Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16274] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to refer to some comments that were made in the House earlier today. I refer in particular to the comments made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters on what I counted to be I think 16 image consultants or related people who are working in the office of John Key. The Prime Minister has three media staff whereas John Key apparently has 16 image consultants. 
I do not challenge the right of the National Party to put its money into trying to build up John Key’s image—it is a challenge. But I have never seen such a spectacular failure as I saw on  
Campbell Live 
 tonight when John Key was quite rightly described by the host as being “as slippery as a snake in wet grass”. 
Dail Jones 
: What did he say? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: “As slippery as a snake in wet grass” was the description of John Key. I do not think John Campbell went far enough. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: He was too kind. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He was particularly kind. I would suggest that the consultants be fired. Clearly they have not been doing their job. 
I want an absolute assurance in the House tonight from John Key that taxpayers are not paying for that. I want an assurance that the 16 image consultants who are being paid to build John Key up are not being paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When is the Speaker going to bring him back to the bill? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Clearly if we were not paying 36 people in John Key’s office we would be able to reduce taxes further than we are doing. If we were not doing that then the tax cuts could be bigger than they are now. If the member is so slow that he does not understand the links between Government expenditure and taxation then Mr what’s-his-name Mr “Auchin-something” from the West Coast is even sillier than I thought. He is even sillier than I thought if he does not understand— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: I didn’t say anything! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: What? Dr Lockwood Smith would not have said that. He would not have said my speech is unrelated to the bill; he is much brighter than the member who sits next to him. Is Mr Auchinvole blaming Dr Smith? I do not really mind which of them it was; one of them interjected in that way. The point I am making is that if those image consultants are being paid by the taxpayer it is a scandal and if they are being paid by the taxpayer and doing a really bad job it is a waste of taxpayers’ funds. The tax cuts could have been bigger than they are if John Key were not wasting money in that way. 
But do members know what is worse than that? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: When asked John Key could not tell us what he would do. It is actually a matter of relatively simple arithmetic. John Key tells us that National has a plan. He has a tax cut plan. He has one; he told us that on TV tonight. All that had to be done was a bit of basic simple subtraction—or perhaps addition; it might be the other way round. The National Party plan minus the Labour tax cuts—that is the difference and that is what National is promising. Could John Key do that on television tonight? He could not. One would think that with 36 advisers on this sort of matter one of them could have got out a calculator. In fact they probably could have done it with their fingers and toes. They could have worked out what the difference is and John Key could have said what it is. 
I think I know what John Key’s problem is. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Spin doctors. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no not spin doctors. I think he has a factual problem. I think National has a problem with its plan. The problem with its plan is that low-income people and people with families would get less from National’s plan than they are to receive under Labour. John Key does not have the backbone to come into the House or to go on television and to tell the public— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members cannot refer to someone’s lack of courage or use the words that the member did. The member will desist from doing that. 
Nathan Guy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you please to rule that the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise for those remarks. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Assistant Speaker I point out that you have ruled and as you are aware that is the end of the matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I have ruled. I have asked the member to desist and I will be listening to him with a great deal of attention. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Any other former leader of the National Party would have been able to come to this House and tell us what his or her policy was. My memory does not go as far back as the 1950s on these matters but I can remember Keith Holyoake. I can remember talking to Keith and I can remember him living in Pipitea Street and seeing him wander back and forth. Keith Holyoake would have been able to come into this House whether he was in Government or in Opposition and say what his policy was. Robert Muldoon would have been able to come into this House and tell us what National’s policy was. Jim Bolger would have stridden in and ruled the place. If he were here now he would be saying what the policy was. I think even Jenny Shipley would have been able to do that. Don Brash certainly would have been able to. The current deputy leader who was at one stage the leader of the National Party would be able to tell the House what the policy is. Why cannot John Key? Why cannot the National Party have a leader in the tradition of National Party leaders—a leader who can tell the people what he is thinking rather than what the 36 spin doctors tell him to say. That is a problem when one is a leader. 
What did John Key say when he was asked where the money would come from? He said it would come from attrition in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 
Dail Jones 
: What? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes that is where the money would come from—from attrition in the staffing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Do members know that the current spending is $307 million? Let us suppose that attrition in the ministry which I think is a relatively stable ministry is at 10 percent a year and that it happens evenly across the year. That amounts to $15 million. Well I tell John Key that he needs $2.5 billion or $3 billion to do what he told us earlier in the week he would do. So far he has shown us where he would get $15 million. One could probably fire his 36 spin doctors or rather the 16 who are the image consultants and get another million or two of taxpayers’ dollars. But that is a long way short of what would be needed. 
This is a good Budget; these are fair tax cuts. I like to see the National Party squirming and I agree with John Campbell that John Key is “as slippery as a snake in wet grass”. I am sure Geoff Braybrooke would have had even more appropriate words to say but with the prissy standards here these days we are probably not allowed to use them.