Mr AH KIT - 2000-08-16
Every time we ask a question in this House about the Country Liberal Party’s plan to dam Darwin Harbour, this government ducks the issue, in spite of its own maps quite clearly showing its intention to dam the Elizabeth River and Woods Inlet. Despite its avoidance of the issue it continues to plot and scheme, as evidenced by this Elizabeth River Lake environmental feasibility assessment. I seek leave to table the cover of that.
Leave granted.
Mr AH KIT: Will the minister will still …
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Arnhem has the floor.
Mr AH KIT: Does he still deny that the Country Liberal Party is hell-bent on damming Darwin Harbour to the detriment of the Territory lifestyle?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker,this Country Liberal Party government, being a responsible government, undertakes a range of long-term planning initiatives. We tabled a couple of years ago the Forbes/Blandy report on the growth of Darwin. That study by two eminent demographers and economic geographers showed that Darwin will have a population approaching 1 million people by the turn of the next century.
It is only responsible government through proper planning processes that can ensure that those people are properly accommodated, taking into account a number of considerations - environmental considerations, resource-use considerations and a whole raft of other considerations including transportation, industry zones and workplaces.
The Department of Transport and Works quite rightly has conducted a preliminary environmental investigation into possible damming of the Elizabeth River. It is an option. This government has said for years that we will preserve 80% of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour. In determining that 80%, we need to undertake a number of studies into the productivity of those various mangrove areas, into the species mix, into the biodiversity contained within those areas.
It would be a stupid government that did not properly plan for the future. We need the options. We do have a limited area of land around Darwin that is suitable for urban, commercial or industrial development. We have to look at all the options.
The member for Arnhem is quite right when he says that it shows on some plans for the future development of Darwin that there could be a requirement to dam the Elizabeth River. That is not denied. We have to look at all the options. That is one of the options and we need to look at it.
My colleague the Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment said the other day that government had undertaken something like 230 studies into the Darwin Harbour and its environs. Without a shadow of a doubt, Darwin Harbour is the most pristine of the major ports in Australia today. The fish are voting with their fins - they are in Darwin Harbour. The dugongs have voted with their flippers - they are in Darwin Harbour. There is no question that Darwin Harbour is in pristine condition and it is the intention of this government to maintain it in pristine condition.
Mr AH KIT: A supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Will the minister table the report?
Mr SPEAKER: That is a matter for the minister. It is not really a supplementary question.
Leave granted.
Mr AH KIT: Will the minister will still …
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Arnhem has the floor.
Mr AH KIT: Does he still deny that the Country Liberal Party is hell-bent on damming Darwin Harbour to the detriment of the Territory lifestyle?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker,this Country Liberal Party government, being a responsible government, undertakes a range of long-term planning initiatives. We tabled a couple of years ago the Forbes/Blandy report on the growth of Darwin. That study by two eminent demographers and economic geographers showed that Darwin will have a population approaching 1 million people by the turn of the next century.
It is only responsible government through proper planning processes that can ensure that those people are properly accommodated, taking into account a number of considerations - environmental considerations, resource-use considerations and a whole raft of other considerations including transportation, industry zones and workplaces.
The Department of Transport and Works quite rightly has conducted a preliminary environmental investigation into possible damming of the Elizabeth River. It is an option. This government has said for years that we will preserve 80% of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour. In determining that 80%, we need to undertake a number of studies into the productivity of those various mangrove areas, into the species mix, into the biodiversity contained within those areas.
It would be a stupid government that did not properly plan for the future. We need the options. We do have a limited area of land around Darwin that is suitable for urban, commercial or industrial development. We have to look at all the options.
The member for Arnhem is quite right when he says that it shows on some plans for the future development of Darwin that there could be a requirement to dam the Elizabeth River. That is not denied. We have to look at all the options. That is one of the options and we need to look at it.
My colleague the Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment said the other day that government had undertaken something like 230 studies into the Darwin Harbour and its environs. Without a shadow of a doubt, Darwin Harbour is the most pristine of the major ports in Australia today. The fish are voting with their fins - they are in Darwin Harbour. The dugongs have voted with their flippers - they are in Darwin Harbour. There is no question that Darwin Harbour is in pristine condition and it is the intention of this government to maintain it in pristine condition.
Mr AH KIT: A supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Will the minister table the report?
Mr SPEAKER: That is a matter for the minister. It is not really a supplementary question.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016