or the chairman. That aside, Aker Maritime is the...
Mr Stirling: Aker Marine!
Mr BURKE: Picking up on that interjection, I do not have the intelligence that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does. Only someone with superb insight and intelligence such as you could sum up the whole situation in Indonesia and give a projection as to where the core of the problem is from a Bulletin article, and also makes the comment in this House that DSD is located at Shoal Bay in Darwin. You are not only a fool, you are totally incompetent. More about DSD is best left for others to say rather than a fool like you.
I spoke the other day about the defence contract we have with Albatross Marine, a small local Territory company, teaming with Sea Lanes, a large national company, in order to get a large contract for the supply of fresh foods into East Timor for the INTERFET forces. That is the way these businesses need to operate, teaming to gain large contracts in the future.
Aker Shore Base is another excellent example. You have Shorelands, a local Territory company that has been doing maintenance work for the offshore oil and gas industry in a small way, teaming with Aker Maritime, a large multinational. What is exciting about that particular project is that a company with the strength of Aker Maritime sees the potential of Darwin. They have relocated into the East Arm port area and are positioning themselves for the future, as are other companies.
It is unfortunate, I guess, that it has taken the East Timor situation to raise Darwin’s strategic potential to the world, but there is no doubt that international companies that look at things like the offshore oil and gas industry now see Darwin very positively, because of its strategic circumstances, when they are making an assessment as to whether to go to Darwin or to places such as Singapore. We are very fortunate that the strategic focus of Darwin has been raised.
The government has spent about $100m already on the East Arm. We need to spend about another $80m to accommodate the railway. We will do that.
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: It is very hard to speak. I try to look above the childishness that goes on in this Chamber, but we have 2 members of the opposition giggling when I am trying to tell Territorians what is happening with regard to the port development and the future.
We need to spend a further $80m or $90m on the port to accommodate the railway. I will be flying to Adelaide on Sunday to meet with Premier Olsen for discussions that will precede discussions with the Prime Minister, leading to a final decision on the railway project. I can say to Territorians that this project is imminent. Certainly, the arrival of the railway and the further works that need to be done at the East Arm port, I believe, are central to the development and prosperity of the Northern Territory into the new century.
The relocation of the fuel farm - the relocation of the oil industry, essentially - from Frances Bay has been a longstanding government objective, first mooted in the late 1970s. The project gained impetus in 1993 when the government negotiated Commonwealth financial assistance under the Building Better Cities program. In 1994, the Northern Territory government signed heads of agreement with the oil companies - BP Australia Ltd, Mobil Oil Australia Ltd and Shell Australia Ltd. By 1998, a site at the East Arm for a joint use terminal had been agreed, but title was not offered as a consequence of the - let’s say it - Native Title Act and claims lodged over the area by Bill Risk of the Larrakia people and by Tibby Quall on behalf of the Danggalaba clan.
Negotiations then commenced on a new agreement. The government continued to prepare the site under a 1998-99 capital works program item, under the protection of the 1994 acquisition carried out under the Land Acquisition Act. On 19 April 1999, a notice of proposed acquisition under the amended Land Acquisition Act was advertised in the NT News. This acquisition is not yet concluded.
A contract was let for $3.97m for the preparation of the site. Final completion is anticipated by October 2000, when filled areas will have reached their designed settlement levels and pre-load material will have been removed. Subject to native title, the terminal construction will commence in 2001 and will be completed by 2002. Pipelines and wharf completion are scheduled for February 2002. Substantial relocation to the new site is to begin in April 2002 and removal of the tanks from the Frances Bay should be completed by April 2003.
The section 43A amendments to the Native Title Act that are being held up in the Senate are not directly related to this relocation. But Territorians should be very clear that, with regard to development in the Northern Territory, we are stymied completely by Labor’s opposition to the section 43A amendments, which give the Territory the ability to run its own scheme under the Native Title Act. This Labor opposition in the Northern Territory stood in this House and voted unanimously in support of the Northern Territory scheme. Within days, the Leader of the Opposition supported her federal colleagues in Canberra in overturning the legislation.
To this day I remain hopeful. I have had recent phone conversations with the federal Attorney-General. We can resubmit that legislation and, hopefully, gain the support of the Democrats to get that scheme through. But let Territorians not forget this: this scheme is not being held up by the Democrats. This scheme, this Northern Territory legislation, is being held up by the federal ALP through their intransigent attitude in the Senate, and by the duplicitous and deceitful attitude of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory whose members stood in this House and unanimously supported our legislation. Now, through the back door, they support their federal colleagues in Canberra overturning that scheme.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, members who have been out to East Arm lately will have seen the extensive development that has occurred, not only in the immediate port area but also in the general area of the Trade Development Zone, showing the strong vote of confidence that business is giving to the potential of the port facility.
It was particularly pleasing for me on Tuesday to open the Aker Shore Base facility. This is another excellent example of a joint venture between a local Territory company and a large multinational corporation.
Mr Stirling: It’s a pity you didn’t know who the chairman of Aker Marine was, instead of making a fool of yourself.
Mr BURKE: I pick up the remark of the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I can’t figure out which one is the leader. Mr Peter Dove is the chairman of Aker. I have met Peter Dove on only one other occasion, and I was not quite sure whether he was the operations manager or the chairman. That aside, Aker Maritime is the...
Mr Stirling: Aker Marine!
Mr BURKE: Picking up on that interjection, I do not have the intelligence that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does. Only someone with superb insight and intelligence such as you could sum up the whole situation in Indonesia and give a projection as to where the core of the problem is from a Bulletin article, and also makes the comment in this House that DSD is located at Shoal Bay in Darwin. You are not only a fool, you are totally incompetent. More about DSD is best left for others to say rather than a fool like you.
I spoke the other day about the defence contract we have with Albatross Marine, a small local Territory company, teaming with Sea Lanes, a large national company, in order to get a large contract for the supply of fresh foods into East Timor for the INTERFET forces. That is the way these businesses need to operate, teaming to gain large contracts in the future.
Aker Shore Base is another excellent example. You have Shorelands, a local Territory company that has been doing maintenance work for the offshore oil and gas industry in a small way, teaming with Aker Maritime, a large multinational. What is exciting about that particular project is that a company with the strength of Aker Maritime sees the potential of Darwin. They have relocated into the East Arm port area and are positioning themselves for the future, as are other companies.
It is unfortunate, I guess, that it has taken the East Timor situation to raise Darwin’s strategic potential to the world, but there is no doubt that international companies that look at things like the offshore oil and gas industry now see Darwin very positively, because of its strategic circumstances, when they are making an assessment as to whether to go to Darwin or to places such as Singapore. We are very fortunate that the strategic focus of Darwin has been raised.
The government has spent about $100m already on the East Arm. We need to spend about another $80m to accommodate the railway. We will do that.
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: It is very hard to speak. I try to look above the childishness that goes on in this Chamber, but we have 2 members of the opposition giggling when I am trying to tell Territorians what is happening with regard to the port development and the future.
We need to spend a further $80m or $90m on the port to accommodate the railway. I will be flying to Adelaide on Sunday to meet with Premier Olsen for discussions that will precede discussions with the Prime Minister, leading to a final decision on the railway project. I can say to Territorians that this project is imminent. Certainly, the arrival of the railway and the further works that need to be done at the East Arm port, I believe, are central to the development and prosperity of the Northern Territory into the new century.
The relocation of the fuel farm - the relocation of the oil industry, essentially - from Frances Bay has been a longstanding government objective, first mooted in the late 1970s. The project gained impetus in 1993 when the government negotiated Commonwealth financial assistance under the Building Better Cities program. In 1994, the Northern Territory government signed heads of agreement with the oil companies - BP Australia Ltd, Mobil Oil Australia Ltd and Shell Australia Ltd. By 1998, a site at the East Arm for a joint use terminal had been agreed, but title was not offered as a consequence of the - let’s say it - Native Title Act and claims lodged over the area by Bill Risk of the Larrakia people and by Tibby Quall on behalf of the Danggalaba clan.
Negotiations then commenced on a new agreement. The government continued to prepare the site under a 1998-99 capital works program item, under the protection of the 1994 acquisition carried out under the Land Acquisition Act. On 19 April 1999, a notice of proposed acquisition under the amended Land Acquisition Act was advertised in the NT News. This acquisition is not yet concluded.
A contract was let for $3.97m for the preparation of the site. Final completion is anticipated by October 2000, when filled areas will have reached their designed settlement levels and pre-load material will have been removed. Subject to native title, the terminal construction will commence in 2001 and will be completed by 2002. Pipelines and wharf completion are scheduled for February 2002. Substantial relocation to the new site is to begin in April 2002 and removal of the tanks from the Frances Bay should be completed by April 2003.
The section 43A amendments to the Native Title Act that are being held up in the Senate are not directly related to this relocation. But Territorians should be very clear that, with regard to development in the Northern Territory, we are stymied completely by Labor’s opposition to the section 43A amendments, which give the Territory the ability to run its own scheme under the Native Title Act. This Labor opposition in the Northern Territory stood in this House and voted unanimously in support of the Northern Territory scheme. Within days, the Leader of the Opposition supported her federal colleagues in Canberra in overturning the legislation.
To this day I remain hopeful. I have had recent phone conversations with the federal Attorney-General. We can resubmit that legislation and, hopefully, gain the support of the Democrats to get that scheme through. But let Territorians not forget this: this scheme is not being held up by the Democrats. This scheme, this Northern Territory legislation, is being held up by the federal ALP through their intransigent attitude in the Senate, and by the duplicitous and deceitful attitude of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory whose members stood in this House and unanimously supported our legislation. Now, through the back door, they support their federal colleagues in Canberra overturning that scheme.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016