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 structure at the site due to the lack of interest from any other party taking responsibility for the jetty; 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.

which the Hon. D. W. Ridgway has moved to amend in paragraph 3 by leaving out the words 'take responsibility for the jetty and',

which the Hon. G. A. Kandelaars has moved to amend by leaving out paragraph 3 and inserting new paragraph as follows:

3. Welcomes the 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.

Question: That the words in paragraph 3 down to but excluding 'take responsibility for the jetty' stand part of the motion.

(Continued from 28 November 2012.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:55): I had already started my summing up late last year, so I will be brief now. I appreciate all the support I have received from my colleagues. I do appreciate the Hon. David Ridgway's comments that he would really like to see the wharf retained. As he pointed out, the state government retains ownership of the lighthouse on Margaret Brock Reef off Cape Jaffa, and it is now again at the rookery, so where there is a will there is a way.

I know that the government and the opposition are concerned about the liability of retaining the structure so they have both moved to amend the motion to remove that aspect, and I understand the perilous situation with the stage budget at the moment. However, looking to the longer term, I still see this as a very important piece of infrastructure.

The Hon. Mr Kandelaars, on behalf of the government, says that no decision on the wharf's future has been made but I suggest, from what I have been investigating, that if we do not get a motion that gets the government to commit to take over the responsibility for the wharf then, effectively, as they finish demolishing the rest of the Port Stanvac the wharf will go as well, because Mobil has been very transparent about the fact that it does not intend to maintain the wharf. It is looking for alternate users and the state government, in the immediate term, is really the only viable option.

I invite all honourable members to consider that boaties and the broader community are familiar with keeping away from the wharf: why cannot the state government take ownership of it, maintain the boating and access restrictions, and even pass by-laws making it an offence to go near it? Surely the liability is then reduced, because anyone who goes near it is committing an offence. The government can then hold it until it knows whether there is a potential use for it.

I am confident there is a lot of potential use. I do not get the impression that Mobil wants anything for the wharf. It wants out of its liability for it, which is a reasonable situation for its business. It is ceasing operations in South Australia and therefore does not want to retain the wharf. There is no business case for Mobil to retain it, as it is not part of its business.

Given the current economic climate, hopefully there will be signs of recovery in the next 12 to 24 months, if not sooner, and I would be confident that the private sector would then be interested in developing the wharf. Why not take it on and keep the situation as a positive opportunity for the Fleurieu and McLaren Vale wine regions, and for intrastate and interstate tourism?

I have contacted the new minister for a fresh look at this issue, and I hope that the government does have a change of heart. However, given that the amendments that have been moved by both the Liberal Party and the government do not fulfil what our intent was, it appears that unfortunately this motion will not get up.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: We went a fair way.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Whilst I acknowledge that the Liberals did go a fair way, the fact is that they did not go to the point of committing it to the government taking full responsibility—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Didn't go all the way.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That is right; the Hon. Mr Stephens is right. To complete my point, it looks like the numbers are not here for it. I think that is a sad situation and, unfortunately, a piece of infrastructure that could be revolutionary in turning into an opportunity for the southern region of our state and become another important piece of infrastructure, economically, will now be removed by Mobil in the next year or so. I commend the motion to the council.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The first question I will put is that the words in paragraph 3 'calls upon the state government to' stand part of the motion. Members wanting to support the amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Ridgway should say 'aye', and those who favour the Hon. Mr Kandelaars should say 'no'. I put the question: that the words in paragraph 3 'calls upon the state government to' stand part of the motion.

The council divided on the question:

Majority of 12 for the ayes.

Question thus carried.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway's amendment carried; motion as amended carried.