Adjournment Debate

BUSH FOR LIFE

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:07): I want to raise a matter today about funding for non-profit environmental groups. The federal Rudd and state Rann Labor governments have both been outspoken on environmental issues recently and they claim to have many green policies, but how genuine is their concern?

I was alerted to the fact that the funding that has been given previously to non-profit environmental groups has been savagely cut by both governments. In particular, extreme funding cuts have been experienced by Trees for Life and its Bush for Life program and, to a lesser extent, the KESAB Road Watch group.

Bush for Life is a program run by Trees for Life. It was established in 1994 and it aims to help protect South Australia's remaining areas of native vegetation. Last year, over 600 Bush for Life volunteers donated over 30,000 hours of their time to look after more than 4,000 hectares of remnant native vegetation across the state, removing invasive weeds with painstaking methods that they are trained to undertake.

If the state Rann Labor government were to pay NRM officers or the like to undertake this work, it would come at a large cost. As an estimate, I would say an hourly rate for this type of work would be about $16 per hour. This would mean that the bill for the hours volunteers donated last year would be nearly $500,000. Yet, what does the Bush for Life program get in return for all the hours its volunteers donate? Less funding.

The ironic part of this is that in the regional NRM strategic plan for the next 10 years, Trees for Life is included as one of its stakeholders to implement revegetation and regeneration work. Is this yet another failure of the NRM? I have spoken on the record previously about that subject.

I am told that the KESAB Road Watch group is in the same position, with its coordinator having their hours cut by half and, as the funding for the program has been cut so severely, the coordinator is now spending many hours filling out applications for grant money to try to fund the ongoing programs.

A constituent from the Schubert electorate, who volunteers many hours for this program, has paid $240 for workmen's road safety signage out of his pension so that he has some mechanism to try to get vehicles to slow down as they pass him as he carries out his work on roadsides. Cars pass him at speeds of up to 110 km/h. Currently, no funds are available to supply Australian Standard safety signs to volunteers. The group has now submitted a grant application in the hope of buying some signs to protect its volunteers.

The role that these two non-profit environmental groups undertake, as well as the other non-profit and volunteer organisations, not only provides benefits to our country, ourselves and future generations but it also gives people a reason to get out into the community and do something. I find this situation quite unbelievable. Both federal and state Labor governments claim to have policies that put environmental issues at the forefront, yet they are happy to take funding away from the grassroots organisations and groups which have so many volunteers working tirelessly simply because they can see the benefit to the environment. I am certainly very much cognisant of what happens in my group, particularly in my electorate of Schubert—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: The one that went to preferences last time.

Mr VENNING: It went to preferences but not for very much, no. Anyway, I am not really concerned about that. I have the Kaiser Stuhl Conservation Park in my area and I am going for a walk in there very shortly just to ensure all the weeds in the park are under control. I just wish I did not have to make speeches like this.

Finally, I refer very briefly to a bridge in Nuriootpa called the Robin Bridge. It is located on Murray Street, Nuriootpa, the main street. It was constructed in the early 1960s on land partly donated by the Robin family. The bridge is a state government responsibility. It is situated in a quite prominent position as you drive into the town from the south. It has not been repainted since its opening. The handrails of the bridge are supposed to be white and its railings a dark green colour, but today the paint is flaking off, leaving the bare metal exposed and making it very unsightly.

A constituent who brought this matter to my attention described the bridge as looking 'shabby'—that is a nice way of putting it. The bridge is a beautiful landmark in the Nuriootpa township and is crossed by everyone—tourists and locals alike—who enter the town from its southern end. I have contacted the Barossa Council regarding this bridge and was advised that, over a period of many years, the council has endeavoured to have Robin Bridge repainted and, as such, contacted the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

The last correspondence received by the council was some years ago and it said that it was the department's policy not to paint bridge structures anymore as they wished to avoid ongoing maintenance. In my communications with the Barossa Council they said:

We agree that it would be far better within the township environment for the bridge to be painted as regular maintenance.

The Barossa Council has notified me that they contacted the department and requested that they investigate painting the bridge. The response was that they would need to dismantle the steel handrails on the bridge and then transport them to Adelaide for sandblasting, because the original paint was lead based and would risk polluting the North Para River if the job was done on the site.

I think that the everyday person would simply paint over the top. This seems to me to be bureaucracy gone mad. I understand that protecting the environment is very important and I have read the Environmental Management Workbook for roadside maintenance activities which contains the Environmental Code of Practice for Road Maintenance Workers. Section 9, part 1, headed 'Contamination of soil and surface water', clearly states:

Surface water is contained within creeks, streams, rivers and lakes and also includes run-off. This water is easily contaminated by oil spills, waste and the use of excessive chemicals. The water then moves into the waterways and travels rapidly to new areas and the marine environment.

I understand that to sandblast lead paint would be potentially damaging to the North Para River environment and therefore contravenes the code of practice.

Surely, common sense should prevail. I am sure that, if these costings were done, it would prove far more inexpensive for the bridge to have a new coat of paint, say, every 10 years, over the top of the existing paint than it would be to transport it to Adelaide, remove the lead paint (what remains of it, that is), paint it and then transport it back to Nuriootpa and fit it in place. Given the amount of revenue that the Barossa provides for the state government, surely it is not too much to ask. The Minister for Tourism takes great delight in basking in the glory when the Barossa fares highly in the ratings, but how much money does the government spend in the region in return?

The bridge, as I said earlier, is a major attraction at the entrance to Nuriootpa when travelling from Tanunda or Angaston to Nuriootpa. It looks dreadful in its current state. A new coat of paint would give it a new lease of life and would make it stand out as a feature to visitors. At the moment, it looks like an eyesore and it is certainly not appropriate for the main entrance to one of the Barossa's largest townships. I have always said in life: if you look after the little things, the little jobs, and it is amazing the positive vibes you get from that and how it makes everyone else proud of their public facilities. If the government and the council do the right thing—keep the place neat and tidy and be proud of what we have—hey presto, the residents will do the same.

I hope that this has been an oversight and that the government will look at this issue and, for what I think would be a few hundred dollars, paint the bridge. I hope the government listens and does it.

Motion carried.

At 17:16 the house adjourned until Thursday 5 February 2009 at 10:30.