CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
It was a slightly surreal feeling to sit through the first and second readings of the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill under urgency and hear National members rant and rave about how important it is to cancel the tax cuts that they passed under urgency just 5 months ago. How things have changed in 5 months! I thought it might be quite good fun to go back to the Hansard of 9 December 2008 and hear what National members had to say about why tax cuts were so vitally important. I go back to the speech made by David Bennett, who spoke not long before me tonight. I have a very good quotation from him from 9 December 2008, and I think it is quite a reliable one: “One cannot say yes to tax cuts before an election and then say no to them after an election,”. I have here the National Party’s pledge card from before the election, in which it promises tax cuts every year—in 2009, 2010, and 2011—yet here we are sitting under urgency and National is taking those tax cuts away only 5 months after dishing them out.
There is even better stuff from David Bennett. He said: “The National Government, with its coalition partners, will deliver a tax cut programme. We will not just talk about it; we will not just put legislation out that is about some time in the future. We will actually deliver that tax cut programme, and that is what we as a Government are about.” In December 2008, that is what National was all about. It was the core part of what National came here to do, but 5 months later it is already backing down and going back on its key election promises.
John Hayes talked about it not being a 1-year programme. Here is the really honest thing he said: “Mr English has been extremely ingenious in constructing this tax cut package.” It turns out he was a lot more ingenious than National members realised at the time, because he never intended to go through with it; he was going to abolish the tax cuts anyway. John Hayes talked about the fact that it would be a pattern every year. Yet here we are, not even a year in, we are only 5 months in, and National members are doing away with tax cuts already.
Bill English talked about his tax cuts being prudent and responsible, but, he said, they would give New Zealanders the kind of hand-up they need when they face the most challenging economic outlook in a generation. The economic outlook has become more and more challenging, yet somehow we now do not need the tax cuts any more, so they will be taken away. Clearly the Minister of Finance, Bill English, can have no credibility when it comes to any promises that National made prior to the election. We know that.
Chris Tremain is sitting there. He talked about building trust. He said the National Government was delivering on its promises and it would continue to build that trust. I ask Mr Tremain to stand up and say how cancelling the tax cuts only 5 months after the Government legislated for them is building trust with New Zealanders. National members have not lived up to the trust they were given by New Zealanders on 8 November 2008. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen were dead right when they said that the National Party could not be trusted to deliver on its promises. Five months later John Key and Bill English are already backing down on the core centrepiece of their entire election manifesto.
I notice that National members have suddenly gone very quiet. They are very embarrassed about being hauled up on their pre-election rhetoric. Every New Zealander will now know that the pledge card that National put out before the election is not worth the paper it was written on, because there are 11 promises on it and the big red crosses here show that three of them have already been broken. We are not surprised about that, because this is the party that promises whatever it needs to in order to get elected, then does whatever it wants to once it gets into Government. If we look back to 1990 and the superannuation surcharge, we remember it was going to go, “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”, but National increased it. At the last election National promised that it would deliver tax cuts every single year. National members said that unlike Michael Cullen’s tax cuts, they would actually deliver them. It took them 5 months to break that promise.
I go back to the book The Hollow Men, and to the advice those men received from a former Minister of Finance, the Hon Ruth Richardson, who said one must say whatever is required to get elected because, in her own words, “being in Government is everything.” Members can then do whatever they like to the people who voted to put them there, and they do not have to worry about keeping any of their promises. Ruth Richardson said that.
Today has been Crosby/Textor’s day, has it not? Crosby/Textor practically could have written the Budget speech today—it probably did write the Budget speech today. It just goes to show that this Government has no principles. It had no intention of keeping its pre-election promises; it was always going to do whatever it felt like, once it got into Government.
National’s tax cuts were never affordable, and Labour said that prior to the election. Yet John Key and Bill English ran up and down the country saying we were scaremongering when we said tax cuts were not affordable. They were going around the country telling everyone that they could have all the things they had under Labour, but with tax cuts as the cherry on top. They said that everything would go on, hunky-dory, despite the fact that we were already in recession prior to the election. The world financial crisis had already started prior to the election. In fact, let us go back and read the Hansard—I have it here in front of me. We can see from the Hansard that the National Government used the world financial crisis as the justification for its tax cuts when it passed them on 8 December last year, only 5 months ago. Yet, suddenly, here we are, back under urgency, repealing them again. National members’ arguments have gone completely full circle. They are now saying the world financial crisis is the reason for not delivering tax cuts. Five months ago it was the reason for delivering tax cuts, and 5 months later it is the reason for taking the tax cuts away again.
This Government has absolutely no credibility when it comes to keeping its promises. Effectively, the last general election can be summed up in three words: the Key con. That is what it was; that is what all of the National Party’s manifesto promises amounted to. They were nothing more than a con that the National Party had absolutely no intention of sticking to. It was an absolute fraud on the New Zealand people. The National Party had no intention of keeping any of its promises, and the tax cut situation absolutely sums that up. New Zealanders were promised tax cuts each year. As Darren Hughes said, the pledge card with John Key’s name on the front and his signature underlining his commitments to the people went to every letterbox in the country. The pledge card said: “If National is elected to lead the next Government, I personally guarantee that we will:”—pledge No. 1—“Strengthen the economy, increase after-tax incomes and ensure Kiwis can get ahead under their own steam by reducing personal taxes on 1 April 2009, 1 April 2010, and 1 April 2011.” Yet the tax cuts are gone; National has delivered on only one-third of that promise, and the rest of it is gone. It just goes to show that none of the National Party’s pledges are worth the paper they are written on.
The Hollow Men theory prevailed during the election campaign, with National members promising whatever they liked. I am reminded of one of the emails I read about in The Hollow Men. It was from one of Don Brash’s advisers, and it talked about splashing the cash around before the election. It said that he had to throw some cash around to get people to vote for him. He would not need to worry about keeping promises after the election, because by then he would be firmly ensconced on the Treasury benches. He would be able to do whatever he liked to Kiwis, and they would not be able to do anything about it. It has taken only 5 months, and boy oh boy, are those members looking smug and arrogant already! It has been done in record short time. They are laughing about the fact that they are taking away the centrepiece of their pre-election manifesto—the centrepiece of their promises to New Zealanders—which was to give tax cuts every year under a National Government. John Key signed his name to that and said he personally guaranteed it.
Hon Lianne DalzielOh, Bill English probably told him to do that, because he is the one who is pulling all of the strings here. Maybe Steven Joyce is pulling a few of the strings, as well. It is a battle royal between Steven Joyce and Bill English as to who should be the Minister of Finance. They do not want John Key to have any credibility.
HEKIA PARATA (National) Link to this
Tēnā koe e te Heamana. Huri noa i te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. I rise to support the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill. I do so along with my colleague the member for Selwyn, who spoke so fluidly and flawlessly about the pride we each have in supporting this Government. The Opposition has spent the last couple of hours haranguing this Government about all the values and principles it lacks itself.
We recognise that these are difficult times. We have all been made aware that this is the most difficult time in two or possibly three generations. So it takes courage, leadership, fortitude, and realism to know that the mix of requirements at this time has to be different in order to meet what confronts us now. We do not blindly fling ourselves at the wall of ideology as our opponents do. We take the measure of what is required for this country, and we are prepared to take the hard decisions. That is why so many New Zealanders have put their faith in us, and we honour that faith.
Tonight we are debating this bill because it is necessary, in the mix of ingredients required to get this country back on the road to recovery, to make savings. We must not burden all New Zealanders today and into the future with debt that will cripple them. We are realistic about what is possible. We understand that it is not possible to deliver the tax measures for 2010—this is where Labour members will start singing—and 2011, because they will add too much to the burden of debt. Instead, we are able to save New Zealanders $900 million in the out-years of 2011 and 2012.
The Government remains committed to lowering personal income taxes. It has deferred, not cancelled, the second and third tranches of tax cuts that were due to take effect in 2010 and 2011, respectively. It has been a difficult decision, but making difficult decisions is what good Governments are put in charge to do. We make the hard calls. This Government is prepared to do that, and all we get are vituperative attacks from scaremongering opponents at a time when the citizens of this country are entitled to expect good leadership from the top. They are certainly getting good leadership from this side of the Committee, and it would be appropriate at this time for those opposite to question the tactics they are employing at a time of deep concern and challenge for many New Zealanders around this country.
It would be a failure of leadership not to recognise when change is required. It would be a failure of leadership not to be prepared to take the direction that circumstances call for. Those on this side of the Committee are not prepared to fail that leadership challenge. We go forward with New Zealand’s support, recognising that we have to soften the hard edges of this recession and that we have to make decisions—for the short, medium, and long term—to ensure that this country is in the best possible position to emerge into a recovery.
That is what New Zealanders are looking for from this Government, and that is what the Budget today has delivered to each and every one of them. It is a Budget that is committed to recognising the need for sustainable, long-term recovery of this country. We care about that recovery. The Government is not made up of expedient, cynical, and scaremongering people—
No, members opposite misunderstand the English language if they do not understand that making courageous leadership decisions about what is and is not possible is a test of leadership that this Government has fronted up to. On the basis of commentary, including our rating, we are passing that leadership test—and we are passing that test with the support of New Zealanders. Members opposite can wave their pieces of paper around and feel good as they do it, but we are not here to see comedy acts; we are here to help New Zealanders face the challenges that confront them and to help lead the way to the recovery that this country deserves.
The mix of ingredients in this Budget consists of the kinds of things New Zealanders want to see held up to them. The Budget is a mix of very sensible measures and of what is possible. We need to balance both the spending and the burden of debt that this country is encountering, and as part of that we are prepared to make the very difficult decision to defer tax cuts. I am proud to be a part of this Government.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
I have to say that the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill is based on one premise: a lie. It is an absolute lie. In fact, we could rename this bill the “Taxation (Lie) Bill”. It is based on a deception—and it does not matter how high Mrs Parata raises her voice.
She said this Government is not expedient. [Interruption] I know that the Cheshire cat sitting in the Government’s front row might want to grin about her Budget bid. Members opposite say this Government is not expedient. An International Monetary Fund report that came out on 8 October said that the world economy was entering a major downturn in the face of “the most dangerous shock” to rich-country financial markets since the 1930s. It came out at the same time as John Key came out with what Brian Rudman called a “catalogue of tax-cut bribes”; on 8 October John Key said he was unveiling a tax package that was “responsible” and “appropriate for the current conditions”. That was how he characterised his tax package, although he knew about that International Monetary Fund report. We had only to turn on the radio or the TV to work out that the world was imploding in a financial crisis.
And Mrs Parata says National is not expedient. She says that it shows courage and leadership. Well, what shows courage and leadership? To say one thing before an election, knowing that that member and her Government cannot deliver on it? She characterises that as some sort of standard of courage, some sort of standard of leadership. We now have a new definition of leadership and courage in this Parliament, and that definition is to deceive. That is what National members did and that is why they are hoist with their own petard.
I say to Mr Dunne, whom I differentiate slightly from National members as being a more honourable person, that I suspect that in the deepest dark of the night he squirms a little at the thought of having to front this bill. Mrs Parata puffs her chest out, raises her voice, and tries to convince the New Zealand people that she did not deceive them, when as she and her ilk climbed and clawed their way up the political greasy pole of the National Party list to get to where they are. They said anything that they could; they were the archetypal definition of expedience before an election. I invite her to go out on the stump, to go to the constituency she purports to represent, and try to convince people.
National was ambitious for New Zealand. National said if people voted for it, it would deliver tax cuts. National members criticised Michael Cullen because Michael Cullen was cautious. They said it was an outrage that he was cautious, it was an outrage that he squirreled away the surpluses. I say to Mrs Parata that she has raised to a new height the standard of gall in this House. She stood up and tried to persuade us that National had shown leadership by deceiving—knowingly, not by accident—every member of the New Zealand public. Does that member really think it is credible for her to tell the New Zealand people that, miraculously, when she and her ilk entered the Cabinet room somebody passed a note to the Prime Minister that said, by the way, there is a global recession—in fact, the worst we have seen in the history of the globe—and, by the way, his tax cuts probably will not work? Does anybody think the New Zealand people are so stupid that they would accept that thesis from that member? Even that member, Crosby/Textor, Mr Joyce, and the myriad spin doctors that National has over there cannot now deceive the New Zealand people, because they know that they were deceived knowingly and with intent.
It should not surprise us, because it is a typical Tory trick. National has done it for decades. It goes to the people and says that, shock, horror, it has opened the books, everything is terrible, and it has to break its promises.
Hon Darren HughesHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Exactly. What all of them have done—and old “Sooty” in the front row in the pink shirt ought to remember, because he—
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) Link to this
After the previous speaker, all I can say is “Thank goodness for platform shoes.” My mother could see that member speaking from where she was, but without his shoes she would not have seen him.
This is a great debate on the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill in the Committee stage. I have been sitting here quietly listening to the debate, and I say to the members opposite that they are whingers, whiners, and woolly left-wing liberals. They are socialists dressed up and pretending to be liberals. They are excuse makers, they are complainers, and they are better off over there on the other side of this Chamber. They are like a group of 4-year-old girls who are crying and looking for their comforters, because they are not big enough to handle the deepest recession New Zealand has faced in 60 years. New Zealand is better off because those members are over there. They were a fair-weather Government, and now the storm is here they are sadly absent. They have no ideas; they are all excuses. New Zealanders are glad to see the back of them, and, absolutely, so is this Parliament. The pretence that those members are worried about New Zealanders has been too little, too late.
This Government is about delivering for New Zealanders, and today, with Bill English, a great Minister of Finance, we have delivered 600 more police and at least 200 more correction officers to make New Zealand and New Zealanders safer.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
Thank you for that comment. Look, I invite the member to concentrate. This debate is limited to parts, and this part is about personal tax cuts. I ask the member to continue in that vein. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. I still have time left, so I am happy to speak more slowly for the sake of my great friend, the former member for Ōtaki—the defeated and failed member for Ōtaki. I thank the former Minister.
This bill is about tax cuts. In a very difficult economic time, why have we not been able to deliver tax cuts in following years? It is so that we can deliver 600 more police for New Zealanders, and more than 200 corrections staff to make New Zealand safer. It is so that our police can have Tasers on the streets—again, to make New Zealand safer. These are all funded promises that have been delivered today. That is why this bill is saying tax cuts in the coming years will be more difficult.
What about health—doctors, nurses, operations, and aged-care services? There will be $3 billion extra over the next 4 years to deliver for front-line health service in New Zealand. Where is that piece of paper members had before? I ask members to hold it up for me again; I want to see it. It has gone now. Oh, there it is. Could the member move that a little further to the left, as the voice of that member is too much—at least, the people of New Zealand watching TV will not then see the member’s face, as the voice and the face together are far too much.
Hon Damien O’Connor Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Sorry, but as the newest member in the Chamber I would just like a clarification of the Standing Orders. I was of the understanding that there is a Standing Order relating to the reading of speeches in the Chamber. I would just like to check that that member is not reading.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member is right, in that I am one of the members on this side of the Chamber who, compared with members on that side, can actually read. But I was not reading—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
No, no, that is not a point of order. The member will continue; he has 1 minute and 35 seconds to go.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. As I have a few moments left, I confirm that, yes, on this side of the Chamber we can read; I am sure that on the other side members cannot.
I will come to a conclusion—well, I do not have to, but I will, none the less. This is the deepest recession in 60 years. That is why tax cuts are not going ahead. This is a Budget to get New Zealand through a downturn. That is why tax cuts cannot go ahead. It is about improving growth and productivity. That is why those tax cuts cannot go ahead. The Budget is to keep New Zealand on the front foot. Standard and Poor’s recognised that today. New Zealand recognised it today. I say to members opposite that they should wake up, give up, get ready for more tomorrow, and recognise it today, as well.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
This story began last year when National members went on to the hustings and said we do not have a debt problem but we have a growth problem, and therefore we have to have some tax cuts. As the election campaign unfolded and as the clouds of economic gloom gathered, they said that we do not have a debt problem. They maintained that mantra right up until 8 November; we did not. We said, in the course of the election campaign, there would be no more spending promises. We said we did not believe that there was an opportunity for large expenditure, be it in the form of tax cuts or in the form of new Government programmes. And that is how both parties went into the election.
But wait! There is more! After 8 November, all of a sudden the advice to Michael Cullen and therefore to the Labour side stopped, and the advice to Bill English and therefore to the National Government started. That advice grew gloomier by the day. Even after the election, the news got worse. By the time we came to the second week of December, these Government members, having been in receipt of 6 full weeks of Treasury advice, said we could still afford tax cuts. They said they were part of the Government’s 100 days of action. I guess we are now in 100 days of U-turns. They said we could afford those tax cuts, so they went ahead.
We opposed the tax cuts, which I presume means we have to support this legislation today. But we will do more than say “We told you so.” We will say “You misled us.” That was never better explained than yesterday in Brian Rudman’s article in the New Zealand Herald, where he talked about the need for the National Government to squirm. He pointed out in words of one syllable that by the second week of December the National Government knew very well the circumstances that this little country was in.
Do members know what happened yesterday? The Prime Minister of this land rang the editor of the largest newspaper in this land and tore a strip off him for running that article. What is prime ministerial about that? Why did John Key say to the editor of the New Zealand Herald he did not want to see that sort of stuff run in his newspaper? Who does the Prime Minister think he is? Does he think somehow that we have a democracy in which the Government should not be challenged for breaking promises? Does he think somehow that this Government is able to get away with broken promises without there being some sort of public spat? The Prime Minister has a habit of doing this. Remember when he did it to that Northland agency before he became the Prime Minister? The nice man appears to—
Craig FossI raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are in the Committee stage. We have had about 2½ or 3 minutes of this gentleman’s speech and we are yet to hear anything about what is in the bill.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
I do not need any help. I ask the member to continue. We are on Part 1. I know that some of your comments have strayed a bit.
Mr Chairperson, my speech has been entirely about tax cuts—their passage under urgency, their reversal under urgency, and now the Prime Minister getting up and ripping into the editor of the New Zealand Herald because he did not like a bit of criticism. You see, Brian Rudman made the mistake, apparently, of pointing out that in the second week of December the Government must have known the circumstances the country was in. That is what he said. In other words, the urgency before Christmas was known to be a fake, and that is an outrage.
Government members were so full of themselves, so big on their 100 days of action, and so triumphalist that they were prepared to fool themselves and the rest of the nation with legislation, and that was only 5 months ago. They have made a U-turn in 5 months: from tax cuts to no tax cuts. When someone gets up and says that is a broken promise and the National Government had better get ready to squirm, which is what Mr Rudman said, the Prime Minister rings up the editor of the New Zealand Herald and does his nana. He cannot take the criticism. He is happy to break the promise, happy to do the U-turn, happy to do the deceit, and happy to fool everyone that in December the tax cuts were real—
PAUL QUINNThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
The member has not even started to speak, and there is a barrage of noise from the cross benches.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept that, but you should know that we were just so pleased you had called him to speak.
Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I do intend to address Part 1 in my short stint. But in so doing, I want to comment on the rather gutless performance of the previous Labour speaker, Pete Hodgson, who lambasted a high-quality Māori leader—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you can anticipate my point of order. That was totally unparliamentary language. That was offensive, and it has been ruled out many times. We cannot say that of other members of Parliament.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
I ask the member to desist from making those sorts of comments—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
No, the member cannot qualify the ruling I have made. I am asking him to just continue with his speech.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. Can I say, then, that the member lacked the intestinal fortitude to face that woman, one of New Zealand’s leading Māori women, and look her in the eye while he lambasted her. He spent the whole time with his back to her, looking at the monkeys behind him and looking for applause. He did not have the fortitude to look her in the eye and front up to her. That is the sort of person we have in Opposition.
Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like you to ask the member to withdraw and apologise. I really feel truly insulted that we have all been identified as monkeys.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
The member has taken exception to the comments the member has made. I ask him to withdraw and apologise for those comments, because a member has taken exception. That ruling is under Standing Order 116. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for those comments and to then continue.
I withdraw and apologise. Now, having said all that, I will refer to Part 1, which relates to personal tax cuts. [ Interruption] Of course, I see the so-called Opposition Leader of the House, who cannot decide whether he is a young Trevor Mallard or an older Chris Hipkins, because he does not have the ability to stand up against Trevor Mallard every time he gets up. He does not know how to act as the Opposition Leader of the House.
Turning to Part 1, I say in terms of these tax cuts that this Government has changed its mind—right? I see that Darren Hughes got three black marks in school today. Oh, the teacher has given him three bad marks on the chart he is holding up—not very good. Anyway, we are prepared to front up, which is a lot more than the members of the previous Government, now on the Opposition benches, were prepared to do in the pre-election fiscal update. They hid the accident compensation figures from the public, and when the true costs were known, they ran a mile.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
We have under 2½ minutes left. I would actually like to hear a little about the words “tax cuts” under Part 1, because the heading states: “Personal tax cuts and independent earner tax credits:”. So I ask the member—[ Interruption]—I am on my feet. I ask the member to seriously consider Part 1; otherwise I will terminate the speech.
Mr Chairman, I can explain: my speech is focused on why we are prepared to front up to reverse these tax changes. It is because we have to meet a heavy burden of Government expenditure: a decade of deficits, left behind by the previous Government. It would not front up to the truth, which came out only after the election. That is why we are prepared to front up, unlike the Labour Opposition. When Labour was in Government it hid everything to try to get another term in office. But National fronts up because we are honest and we have integrity, and when the situation changes we are prepared to accept it and be honest with the public.
We are not prepared to have a level of Government expenditure of $1 billion a week. If that level of spending was left unchanged, it would leave a structural deficit in this country of $135 billion by the year 2023. The interest alone on that figure is $13.8 billion. We are not prepared to do that, because $13.8 billion could go towards supporting hospitals. That is why we have changed the tax cuts. We are realists, and we front up to the situation as it presents to us. As part of that process we will examine Government expenditure, line item by line item, so that the time before those tax cut changes are reversed can be kept to a minimum. We get rid of things like hip-hop tours. We get rid of wasteful expenditure in order to deal with the fact that the tax cuts are, for the moment, not as much.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
What you will get, Mr Chair, is a speech that is about the bill, for a start. I say to “Lady Parata” that we are very, very sorry if we have offended “your royal highness” in any way.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not have a title other than Ms Parata or Hekia Parata. I would prefer that I was addressed respectfully in those terms. Thank you.
I withdraw and apologise, if that is what happened. But I say to Mr Paul Quinn that he does not need to patronise Hekia Parata—
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That was not a withdrawal and an apology. The member said “if that is what happened”.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
She withdrew and apologised. [ Interruption] The member took exception; I will ask her to clarify.
Paul Quinn does not need to jump up and protect Hekia Parata. She is perfectly capable of defending herself in the Chamber.
What an extraordinary contribution from Mr Paul Quinn. He did not speak at all about Part 1, because he is ashamed of what National has done here—if, indeed, he understands what it has done. What has struck me about National members’ speeches is that those members have all jumped up to say how proud they are of the fact that they are now reneging on their election promises, how brave they are that they have broken the promises that they made during the election campaign, and how much courage it takes to deceive the people of New Zealand and then stand up and cancel the tax cuts that won National the election.
Democracy is very tiring, as we found out during the last sitting week with the super-city legislation.
Part 1 cancels the personal tax cuts that National promised during the election campaign—it was National’s No. 1 promise. John Key said there would be tax cuts on 1 April 2009, 1 April 2010, and 1 April 2011. He said, unlike Labour, National would not cancel its tax cuts. That deceit has been shown up for what it is in today’s Budget. It is galling in the extreme that Government members have been getting up and acting as though they are really proud of what they are doing here, having deceived the people of New Zealand during the election campaign, and as though they are proud of the fact that they bought an election with promises that they knew they could not afford. It is galling in the extreme. Apparently, they expect us to believe that John Key and Bill English were the only people in the world who did not see the financial crisis coming.
I can believe that Paul Quinn did not see it coming. He probably thought Lehman Brothers just had a little run of bad luck. He probably thought that Enron just did not dot the i’s and cross the t’s. I can understand that Mr Quinn might not have seen the financial crisis coming, but for John Key to seriously expect the people of New Zealand to believe he did not know he could not afford to keep the promises he was making, when everyone was telling him that things were getting worse, and when Labour members stopped making campaign pledges because we knew we would not be able to afford them, is utterly ridiculous. John Key did know.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was interrupted at least three times, I think, in respect of staying within the ambit of the part—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
That is not a point of order. I will decide. It is not a point of order.
Now I understand Paul Quinn’s speech. He does not realise that Part 1 cancels the tax cuts. He thought it did something completely different from that. Now I understand why he did not refer to the bill at all in his speech; it is because he does not know what it does. I will tell Mr Quinn what Part 1 does. Part 1 cancels the tax cuts and breaks the election promise—the No. 1 election promise—that National made during the election campaign. Part 1 shows up the con of the National Party at the last election.
I said in my second reading speech that maybe instead of calling John Key the Prime Minister, from now on we should call him the “Prime Misleader”, because that is what he is. He is the “Prime Misleader” because he knew during the election campaign that the tax cuts could not be afforded. We said they could not be afforded, and National said we were scaremongering. Six weeks after the election—after National had had all the Government books and had seen the state of the finances—the House took urgency to ram through these tax cuts. Labour, in that debate, said the tax cuts could not be afforded, and National said we were scaremongering. Less than 5 months later we are repealing, under urgency, the tax cuts we passed under urgency. Why? Because we cannot afford them.
The only thing that is consistent about the National Government is its inconsistency. Labour said before Christmas that the tax cuts could not be afforded. We voted against the tax cuts. But we are voting for this bill because it repeals the tax cuts that we said could not be afforded—and we were right. National would have us believe that no one could possibly have foreseen the economic conditions worsening.
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) Link to this
Finally, we might get some sense in this debate. The previous speech was another five wasted minutes of droning, moaning, hand-wringing, and histrionics based on a whole lot of nothing. Today is about this document in my hand. Today is about a Budget that will put this country on the road to recovery.
Iain Lees-GallowayI know about that. Mr Lees-Galloway should not worry about it. Today is about making the hard decisions that it will take for this country to undo 9 years of disastrous Labour leadership from a Government that would not have known how to manage its way through a recession if its life depended on it. Unfortunately, the Labour Government’s life did depend on it. Labour can spend money, but it does not know how to manage in a recession, which is why New Zealand voted out Labour, and why those members are over there, and why New Zealand put its faith in this National Government. Part 1 of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill defers the tax cuts—[ Interruption]
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
There is not much time to go. I ask members to give the member speaking a fair go.
Part 1 defers the tax cuts, because we understand and we know that right now it is more important to New Zealand families for them not to have to pay another 1.5 percent on their mortgages. New Zealanders do not want to be paying that. They do not want to be saddled with a second mortgage for every family of four because that party on the other side of the Chamber could not contain its Government spending and does not know how to manage anything. This Government is making the decisions that need to be made. It is looking after the people of New Zealand. Right now, at this time, in this climate, and with the information in front of us today, we know that what is important is getting our debt under control, looking after New Zealanders, protecting their entitlements, and getting this country ready for recovery.