KEY POINTS:
Michael Cullen never comments on movements in the official cash rate, he reminded reporters this morning at a press conference in his office.
"Watch my teeth - I never comment on the OCR," he said with a big grin.
He then, of course, proceeded to comment that reductions
in interest rates at the retail end would be very good for business and households.
Before the press conference, Cullen starting complaining about a pain in the arse - literally. He had come a cropper on slippery tiles by a hotel swimming pool somewhere and landed on what is now a very sore derriere, and was having trouble sitting comfortably.
Speaking of too much information, the press conference was called to gloat about Kiwisaver after the release of an abundance of facts and figures in the first annual report after the year July 1 2007 to June 30 2008.
Excellent timing for the Government given that National's cuts to the Kiwisaver minimum (to offset more generous taxcuts) to a two plus two scheme have made it such an election issue.
Cullen could not have been more ebullient about the success of the scheme and the fact that the take-up of 827,000 far exceeded projections of 275,000 in the first year.
There were two important questions he could not answer, however - what proportion of the 827,000 were existing savers from other schemes that have transferred to Kiwisaver; and why on earth IRD got their projections so wrong.
I am now told by an official in Cullen's office that IRD does not record the stats of transfers. But there may be other ways to get an approximate answer.
Cullen was also asked about the flurry of statements that have been emanating from the Maori Party.
Yesterday co-leader Tariana Turia announced a new - and first - bottom line for post-election negotiations. It would not support any party that would not support legislation to entrench the Maori seats.
And Pita Sharples says he hopes Labour does better than National at the election because "that's what our people want."
Turia was quite taken aback on Morning Report this morning when told by Sean Plunket about Sharples comments in The Press.
It is not the first time Sharples has been a bit loose. Remember he said on Sky's Campaign 08 on October 5 that John Key had agreed with him that the Maori seats would not be abolished without Maori consent - something Key effectively acknowledged only last week.
But I was so taken aback with the Maori Party's "bottom line" that I telephoned her people last night to ensure she had heard the question right and intended the answer because they have not set bottom lines before. Yes was the response.
This is a big development if "bottom line" means the same to the Maori Party as it does to me. But does it? To me a bottom line is a non-negotiable policy, deal killers - the Alliance had about 20 of them in 1996 and NZ First had a few too. Parties tend not to have them these days, or at least not to state them.
I have just replayed that interview of Sharples on Sky and it seems his view of a bottom line is different from mine -
Sharples: "Let's be clear about this, the foreshore and seabed, the treaty in its rightful place and deep-structure things like preserving the seats, those are bottom lines in the sense that we will stay with them forever but if they can be put aside so we can work positively for Maori and for New Zealand for the next three years, in some sort of relationship in the areas of need now - health, education, violence, all those areas, poor, there's a lot of poor people - if we can be working with some team in Parliament to ease those areas then we will go with them."
Question: So they are not negotiating bottom lines for a deal?
Sharples: they are negotiating but they are deep-structure lines.
So when the Maori Party says support for its legislation entrenching the Maori seats is a bottom line, I'm not so sure I know what that actually means.