Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 296 ..

asset to this community, as Mr Moore suggested. We need to look at ways in which we can maintain, first of all, and then, if possible, improve those valuable assets. There is an environmental aspect to that as well. I agree with Mr Moore that we are blessed in having assets such as our bicycle paths, roads and infrastructure, and we really should be looking after them. I think we need to address that in a budget context as well.

The most pleasing comment that I heard Mr Moore make - this filtered through all his remarks - was about working with people instead of being in conflict. I think that Mr Moore and other members on the cross benches will find that that is what this Government is all about. I note that Mr Berry laughs. Well may he laugh, because, unlike the previous Labor Government, we are pragmatic enough to realise that we do need the support of more than just the members of our particular political party. That being the case, I can assure Mr Berry and others that this Government will be working very closely with the committees, with members of this Assembly and with the community, and we will make those decisions after we consult, not before we consult. That is the difference.

Mr Berry: Acton-Kingston is a good example.

MR DE DOMENICO: I will get onto that in a minute. I am glad that you interjected in that way, because I will take the ones that I think are embarrassing to you. Mr Moore also talked about working closely with Mr Humphries. Once again, it was refreshing to hear from the comments made by Mr Moore and Ms Horodny that at least the members on the cross benches are very anxious to work with the Government in a sensible, commonsense way to make sure that we get things done that need to be done.

I was also delighted to hear Ms Horodny in particular talk about light rail. I must admit that there was a lot of work done by the previous Minister, Mr Lamont. We ought to acknowledge the work that Mr Lamont did and even put it on the agenda, because I think that is a good idea. We might not have agreed with the way Mr Lamont did things, but at least he did bring it onto the agenda. I think we need to look at the light rail concept. We need to look at it seriously for Gungahlin, for example. If we do not look at alternative modes of transport, we will be hit with the easy decisions that some people might be inclined to make about increasing our road infrastructure to the stage of not being able to look after it in the future. So, we do need to make those hard decisions; and those decisions will be made, if and when they need to be made, and we will bring the community and the Assembly with us when we do make those decisions. There were a lot of other things that Ms Horodny said that made a lot of sense. She acknowledged the benefit of having a three-year budget. Once again, it is a sensible way of managing any economy into the future - not doing it with the piecemeal, year-to-year, nip-and-tuck approach that was the hallmark of the previous Government.

I should now talk about the contributions made by members opposite. Mr Wood did not say very much. I acknowledge that Mr Wood did say that a lot of the things that are in train were decisions made by the previous Government. In relation to a lot of areas he was right, and we will acknowledge that every time it happens, Mr Wood. You will find

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .