Page 301 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
river at Tharwa. The fate of the old bridge could be decided at a future date. I visited Tharwa for discussions with the community about bridge-related issues on 24 May 2005, 12 August 2005 and 13 October 2006. The department held information sessions about the GHD study in Tharwa on 1 December and 8 December 2005. A further information session was held at Woden on 7 December 2005 and the department also made a presentation to the Heritage Council about the options on 16 February 2006. I am not sure what else I or my officers could have done to advise the Tharwa community about the options.
My approach has been consistent all along the way. Tharwa needs a bridge. The advice given to me was that the repairs to the old bridge would be more costly than a new bridge and would entail substantial time delays and future outlays on maintenance. It seemed to me that the quickest, most cost-effective response was a new bridge.
I wish others had been more consistent in their approach. As I said in this place on Tuesday, the self-appointed spokesperson for Tharwa, Mr Val Jeffrey, was quoted in the Canberra Times on different occasions. On 20 September 2006 he said that, although he loved the old bridge, he no longer cared if it stayed. On 11 October 2006 he said that the announcement of the building of a new concrete bridge was “the best bit of news we’ve had for a long time; we definitely need a new bridge and we need it urgently”. And, more recently, he applauded the government’s decision to restore the old bridge.
Members of the opposition have made equally contradictory statements in relation to that bridge. Mr Pratt, for example, at different times has wanted a low-level crossing, the old bridge repaired and a new bridge. The Chief Minister outlined exactly what Mr Pratt has said and that can be found in the Hansard for last Tuesday.
The government approved and funded the new bridge in October 2006 but, at the same time, requested further information regarding the old bridge. It was ultimately this decision to request further information that led to the additional survey conducted in December 2007 that showed that the community had changed their position and are now firmly in favour of preserving the old bridge as the only river crossing at Tharwa. Clearly the people of Canberra place a high importance on the heritage values of existing Tharwa bridge and are prepared to support the use of public funds to protect and conserve it.
As members would know, there has been considerable effort expended by my department to provide a range of advice covering engineering and heritage issues. I am pleased, as no doubt my officers are, that a final decision has been made and we can proceed with the required work.
Let me conclude with a few further words about the proposed low-level crossing. I have said many times in this place and elsewhere that a decent flood may simply wash a temporary low-level crossing away; the $1.5 million dollars or thereabouts it would cost would be wasted. Mr Pratt knows that because he is in possession of a document that says that a one in 50 years flood would scour 7.5 metres from the river bed around the bridge piers—7.5 metres of scouring.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .