Emails from the Department of Chief Minister and Cabinet show staff were ordered to remove the word “petrochemicals” from government websites relating to the controversial $1.5 billion Middle Arm project, which the Opposition has called “censorship”.

The emails obtained by the ABC through freedom of information laws confirmed the department was tasked with removing the term from at least a dozen government websites late last year, just days after Chief Minister Natasha Fyles repeatedly claimed publicly that there would be no petrochemicals in the precinct following environmentalists’ criticisms of the established plan for petrochemicals.

“This is not a petrochemical plant,” Ms Fyles said on November 1 last year, about the proposed Middle Arm industrial precinct.

“This is a sustainable future project that is based on renewable energy into the future.”

She followed up on December 1 with this: “We are being open with people.”

Mr Fyles made the remarks after denying there would be petrochemicals in the area, after saying she did not actually know what industrial projects would go into the precinct.

“So the definition of petrochemicals starts a whole new conversation, but this is about industries into the future,” she said last year.

“What I’m saying is we don’t know the industries that will go there. That is something that will be decided into the future.”

A petrochemical is most often considered any substance obtained from petroleum or natural gas, while low-emission petrochemical production relates to the fuel used as the energy for the manufacturing of the product.

Despite the removal of the term from websites, the NT Government continues to pursue approval from the NT Environment Protection Authority for low-emission petrochemicals to be included among the mix of industries at the Middle Arm precinct.

An EPA environmental impact assessment document published on September 29 – 34 days before Ms Fyles first denied petrochemicals would be part of the precinct – stated that the agency had accepted the government’s terms of reference for an impact statement for the proposed precinct.

The government’s description for the development was for “sustainable industries” with a focus on “low emission petrochemicals, renewable hydrogen, carbon capture storage, and minerals processing”.

Formerly hailed as the NT’s pathway towards decarbonisation, it later became evident that the precinct would include “low-emission petrochemicals production, including ammonia, urea and ethylene” used to produce plastics, that are potentially toxic to both humans and the environment.

The ABC reported that by November 7, public servants within Ms Fyles’s department had conducted an audit of the term ‘petrochemicals’ on the websites.

“Hi, Team. Here are the references I located,” a staff member wrote to associates, the ABC reported.

The staff member also emailed that they could not remove some of the references to petrochemicals.

“One of the Land Development Corporation pages does talk about Petrochemicals as does the NTEPA page but I don’t think we have any influence there with the NTEPA I mean,” it was written.

In a separate email, the same staff member told colleagues about another deletion.

“I ended up removing the references on the investment opportunity page for Middle Arm as this is the page where people find out more about investing in the precinct,” they wrote.

Ms Fyles told the ABC it was necessary to remove the references because of “scaremongering”.

“The word ‘petrochemical’ has been removed as it has been used by certain groups to scare and fearmonger Territorians. Middle Arm is a low emissions precinct, where sustainable projects will take place,” Ms Fyles told the ABC in a statement.

“Middle Arm is a low emissions precinct, where sustainable projects will take place.”

However, the ABC reported the NT Government’s original business case described the Middle Arm development as a new gas demand centre.

Environment Centre NT director Kirsty Howey told the ABC the government’s actions were absurd and a form of “deceptive” censorship, not unlike satirical program Utopia about a hapless government agency in charge of major projects.

“It would be very funny if it were not so serious,” Ms Howey said.

“We and the community have been raising valid concerns for some time about the possible impacts of the industrialisation of Darwin Harbour, including, as part of that, petrochemicals factories.

“And the government response seems to be to actively censor their publicity material rather than responding to those concerns. It does look deceptive, and that is because it is.”

CLP Opposition deputy leader and Territory development spokesman Gerard Maley said it was appalling behaviour from the Fyles Government.

“For staff from the Department of the Chief Minister and Cabinet to remove important information from websites in order to deceive the general public is disgraceful,” he said in a statement.

“The Fyles Government is deceiving Territorians. To omit words from official material to create a false reality is just a lie by omission.

“Clearly the $1.5 billion new industrial hub near Darwin Harbour isn’t what the Fyles Government want us to believe it is. They promised us a renewable hydrogen, critical minerals and carbon capture and storage, but after green groups expressed concerns about the precinct, the government removed all reference to petrochemicals.