PORT STANVAC

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.L. Brokenshire:

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 promote a site master plan that develops the facility for tourist and recreational purposes for Adelaide’s south.

(Continued from 31 October 2012.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (22:03): I inform the house that I have an amendment to point 3 of the Hon. R.L. Brokenshire's motion and I will speak to it briefly now and then make some more general comments. Point 3 states:

Calls upon the state government to take responsibility for the jetty and promote a site master plan that develops the facility for tourist and recreational purposes for Adelaide’s south.

I move to amend the motion as follows:

Delete the words 'take responsibility for the jetty and'

Point 3 will now read:

Calls upon the state government to promote a site master plan that develops the facility for tourist and recreational purposes for Adelaide's south.

Some years ago I had the good fortune to be on a select committee about fuel storage and fuel supply in South Australia. It was a few years ago because the Hon. Nick Xenophon was on that committee, as was the Hon. Angus Redford and the Hon. Terry Stephens. I think the Hon. Bernard Finnigan might have been on it. I cannot recall the other member of the government who was on it at the time. It was some time ago given that the Hon. Nick Xenophon has been long gone from this place and also the Hon. Angus Redford.

We had a couple of site visits to Port Stanvac and it was in relation to the fuel storage, but it appeared to me to be a wonderful opportunity in that area. Okay, some highly contaminated land will have to be remediated—and I know that Mobil is going through that process at present. Of course, we have a desal plant that has been plonked in there since that select committee reported.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Mothballed.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mothballed desal plant, too, I am told. I heard some discussion today that the SA Water will have to write down its assets by some $2 billion as a result of some of the actions of the government over the last few years. It has become apparent to me that once Mobil leaves this would be a wonderful site for some industrial development and some residential development because it is high on the cliff, but also the jetty. The jetty is more than a jetty. We have these visions of a jetty. If you google jetties, they are wooden pillars with a bit of a crossbeam. This is what you would describe as a wharf. It is a very big structure.

We will be supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's motion because this is a bit of infrastructure that is stuck out in the sea. I am not sure what Mobil's plans are whether it is to remove it or whether it is just to decommission it and just let it rot away. We saw the great work that the member for MacKillop (Mitch Williams) and I did to declare that the lighthouse on Margaret Brock Reef off Cape Jaffa be part of the reef. I know it was something that the Hon. Mark Parnell thought was a wonderful thing that—

The Hon. M. Parnell: Yes, the gannets.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The gannets up on the deck. It was great that Robert Mock who was a local enthusiast had swum out there and taken the photographs. The Hon. Mark Parnell was blowing Robert Mock's bags. I still think he is blowing them but he was a little disappointed to learn that Robert Mock had joined the Liberal Party after the work that Mitch Williams and I had put into—

The Hon. M. Parnell: But the gannets all joined the Greens.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The gannets actually donated to the Greens. It is about that deep on the top of the jetty. But that is what I am fearful of with this structure down at Port Stanvac. I do not believe that Mobil will totally remove it and I do not think it should be removed. It is a big structure. It is probably a structure that could be community infrastructure. It is a coastal environment. It is a great opportunity for fishing. We are not going to move this tonight, but in a perfect world it is probably too big and too expensive for the government to take control of or for the local government to take control of but it may well be an opportunity for the private sector to come in.

From my understanding it is big enough and strong enough. You could build a restaurant on the end of it. You could make it a tourist attraction and open it up for the community to use and people could fish from it. I doubt whether it is big enough to build any accommodation like a hotel on the end of it. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire is more of a local than I am, but it seems to be reckless for the government to turn its back and let Mobil decommission it and let it rot away when we are struggling. I indicated today in my matters of interest speech that our tourism figures are nowhere near as robust as the minister leads us to believe. This could offer unique experiences like being able to deepwater fish from the jetty rather than having a boat and the experience of—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Walk the wharf.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Walk out on the wharf, as the Hon. Robert Brokenshire says, but even a restaurant that looks back at the cliffs rather than out to the sea may well be something that the private sector might like to get involved with. I will make some quick comments—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Don't rush. It's only early.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, well, and I know some of us have had a little rest and have recharged their batteries as well. In relation to the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars' amendment, which I am sure he will move shortly, he wants us to delete the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's third paragraph and say that he wants to welcome the state government's southern corridor structure plan which will include all of Port Stanvac and assist with the development of the facility. I actually googled it on my iPad and all I could find is a tender for the southern corridor structure plan. I can't actually see anything. It is sort of mentioned in the 30-year plan but there is nothing there. So we have to be a bit more proactive as a chamber—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That's right. Gerry believes what the department has given him. He has swallowed it just like a big snapper would off the end of the Port Stanvac Jetty. He has taken it hook, line and sinker and said, 'That'll do; I'll put that in as an amendment.' I think this is an opportunity for this chamber to send a message to the government and the community that this is an important bit of infrastructure.

I am also aware of the coastal trail—the name of it eludes me—that runs from North Haven down to Noarlunga and does the whole coast. It doglegs around Port Stanvac, so that is another thing that should go along the top of the cliffs. I also think there are some opportunities to put some recreational facilities there, such as a caravan park or an RV park. It is almost right on the railway line, so there is an opportunity to make that a site where the travelling public, the Grey Nomads, can come into Adelaide, park, get on the train, come into the city, go to the footy and experience all that Adelaide has.

There was some discussion about a park on some disused land at Port Adelaide. Again, that is useful because it is on the rail corridor. I think Port Stanvac is clearly a site that needs further consideration because I have yet to see anything develop from the government's plan for the southern corridor referred to by the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars.

We do not want the government to take responsibility for the jetty at this stage. We think a better option is for the government to master plan it. Ultimately, it would be a better situation for the jetty. I understand that nearly every jetty, other than the big ones that Flinders Ports own, is basically under local government control. It is a big bit of infrastructure. If it could be commercialised by someone putting a facility at the end of it—a restaurant or something—that could generate some revenue that could sustain the jetty, or the wharf, as the Hon. Robert Brokenshire calls it.

My colleague in the other place, Mitch Williams, who prepared a briefing paper for our party room, said that it costs $300,000 a year to maintain it, so it is quite expensive. We have a four-year election cycle, so it could give the state government $1.2 million. We actually think it would be better if Mobil put it up to the private sector to develop. If the government was prepared to come to the party and master plan the area, we may well come up with a good solution that gives a positive tourist outcome and retains a bit of infrastructure.

I am sure that the Hon. Mark Parnell would agree that it would be extremely difficult to build that type of wharf or jetty out into the gulf with all the environmental controls. It is there. The natural environment has adapted to it and it has probably colonised most of what is below the water, so it seems sensible to me to leave it and capitalise on the assets that are there and maximise the benefits for the people of the south and the broader South Australian community.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (22:13): Following the announcement of Exxon Mobil's decision to permanently close the Port Stanvac refinery, the state government established an interdepartmental task force chaired by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to consider issues related to infrastructure on the Port Stanvac site, including the existing underground pipeline, the Birkenhead pipeline and the wharf facilities.

The task force includes representatives from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; the Environment Protection Authority; the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure; the Attorney-General's Department; the Department of Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy; the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion; Primary Industries and Regions SA; the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources; the Urban Renewal Authority; and SA Water. The state government has undertaken extensive investigations to find an alternative commercial or government use for any of the infrastructure.

In late August 2012, Exxon Mobil advised in writing that the demolition of the Port Stanvac refinery infrastructure has commenced and that it has engaged the petrochemical facilities demolition expert, Euro Dismantling Services Australasia Pty Ltd (EDS), to manage the demolition. Exxon Mobil has said that the initial demolition and removal phase will cover all refinery process plant and associated above-ground infrastructure and facilities, including piping, storage tanks, the chimney stack and the office buildings from the site. This work is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2013.

Following the demolition of the above-ground infrastructure at the end of 2013, Exxon Mobil will continue to remove the underground structures, including pipes and footings. Exxon Mobil has engaged a South Australian Environment Protection Authority accredited site environmental auditor to oversee the regular environmental assessment of the refinery site.

From 2014, when the existing infrastructure has been removed, Exxon Mobil will conduct ongoing environmental remediation of the site to make sure it is suitable for future industrial use. This includes ongoing monitoring and remediation of groundwater. No decision has been made about the future of the wharf and these structures are not included in the main demolition contract. I move the following amendment:

Leave out paragraph 3 and insert new paragraph—

3. Welcomes that state government's Southern Corridor Structure Plan, which will include the whole of the Port Stanvac site and assist with the development of the facility.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (22:17): Given that, at late notice and a late hour of the night, we have had these two significant amendments to derail a motion that is of utmost importance to the state's future—for defence, for tourism, for recreation and for southern opportunities—I am now going to move that the debate be adjourned until next year, so that I can take enough time to seriously consider—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —well, it's another night, another day—seriously consider all of this and work out a way that we can actually save the wharf and promote the south. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.