House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Schubert Electorate SCHUBERT ELECTORATE Mr VENNING House of Assembly Schubert Mr VENNING (Schubert) (15:44): Today I want to raise two very important issues, the first of which relates to a gravely ill constituent who resides at Mannum. My constituent is in receipt of a disability pension and she suffers from a serious kidney condition (Alport syndrome) and is unable to work. She is on the national register for a kidney transplant. However, unfortunately, one has not yet become available to her. Recently, her condition deteriorated quite badly. She is no longer able to treat herself at home and it is now necessary for her to have dialysis treatment at the Royal Adelaide Hospital Renal Unit three times a week. To undertake the return trip from Mannum to Adelaide three times a week is well beyond her financial means, and her physical condition does not permit her to undertake such excessive driving. Her parents are seriously concerned about her welfare and, as such, they have contacted the manager of SA Housing Trust and more recently the Premier to see whether some emergency accommodation can be arranged for their daughter close to the city so that she can receive the medical attention she requires. I also have made several inquiries of Housing SA and the minister, urging them to give this constituent urgent status. Housing SA has upgraded her priority for housing to category 1 but has not secured her any emergency accommodation closer to Adelaide at this stage. This is a disgrace and should not be allowed to happen. When we hear reports in the media about prisoners being housed extremely quickly after release, why cannot a seriously ill woman be found accommodation so she can receive the treatment she needs to live? I cannot understand how the Rann Labor government cannot provide assistance to someone who is so gravely ill. It is blatantly clear that her current housing situation is unacceptable. I have promised her parents that I will continue to lobby and advocate on her behalf so that she can be housed appropriately and they can have some peace of mind. A second serious issue in my electorate relates to a dangerous intersection just outside Cambrai. The local community desperately wants the 80 kilometre speed zone at the southern end of the township extended to include the Marne River bridge and the intersection of the Redbanks and Bundilla roads with the Mannum-Sedan road. I have tabled a petition on their behalf in this house. The Mid Murray Council has lobbied the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure and the Road Safety Advisory Council to extend the 80 kilometre zone, and DTEI officials have visited the intersection and inspected it. Despite this, no action has been forthcoming. Mr Jon Whelan, DTEI's manager of the eastern region, has said that it has never been the department's intention to extend the speed limit south of Cambrai: 'There is no roadside development after the 60 km/h zone and therefore no justification for extension of the 80 km/h zone.' There have now been four major accidents at the intersection in the past three years, and I have been advised that a combination of speed and the S-bends was the cause of all of them. I am familiar with the intersection, and it is dangerous. The bridge is on one side and the hill on the other, and the 110 km/h speed zone means that semis and B-doubles zoom down the hill or over the bridge and around the bend and are up your exhaust pipe before you can blink. I urge the state Rann Labor government to rectify this situation and increase safety for motorists. In the words of the petitioners, 'If no action is taken we fear it will only be a matter of time before someone is killed there.' I also would like to take a very brief moment to reflect on the fire hazard today. At the moment it is as bad as anyone can remember, in certain areas. However, with respect to its being 'catastrophic', I am sorry, I do not agree with what we have done. We have spooked a lot of people on the one hand and, on the other hand, people are not taking any notice. I think that using the word 'catastrophic' is not a good idea. It worries people. Yesterday we had people going all over the place, and apparently we have children at school now who cannot get home because the school buses will not run this afternoon. I wish that we would be a bit more professional about this. Fires are a serious business and when we have days like today I believe that cool, calm and collected is the way to go. When we hear these fire warnings coming over the radio all that does is worry the citizens and concerned people, particularly elderly people; those who cannot get out. People were ringing up yesterday wondering where the fire was because this word 'catastrophic' was coming over the airways. I urge a re-think about this whole situation, because it is causing a lot of worry out there. On one side we have people saying, 'We ignore it, because it's an overreaction,' and on the other side we are really worrying a lot of our citizens. I hope we can fix it very quickly.