Interview: Winston Peters on why he supported Labour

Winston Peters

Around Parliament, Winston Peters was unfailingly courteous to me, if distant while I was an MP. When my personal life was under attack in the House and Act leader Richard Prebble was overseas, Peters stood up for me.

His own private life is off limits. He's wickedly cruel but enormously funny. When he's away, the House is dull. I nag for weeks to get an interview, granted only because I'm "married to Mr Carruthers" [who, as Counsel Assisting at the 1994 Winebox Inquiry, was responsible for ensuring all relevant evidence, including that provided by Peters, was put before the inquiry].

We meet in New Zealand First's caucus room above Lambton Quay where the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Racing, and Associate Minister for Senior Citizens is relaxed, articulate, in good humour and full of energy.

I start by asking what was "very encouraging" about his Christchurch meeting with Senator John McCain over a free trade deal with the US.

Winston Peters: Here was a senior Republican supportive of a free-trade agreement and expanding our friendship in the Senate and Congress is important on this issue. So the more people of that calibre and status whom we can persuade to our side, the better.

DC: Did he have any problems with you being a minister outside the Government?

WP: (Chuckling) None whatsoever. Look, I'm under no illusion about how difficult obtaining a free-trade agreement with the States is going to be. But I'm an optimist in terms of working towards a long-term objective and we can't ignore the fact this follows 20 years of disagreement in one particular area. But having said that, I do come with a fresh mind and no baggage at all.

DC: In your pre-election Rotorua speech you said you "genuinely don't care for the baubles of office" but Fran O'Sullivan in the Herald called you a "well-paid political eunuch taking the baubles of office". What's your reaction?

WP: I've been Minister of Maori Affairs, Treasurer and deputy prime minister who didn't take any houses, cars and travelled economy to try to save this country money. That makes me unique in this country's politics but counts for nothing with people like Fran O'Sullivan. So here I am in my third administration, I take a house and apparently I'm now a victim of the baubles-of-office syndrome. But I don't want to waste my time with her, other than to say this: We were both being sued by Fay Richwhite. They [O'Sullivan and National Business Review] came to me for help in respect of their case. The moment they were able to effect a settlement, I never saw her on the Winebox. I stuck the thing out for seven years using my personal money. What did she do?

[ Fran O'Sullivan's response is at the end of this page. ]

DC: When you signed the Confidence and Supply Agreement with Labour, did the reaction from the press gallery dismay you?

WP: It did, because they were not of a mind to approach the issue with any depth. Here we were, having set our minds to not being part of any government, ending up in a 57/57 situation. We had to make a decision because I could see a snap election coming before Christmas and the country would never forgive [that]. Regardless of our innocence, the media would have said Winston Peters is totally to blame for the snap election.

DC: Leading up to the election, commentators were asking why National would go with Winston Peters again after what happened with Bolger in 1996. But if you look at the 1996-99 National Government, you could ask 'why would Winston Peters want to go with National again?'

WP: (Laughing) Well, there is that. But as a leader you have to keep an open mind because you deal with the cards the electorate gives you. You've got to sublimate personal choice. None of my colleagues had any idea in 1996 or 2005 what my personal preference would have been. This time we did have serious discussions about the viability of anything National was offering because the mix [Act and Maori Party] seemed so extraordinary - two ends of the extreme trying to form a government. That told me National was steering for an election in April [2006] at the very latest. They would get into power, go through the normal motions of opening the books and, shock horror, 'we can't get on with our current partners, we need to be governing on our own, please give us the majority vote'.

DC: Explain how you can attack Helen Clark one day and then sign an agreement with her the next.

WP: When you say things, you'd better believe them otherwise you won't last in this business. I've criticised, for example, certain aspects of immigration policy. Then I watched the news where a Tampa refugee driving a late-model Mercedes smashed into a family and killed one of them. It's reported that he'd recently visited family back in the Middle East. He's not Afghani. His family's in Iraq. So here we have a Tampa refugee, late-model Mercedes, frequently visiting his family - what sort of a refugee was this? I argued that the UN Commissioner for Refugees had said these people were not qualified. I'm not changing my view. I'm waiting for some journalist to ask how this fellow got to own that car. The public are entitled to know. They financed him to come here. My point is, when I made statements about [not selling] state assets, I meant them. When I made statements about the high dollar and how ruinous it is to the economy, I meant them.

DC: You say you've got three years of internal National Party emails [first leaked during the election campaign which revealed how the Business Roundtable and Act Party members assisted Don Brash to take the leadership from Bill English] and you've threatened to release these - should Dr Brash be worried?

WP: Entirely. These emails will end Don Brash's political leadership and career.

DC: Do the emails contain personal stuff?

WP: I won't go that far.

DC: Will it all come out?

WP: No doubt about that.

DC: John Key's widely tipped to take over from Brash as National's leader - do you see this happening soon?

WP: Not this year, no. The process they'll follow will be to fire the deputy first [Gerry Brownlee] and if that doesn't work, then they'll dump the leader. But to be honest, I'm not paying the latent and about-to-erupt internecine strife in the National Party any attention whatsoever.

DC: You've been here 25 years - still enjoying it?

WP: I do enjoy it. I still think it's a fascinating, rewarding job and I also find my current job extraordinarily exciting.

DC: There are defamatory comments on the internet, such as those suggesting you were never sober enough to take a self-drive ministerial car - why don't you sue?

WP: Well, I am going to sue. I've got someone putting all the material together for me now and sue I will. I've got five defamation cases going right now. For the first time in my career, I've decided I'm not taking any more of this. But let me make this clear. When I see, for example, an article like the one Tracy Watkins wrote for the Dominion Post on a speech I gave to diplomats from Asia Pacific - I spoke about things uniting us that we've got to work on and she turns it into a full-scale attack on immigration. None of which relates to tourism or export education. You've got to ask yourself, what planet is she living on? Or, to put it better, there's an old ditty that goes, "I shot an arrow into the air, whither it landed I knew not where". That's the kind of thing New Zealand journalism specialises in. I can recall a time in my political career when everyone knew the editor of every main newspaper. Now they're so innocuously unimportant, trivial and insignificant to the body politic, no one knows any of them and probably appropriately so. (Much laughter) You can see why they don't like me!

DC: Was it a shock to lose Tauranga?

WP: No, it wasn't. There was a major campaign launched at a time when I had to be extensively round the country. They [National's Bob Clarkson] ran a nationwide campaign. A lot of money went into it, a lot of total deceit and dishonesty. But I'm not bothered because in the end, what happened? I'm a minister doing a very important job. I'm going to deliver the Tauranga bridge toll-free, 1000 police, $196 million-plus for age care, the Golden Age card and a stack of other things. I've got no call to look back with regret. I was there for 21 years, I've never given up and I may well stand [for Tauranga] in 2008, we'll see. But you can't win 'em all.

DC: This isn't your swansong in politics then?

WP: No it's not. I have journalists writing that sort of rubbish and I think, well, I was here before they arrived and I'll be here a long time after they've gone. And if their editors have any sense, that will happen sooner rather than later.

DC: You're very funny Winston. Do you love going down to the debating chamber?

WP: I don't know how you'd stay long in this job if you didn't like the debating chamber, or that part of politics. In the end, you can do all the other things but you've got to come to the House and defend yourself, your team and the programmes you're engaged in. Parties that don't have competent people to do that suffer pretty quickly in Parliament. That's National's problem at the moment - they get killed in Parliament, it's a verbal massacre. And there are those trying to excuse the National Party by saying it doesn't matter. Well look, hey, they don't know what they're talking about, it does matter. Spirit, confidence, rapport among your colleagues, the feel-good factor - that sustains anyone in any profession. Those who underscore the debating chamber are making a mistake.

DC: How are your Kaimanawa wild horses Richard and Rodney doing?

WP: Rodney is in great shape but that's only because I've taken special care to have him hand-fed every day. True. He was fed silage and hay over winter - he's quite roly-poly. He's got a paddock all to himself, shelter and a beautiful beach view so he's got one of the nicest scenes any horse could have. Unfortunately, Richard got a twisted bowel so I had to have him put down.

DC: That was prophetic. Any parting shots?

WP: Let me say this. Journalists should remember that words have meaning, they do matter and they have consequences. So when they write things on foreign affairs that are not correct, then it is serious. When one has to go to an embassy to explain and say, look, this meeting didn't happen, this conversation did not occur, that's slightly embarrassing for oneself but it's also potentially embarrassing for one's country.

DC: Is that why you accused Fran O'Sullivan from the Herald of treason?

WP: Well, treason may have been too strong a word but careless sabotage is not - saying that I had a meeting with Condoleezza Rice and made a pitch for better relations with the US when nothing of that type happened. I mean, Hamish [Cooper, from Foreign Affairs who sits in on this interview] was there and we were all stunned. We knew we had to contact the American Embassy and make it clear it did not occur. So why am I having a senior journalist, who wasn't there, claiming it did; when I've got four witnesses, who were there, who say it didn't? It's just not satisfactory. And for her to say 'I've got my sources' just won't do.

- HERALD ON SUNDAY


Fran O'Sullivan replies:

Merchant bankers Fay Richwhite withdrew an $8 million defamation suit against me in June 1997 rather than proceed to a full High Court hearing in respect of an investigative series I wrote as a freelance writer for the Examiner newspaper in 1991.

This series related to share trades in the months leading up to the 1990 Bank of New Zealand bailout – not the "winebox" tax dodging scandal on which I later vigorously campaigned as Editor of National Business Review putting the full weight of the paper behind the need for a public inquiry.

A separate action alleging insider trading against Fay Richwhite was later taken in the BNZ's name by the late Donald Kincaid and subsequently settled after a High Court judge found there was an "arguable cause of action".

But there was never any settlement between Fay Richwhite and myself as Winston Peters alleges today.

To the contrary, I rejected settlement terms put forward by Fay Richwhite and in 1996 engaged a senior Auckland silk (Queens' Counsel) to assist me fight the action and had considerable support from senior players including a former finance minister.

I can also assure Mr Peters that his pocket was not the only one to take a hit in the pursuit of the winebox affair.

As an NBR freelance I funded my own investigations, gave evidence in Australia at my expense and funded my initial appearance in Auckland when ultimately sued for breaching confidentiality by publishing documents from the tax dodge company European Pacific.

That I did not get to see the winebox inquiry through to final conclusion is a point of regret.

But the plain fact is that I had left NBR by then and was working in a managerial role at the Herald which precluded full-time engagement in the coverage.