Page 5200 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It also, unfortunately, turns out that the site which has been set aside for the pool is only big enough for either a 50-metre lap pool or a 25-metre pool plus a 20-metre multi-use moveable floor pool. That is a shame, because the obvious conclusion from the community consultation is that it would surely be preferable to have a swimming complex with a 50-metre lap pool as well as a 25-metre lap pool for aquarobics, aquatots, learn to swim classes, a toddlers’ play area and, of course, the rest of the facilities which hopefully will form part of a wellbeing precinct—gymnasium, hydrotherapy facilities and space for dance, aerobics and yoga. It would certainly be better to have all of these at one site rather than this either/or approach.
What we need to do is to take an approach that looks at what the community of Gungahlin most needs and what would be most beneficial for the whole community. It may not be that that is a 50-metre pool at the expense of two smaller pools. It would be wrong for the Assembly to go ahead when the sort of community consultation that is really needed for this to go ahead has not been done and we impose a 50-metre pool when, in fact, a different kind of aquatic centre is going to bring a better result for the community. That may indeed be what the community says in the consultation.
As the development of the Gungahlin town centre area is not yet completely finished, it seems a shame to allow the size of one site and the apparent need for a wide range of government facilities to be co-located to hamper the development of a suitable swimming facility which caters for the broad range of swimming needs of Gungahlin residents. As a result, I have one small amendment to this motion, which calls on the government to look at whether there is another site in or adjacent to the town centre which would be appropriate and large enough to house both the two smaller pools, which could be used for a large range of purposes, as well as building a full Olympic-size pool. That way, even if the government budget does not allow for all of these pools to be built in the short term, the swimming complex is not restricted in the future by the size of the block or adjacent buildings.
Last week Mr Barr advised the Assembly that the final funding model and the possibility of a public-private partnership of the project will be determined once the feasibility studies are completed. Given this, it would be a shame to find funding in the latter stage for such a partnership only to have closed the door to the options due to the block size being set. Such a partnership of continued support from the government would mean that it would be more financially viable to run this wider use of the aquatic facilities alongside the 50-metre pool. If it is more financially viable, surely it means there will be more users, thus serving better the needs of the people of Gungahlin.
I look forward to hearing the results of the feasibility study and hearing what the community consultation on these options reveals. I hope these options, including a larger site, are part of the consultation. I now move the amendment that has been circulated in my name:
Add:
“(3) calls on the Government to identify any further suitable sites in the Gungahlin Town Centre vicinity which would be able to accommodate the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video