Page 943 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2005

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

(3) Is the number of people employed that can answer this phone number appropriate and adequate given that the number is the inquiry line for 107 different query areas within Environment ACT;

(4) How can the Government be confident that each individual that calls the Environment ACT phone number of 6207 9777 is being dealt with appropriately when this number takes the vast majority of calls with queries regarding environment type issues in the ACT;

(5) Is it acceptable that a person wanting to inquire about backyard burning is directed to the same number as those wanting to make a boat booking for the Molonglo River;

(6) Would the Government consider reducing the high number of calls to the 6207 9777 phone number by allocating a new phone number to some of those 107 areas to take pressure of the already stretched 6207 9777 phone number; if not, why not.

Mr Stanhope: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) Three part-time staff and one supervisor within Arts, Heritage and Environment are tasked with answering the Help Line 6207 9777.

(2) 5774 out of a total of 22309 calls, overflowed from Arts, Heritage and Environment to Canberra Connect between Jan 1 2004 and Dec 31 2004. Statistics for the 2003 year are currently being sought from Canberra Connect.

(3) Yes.

(4) Help Line Procedures and experience ensure that individual queries are being dealt with appropriately. Information is shared with Canberra Connect. There is a system of logging and tracking of calls and e-mail.

(5) Yes

(6) A single phone number has proven to be the most effective way for the Community to contact Arts, Heritage & Environment. This single entry point has been promoted widely through a range of marketing and promotional activities and has high recognition.

(Question No 124)

Mrs Dunne asked the Minister for Urban Services, upon notice, on 15 February 2005:

(1) Further to the answer to question on notice No 32 in relation to graffiti removal, what was the failure in the reporting process;

(2) How has it been addressed.

Mr Hargreaves: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) The failure in the reporting process was caused by a fax transmission line malfunction, and a failure to check the fax transmission report to confirm that a message had been dispatched.

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