7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she stand by her statement, “What I’m satisfied by is that PlunketLine, in terms of calls picked up, was not providing a good service”; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes. As she has now told the member twice in the last 8 days, the rate of calls not picked up by Plunket was high, at some 87.3 percent in the year ended December 2005.
What was her Government’s long-term plan when it inserted into its contract with McKesson New Zealand, the following clause: “McKesson will use its best endeavours to ensure that Healthline, incorporating PlunketLine, will be delivered via one nationally available 0800 number by 1 July 2005. Funds for this contract will not be used to promote the PlunketLine number after this date.”; and was it always her plan that PlunketLine would cease to exist?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Most certainly not. That was certainly never the intention. Of course, as one might recall, some little time ago the National Party severely criticised the Ministry of Health for letting out contracts without going to tender. As a consequence, the Ministry of Health went to tender. An independent panel made the decision that the contract should go to McKesson.
Is it not a fact that Plunket is answering calls to PlunketLine as we speak, and Plunket is meeting every term of its contract; if so, why is she culling this vital extension of PlunketLine?
Is she the same Helen Clark who said: “The reasons why the Government and its many health bureaucracies won’t fund PlunketLine go beyond mere penny-pinching.”; and is it not time she admits that she has read the country wrong if she thinks parents enjoy listening to the Prime Minister bag Plunket in the House day after day?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
She is indeed the same Helen Clark who quite rightly criticised the National Party for failing to fund a 24-hour well child health service. She is the same Prime Minister who heads a Government that still provides a 24-hour well child health service. She is somewhat bemused to find that the party that supports competition in New Zealand opposes competitive tendering for a contract worth some millions of dollars.
Is she the same Helen Clark who said: “But would it not be tragic if the result of cutting back on Plunket Line’s hours or its closure altogether was to be an increase in the number of infants’ and children’s deaths … Plunket Line does deal with real emergencies and with situations which if not dealt with speedily could become emergencies,”; and is it not time that the Prime Minister admitted it is not good for her to be attacking Plunket day after day in the Parliament?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
She is indeed the same Prime Minister who supported then, and supports now, a 24-hour well child health service—a service that a National Government Cabinet, of which he was a member, refused to fund.
Jo GoodhewWhat would the Prime Minister say to the Plunket volunteers who today are out raising money to help Plunket and who formerly believed that the Prime Minister always supported PlunketLine?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
She would say to them that she still does, and that the Government is providing $34 million a year to the Plunket Society.