Page 302 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is clear that although Mr Pratt is in possession of extensive information he has not examined it or, if he has, he does not understand it. I wonder what he would have done had he been the minister. It would appear that Tharwa would have, in quick succession, a low-level crossing with associated roadworks, a new bridge and a restored old bridge and the taxpayers would be somewhere between $20 million and $25 million out of pocket.
The government are aware of the impacts that the closed bridge has had on the residents of Tharwa, and I regret that. We can be rightly criticised for changing our decision about the construction of the new bridge and the decision to conserve the existing bridge. However, public safety considerations forced the closure of the old bridge and I do not resile from that decision.
For these very reasons it is now important to get on and progress the conservation of the existing bridge as quickly as possible and for access to be available to Tharwa via the bridge as soon as it is safe for it to be used by the public. Public safety has always been the overriding consideration in relation to the use of the existing bridge. While this matter has been under consideration for some time, a decision and clear course of action has now been established by the government. Nothing is to be gained by referring the matter for further investigation by the Assembly’s planning and environment committee. We will be opposing that particular part of the motion.
Mr Pratt does not mind putting out misleading statements.
Mr Pratt: Yes, I do.
MR HARGREAVES: No, he does not mind it at all. In his address today he has interpreted something in a memo, which he has not tabled, to say that I had originally supported a low-level crossing. I have never, not once, supported a low-level crossing—ever. I have continually rejected the notion of a low-level crossing because it would be environmentally disastrous. You have to think that a one in 50 year flood would scour 7.5 metres of sand from the bottom of the piers. In 1991 the flood came through there about two metres down from the level of the bridge; the mark is still there on the pylons. The water that has gone through there in recent times may not be a one in 50 year flood, but it will not be far out of it, and I am worried about the amount of sand that has been scoured out from the bottom of that bridge from this current set of rain.
I know—and it is in the papers that Mr Pratt has in his possession, but he has not got the courage to come and tell us—that in fact the pier twists; it twists at its base, because it is on a sand base. The movement of the sand has twisted and the Bailey trusses have twisted, and the Bailey trusses are currently carrying its own weight and the weight of the whole bridge.
Mr Pratt: That’s a red herring.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Pratt says it is a red herring. Mr Pratt has in his possession engineering reports that say that in a high wind it could fall; it is a dangerous bridge. We are going to have to expend a lot of money to do this, and we are happy to do this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .