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:16255] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Those of us who were listening and watching noticed something really interesting today. It took Bill English 5½ minutes of his 10-minute speech—actually it was an 11-minute speech—to tell us whether National members were for or against this Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill. What did he do during that entire period? He looked up to the gallery. He looked to the members of the Exclusive Brethren up there asking for his instructions. “Do I vote for it or against it?” he was asking. The Brethren were there. They were overseeing their investment in the National Party and they will be very very disappointed with that speech. 
One of the reasons the Exclusive Brethren invested in that man is that he is the pension cutter. It was Bill English who as the Minister of Finance oversaw the last cut in the pension for the oldest and most vulnerable New Zealanders. He is a person without a heart. He is the person who was shaking when he thought that John Key might promise not to do it. He was worried that John Key might make a commitment not to cut the pension and he knows that is part of his plan. He criticised Labour for putting pensions up. He said it was inevitable and that we did not want to do it. Well I tell that member that our party has a proud history in this area whereas the National Party has a history of wrecking the lives of older people. It has a record of abolishing superannuation schemes that could have made this country rich and of attacking the most vulnerable through both Ruth Richardson—whom Bill English supported—and Bill English himself when he was the Minister of Finance. 
It is also I think somewhat ironic that that member starts criticising public servants and their numbers. What was that member before he came into Parliament? He was a Treasury official. 
Eric Roy 
: A farmer. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh no he wandered back to the family farm occasionally but he spent his time in Wellington as a Treasury official. I know what Eric Roy thinks of Bill English and he knows that he is not a farmer’s backside. Eric Roy knows that and he has told people all over the place what a useless farmer Bill English was. It was for show that Bill English went down to Dipton when he was running for Clutha-Southland not because he was ever a proper farmer and we all know that. He was a public servant and he is a person who not only hates the old and the young but does not like family tax credits and he hates his former workmates. Everyone around Wellington knows that that is where he wants to attack. But I tell the member that that is not good enough. 
When one is in Government one has a look around at the relative cost of things. There is not a chance of getting the extra $2.5 billion over these tax cuts that was promised as recently as Sunday and Monday by his leader John Key without cutting the pension without cutting health services and without cutting into the education budget. We know that and Bill English knows that and that is why he was shaking as John Key was speaking. He was scared about what John Key was going to say—not that anyone would expect John Key to say the same thing 2 days in a row or even 2 hours in a row or sometimes within an interview even 2 minutes in a row. Bill English was worried that in this debate John Key would commit National to something. But of course the investment worked the speech was vacuous he said nothing and it was absolutely hopeless. John Key could not even say in his speech—after dozens of briefing notes after being on the phone for ages during the debate after reading the speech and the Budget documents and after having I think about a dozen of his officials involved in lock-ups—whether he supported these tax cuts. Half an hour after the Minister of Finance had finished his speech and an hour after he started it—and an hour after he had all the information—John Key could not say whether he supported the tax cuts. When one is running for Prime Minister one needs to have more brains than that. One needs to have more instinct than that and to be able to react in a way that is proper and consistent— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: You actually need some backbone. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One does need backbone but John Key does not have that. He has a flip-flop instead of a backbone. The approach that John Key has given us has been of a rubber-backed man. 
I will give one more example of a family. It fits fairly well with a family that I know—a couple both of whom are in their early 40s with two children. The couple are called JJ and Kiri and they have Maria who is 19 and Jade who is 12. JJ works as an electrician and he earns $65000 a year Kiri is not in paid employment and Maria still lives at home while she is studying full-time at university. From October this year JJ will start paying $1160 less per year in tax and the family will receive an additional $588 per year of Working for Families tax credits. In year 1 JJ and Kiri are $1748 a year better off as a result of the October changes. The family will continue to benefit as the credits are rolled out. In year 2 JJ will pay $1438 less in tax; in year 3 the savings will reach nearly $2000 a year and the additional tax credits will be $1260. As well as this the 19-year-old Maria will get her student allowance increased by $22 to $52 a week. That is another $880 over the year for that family. National members say “So what?”. 
Chester Borrows 
: It was our idea! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It just shows how out of touch with ordinary Kiwis National is when members like Chester Borrows are saying “So what?”. He should knock on a few doors in Wanganui and work out that $4114 a year to a family will make an enormous difference. If he knew Wanganui better he would know that $4114 a year makes an enormous difference. It means $80 a week to a family but National members say “So what?”. It might be that they are all as out of touch as John Key is. It might well be that they all roll out of a Manhattan bar instead of going to the Anzac Day celebrations in their electorates; it might be that they are out of touch and do not wander home often and do not knock on doors. But I know that a family—a not unusual family—in Hutt South that is getting an extra $80 a week will say that that is great.