ROBIN BRIDGE

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:30): I move:

That this house:

(a) condemns the state Labor government for its failure to commit to painting the Robin Bridge at Nuriootpa prior to 2014-15; and

(b) urges the government to undertake the necessary repainting works immediately to ensure the bridge is once again a beautiful landmark in Nuriootpa.

I thank all the members for their consideration of this motion, because I have raised it with several of them. This bridge has become a bit of a passion of mine and others in the Barossa community. It was first brought to my attention by a constituent approximately four years ago. To see this bridge painted would mean a lot to many in the community. It would ensure that what is now a dull, shabby and unappealing landmark could once again be a feature in the town of Nuriootpa.

I did stick my neck out because of a response to an interjection in this place. When I was asking, 'Why doesn't the government paint the bridge?', I think it was the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis who yelled out, 'You can afford it, you do it.' So I said, 'Okay, I will.' That was just an interjection across the house, and I did not do any more about it. It was picked up by the local newspaper, The Leader, in the Barossa, and therefore I have had to deliver, and I will. So, it has gone on from that.

Since I moved this motion prior to the winter recess I have been inundated with messages of support from the community. Service clubs and individuals have contacted me to see if they are able to assist with the painting of the bridge, in any way, and a local business has offered to supply the paint. I have not accepted any of these offers as yet, but I probably will. With such good will out there, I cannot understand why the minister cannot work with the community, harness some of the generous offers being made and get the bridge painted.

The minister did respond to me earlier this year to advise that the bridge has been included in the Periodic Bridge Repair Program for painting in the 2014-15 year. This is too long to wait for such a simple job; anyway, this government won't be there, and, either way, I doubt very much that minister Conlon will be the minister.

I have heard rumours, sir—and I sincerely hope that they are just that—that the department has estimated it will cost approximately $600,000 to have the bridge painted, removing all the railings, the uprights and the lamp posts to take them to Adelaide to have what little (if any) of the remaining lead paint sandblasted off so that it does not fall into the South Para River and pollute it. Sir, this really is nanny state stuff. It is ridiculous, $600,000, and then we wonder why our state finances are in the shape they are, and why people have lost respect for those in office.

It is totally ridiculous; it is absolutely laughable when you see it. The waste that occurs is just ridiculous. There are many in the community willing to help me to get this done, if the minister does not step in. We have not seen any action forthcoming to date, so I have my spray gun at the ready, and I will begin in the next two to three weeks. I will put the drop sheets down, and I will sand the flaking paint off. I will keep most of it out of the river by using these sheets. I will wear gloves and a respirator. But I do not think the bit of old paint remaining will be any threat to my health, or anybody else's, for that matter.

There is a plant hire company just 200 metres up the road, and I thank them for offering me the use of a small scissor lift so that I can reach the top of the four lamp posts. So, it is all coming together. I have already sprayed the bridge with an anti-fungus product to neutralise the fungus and moss before we do the undercoat.

Safety will be paramount and I am a bit concerned. I will liaise with the local police and Transport SA, even though they will frown upon what I am doing. Sorry, I should not be doing it, but the government has had four years to address this and it just has not. There is still time. I will be pleased if next week a vehicle rocks up there and starts the job. I will not be upset, but nothing has happened at all so I will do it out of pure frustration, and hopefully, it could also create community focus on self-help projects.

I estimated my costs for this: 20 litres of paint, $300; emery paper, brushes, thinners, etc., $150; hire of the scissor lift, $250; time, one person equivalent, four days—I think I could do it in four days—I give myself $30 an hour, but seeing that you are already paying me it is nothing; with other sundries, all up approximately $1,800. It is a fair bit short of $600,000, isn't it?

Seriously, it is all about common sense, isn't it? I will not be painting the underside of the bridge, admittedly. I give the government its due—if they did what they were going to do, they would paint the whole thing. I will not be painting the underside. I am just doing an appearance job to make the bridge look appealing in the community. There is time.

I know some people say it is a gimmick. Well, it probably is, but it started off as an interjection across the house. It is in the Hansard. The Hon. Tom Koutsantonis threw it across to me. He was rude. I said to the government, 'Why don't you paint the bridge?' He said, 'Well, you could afford it; you do it,' and I said, 'I will.' That was all that happened. I did not pick it up from there; the local media did, and I am trapped in it, so I am going to do it.

I know how to use a spray gun, so I can say that we will do a good job, but I am concerned about the safety side of it. If anybody else should come onto that bridge site and step off and sprain an ankle or break a leg, I understand that is a problem and a risk, so I will put the witch's hats out and I will put signs up that say, 'Real worker at work,' and we will see. It has become a bit of an issue up there, and the government can still move in and cut my water off quickly and nicely, but you are not going to do that, are you?

You are not going to do that, so I have locked in and I will do it. I just ask the house to please consider the motion. As I said, it condemns the state government for its failure to commit to painting the Robin Bridge—it is a bridge of some history in Nuri—and it also urges the government to undertake the necessary repainting works immediately to ensure the bridge is once again a beautiful landmark in Nuriootpa, and also probably save my neck. I urge the house to support the motion.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:38): I am not sure whether I am doing this reluctantly or not, but I would like to support the member for Schubert in his endeavours and his motion which condemns the state Labor government for its failure to commit to painting the Robin Bridge in Nuriootpa prior to 2014-15 and urges the government to undertake the necessary repainting works immediately to ensure the bridge is once again a beautiful landmark in Nuriootpa.

I would just like to say a couple of things. I urge the government to take up this matter because I do not want to see a by-election in Schubert. We have enough work with every one of us in this place working towards the elections in March 2014, and I am concerned for the occupational health and safety of the member for Schubert, but I do understand the extraordinary circumstances that he is in that he is prepared to take on this job.

He is saying that he can do this job on a very modest budget of $1,500, donating his time because he is obviously already paid out of the public purse and he is going to do it after hours. I am concerned, in all seriousness, with what the member for Schubert indicates, that the government is talking about a $600,000 paint job on this bridge, and not just with this bridge but with everything involving government quotes. We saw this with the Building Education Revolution, everything cost twice as much for government schools as it did for private schools because of the process, because of the bureaucracy.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: No; that is exactly right. I saw this happen in Coomandook where we have an $800,000 (alleged) basketball court that is only about two-thirds size. Two days before it was opened they had to run 23 tradespeople in there to finish construction so that we could have Senator Anne McEwen, the Hon. Bob Sneath and myself present at the opening of that gym. We saw the water tanks that were installed—which were ridiculous anyway because they are within 20 metres of a River Murray pipe that has plenty of hydrants, the firefighting tanks—which normally would have been quoted, with appropriate fittings, at $50,000.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I rise on a point of order. While it is interesting to hear the member's version of history I think he is straying well beyond the bounds of this motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): I uphold that point of order. Get back to the subject matter.

Mr PEDERICK: I will get back to the subject. I feel suitably admonished. I support the endeavour of the member for Schubert for a whole range of reasons, as I have said. I do not want to see any problems and I want to make sure that everything is done with the utmost safety and integrity. The last thing I want to see is a by-election in the seat of Schubert. I would like to think that the government would grab the bull by the horns, or the bridge with a paint tin in this case, and get on with the job and do it for the benefit of not only the residents of Nuriootpa but for the benefit of the residents of Schubert.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:42): I will be very brief. I support this bridge being painted but also a lot of other infrastructure around our city. I recently travelled on interstate trains and coming into Adelaide the graffiti on buildings and bridges looks really bad. I do not normally drive in, but this morning on my way in I saw that the bridge over the Millswood Underpass was covered with graffiti. It looks awful. I do not know what it is but South Australia seems to specialise in people doing wilful damage, and there is sometimes a lack of prompt response in dealing with these issues. The Southern Expressway is continually vandalised. I know the Department of Transport does its best but as a community—

Mrs GERAGHTY: I rise on a point of order. Again, I say that I think the member for Fisher is now straying well beyond this motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): I agree. I think you should confine your comments to the Robin Bridge in Nuriootpa, if you can.

Mrs Geraghty: And could we change the spelling? It is spelt wrong, I am sorry.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The Robyn Geraghty bridge. But whether it is the Robyn Geraghty bridge in Nuriootpa or elsewhere, as a community let us make the place look good and keep it looking good.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (12:43): I move:

Leave out all words after 'house' insert 'notes the government gives priority to safety over aesthetics in its bridge maintenance program and that the Robin Bridge is scheduled for repainting in the 2014-15 financial year.

This is an important matter because what we have been asked to do is to give priority to appearance or aesthetics over safety. I will explain that because it is very easy to bring these matters up but you have to remember that the department is responsible for the maintenance of 1,470 bridges across the state, and its primary and first concern is for public safety. I would hope that every member in this place would put public safety ahead of appearance.

However, we have heard it said today in this chamber that, yes, it is an issue of appearance etc., and other members (who are not aware of the priorities) are prepared to give priority to painting this bridge because of appearance—and that is important—but I would be most concerned if a member stood here and said, 'Well, appearance is more important than safety.' That is exactly what I have heard. I also heard the words 'it's a gimmick'—to say that a gimmick is more important than public safety is of concern to me, as well.

I understand that the member for Schubert has been writing to the minister about this matter since 2009. When determining to allocate funds, the department, and in my view quite rightly, gives priority to continued safety rather than improved aesthetics. In fact, the member for Waite raised this issue about the safety of bridges on a number of occasions when I was on the public works committee. He raised a number of issues about his concern for safety. At least the member for Waite, even though I did not agree with him, said that safety was paramount.

We have here today a motion before us which says that appearance is paramount over safety. I hope the member for Hammond, in supporting this motion, will ensure that this work does not occur before some bridge in his electorate which requires work for safety—and that is very important. The bridge is on the routine bridge inspection program and has been inspected every five years, on average, since1980.

The deterioration of the paint on the handrails, while its appearance might suggest otherwise, is not considered to be a safety issue and, therefore, funds have been directed to areas other than the Robin Bridge in this financial year. None of the inspections have reported serious corrosion on the pedestrian barrier but it has been noted that the bridge should be repainted at the same time as the girders. So there is recognition of the work and, when they are there for the safety maintenance of the bridge, this work, which is for appearances, will be done at the same time, therefore saving taxpayers' money.

Following the most recent inspection in 2011—and it is important to note that the bridge was inspected in 2011 and, therefore, is not being ignored by the government—it was recommended for repainting in 2014 and that the handrails should be painted at the same time as the girders, which are of greater importance from a public safety point of view. By his own admission, the member to Schubert said that we should put effort into the handrails and ignore the issue of the safety aspect in terms of this bridge.

The bridge has now been placed on the DPTI Periodic Bridge Repair Program for 2014-15 and funds have been allocated to paint the girders. As part of this process, a detailed paint assessment was commissioned (as mentioned by the member) which confirmed that paint loss on the handrails and railings is significant but corrosion is low. The handrails will, therefore, be painted at the same time as the girders.

Previous reports identified that the handrail paint contains lead and its removal needs to be managed professionally. Painting will involve the removal of existing rails in order for them to be sandblasted and the installation of temporary barriers. A traffic management plan will need to be in place for alternative road access to ensure worker safety. Conducting these projects—that is the whole lot—at the same time will minimise inconvenience to road users and make the best use of available funds.

The issue was raised regarding why sometimes public projects perhaps cost more than in the private sector, and part of it is the process but also the expectation by the community that there is a higher level of accountability in the public sector. I suggest that this house support my motion of safety first with priority over appearance. I would hope that every member would support that motion.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:50): I am quite disturbed by the comments made by the member for Light. I have never once said that safety was not paramount; it is, absolutely and totally. All we are discussing is a small project here, and it is a matter of appearance. The bridge is structurally safe; it was well built when it was put there. It is just a matter of the constituents saying that in the middle of a beautiful garden setting this bridge looks terrible. Not once have I ever indicated that there was a safety problem. I do not want to cause a public nuisance, I do not want to cause any risks to people, but out of frustration after four years I said to them that because I took a bait—and I have just had the member for Torrens trying to talk me out of it. Yes what she says is correct—it is not the sort of thing a person should do—but I have taken the bait and I will do it and whatever happens happens.

I just hope the government will move in the next three or four weeks and start the project. It is simple. They do not have to take the rails away. Why they cannot employ some unemployed people—say, four or five unemployed people—with a supervisor from the department to paint this bridge, I do not know. It is as simple as that. They do not have to remove the panels. I certainly oppose the amendment because it is just going back to the same old, same old.

We want some action. It is a simple thing which should be easy to address but the minister has said no and, rather than change its style and manner, he said, 'No, we are not going to paint your bridge. You have to wait until 2014-15.' He will not be there—we know that—and the government probably will not be there either. That is way into the future. We are not prepared to put up with that, so for the sake of a bit of cosmetic paint—and that is what it is, nothing more than that—I think it is just ridiculous. What has it cost the parliament just to discuss this matter this morning? Probably the same amount as the paint would cost. I urge the government to reconsider. It is a small issue and, if you are prepared to say, 'Okay, we will do it in six months,' then I will back off. I urge the house to support the motion. I certainly do not support the amendment.

The house divided on the amendment:

Majority of 7 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.

[Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00]