Key pushes the minor party vote at the expense of National candidates

Last week there was a rumour that Phil Goff asked his front bench if he should resign as leader. Goff has denied this and said today ”I think you`ll find that that spin has its origins in the National Party”.

Earlier today John Key emphatically denied that this came from the National Party, saying that National has “no interest in the Labour leadership”.

However, while Key is interested in speaking at conferences of minor parties – fronting to Maori Party and Act conferences, and, today, the United Future conference, he has no interest in debating their leaders on TV, but wants at least two of them to win their seats - in Ohariu-Belmont and Epsom - and is therefore encouraging supporters to list vote National – but split their vote.

While some New Zealanders what to be informed on minor party policies, Key thinks that this should not happen while he shares the TV screen, saying today “it wouldn’t do a lot about informing New Zealanders”.

So informing New Zealanders about minor parties is somewhat pointless to Key. Does he expect National to govern alone? The TV3 poll came out today showing the Greens on their highest ever polling of 9.3 percent - in fact their polling is way higher than NZ First, United Future, Act, Mana and Maori parties combined. The Greens would have nearly a third of the number of seats that Labour would have, and Labour just under half what National would have. Labour would likely lose six seats if the election were held today. Mana would get two seats if they win an electorate seat. National could govern alone – but may choose to include Peter Dunne as part of the government, if he wins his seat, as is likely.

Key may have minister from a minor party even if National were to govern alone

I attended my first political party conference today for two reasons: One it was just down the road from where I live, and Prime Minister John Key was there.

John Key has lived in Peter Dunne’s electorate. Key and Dunne obviously have a good relationship, and will continue to do so after the election. Key said Dunne has done an “excellent job” as a minister in a complex portfolio. At the stand up after Key’s speech, he said even if National governed alone, conversation lines will still be open with “all minor (parliamentary) parties like Act and United Future.

I asked Key if his relationship with Dunne, who is associate Minister of Health and Revenue Minister, would change. His first word in his reply was no. Nor did he rule out a leader from a minor party –like Dunne in UnitedFuture –from having a ministerial role in a situation should National govern alone.

That would be a first.

Key said any minor party ministerial roles would depend on what expectations minor parties had in ministerial roles – but it is pretty clear what Dunne’s expectations are.

It is clear that Key obviously wants Dunne back in Parliament. Gossip among the press gallery is that Dunne is in danger of losing his seat – and would have lost it in 2008 had the Greens and Labour tag-teamed. Key was asked by reporters if his invite to the UnitedFuture conference was to drum up support for Dunne. He laughed that off, as expected, and said his standard line that it is up to the people of Ohariu who they give their candidate vote to but National will be running a strong party vote in the electorate.

That said, Key sees Dunne as someone who he sees as a like-minded person whom can work through sensible compromises. As long as Dunne has a reasonable chance of being elected in Ohariu-Belmont, the National candidate will be told to run a strong party vote campaign, and be told their entry to parliament depends on their list placing. National will hope its supporters will split their vote.

At the conference, Dunne also announced changes to child support, including the reduction in the number of nights a year used to determine shared care being reduced from 40 percent to 28 percent of nights. Child support payments will be deducted directly from the paying parent's wages.

Goff and Key talked to Family First – but didn’t say much

I attended a forum by the Family First lobby in Auckland yesterday, predominately to hear how John Key and Phil Goff would respond to questions from Family First’s Bob McCoskrie.

I came away wondering why their answers were so non-committal given that both leaders’ offices were sent a full list of questions beforehand, of which I have a copy. So rather than getting sprung, they had plenty of time to prepare answers to uncomfortable questions on the usual Family First topics; same sex adoption, euthanasia, child prostitution and parental notification for teen abortions. As both got the same questions they could have even shared notes.

Both were asked about marriage and family. Key said that marriage was a partnership between two people, and commitment was the key to a successful marriage.

Goff also said it was between two people- with legal safeguards built into that.

When pressed about the gender of these “two people”, Key was asked whether he’d vote for a gay marriage bill.

“That’s something I’d have to think through,” he said.

Pretty non-committal, really.

Goff’s response to a similar question on #Goffchat on Twitter wasn’t much better. ”Labour supported civil unions, when National opposed them. Not intending to make further changes”.
So that’s an “I don’t want to tell you”, from Key, and an “I don’t want to progress this”, from Goff.

Key was then as asked whether he thought the safest place for a child to be was in a marriage relationship. His one word answer: “Yes”. Goff said the gender of parents was irrelevant to good parenting. He said that a stable supportive and healthy environment ( to bring up kids) was his bottom line.

“It’s not the gender of parents, but the ability for parents to provide a stable loving environment – what would be different about parenting if it was biological?”

So that’s a “yes” from Key, and a “not necessarily” from Goff.

When asked if life starts at conception or later on, Goff said, “ 12 weeks, 20 weeks, who is to say?

Key said, “Well, you certainly hope it is before the first Plunket visit” - another throw-away line. He wasn’t asked when he thought the first Plunket visit should be, but instead he was asked whether parents should be notified should their teen be considering an abortion.

“In my view for the most part yes, unless there is a very very good reason, I think parents should be told”.

Goff said while it was desirable for counsellors to encourage a girl to talk to her parents, “would a girl confide in a counsellor if she thought that the counsellor would go directly to her parents – my guess is that she wouldn’t”.

So that’s an “I don’t know and don’t particularly care” from both Goff and Key on when life starts. It’s a "no" from Goff on parental notification - and a "sort of yes" from Key.

They were also asked whether they believed in God and faith. Instead, both gave answers on what they didn’t believe in.

Key on God: “I wouldn’t describe myself as atheistic or agnostic, I live my life by Christian principles, I live my life to help others. I can’t tell you what happens the moment you die”.

But he then said “I do think you have a spirit that moves to the next…..” but he then stopped abruptly, perhaps realising he had just said he didn’t know what happened in the afterlife, which in a way makes him a bit agnostic.

That response was similar to what he said in 2007, that is he said what he doesn’t believe, rather than what he does. He said then “I’m not deeply religious, and I don’t believe in life after death.” He said his stock answer in 2006,also.

Goff’s response was similar: “I`m not an atheist. I don’t believe in the afterlife. I`m a person of faith – born and bred a Roman Catholic, and my life has been shaped by the Christian values I was brought up with.”

Later, Key also said he ”might support” laws on same sex adoption, and told conference delegates that the government may adopt National MP Sam Lotu-Ii’ga’s
Moneylenders (Licensing and Regulation) Bill [PDF] to address loan sharking.

Among the final comments from both:

Goff: “It’s too easy to be a plastic politician”.

Key, on personal attacks in the House: “Frankly, I think Pete Hodgson is a loser”.

So the two leaders did their best to say… well not much, hoping that they`ll get some votes out of it.

Instead both got standing ovations.

Tapu Misa on our agnostic Prime Minister

NZ Herald columnist Tapu Misa has some Christian friends. And they`re Not Voting John Key Anymore.

Why?

Well apparently, it's because they've just found out that he is as godless and agnostic as Helen Clark. Misa told them after church last Sunday. They were horrified.Spoiled their Sunday completely.

But we all knew that Key was agnostic. He told Salient in 2007 just after becoming National Party leader:

If you define God as some supreme being that when you die you go through the pearly gates, then I don’t believe in it. But I`ll argue that it depends on how you define religion. I’m not deeply religious, and I don’t believe in life after death.

But Key was seen as the “embodiment of family values”. And, apparently, if Misa is to be believed, conservative Christians have only just found out that he isn’t, and he is actually agnostic – and that makes his support by conservative Christians at risk.

Furthermore, just after appearing at the Christian Parachute Festival, Key appeared at the Big Gay out, and Misa said it felt “ like a betrayal by some”.

Oh yeah? Betrayal by whom? Gays, Christians, gay Christians or some of Tapu Misa’s homophobic Christian friends? I thought it was fantastic he appeared at both.

Misa wants to give the impression that support for Key has changed among Christians and inserts an old 2007 media quotes from a National card-carrying Catholic as an example of the initial support. Support may well have adjusted, but Misa's column is a Big Fail because it says nothing new except that she has been talking to a few of her Christian friends but won’t say what they told her.

Misa needs to get out more. Perhaps she could also have quoted some of the “Christians I know who voted for National in the last election because they liked the look of John Key (but) have changed their minds”.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them still vote National. Perhaps that’s why they weren’t quoted.

Key wonders if people will blame MMP for ACTs problems

John Key speaks on ACT’s problems.

I'm wondering whether the public might say 'look, very small parties are consuming quite a lot of time' and maybe they will take the view that MMP fundamentally isn't working so well.

Of course Key didn’t mention MMP when List MP Richard Worth blew up in his face, so one can only assume he is trying to deflate blame and cover for Rodney Hide. If there was ever a reason to vote MMP in the referendum next year this is it, because MMP will then be reviewed. Perhaps they`ll decide not to let MPs in off the list who failed to win their seats – MPs like Richard Worth. Perhaps they`ll look at the one MP rule so that multiple MPs – or fewer of them – can’t get into parliament on the back of an MP. Perhaps they`ll look at changing the five percent threshold, or ensure list MPs resign from parliament after resigning from their party they got elected to, even if they want to form a new party as did former Alliance MP Alamein Kopu .

Justice Minister Simon Power has said that voters will be well informed about the options of how MMP can be modified, before a referendum is held on the electoral system at next year’s election.

The alternative to MMP is white males in suits running the country like Muldoon did.

It’s weird that Key implies that MMP isn’t working well – but the anti-smacking legislation is working perfectly well, because it was designed not to work at all. MMP works well – if Garrett leaves Parliament, we won’t need an expensive election. But if fewer MPs were let in off the back of an elected representative, or if list MPs were made to resign from parliament after quitting their party, he wouldn’t have had the option of leaving.

PM says it is ok to smack your kids

I was at the Family First forum in Auckland today. John Key was one of the speakers. He said it was "ok to smack your kids", and the law is administered "the way I want it to be". Therefore in some situations it is fine to break the law provided it is the intent of parliament that the law be disregarded, particularly as Key himself has said that the law is a "dogs breakfast" and that " no-one knows what 'correction' or 'good care and parenting' is".

I do.

Key, commenting on administration of the anti-smacking legislation by Child, Youth and Family, said that "CYFS would not say 'do not smack a child'". Meaning that CYFS workers, although now told not to investigate cases of light smacking, would never tell parents that they could not smack.

Unfortunately for Key there was a woman in the audience - who so happened to be sitting behind me - who is on a CYFS care and protection panel. She told Key that social workers were in fact telling parents that they should not be smacking their kids. Key said he had a problem with that, and it needs to change.

He should talk to CYFS bosses about this, rather than telling family organisations that things need to change and doing absolutely nothing about ensuring that change occurs.

Dictator dicatates to the dictated

Well, by now you`ll all know that Herr Key has decreed that National will not support Acts smacking bill, which was drawn out of the ballot today. John Boscawen should postpone the debate on the bill's first reading until just before the election (because National would have been written off by then and is likely to vote for it), then Labour can get back in for one term with an increase in support for NZ First, reject the legislation and get booted out at the following election for rejecting the bill.

Meanwhile, the Treaty of Waitangi and democracy should be taught in all schools and a petition should be creatively drawn up relating to the Boscawen bill - and have it presented just before the bill is due for a vote in the house.

National ignores referenda,ignores select committee deliberations, now it opposes a bill its supporters want to be able to submit to a select committee on. Can we have our democracy back? Hope you are looking forward to the next few polls as well as I am.

Finally, if you voted for National at the election, you should ask yourself why. And watch NZ First rise in the polls soon if it gets its act together.

Visit John Keys Facebook page

John Key has a public Facebook site here. In the past day or so nearly 80 people have left messages urging him to reconsider his position on smacking. Not one supports his stance.

I worked hard, but I may lose my home

*** what do Labour's researchers do? ***
updated
Bruce Burgess lost his $750 per week job in the recession and was turned away from WINZ because his partner worked part time. She earns $21,000 a year. WINZ turned them away,and so they wrote to their MP who so happens to be the Prime Minister.

When he got the letter he reportedly flicked it off to Paula Bennett's office who did nothing.Then the Labour Party found out about it. Instead of checking the Burgess' entitlements and assisting them, Labour told the NZ Herald who wrote this story. On the surface, it needs to be fixed up because it is appalling.I spoke with the reporter early this afternoon and told him that the family is entitled to a partial benefit.

If they are earning just $21,000, WINZ was wrong to turn them away. They are entitled to register as job seekers through WINZ and are entitled to $91.20 a week in an unemployment benefit as well as possibly an accommodation supplement to assist them with their mortgage. Couldn't the Herald find that out? Depending on their mortgage they may be entitled to further assistance. I've relayed that info on to Keys office.

Given that Labour leaked this story, I'm wondering if its pixie researchers do any research. It's latest media release says that Burgess' wife's income disqualifies the couple from any temporary access to the unemployment benefit.

That's false. And Labour now know it.

update Burgess claims to own several properties, but is not receiving income from them. And I see that John Key has relayed the above in Parliament, and while I was doing this post the Herald updated its story. I spoke with the journalist and requested he do so because the facts of the story were incorrect given entitlement of a benefit on $21k.

update2 And Labour knew all along that the Burgesses owned multiple properties but apparently never told the Herald.

more here.

Mallard gets kicked out of the House, blogs, then deletes comments on his post

Yesterday Trevor Mallard got kicked out the house and was almost named. He was so annoyed he blogged about it here.

I told [John Key] his nose was growing. He lied to the House and quoted me as calling him a liar. Speaker Smith required me to withdraw and apologise for saying something I did not say. To do so would have been to admit saying it. Smith did not allow me to say that I had not made the comments and tossed me out in probably the most blatantly biased decision of the year.

Well, being accused of lying is worse than telling lies.Mallard told Key his nose was growing. It wasn't. So that was a lie. Key said that Mallard accused him of being a liar. Mallard said he didn't. The speaker told him to withdraw and apologise. He didn't. He attacked and defied the speaker instead. That was why he was tossed out. Simple. Then he said 'for gods sake.... that is the worst decision you have ever made".

Mallard is wasting his time calling John Key a liar on his blog post and deleting comments because he doesn't like them. And has effectively repeated his comments outside the house by making it clear that he thinks Key is a liar.Mallard's not just got an anger problem, he has got a bigger nose than Key,too.
Update you can watch the video of Mallard's outburst here.

John Keys approach to the recession is profiled in the WSJ

The Wall Street Journal has an article on John Key's approach to the recession. That is , growing productivity when others -Tokyo, Washington, Canberra - are providing stimulus packages. It's a good article, here's a sample.

Mr. Key is returning the country to a formula for prosperity that's worked in the past. As in Britain, the U.S. and Australia in the 1980s, New Zealand's government implemented a wide-ranging program of economic liberalization, including deep reductions in tariffs and subsidies, and privatization of state-run industries. The plan, nicknamed "Rogernomics" after then-Finance Minister (now Sir) Roger Douglas, was akin to Reaganomics, and the island nation grew smartly.

But while the U.S. and Australia broadly continued their economic liberalization programs under both right- and left-wing governments, New Zealand didn't -- until now. Over the past nine years, Helen Clark's left-wing Labour government rode the global economic expansion and used the revenue surge to expand government welfare programs, renationalize industries, and embrace causes like global warming. As a result, the economy stagnated while Australia took off.

"We have been on a slippery slope," Mr. Key says, pointing to the country's slide to the bottom half of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's per-capita GDP rankings. "So we need to lift those per-capita wages, and the only way to really do that is through productivity growth driving efficiency in the country." He talks at length about how to attract and retain talented workers. What does he think about populist arguments about the end of capitalism? "Nonsense!"

PM wants to learn Maori

John Key wants to learn Maori. He wants to be fluent in Te Reo, but says he has no time to learn it. Thats bollocks. If he wanted to learn it he'd make time for it. He could do a basic Te Reo course extramurally through Massey and it`d take just six hours a week for 13 weeks. He could relinquish the Tourism portfolio for that time and he'd easily get that done. Imagine having John Key at your Massey contact course.

But I noticed this from the Newstalk ZB report :

Mr Key was asked whether it was time for a New Zealand prime minister to be fluent in both of the country's official languages.

Given one of our two official languages is sign language, I wonder what use Newstalk ZB would see in Key being fluent in both languages, let alone one.

When the dirt doesn't stick

Labour has just lost the election. It has been been promising for a long time that they would produce evidence of dodgy dealings or behaviour of John Key - in his distant past. It was to be the only hope of winning the election. Labour Research Unit smear project manager Mike Williams, along with his research unit went on a tax-payer funded smear campaign trying to dig up the dirt against John Key.

Williams even went to Australia to see what he could find. Allegations centre around the so-called H-Fee - two payments totalling A$66.5 million ($75m) to Equiticorp funnelled via sham foreign exchange transactions in 1988. John Key was, apparently, the head of Elders Forex when massive illegal transactions were being conducted by that business group and Williams was to get a document that had Key's signature proving that Key signed off the dodginess. He found the document, alright, and the boys at The Standard were very excited. They even got someone in the Labour Research unit to do a guest post on the blog. This morning, when I asked the manager of the research unit about the unit's involvement with The Standard, she paused, refused to comment, did not deny the units involvement in the blog when repeatedly questioned and then slammed down the phone on me.

The final sentence in the post was:

Tomorrow: The date of the H-Fee and how the biggest white collar crime of the last century worked.

The Standard was also excited that today's Herald was to have a damaging story.

But how the crime worked and Key's role in it was not forthcoming. The post was pulled - here's the cache.

It was pulled as the dirt looked like dirt but wasn't dirt at all. How embarrassing. The document didn't have Keys signature . Mike Williams is so disappointed that he's not even answering his phone today. Hes too busy trying to find something for the Labour Research Unit to do. He has his tail between his legs. Its a dog of a smear. Labour campaign strategist Pete Hodgson didn't know much about the fraud.

If the Serious Fraud Office has been willingly misled, issues of perjury arise, but I'm a veterinarian, not a lawyer.

He's a good person to be a Labour strategist, then as Labour has gone to the dogs.

Who would you turn gay for?

Gay Express has an election special. It interviews John Key and asks him who he'd turn gay for. His response:

Brad Pitt. Now that he’s a bit older, he’s a bit of a looker. I was going to say Tom Cruise, but someone of his age shouldn’t look that young.

They also interview Helen Clark. Like John Key, she was asked if she would vote for Civil Unions if it were presented again today, and if she would vote for a gay marriage bill.

But she was not asked who she'd turn gay for. I wonder why not? She wasn't even asked who she'd turn straight for.

Sore loser

Helen Clark is a sore loser over the TV debate. She is still smarting for losing a debate then stating Key had a telly tantrum. She said at one point " You might be used to shouting people down at home, but you're not shouting me down" - a comment interpreted by some as insinuating Key shouted at his family.

Of course, Clark has never had kids to shout down so obviously didn't have that well-rounded experience of being shouted down. But it is interesting to analyse - in a professional and fairly detached way, of course - the progression of her own analysis on the debate has progressed.

Helen Clark, immediately after the debate:
It was a good old-fashioned debate on the issues. I hope that means we’ve banished any idea that this is a bitter kind of election debate. I think people want to hear us being up front, straight on.

Helen Clark, yesterday afternoon:
Expectations were low, firstly because people hadn’t seen him in a debate before and secondly because he had a disastrous start to the campaign. So the fact he didn’t collapse with a stress attack on the set probably gave him marks.

Helen Clark: last night Last night Miss Clark said she did not think the campaign was bitter and today said she was just offering a professional analysis of how it went...... in a fairly detached way.

Professional? Analysis? Detached?

Sore loser more like it.

Diddums.

Helen Clark thinks her voice is not deep enough

Helen Clark had a tantrum today. She is accusing John Key of, um, having a tantrum.

She said it was lucky he didn't cry on the TV debate last night and accusing him of having a tantrum.

"The fact he didn't burst out crying on the set probably counted for him," she said during a Radio Live question and answer session this morning.

Clark said Key was "completely out of control trying to shout me down".At one point Miss Clark made a comment that Mr Key may shout at home but he wouldn't shout her down.

Today she said she was not accusing him of yelling at his family.

I'm really referring to the fact that by women's voices I have a lower register by men's voices he has a higher one."

I disagree. They have pretty much an equal advantage. For a woman, Clark's voice is pretty deep. It about as deep as Georgina Beyer's voice. And at times Beyer's voice is deeper than Key's, if Key gets a bit excited.

Now we know why Clark speaks slowly and deeply on TV. It's for the "register factor".

Helen Clark's dream v John Key's vision

Helen Clark is been dreaming too much. "I have a dream when I came to govt" she said,at least twice, on the TV3/YouTube debate tonight, "to give every student the same privileges I had". Nine years on, it might happen in 2012.

That's not a vision - that's a dream. It won't happen. We will not have the same privileges. John Key won the debate tonight because he has a vision and can back it up with recent and current facts as to why that vision is relevant and important.

Doesn't mean I`m going to vote for him, though.

Helen Clark's vision for New Zealand

According to the Oxford dictionary, the definition of vision is "statesmanlike foresight". Here's John Key's vision for New Zealand

My vision is for a more prosperous New Zealand, a New Zealand that delivers opportunities for everyone. A country that is safer. A country that feels more confident about itself and punches above its weight.

Now compare it to Helen Clark's vision for New Zealand.

My vision for New Zealand is for our country to be a place that offers every person who chooses to live here - and they do have a choice - all the opportunity and security in the world and to be fair and inclusive. That's it is a nutshell. So we have to offer opportunity through education, we have to offer the opportunity to work, and we have to deal with all the underpinnings of that - the health system, housing, security in old age, support for children. But we have to ensure that people of very diverse cultures and faiths and beliefs all feel that they have got a stake in New Zealand because they are fairly treated.

I wonder what others think, with reference to the Electoral Finance Act, which is hardly fair and inclusive, with reference to her comments regarding the inappropriateness of Christians in Parliament when United Future got its 2002 swag of MPs, hardly meeting her vision of being inclusive, hardly fair treatment of people of faith and hardly fair and inclusive with retards to Electoral Finance laws.

This is not foresight, therefore its not a vision.

It's a dream.

Time to wake up. We need a Prime Minister that knows what a vision is. John Key does, so it is a start. We don't need a Prime Minster that thinks dreams are visions, and a lie is the truth if you say it a lot and believe it to be so.

Arrogant and unacceptable

While it is true that either the leader of National or Labour will lead the next government, it is arrogant for both Helen Clark and John Key to refuse to debate on TV with the minor party leaders. Twenty per cent of the population voted for the minor parties in 2005. In 2002, more voted for the minor parties than voted National. I was one of them both times. I will be one of them this year, too as I won't be making a choice between National and Labour. In order for us to have a say we need to be informed and that includes hearing from minor parties.

Sure, those of us who are political journalists or bloggers are more informed than most, but in a democracy, we have the right to have an informed choice and it is arrogant and unacceptable for the two main party leaders to conspire to prevent minor parties having their chance to have a say in promoting why we should vote for them. Even Winston Peters deserves to have an opportunity to promote his party's policies. However it would be futile suggesting to TVNZ and TV3 to scrap the leaders debates on principle unless they demand that the two leaders debate with minor party leaders. TV networks also put money before democracy. Rather than seeing Key and Clark fight as to why they are the best leaders, I would rather hear about their policies, and for that reason I`d rather watch this.

In any case it is the Maori Party who is going to decide who the Prime Minister is after the election.

Michael Cullen exposed as a real dick after "toll tax"

All week Cullen has been attacking Key, saying he is unfit to be Prime Minister based on his employment at Merryl Lynch more than six years ago. He said Key had a short-term profit maximising mentality that brought Merrill Lynch to its knees.

"Do you want someone like that running the economy when we are going to be going through a difficult period. Mr Key has put forward his Merrill Lynch credentials as part an important part of his narrative. That doesn't look such a good qualification any longer for running New Zealand's economy.

That's a bit like saying Helen Clark is responsible for Labour's heavy loss in the 1990 election and is therefore unfit to be Prime Minister.

But the very same day we found out that Cullen got screwed $570 million for his train set.

What a dick! So much for financial management.

In late 2006 officials valued the New Zealand’s rail system at $120 million. That's $570 million less than the government paid for the business in July this year. In December ONTRACK made an offer of $350m - but this was bumped up to $690m.

And you paid for it.

To put it into perspective, $570 million equals the amount paid in the two biggest treaty settlements - the Treelords and Sealords deals. And $570 million is three and a half times more than Cullen budgeted in the last budget to boost elective surgery and reduce waiting lists.

It is $70 million more than the amount spent in the growth of the core bureaucracy over the past three years ; it equals the total amount the Crown put into KiwiSaver to date. It is the the amount Transit invested in developing and improving state highways last year. It's $70 million more than income splitting for tax purposes would cost each year, and it's equal to the Crown’s Kyoto liability over a five-year period (assuming a price of $15 per tonne). And it is more than the Government paid to bail out Air New Zealand in 2001.

Cullen said yesterday that the Government paid a reasonable and fair price for his train set.

I bet Toll thought so. I bet those missing out on elective surgery didn't. Neither would those who have to take their kids from their 20 hours "paid for" childcare and to take them to the doctor only to find out that doctors visits aren't as free as the Government makes out.

All Treasury documents were posted here today .