On Newshub Nation: Simon Shepherd interviews Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters

Simon Shepherd: There was uproar in the house this week when Acting Prime Minister referred to himself as one of the Government’s “Leading Stars” during a discussion on medicinal cannabis bills. Whether or not you agree, it’s certainly been is time to shine as Acting Prime Minister of the past few weeks. Winston Peters joins me now. Good morning, Minister. Thanks for coming onto the show.

Winston Peters: Good morning.

How is it being a star?

Look, I think some of you guys have got to learn to take a joke. That’s what I meant by that, but they all got sort of over-reactive to it.

All right, so the context of it was medicinal cannabis. National’s put forward its own bill this week. As it stands, will New Zealand First support Labour’s medicinal cannabis bill?

Yes, we will, but I think it’s fair to say that if you’re being balanced and reasonable, that we don’t think that we’ve got the perfect answer here. We’ve come into our full committee of the House – that means every provision of the bill will be re-examined, and if it’s in any way short or deficient, we can fix it.

OK.

Which is what the National Party should’ve done – they were sitting on the committee, after all. And for nine years before that, this critical issue of great concern they had, but no attention whatsoever.

We’ll come to that in a moment. What are your concerns, then? What are New Zealand First’s concerns about the bill? Was it that detailed?

A – that it works for people that need that sort of medicinal care, but that it’s not available and open to abuse. I think’s our serious worry.

And in its current form you’re not happy?

Well, I think in the current form it’s safe, but maybe it’s too safe where people who need the medical help are concerned, and so maybe too prescriptive. But we don’t want to go the other way where it’s just free and on the market without any reference to the public.

So at the moment it’s too restrictive and needs to go a bit further. Are you asking for it to be relaxed a little bit?

Well, I’m trying to look at it from an independent neutral point of view. The legislation is the government’s legislation after the first 100 days. But as I say, you’ve sent it to the Select Committee, you’ve sent it to the public to take some suggestions, to hear what the public has got to say. And I think we should, you know, very soundly respond to that.

OK. You just mentioned that there’s Select Committee process. National has a lot of concerns that were being ignored, and so that’s why they did the work themselves. So that’s a good example of constructive Opposition.

You’ve heard the Kiwi ads – ‘Yeah, right?’ For goodness’ sake, for nine years, nothing at all, at a Select Committee where they’ve got four members, nothing at all, and as the bill is reported back to the House on that day, they put this matter of critical urgency into a ballot box from which it may never be withdrawn.

They were-

And please don’t tell me that’s how you handle a crisis.

OK, well, first of all, they’re saying that they were given a message by Labour representatives on that committee; that their – National’s – concerns were not going to be addressed.

Look, if they look around the House, they’ve got other parties on this matter, and it’s really a social issue as well, so that can hardly be their excuse. But they never even gave me the bill. They put the bill in the ballot paper, without even showing New Zealand First. Now, does that sound to you like it’s got integrity and sincerity behind it?

All right, so, you talk about them not doing for nine years about this very important social issue. What did Labour do about it? What did the Opposition do about it? You can’t have it both ways.

Well, you know what I did about it. I’ve been promising for years a full-scale referendum, and if they can live with the result, I can. But if the people say no, it’s no.

Simon Bridges – do you think that this is a way for him to stamp his mark? Is he pushing National to the left or to the right with this kind of politics?

I think he’s somewhat confused, because he’s out there pushing this issue real hard, and I couldn’t believe the intensity of questions in the last week all on the question of marijuana. Now, I thought that’s somewhat extraordinary, because we got a huge geopolitical situation of uncertainty abroad, we got all sorts of things happening to the economy, and all of a sudden, he’s discovered hashish, so to speak.
Doesn’t show much organised focus, does it?

So, this is point-scoring by Simon Bridges, is that what you’re saying?

Well, it has to be, in the sense that he never even showed us the bill. Now, we’ve got a reasonable stance on, and if he thought that the bill had some merit, then why didn’t he give it to us before he put it in the ballot? We just may have discovered something else that - where we could improve it.

Right, OK. Look, you mentioned geopolitical situations. I’d like to talk to you about Foreign Affairs, since you’re our Foreign Affairs Minister, in particular, the new defence policy statement talking about potential threat from China. China obviously has taken exception to this, saying it wants a correction and New Zealand is wrong about this. Don’t you think that this is a risky position, given they are our biggest trading partner?

All positions can be risky, but in the end, we’re not the only ones who are saying that on the South China Seas. The international courts are saying it; others are saying it in the neighbourhood. We’re just reflecting a fact, and if we can’t have an adult, mature relationship with a country that we’ve been on good terms with since 1972, then there’s something wrong. I’m not concerned about that, because a bit of plain, frank speaking and honesty with a long-standing relationship is likely to improve it.

Is that going to hurt us economically?

I don’t believe so, no.

Why not? Surely, they have a lot of economic might. They are our biggest trading partner.

Because the Chinese have said that they don’t behave that way. That’s my evidence for that.

But China’s also in a standoff with the U.S. I mean, we’re talking about economics and economic uncertainty, so China’s in a standoff with the U.S. over tariffs. Are we going to get caught up in the middle of this? Are we going to be vulnerable to a trade war?

Well, I think there is a great likelihood for collateral damage to New Zealand.

In what form?

But not as great as some other countries might be. We don’t know what the form will be. There could be some collateral damage. We could possibly escape it by the arrangements we do have with all those countries. I mean, we’ve got an application to the United States to remove ourselves from the steel and aluminium embargo against us, in terms of the tariff arrangement. I think we have a chance of succeeding there, honestly.

Really? You’re feeling positive about that? Because you’re just about to meet with the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the conference this coming week. So are you confident that we can get an exemption?

Well, I’m very confident at being able to put up a rock-solid answer or reply to the Americans as to why we should be exempt. Yeah, I’m very confident. And they have to remember that when you have allies, you have to have regard to their economic circumstance.

OK. When - I mean, this trade war could escalate. There’s, like, $500 billion worth of potential tariffs. How can we, as a country, mitigate it?

We can’t.

Right, so we’re just at the whim of these major economies?

No. We belong to international organisations – the WTO and other organisations – where we expect the rules to be for the good of the world, not just a few countries. We can do all we can there, and we’re doing it all the time, but as I say, when you have an argument of the type that’s happening in the U.S. - China circumstance, for us to say we can have an effect on it would be, well, other parties might say that, but I’m not going to say that.

So we can’t. OK. The other things I wanted to raise about the defence policy statement has also identified Russia as a potential threat. So are you going to raise any questions with the U.S. at this meeting about its relationship with Russia when you speak to Mr Pompeo?

We’ll talk about a lot of things, I expect.

So that’s a yes? You are?

No, I’m not saying that. I haven’t written the agenda yet for what we’re going to talk about.

Sure, but are you concerned?

Well, we’re concerned with any circumstance that looks like it could lead to lack of peace, a lack of stability. None of that helps. Yes, I am concerned.

Right, because the U.S. seems to like Russia. Mr Putin’s going to the White House.

Well, yes, that’s a fact. Yes.

All right.

And your point is he shouldn’t?

No, I was wondering if you were concerned-

As Winston Churchill said, ‘It’s far better jaw, jaw, jaw, than war, war, war.’ And he would know.

One of our other greatest relationships is Australia. You’ve been talking up the importance of that, especially with the Pacific reset. But do you think that friendship’s taken a bit of a beating in recent weeks?

No, I think plain talking helps the Aussies. Don’t want anybody coming the raw prawn with them, as they say. Bit of frank dialogue is very important. We’ve got a great relationship, but it could be so much better, and my job is to emphasise to the Australian people and state government and their central government that they’ve never needed New Zealand like they need them now.

They say that we don’t do any heavy lifting. Did you take exception to that, or is that just not true?

Well, he talked about the heavy lifting when it came to illegal boat migration. If you’ve got a map of the Southern Pacific, he would know why we couldn’t do the heavy lifting because we’re not in Australia, they are.

So, it’s just an easy point for them to score, is it?

Well, he didn’t score any points when he said that. That’s why there’s a bit of a kick-back on other matters.

What – the flag?

Well, it’s a fact, isn’t it?

I don’t know if it is a fact. They would take exception to that.

In 1901, we adopt our flag. 1954, they adopt a flag that’s almost identical to ours. The things speak for themselves. I wasn’t going to make a big point. I think we’ve even got the solution for them, if you like.

What’s that?

Probably a bit kangaroo, like the maple leaf in Canada.

Right, so-

But it’s not going to be a point of argument. I’m just stating a fact. And when you see us at the Olympic Games or the Commonwealth Games when - well, the Olympics Games were in Sydney and our three athletes came first, second and third – one New Zealander and two Aussies – it was very confusing to see which flag was which.

I suggest you should draw out your design and offer it to Malcolm Turnbull.

No, I’m just saying an obvious point.

OK, let’s move onto justice reforms. This is a big issue that’s coming up. Prison populations forecast reached more than 13,000 by 2027, and there’s the emphasis on having it brought down by 30%. So to do that, would you, New Zealand First, consider changes to bail, parole and sentencing laws, as part of a package?

Yes.

How far would you go with those?

Well, first of all, look, the prison population has fallen by about 500 since we’ve come to power. That’s the first thing.

But there’s no new policies as a result of you guys. That’s just a fact, you know?

So maybe your projections are wrong.

They’re not my projections, they’re the Ministry of Justice projections.

Well, maybe their projections are wrong. That figure has been proven wrong. I’ll give you a second example. If we look at the number of people who are in prison awaiting trial, that is they’re in prison, been incarcerated probably for a year, if you can shorten that to six months, you have a dramatic drop in your prison numbers, just like that.

OK, so-

It might mean we might need to – hold up – a number of new judges, and systems to bring people to trial, but that’s a pretty self-evident one. So any change that can happen in the reduction of prison numbers and reduce the $1000-cost per prisoner per year, is for the best. This idea of ‘throw them in and throw the key away’ and being hard on crime a la Simon Bridges-

Well, actually, you’ve been hard on crime in the past.

And I am hard on crime. I believe in putting people out in the fields and rivers of this country and clean the whole things up, rather than have them in prison.

Are you saying you believe in hard labour, chain gangs, rock-breaking?

It’s not chain gangs, it’s not rock-breaking, it’s a smart idea to organise people. We’ve got forests we’ve got to plant up north, and right in the middle of it is a prison. How about we put the two together? It’s an obvious opportunity. We won’t imperil the public’s safety, but we’ll get things done.

I would say to you that you are a bit at odds with Labour over this reform package, and the example is the Three Strikes Law. You pulled the rug from under Andrew Little when he tried to repeal it. Chester Borrows is now heading up the advisory group of criminal justice reform. He doesn’t support Three Strikes Law. So if that group recommends abolishing it, would you support that?

Well, before we rush and do that, what we said to Mr Little was, and it’s still a work in progress, is that if we get all these other things right, then you can deal with the Three Strikes Laws because it will be very blatant and obvious to the public that they don’t work, and they don’t. But here’s the point – you cannot expect the public to go with you and support your changed plan or reform without proving how it works, and that’s all I’ve asked for.

Right, OK. And in terms of Three Strikes Law, as you seemed to indicate, it doesn’t work.

Well, the trouble is, you’ve got something like 116 now waiting on the third strike, so something that has not worked ever since the much-disgraced Act member bought it in, you remember who he was, don’t you? It didn’t work, and all this time, and we haven’t got very many that have been effected by the third strike, nevertheless, there are a stack out there all ready to go, and I don’t want that not to be treated as a serious matter before we change and bring in the reform.

OK, so as part of the wider package, you’d be happy for it to go.

Well, the thing is, Andrew Little is a reformist minister, and he’s not doing it because he’s weak on crime. What he’s doing it for is the system right now doesn’t work. We’ve got one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Here we’ve got this country with all this space in the world – same size as the UK or almost the same as Japan – all this space, scenery, whatever you’ve got going for it, and look at the level of criminality.

All right, let’s - You’ve had five weeks. You’ve got a little bit longer to go as acting Prime Minister. Everybody was anticipating the big Winston Peters show. How do you think you’ve done?

Well, I proved some of the cynics wrong.

How?

The sky didn’t fall in.
It’s been a state of absolute normalcy and corroboration, and I’m glad about that. And I think we’ve gone very, very well, and will leave on Wednesday night – I think it’s midnight – having ensured that no crisis happened that we weren’t able to handle.

So is it something you want to do again?

I never thought of it that way, actually. To tell you the truth, it’s very difficult to be the Foreign Minister and being trapped at home.

So that’s a no? You don’t want to be acting Prime Minister again?

No, no, I’m happy to do it, but the reality is, now I’ve got a concertinaed programme of travel that’s - Perhaps… How should I put it? One doesn’t look forward to with the greatest deal of alacrity, it’s just, you’ve got to be on the road so often.

OK, which job would you prefer?

I prefer any job that I’ve currently got in that context. Look, I’ve enjoyed doing it, but I didn’t enjoy the media cynicism at the start and the arrogance of journalists. I’ve been around a long time.

We know.

And to have these flippant comments being made, and I thought, ‘Well, we’ll see who’s right or wrong.’ How shall I put it without being too self-centred? I’ve been written off more times than people have had hot dinners on this matter, and I’m pleased that we’ve had such a good run.

Well, you’ve been around a long time. Speaking of which, so after 25 years leading New Zealand First, will you be leading it through the next election?

This far out, I’ve never, ever commented on what I’m going to do. It depends on a whole lot of things, including one’s health, how fit you are, what the team thinks, and most critically of all, whether you’re being there is critical to victory. That’s what’s most critical.

So are you fit and healthy right now?

Yes, I am.

OK. Are you critical to victory?

Our polls are on the rise, as you well know, not the ones that you guys run, but the internal polling of Labour and National has us looking very strong. We’ve never been this strong so far out. We know we can do much better, so, yes, we’ll have a discussion about that later on. Not this year, next year.

OK. Just wanted to get your input on current leaders, so if it’s a choice between Simon Bridges and Jacinda Ardern next time around, could you work equally with both of them?

Well, look, I’m not going to do hypotheticals. Never been my - The chances of Simon Bridges lasting the next election on the past National Party record is not good. I’ve seen this, I’ve been there, I’ve seen the instability when a party loses like National. And the roll-over of leadership is horrible.

So you’re predicting that Simon Bridges will be gone soon?

No, I predict that the first person they’ll come for is Paula Bennett, because that’s what jackals do. They don’t go for the biggest animal, they go for the smallest and weakest one, and then it will be Simon.

When will Simon’s time be over?

I’d be unwise to give an exact date, but one of these days you’ll look back and say he was right.

OK, so Simon Bridges is gone. And Jacinda Ardern – will she be around next election?

I’ll tell you why Simon’s gone, Simon’s discovered so much of his past, a bit like Columbus discovered America – by accident.

What do you mean by that?

First of all, he turns up, and all of a sudden he’s decided that he’s a Maori. Nobody knew that before he got there. Then he started looking for his iwi. And now he’s discovered marijuana. You can’t have too many discoveries like this before people start saying, ‘Oh, yeah, but what does this man really think? What drives him down inside?’

Do you think that Simon Bridges is going to lose this centrist popular National Party support base?

Yes.

Do you think he’s lost that? Wow, OK. I just want to - Before we go, I just want to-

You can’t be polling - I know what their polls are. You can’t be polling 41, and as a leader, be polling under 10. That means three quarters of your party doesn’t want you.

OK. Simon Bridges gone according to Winston Peters. Finally-

Well, how could you work it out? Surely, if you’re going to lead a party, the lead have got to want you as a leader.

We’ll see if you’re right. Finally, Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage is coming to town in September. You met him in London. He took you to the cricket.

That’s right, yeah.

Are you going to return the favour and take him out?

You wouldn’t believe it. Again, I’m going to be offshore.

Oh, really?

I can’t avoid it.

He also compared you to Donald Trump, didn’t he?

Well, I don’t think he was right about that. Nothing similar about me and Donald Trump, you know that.

Have you ever been in the same room, at the same time?

As Donald Trump? No, but I could have been. I remember he came here 21 years ago, and people forget, the railway station down in Auckland was going to be up for sale, and Ngati Whatua was talking about starting a casino, and Donald Trump came over here, most of you have forgotten, trying to get into a partnership with the Ngati Whatua to start a casino, and he said as part of it, he would learn the Maori language. I never forgot that.

We’ll leave it there. Acting Prime Minister for a little bit longer – Winston Peters, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Transcript provided by Able. www.able.co.nz

© Scoop Media