Interview: Winston Peters, NZ First party leader

Winston Peters

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters spoke this week with senior Herald political journalists John Armstrong and Audrey Young. An edited version of this interview was published in today's Weekend Herald.

Your party will be first off the blocks with the launch of New Zealand First's formal campaign this weekend. How would you sum up the current mood of the electorate?

I think the current mood of the New Zealand electorate is one of heightened expectation, it is one of significant uncertainty, and I think that the floating voter numbers out there are greater than they have been for a long time.

What do you mean by heightened expectation?

Well, the lolly scramble has started, and that is about to get worse. I think it will lead to some confusion. But it is early days yet, and we are not going to get caught up in it at this point in time.

Do voters really want a change of Government? More to the point, do they want to change both the major and minor partners?

I think the country does want a change. I think there is a majority for change, but that doesn't mean it will naturally materialise into that sentiment on election day. There's a lot of groundwork to be made up by the political parties, and I think, above all, there is a pretty high degree of cynicism on the part of the voters, and rightly so. They've had decades of these promises in economic and social policy and some of the policies on offer now, because of the election, only exacerbate that cynicism. In short, they've had to deal out there with real problems whilst the bureaucrats and politicians here have seen to be not even on their level of thinking or on their wave-length.

Are you saying that Labour is out of touch?

I'm saying that Labour's out of touch. I'm saying that National's out of touch.

How do you respond to those critics who say you are merely trotting out your old populist vote-winning formula which combines immigrant and refugee bashing, economic nationalism, talking tough on law and order, and pandering to Grey Power?

Oh, you've missed out one. The "one law for everybody" makes the total picture. And they're entirely right, because we have been right. And that's why other parties are seeking to steal our policies off us, but they have no credible record on them and when they were last in power refused to follow them. So there are probably about 10 key points I can identify where Labour and National are identical, where we have been their opponents for years.

And remember this: we started New Zealand First in 1993 because the two old parties had failed, and nothing has changed. They have preached the medium and long term and we have lived through it and we are worse off than we ever were against first world competition.

Can you name five things that you can guarantee you will deliver in Government?

Yes, I will guarantee the gold card commitments. We guarantee the end of the sale of this country's asset wealth to absentee foreign ownership. We'll ensure that we bring immigrants here that we need rather than who need us. We'll ensure that the police force gets the numbers of men and women to do the job and to make crime a non-paying proposition. We will continue our campaign to see that there is one law for everybody so that the Waitangi industry will end, which was our campaign theme of 2002 when all others called us Maori-bashing and racist. There are far more than five I want to emphasise and we will see them unfold in our campaign.

Which New Zealand First policy gives you the most satisfaction?

It is probably free medicine for under-sixes, which we are going to make free for every child under secondary school age.

At what sort of percentage does New Zealand First need to be registering in the polls for this election to become the three-horse race you have been talking about?

We've got a better platform than we've ever had this far out from an election. Obviously we are striving to do much, much better than those polls indicate and we've got cause for confidence that we can do much better. It is a three-horse race, excepting one of the horses has never been to the race course before. But if we are given a fair go by the New Zealand media and not artificially shut out to protect the two old parties it will truly turn into a three-horse race.

Do you think there is a break-through point?

I think we've already passed the breakthrough point, on two levels: both as a party and both as a leader. All we need is the recognition of the media that that is going to be the result on election night.

Helen Clark has suggested you might have peaked too early. Your support has slipped in some recent polls following the earlier surge. Have you peaked too early?

I don't believe those polls, either before you printed them or after you've printed them. You know my views on the polling industry in this country. Now, let me just say this: there are other factors which we as a strategic team have analysed which give us cause for confidence. We have the endurance of a marathon runner. That's why we've survived this long, both the organisation, which has just had its 12th birthday party, and, if I may say so, myself. Our key advisers have been here for some considerable time and they've had a lot of experience in this business. So you might say were going to do a Lance Armstrong on them, and those sorts of comments are just pure wishful thinking.

Rightly or wrongly, your party got the blame for the failings and collapse of the National - New Zealand First coalition in the 1990s. Do you accept this time you will have to get it right and this is New Zealand First's last chance to do so?

Well, I was told it was our last chance last time. Let me just make this point very clear: those who are reasonable, rational, and have a memory know full well why Jenny Shipley was chosen as leader when Bolger was rolled. I need not say any more, really. If you have any doubts about that, the 1 October 1998 programme of the change of the tariff regime, the attack on the elderly [the superannuation floor cut from 65 per cent to 60 percent of the net average wage], and the sale of Contact Energy is enough evidence to know that there was a secret agenda behind the National Party and its certain insiders back in 1997-98. But we've learnt from that experience and that's why we will not be caught in any way, shape or form no matter what happens after the 2005 election like that.

How does the Winston Peters of 2005 differ from the Winston Peters of 1996, the last time you were on the verge of power?

We're more experienced now. We've learnt a lot. My father never had to whack me for making the same mistake twice, and we've learnt that in politics. The team around me is vastly superior to the team I had in 1996 not so much in terms of my staff but in terms of my caucus. And this is an experienced caucus now.

What about yourself personally?

I'm fitter, as motivated and probably more committed in the sense that I have seen this country slide, economically and socially, and I think absolutely that it can be turned around. It was after all New Zealand First who used to make the comparisons with Australia, Singapore, Scandinavia and Ireland - not the somebody else who's doing it of late as some sort of political ploy at the time when, of course, they all supported the Rogernomics experiment. I have always believed in incremental change and build upon your social benefits because of economic advancements. That's still the New Zealand First and Winston Peters of 2005.

Talking about 'someone else,' you were highly critical of Don Brash when he was pushing for further free market reforms during his time at the Reserve Bank. Could you work with him now?

Well, I never believed that 10 per cent unemployment was good for an economy. I never believed that leasing was better for the New Zealand ethos than home ownership, and I didn't believe that the path down which [Roger] Douglas and Ruth Richardson were going was a sound path, and I think time has proven me to be right. Now, the question that you ask is incapable of an answer with respect to either Labour or National because we don't know what their policies are. I don't know what Don Brash's tax policies are. Do you? Until we see the full agenda, and no secret agenda, I can't answer that question and nor can my colleagues for either Clark or Brash. That's why we've said whether we are inside of power or outside of Government, with influence, we intend for the economic and social direction of this country to change, and we'll stand up for the voters who vote for that and who vote for us.

Do you accept that you criticise Don Brash more than Helen Clark, and what are voters to make of that?

No, I don't accept that. But I would point out to you that regurgitating someone else's speech at Orewa when you know full well where its origins were, that people like [National MPs] MauriceWilliamson and Murray McCully went away from the 2002 election and said, 'well, New Zealand First did extraordinarily well, why don't we copy them' is largely the agenda they're trying to run excepting you can't do a Pontius Pilate in this business and wash your hands of your past. It's the record were campaigning on; what's theirs?

Does Don Brash have qualities you admire?

Most undoubtedly. Helen Clark has some qualities I admire. It would be a pretty bereft person if they didn't have some admirable qualities. But were here to talk about New Zealand First and what we stand for. This is not going to be Fisher and Paykel selling Simpson washing machines. If I'm a Fisher and Paykel salesman I sell Fisher and Paykel washing machines, I don't sell Simpson. I'm asking the media in this election to try to understand the most fundamental thing of politics and salesmanship. You talk about your product. You don't have the media wasting three-quarters of an interview on somebody else's product, with respect. And I've been around a long time and I am entitled to it.

We won't ask you which of the main parties is your preferred coalition partner. However, would New Zealand First be able to work alongside the Greens in a governing arrangement?

We don't foresee that happening. Our predictions for the next election don't have that scenario happening ... There's a famous verse in the Bible that goes like this: any man who sets his hand to the plough and then looks backwards is not fit for the Kingdom of Heaven. Politics is not heaven, but you get my point.

What about United Future?

That's not a scenario we see either. Not even you guys [the media] can prop them up.

Or Act?

Again, not even you guys [the media] who've done your best were able to prop them up.

Or the Maori Party?

I think the Maori Party, sadly for the long-term interests of Maoridom and the country, are going to win some seats. We have never subscribed to a view of a party based on race. We have sought to demonstrate, like no other party, that you can have people of different backgrounds who believe in their country and serving their country first. We have done all that. We have demonstrated that MMP will deliver for Maori far better than they will get under first past the post, and we think that the end of not this election but by 2008 the Maori people will have realised that MMP is the way for them to go and not the historic seats based purely on race. So I don't think were too far away from seeing Maoridom realise that. They will have to go through the unfortunate experience that they are going through now, I think.

So are you saying New Zealand First would be willing to countenance the abolition of the Maori seats.

No, our position has been demonstrated to Maoridom that MMP will work for them and give them a far greater stake in democracy. Having done that, commence a dialogue with Maoridom as to why they would want to continue with a foot in a camp that gave them so little in the past and will in this election give them so little as well when it comes to the constituency vote.

What about another party that puts up legislation to abolish the Maori seats?

But you've got to understand this, that the other party has to get a majority in Parliament, and you would hope on an issue like this that there is a significant parliamentary consensus that includes significant consensus amongst Maori. When you deal with important constitutional issues unlike the way the Labour Party dealt with the Privy Council, the arrangement with the Queens Counsels, and the way that the National Party dealt with knighthoods, we should actually ask New Zealanders what they think before we rush in and pass by a fair parliamentary majority of temporary empowered politicians such a huge constitutional issue. But we are doing our best to demonstrate to Maori that this will work. I wish others who are rushing to public press on this statement had any such record to demonstrate as well to Maoridom.

So are you talking referendum?

No, I'm not talking about a referendum. I'm happy to confront Maoridom after the 2005 election occurs - and we believe we'll get the numbers that we are expecting - to then say to the Maori people, is this not a demonstration of what we mean? Now how about coming to the table on this issue?

Are there any issues that you want to put to a referendum?

There are a significant number of issues which we would have put to referenda. We would have put prostitution to referendum, we would have put civil union to referendum.

Are there issues you would like to see go to referendum?

There is a range of economic and social issues which after proper debate would be worth putting to the New Zealand people, including whether we tie our currency to another currency and see what they think. Because right now we've got a massively over-inflated dollar, massively over-inflated interest rates, and they're having a disastrous effect on our economic outlook and on our export outlook and on the ordinary lives of people who work in two and three jobs to try and make a go of it.

Why would you put something like that to a referendum?

Because there's a sovereignty issue here. That's the only reason why you would do that. You would do it after a significant debate. I'm not saying that I propose that, but I can see scenarios which, after all, every European country went through on a referendum. Why not us? They did not make unilateral parliamentary decisions on that question anywhere in Europe, even under first past the post in the UK, so why should we?

[passed a note from adviser Graham Harding]. Sorry, I forgot one. The question of the flag. If there's to be a change there should be a referendum. The need for a constitution should be a referendum question.

We are becoming, strangely enough, given our huge heritage in democracy, a rather perverse parliamentary democracy in our lack of consensus on some fundamental things, economically and socially, which are important for New Zealanders. But it still has to be the way forward. Ireland demonstrated that. When they could get, in a disparate country like that, consensus they made significant progress. I think so must we. But the flag and the anthem and a range of other things should not be subject to purely parliamentary response but by referendum.

If you are waiting until the voters have spoken, are you not obliged to talk first to the party that wins the most seats in Parliament?

Well, if you can tell me how that equation amounts to a democracy or 50 per cent of Parliament then you might have a logic to your question. But there is no logic to your question. Some party gets 28 per cent and comes in first, some party gets 27 per cent and comes in second, another party gets 25 per cent and comes in third. Where does the democracy lie there between both those combinations?

What factors will determine whether New Zealand First goes into coalition or stays outside Government on the cross-benches.

Primarily what is in the interests of this country in terms of our long-term economic and social needs. That's the No. 1 issue that will drive this party, not the baubles of office, the political preferment, being ministers, ministerial homes, all those things. Those trappings will have no attraction to us. What economically and socially will turn this country around for the better and make us a First World country again is the No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, all the way to No. 10 priority for this party and for me.

Do you think that when you promote the prospect of New Zealand First sitting on the cross benches that you run the risk of voters thinking you won't have any power to exercise over Government?

No I don't, because I think the mass majority of people who vote for New Zealand First want Winston Peters and New Zealand First to keep them honest and to keep the system honest, and they would be confident in us doing that more than any other political party.

Presumably if you did sit on the cross benches [supporting a Government on confidence and supply] you would want a lengthy list of policy commitments.

Well, can you turn that on its head? Which party is going to this campaign promoting policies they don't want? I'm sorry but, you know, there's a certain absurdity to this line of questioning. We're campaigning for the things we have stood for, where we have thousands of people working for, who fill our halls, who make sacrifices to contribute money, make cakes, and do all the things that a grassroots party that is not supported by big business does, and, yes, we do intend that the policies they believe in become significant influence after the 2005 election. That's called party political democracy.

Have you not earned the right to ask for a power-sharing deal to become New Zealand's first Maori Prime Minister?

I've never wanted to be the first Maori anything, and you know that.

I'll rephrase it. Have you not earned the right to ask for a power-sharing deal to become the Prime Minister?

I think the media have never understood Winston Peters, and I'll tell you why. I could have been the Prime Minister of this country back in 1990 if I had taken the preferment offered by a majority of the National Party caucus, who thought that Bolger was in big trouble, if I would but follow their economic prescription. Their economic prescription was economic suicide for the National Party and indeed for the country. That's why I never took up the offer. And 15, 16 years on I'm not concerned again about that.

But do you have the ambition to be Prime Minister?

No, I've always been happy to be the MP for Tauranga. But I do have ambition for this party to have an enormously powerful and positive influence after the 2005 election, and I think the country has waited long enough for that to happen. Certainly, after decades of you people giving the old parties every chance to take the country down I think it's high time that perhaps you looked at an alternative. In short, I think people might have had enough.

Do you think in hindsight looking back on the 1996 coalition that you had too many of your party in cabinet?

No, I think I should have insisted upon a much smaller cabinet. That's what I went into the coalition talks on in '96, a much, much smaller cabinet. I began to sense in both parties, but particularly the National Party half way through, that there was huge internal strife in the party. I thought that it could be dampened down if we were to enlarge the cabinet. That, in hindsight, was a mistake on my part. It would have been far fewer of them and far fewer of mine in cabinet. And that would have been sound policy.

Do you want a smaller cabinet?

Yes, I believe we should have a much smaller cabinet next time.

You are on record as saying that there's not enough money to afford National's tax cuts. Does that mean that New Zealand First would block National's tax plans?

No, we will unveil our tax plans in this campaign. We've not made a big deal of it because I've tried to examine in this Budget what Cullen has got available, and its clear to me that the amount that he can apply with respect to tax cuts - and that's not new initiatives, because this will be an ongoing matter when it comes to tax cuts - is about 2.2 billion. I've heard all sorts of figures. But I think that figure is at risk as well, given the forecast downstream for the economy. Then he's got another figure, a sum of money, which would be about 1.9 billion, which I think he had set aside for new initiatives and other changes depending on inflation, wage rises and what have you. So there's not a great deal that is available. When I saw that Brash interview when he was asked on TV "do you mean tax cuts for everybody," his body language response told me he had never thought about that. But he made the mistake of saying yes, and right then my conclusion was, well, so it's going to be the full packet of chewing gum then.

But I say, the moment you say were going to have tax cuts for everyone, you've got to say to yourself, well, are you going to borrow for it? Now, given the obsession that the National Party has had with what they call, you know, fiscal propriety, no surprises, this is an astonishing state of desperation that you are seeing unveiled now.

So you're saying you would not be willing to support them?

No, I want to remind you about the biggest tax cut this country has seen was brought in under a Budget of which I was the Treasurer in '98, 1.1 billion in one go. But you've got to be able to responsibly show where the money is coming from, and given what they've [National] announced already by way of policy I've got to ask myself what are the details and what are the facts. One would be most unwise, without seeing one of the details of their policy, to say you would support it or not support it. In the same way as we still reserve our judgment about the Labour Party's announcement on the student loan scheme.

None of the details are out. So were going to be very cautious in this campaign. At the end of the day, mistakes in this campaign are going to cost you, big time. Of course, it is a long campaign.

When you see the detail of National's tax cuts will you make a significant statement?

Yes, we will. We will probably announce our position on tax before National does anyway. Because if he's going to leave it till the last four weeks, he's already broken the first promise: when she names the election I'll announce our tax cuts. Well, he hasn't.

Will you have non-negotiable policies this time and will they be spelled out beforehand?

I think everybody that deals with New Zealand First knows what our priorities are. We've learnt from experience, our experience and others' experience. You recall it's 1993 and Mr Anderton is making a big deal of these 12 non-negotiable points. Well, today with Mr Anderton, anything is negotiable, and his party has no longer got any wheels. We've learnt from his mistakes and others.