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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 596 ..

MR MOORE: As I said, Mr Speaker, I believe that at the time we were looking at a range of pharmacotherapies; morphine was one of them. Mr Rugendyke, I shall take that matter on notice specifically to see exactly where we are with the outcome of that study and get back to you personally and to members of the Assembly.

Totalcare-housing contract

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, my question is directed to the minister for housing, Mr Moore, and follows his best described bogus and dismissive answer to the question from Mr Stanhope earlier in relation to Totalcare in which he mentioned an analogous situation of which it seems he has intricate knowledge whereby the sticking on or not sticking on of tiles might have been behind the reason for the government ditching Totalcare as a successful tenderer for housing repairs. This is based on Mr Moore's assertion that the perceived lower satisfaction levels were to some degree behind the dumping of Totalcare as the successful tenderer.

Mr Moore, I would like you to take these figures into account and then I will come to my question. There were 10,921 responsive repairs, which would have included the sticking on and falling off of tiles, I suggest. The satisfaction level was 95.8 per cent. Where, from those figures, could you find a perceived lower satisfaction level? In after-hours and emergency calls there were 2,000 jobs. The satisfaction level was 100 per cent.

Mr Hargreaves: Everybody.

MR BERRY: Everyone. In planned maintenance, there were 6,973 jobs and the satisfaction level was 99.2 per cent. How is it that Totalcare has lost its tender to deal with housing trust matters on the basis of a bogus perceived lower satisfaction level against those figures? Why is it, Mr Minister, that the facts were not taken into account?

MR MOORE: Of course, there are none so blind as those that will not see and there are none so deaf as those that will not listen, and here we have the distinction between Mr Stefaniak, who listened, responded and took action, and Mr Berry and the Labor Party, who simply will not listen. I did give the specific example earlier of the tiles for very good reason, Mr Speaker.

Mr Berry: Tiles! Right! We can change-

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Berry! Your question was heard in silence. I expect the same courtesy to be shown to the minister's answer.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, it was for very good reason that I used the specific example of the tiles and pointed out that the tiles were fitted back on and the grouting was done properly. It was probably an excellent job, but when those sorts of jobs are repeated a 100 per cent or 95 per cent satisfaction rate is warranted.

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