Heatley Phil: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16311] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Here we have “Tricky Trevor”. “Tricky Trevor” is asking why the National Party does not put up an amendment. Has he told the public and Parliament that he has a power to veto an amendment? No he has not. Has he told the public and Parliament that he will waive that power to veto the amendment? I say to “Tricky Trevor” that we have called his bluff. Why does he not waive the power to veto our amendment? No “Tricky Trevor” has been caught out. He is back-pedalling. I have seen cyclists in my time— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Could you refer to members by their proper names and not by a— 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Their common name. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No—by their proper names as they are called in the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You may not have noticed but during your ruling Phil Heatley interjected on you very very directly. I ask that he at least be asked to withdraw and apologise. Most Chairs in the history of this House would send someone out for that. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I happily withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have seen cyclists going forward but I have never seen anyone back-pedal as quickly as Trevor Mallard just then. He called for National’s amendment but he was not prepared to waive his power of veto over that amendment. 
We are here in this Parliament debating Part 2 which is all about the personal tax cuts. Here we are legislating for them to go through. Why? Because Michael Cullen does not trust himself not to reverse his position on these changes to tax rates—which are a start and which National members say we will support—and certainly his Labour Party colleagues do not trust him not to. So we have to pass this legislation through Parliament. Interestingly Lockwood Smith has clearly identified that necessity. 
As Lockwood Smith said in speaking to Part 1 the Government is not legislating the indexing of the tax credits—we know that it will perhaps not keep that promise—and it is not legislating the indexing of the in-work payments in respect of Working for Families because it knows it may end up not keeping that promise. But it is legislating for the personal tax cuts because it has been caught out on that before and it has caught itself reversing that decision before. So the Government is legislating for the tax cuts. 
I also put to the Minister the question: “Are you or are you not indexing the parental tax credits? Are you or are you not indexing the in-work payments?” I guess will be a pre-election announcement. We are debating Part which is all about the tax cuts that have come in Michael Cullen’s ninth Budget. Did Michael Cullen give personal tax cuts 5 years ago when he had a surplus of somewhere between $5 billion and $7 billion? No. Did Michael Cullen give tax cuts 4 years ago when he had a surplus of somewhere between $6 billion and $8 billion of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Did Michael Cullen 3 years or 2 years or even 1 year ago give personal tax cuts when he had surpluses of $9 billion $10 billion or $11 billion? No. 
Chris Tremain 
: He promised them and then reneged. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: He did promise chewing gum tax cuts” but he reneged on them. 
So what is the difference between this year when we have troublesome economic growth and the last 5 years—up to 1 year ago—when we had good economic growth? Why did he not give tax cuts in that environment when he is giving tax cuts in this environment? There is only one difference and that is this year’s general election and the threat of Phil Goff taking over the Labour Party and dumping him as Minister of Finance. Leader-in-waiting Phil Goff knows that Michael Cullen is the worst advertisement for the Labour Party going into this election and he would not have him as his Minister of Finance. 
I know Trevor Mallard was looking at the job of Minister of Finance. I know Trevor Mallard would have put up a different tax cut regime if he was the Minister of Finance. But because of his brawling and general bully-boy antics he has lost that opportunity into the future. So here we are looking at Part 2 on the personal tax cuts that could have come 4 or 5 years ago. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Just before I call the next speaker—and it will be John Carter—can I ask people to stick to Part 2. It is not enough to say: “I am talking about Part 2.” and then take off on a broad pattern. Let us stick to Part 2. Let us set a new record.