Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Port Stanvac PORT STANVAC The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:30): I move: That this council— 1.	Notes that Exxon Mobil, as current site owners, have elected not to continue operating a refinery at Port Stanvac in Adelaide’s south; 2.	Notes that as part of its exit from the site, Exxon Mobil plans to remove the significant jetty and wharf structure at the site due to the lack of interest from any other party taking responsibility for it; and 3.	Calls upon the state government to take responsibility for the jetty and wharf and promote a site master plan that develops the facility for tourist and recreational purposes for Adelaide’s south. This motion is, in a way, self-explanatory, but I rise to speak briefly to it and invite honourable members to consider supporting it. Port Stanvac derives its name from the Standard Vacuum Company, which was one of the former site occupiers when the Playford government—yes, that great administration again—encouraged industrial development in Adelaide's south by supporting the construction of a deep sea loading facility that become the Port Stanvac wharf. This is not a motion to explore the fuel supply for South Australia; sadly, that argument has been had and lost, and Exxon Mobil is not continuing to use the site. That issue is relevant to the years of delay and uncertainty about the site, and I understand that it is only in relatively recent years that Exxon Mobil has finally decided not to continue operating the facility and shift from a retention mindset to a decommissioning mindset. As part of the decommissioning program, they need to decontaminate the site and also look at existing facilities and what to do with them. Constituents contacted me about this issue when Exxon Mobil wrote to them about staying clear of the wharf while they demolished it. In the letter, they explained to local residents that they had tried their best to retain the facility, but neither the City of Onkaparinga (and I would not have expected the City of Onkaparinga to take on the management) nor the state government were willing to take it on board. The wharf is a fantastic tourism and local recreational opportunity for South Australia. It would be a terrible shame to see it taken down without a full investigation of opportunities at the site, particularly when the south misses out on a lot compared with other parts of the metropolitan area. It is a growing area, and this could be a real icon in my opinion. I have no criticism of the City of Onkaparinga; I believe it has taken all reasonable steps to see whether the wharf can be maintained. However, due to the maintenance costs and, I understand, the potential insurance requirements, it has declined to take full ownership of the wharf. I might add that there are other jetties in state government ownership in South Australia, so it would not be odd for such an arrangement to be put in place. I understand that the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure has been looking into a site plan for the precinct, which will of course involve the desalination plant, whether or not it is ever switched on. I understand that we, the legislators, and the general public have not been brought on board to participate in that site planning. I know that at one stage there was planning for an intermodal facility between rail and road freight at the site, and there is interest in the land being used for industrial purposes. Family First believes there is a combination of uses that could be put in place at the site and would like to engage with the government on this. I also want to note that one result of the boating and recreational restrictions around the site has been that the coastal cliffs, intertidal reefs and marine environment have been left relatively untouched, leaving a unique environmental asset and diving opportunity for local enthusiasts. I am told that prior to it being known as Port Stanvac the precinct was known as Curlew Point, and it is Family First's hope that a future site plan, including a wharf under state government responsibility, will see Curlew Point known as a unique combined industrial, tourism and possibly even high-value residential seafront opportunity in the precinct. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.