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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 881 ..

MRS CARNELL: Some 400 sites have been coated with a coating which prevents further attacks. Over 1,200 graffiti vandalism sites have been recorded. A database on graffiti sites is being maintained by the graffiti reduction team.

Ms McRae: Fantastic!

MRS CARNELL: Ms McRae thinks there is nothing special about that. I think that to get rid of - - -

Ms McRae: I think it is fantastic, just fantastic. I love the way you answer the question. It is just fantastic.

MRS CARNELL: I am very pleased that she is so pleased. Over 440 sites have been identified as suitable for legal street art and community murals, which is something we thought was very important. The legislation relevant to graffiti vandalism has been changed so that an offender is liable for a fine of up to $5,000 or six months in prison. In other words, over the time since we have addressed graffiti, virtually straight after we came to government, a huge attack has been made on graffiti. I do not know about those opposite, but I believe that the graffiti problem in the ACT is now significantly better than it was two years ago.

Ms McRae: Not in my suburb, it is not. Not in Cook.

MR SPEAKER: Ms McRae, the question was not asked by you.

MRS CARNELL: A thousand sites have been cleaned up. As those opposite would know, one of our graffiti clean-up approaches was part of our Jobs for Canberra strategy, where we put a quite large number of young unemployed onto the graffiti clean-up program. It is a program we are certainly planning to continue, Mr Speaker. It has been successful, and I suppose that those people are part of the 2,400 new jobs we have created since the budget.

MR OSBORNE: My question is to the Chief Minister. Mrs Carnell, I understand that you commissioned a report on the ACT Government's home lending scheme which, when completed, was called Taking the Longer View. Does this report advise against winding down the scheme, saying that such a course of action would be unwise as it would be almost impossible to rebuild the scheme from scratch? Also, is it true that the average profit from the scheme was in excess of $5m a year? Did the report conclude that, although there were problems with it, the scheme was defendable on both economic and social grounds?

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