King Annette: General Debate 
King Annette: General Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19652] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed her seat is the only person in this House who can fake sincerity with such conviction and at such top decibels. “Congratulations!” is what I say to that member. I have always enjoyed the writings of Karl du Fresne. He is a highly respected and long-time commentator here in Wellington. I read something he wrote recently. He stated: “Ever since the Muldoon era with its disastrous ad hockery National has followed a policy of pure naked expediency.” I could not agree more with him. 
I have to tell the House about the latest piece of pure naked expediency: the announcement of the new Opposition spokesperson on finance Mr John Key that a National Government would reduce the size of the civil service. John Key thinks that if he reduces the size of the civil service he will be able to fund the tax cuts for his mates. He thinks that is a winner. He thinks that New Zealanders do not like civil servants. John Key thinks that if he mounts an attack on civil servants he will be able to get the old talkback lines going as people all whinge and moan about the fatted bloated bureaucracy around New Zealand. He thinks he may even gain a percentage point in the polls if he attacks civil servants. John Key is even prepared to sacrifice Mark Blumsky who lives in the city of civil servants if he thinks he can get another vote. Of course National Party members often sacrifice their candidate in Wellington Central. Every time there is an election they say that it is time to sacrifice their Wellington Central candidate and he or she is gone. So Mark should look out because he will be gone. 
However the mistake that John Key has made is that he would not know a civil servant if he fell over one. A civil servant in New Zealand is also a doctor or a nurse but John Key will not tell New Zealanders which doctors and nurses he will sack. I want to know today from the next speaker from the National Party which doctors and nurses are for the chop. We want to know which ones are to be sent down the road which ones will be cut out of the system and which ones will be stitched up by the National Party. I believe National will stitch up a lot of them. If we look back at how many doctors and nurses we had when we came into Government and then look to see how many we have today then I have to own up. I put my hand up because there has been a huge increase in civil servants in the health system. There has been a 22.6 percent increase in the number of doctors in the health system. I am sorry; I own up. There has been an increase of almost 20 percent in the number of nurses. I am sorry; I am responsible. I take the blame for that. We now have more doctors and nurses in the health system. That for people in the National Party is terrible. Of course if there are more doctors and nurses then they can probably help more people. But when one wants to give one’s mates tax cuts so that they can have another few bob in their pockets then the number of doctors and nurses has to be cut. But then those mates cannot get the health services they need. 
I want to know which doctors and nurses will go. Will it be Plunket nurses? Will they be the first to go? We have increased the funding to Plunket dramatically over the last 5 years but I think that mums and babies will feel the effects if the number of civil servants is cut. Plunket nurses will be cut. They will go—that is true. Now let us look at the district health nurses who do their nursing in people’s homes. They keep people in their homes rather than their being in hospital. The numbers of those nurses will have to be cut if the civil service is to be cut. What about the public health nurses? They are the ones who give children their immunisations against preventable diseases and keep them out of hospital. Well they will go; they will be chopped. If the civil service is cut those people will go. Let us look at the doctors. Which doctors are for the chop? Which specialists will we not have? Will it be the ophthalmologists? Do they have to go? They are the ones who do cataract operations. I suppose if one is to reduce the bloated civil service by making cuts in the health system then ophthalmologists are for the chop. What about the orthopaedic surgeons who do hip replacements? They will have to go. 
Let us have it put on the table what will be cut under National.