Page 540 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have seen this go wrong before. In fact, I am sure Ms Orr has noticed this in the Gungahlin town centre. Anyone who uses the Gungahlin pool will know it is pretty squashed up in the inside. Everything had to be packed in tight. The entrance of the pool has been very carefully located facing into the loading dock of the college next door. Half of the parking for the pool is at the opposite end of the building from the entrance, tucked around the oval. Finally, the indoor sports hall is located at the other side of the college instead of being collocated with the pool, which you would have thought would have reduced construction and management costs. The reason for this, as we know, is lack of coordination between different government projects. The aquatic centre was built after the college and the oval and there just was not enough land left.
We do not want that situation in Woden, particularly given Woden already is very constrained because it is a redevelopments area, not a development area. It would be cheaper and more effective to plan for the redevelopment of Woden properly from the start, and that is what my amendment is focused on: coordinating the planning work for the future Woden community centre with work on a possible multipurpose indoor sports centre and the future of the Woden CIT site; providing a coordinated timetable for planning work for all three facilities; expanding planning for the community centre to consider options for an integrated community centre/indoor sports centre, including an aquatic centre if that becomes necessary; and not selling any part of the Woden CIT site until work on the community centre and multipurpose indoor sports centre have confirmed that the CIT site is not needed for that purpose or another community purpose.
In summary, I totally support Ms Orr’s motion. My amendments seek to add to it. I would like to see community facilities well developed and well provided throughout Canberra, and I think that this is the reasonable thing for the Assembly to look at—the needs of all of our constituents.
MADAM SPEAKER: I wish to make a statement in relation to the amendments moved by Ms Le Couteur. Standing order 140 states that every amendment must be relevant to the question it proposes to amend. Ms Orr moved a motion which has as its subject a matter on today’s daily program—Gungahlin community infrastructure. The motion contains the word “Gungahlin” 10 times and calls on the ACT government to undertake certain activities in relation to the community centre in the Gungahlin town centre.
Ms Le Couteur’s amendments seek to deal with the matter of a future Woden community centre, and her amendments contain the word “Woden” 14 times but contain no mention of the word “Gungahlin”. I also refer members to the companion to our standing orders, at 9.77, which states:
An amendment, whilst it may restrict the area of relevancy in a debate, may not expand it.
It is my view that the amendments broaden the scope of the motion and are not relevant to the original motion proposed Ms Orr. Accordingly, I rule the amendments out of order.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video