Brighton Road Resurfacing

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (14:15): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure. Can the minister explain why, when a two-kilometre stretch of Brighton Road was resurfaced between Brighton and Seacliff Park, only one side of the road was resurfaced, leaving the side which was arguably in poorer condition unimproved?

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning, Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (14:15): Can I thank the member for Bright for his question. He is nothing if not assiduous in raising issues which are of concern to his community, and I am glad to receive the question. Often, I find that question time can be tense and nerve-wracking, but one thing that does help is the warm, benevolent, bovine-like mooing that I get from the member for Kavel when a question is put to us. That tends to settle things down.

The SPEAKER: The minister will withdraw and apologise for 'bovine-like mooing' of the member for Kavel because—

An honourable member: It's a tautology.

The SPEAKER: Well, there is that, but it has also always been unparliamentary to characterise another member as an animal.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I'm waiting for the withdrawal and the apology first.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I unreservedly withdraw and apologise to the member for Kavel, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Deputy leader, point of order?

Ms CHAPMAN: My point of order is in relation to the matters which are the purview of the minister. His emotional state is not a matter of ministerial interest or relevance to this debate.

The SPEAKER: Well, that's a superfluous point of order. Minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Indeed, Mr Speaker, thank you very much. As the member raised in his question, these matters may well be arguable, which side of the road was in more need of resurfacing if there were pavement defects in them. As I have often corresponded with members on both sides of the chamber when assessments are made of road surfaces, assessments are often made for safety requirements first and foremost rather than the perceived benefit to ride improvements from resurfacing works. But I am happy to look into this particular matter and provide the member with a response.