King Annette: General Debates 
King Annette: General Debates 
[Volume:612;Page:8982] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Birthday parties and anniversaries are often given names—like silver gold diamond and so on. A first birthday I understand is called a paper birthday and a second birthday is called a cotton birthday or a cotton anniversary. Well Bill English has just survived his cotton anniversary and only by his tiny cotton socks. In fact his performance reminds me of a cotton ball. There is absolutely no substance to his performance. We can poke fingers through his argument and the only thing he is useful for is cleaning out waste products. So to Bill English it must feel a bit like having a birthday party when nobody wants to come but is forced to come along. 
We have to ask: “Can anything go right for that man? Does he have to lose everything?” I ask members to have a look at a photograph in yesterday’s  
Dominion Post 
 showing Bill English done up in his rugby blacks and the headline: “Parliament’s rugby loss a bad omen for the real thing”. It certainly is because Bill English’s loss is a real omen for where he is heading in the leadership of the National Party. Members should have a look at what has happened in the 2 years since Bill English has been the leader of that party. 
He has no profile. People say: “Bill who? Who are you talking about?”. He has no popularity. His popular support is very interesting. In October 2001 there was 21 percent support for Bill English. What is it today? Seven percent! Two-thirds of his popular support has gone down the gurgler—14 percentage points down the gurgler. He is so insecure he could not even allow a caucus to be held when he was in Australia playing rugby. Why not? He was scared they might roll him while he was not there so they all had to go off and have their lattes around Wellington rather than meet and talk about policy because dear old Bill English was not there to hold the caucus meeting. 
What else has he done? He has managed to split his own party into two and the National Party is rapidly heading towards being three factions. Faction one is made up of Bill English and all his little acolytes—the angry middle-aged men the Roger Sowry and Lynda Scott combination Nick Smith and Tony Ryall. These make up the angry middle-aged people of one faction. Then the second faction is Don Brash and Murray McCully. They are the ones who are busy cosying up to the ACT party. They like the late-night tipples with the ACT party; they are philosophical soul mates. Now we have the third faction which is led by Gerry Brownlee. Gerry who? Gerry and the Who—I have to say—desperately seeking a supporter. He is so excited about his aspiration that his bubble is fit to burst. His chest pokes out and he is strutting around the corridors. I saw him this morning. He has never been happier. He believes he is on the way up but does not quite know who will be with him at this stage. 
What does all this mean to the once-proud National Party? In one word it is credibility but—zilch zero—it has none! It has absolutely no credibility at all. In September 2001 it had 40 percent popular support. It got rid of Jenny Shipley—she was no good—and put in Bill English. What is its popular support now? It is 29 percent. [ 
Interruption 
] Well maybe I am being generous. Maybe it is 26 percent. Jenny Shipley was a giant compared with Bill English in more ways than one. 
Why do National Party members have no credibility? It is because they are timid and mouse-like in their approach. They take the “walking on eggs” approach to everything. They are lions at question time and they are wimps when it comes to policy. Bill English always bails out after he has made his speech. He does not like to hear the truth. He bails out. 
National members are wimps and that is why they have no credibility. They change their position on a puff of political wind. Let us have a look at one issue—one that really amused me. They were for pharmacy deregulation then they were against pharmacy deregulation then they were for pharmacy deregulation—all in the space of 3 short years.