Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 2 Hansard (8 March) . . Page.. 465..
MR HARGREAVES (continuing):
This departure from traditional methods of releasing taxi plates is another step in this government's reform of the transport industry in Canberra. In the last 18 months we have reformed the hire car industry and wheelchair accessible taxis and have legislation currently before the Assembly to facilitate the establishment of demand responsive transport services. Of course, this is on top of the initiatives that my colleague, Mr Corbell, has introduced since being the minister responsible for ACTION in this town. Initially, of course, we saw him overturn the rather stupid policy of zoning and introduce the one fare anywhere policy, which saw a dramatic increase in patronage. I believe that we should be congratulating that minister for his initiative.
The government believes that this package of reforms will result in higher levels of service in the community while at the same time providing opportunities for innovation and growth in the transport industry.
Mr Stanhope: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.
Supplementary answers to questions without notice
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, I would like to give some detail about answers that I gave yesterday to questions from Mr Pratt and Mr Stefaniak. Mr Pratt raised the issue of a disturbance in Campbell. Mr Stefaniak asked a question about disturbances at the Canberra show.
I have sought advice from ACT Policing. They have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the events which occurred in both of those instances. I provide some detail to the chamber on that. I suggest that Mr Pratt sharpen his pencil and write some numbers down.
I am going to deal with the Campbell incident first. It happened on 26 February. Between 1.24 am and 1.47 am, 23 minutes, six calls were made to police. This included two triple-0 emergency calls. As a result of the information that the complainant provided to police in the first instance, relating only to gatecrashers during the first call to the police assistance line 131444, at approximately 1.24 am, I am advised that a decision was taken in line with the priority response model not to dispatch a patrol to the complainant's address as the offenders had left the area. The complainant was advised of this decision by the police communications operator and was satisfied. The complainant was also advised to contact police if the offenders returned.
Eleven minutes later, at 1.35 am, the complainant called the police assistance line 131444 stating that the males had returned and requested police attendance. Whilst police communications were assessing this request for assistance, the complainant called the triple-0 police emergency line at approximately 1.37 am-two minutes later, another call through. During this call, the police operator attempted to calm the complainant down in order to obtain details of what was occurring. This call ended at approximately 1.39 am, two minutes later. An event log was created by the communications operator.
A second triple-0 call was received at 1.37 am from another person at the complainant's location. As a result of the information provided at the time, the incident was prioritised