Page 2949 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It has been our reluctance to close the bridge hitherto—whilst investigating what we can do about the bridge, whether to replace it or repair it or what—that has led us to rent a Bailey bridge support system. That was enough, in fact, to allow traffic across that bridge of the type of weight that the bridge could carry, as indicated by the sign across it. What has been happening? We understand there have been a number of vehicles well over the 5-tonne limit going across that bridge. They have, through this activity, significantly weakened it.
Since the time of its original closing, the bridge has received a monthly visit by the bridge experts from the Road Traffic Authority of New South Wales. A month ago, the bridge was still in such a condition as would support that particular type of traffic—traffic under 5 tonnes. When it was brought to our attention that vehicles over that weight were using the bridge, we developed a strategy to prevent that. In fact, we had intended to put up some structure at the beginning of the bridge which would not allow vehicles of a certain type or width to pass through that barrier.
In the meantime, however, the inspectors inspected the bridge and found that it had twisted, was now unusable and, in fact, was in serious danger of collapse, notwithstanding the presence of the Bailey bridge supports. The department’s advice to me was that, under the delegation carried by them and not by me, the bridge should be closed. Their advice was based on that technical assessment. They sought my agreement to exercise that delegation. I gave it instantly.
I was very concerned that people—schoolchildren, for example—would be accessing that bridge on a school bus which was under that 5-tonne limit. I was concerned that people—cyclists, anybody using that bridge—would be doing so in extreme danger. I had no alternative but to close that bridge. I advised the department that I agreed with their exercise of their delegation.
Mr Pratt is trying to blow up some image that we have neglected the bridge. We have been in constant conversation with the people of Tharwa. We have been in constant conversation with the Heritage Council regarding the heritage aspects of that bridge. It is the only four-span Allan truss bridge in New South Wales. It has a significance in the history of that village that we could not ignore.
All of these have meant that the investigations into what should happen about access across the Murrumbidgee River would need to be taken with a lot of consideration. When the options were developed at first pass, before the advice from the Heritage Council that, indeed, it had a significance that we should not ignore, we found that the options available to us were about nine and that they ranged in price at that particular time from $9 million through to about $30 million. Thirty million dollars is a very big figure to go to cabinet and seek without substantial justification.
My undertaking that we would be in conversation with the people of Tharwa has been honoured. We continue to do so. In fact, the night before its closure, the operator of the store at Tharwa, who is one of our contacts in that village, was notified of the imminent closure before we did so. I reject all of the notions being put forward by Mr Pratt.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .