FACE TO FACE: NATIONAL AND NEW ZEALAND FIRST 14 SEPTEMBER 2005-09-15 PRESENTER: KIM HILL
KIM HILL: Good evening. Welcome to Face To Face and the final in our series of interviews with the eight party leaders currently in Parliament. Tonight I’m talking to National Party leader Don Brash, followed by New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. And we’d like your comments, so email us at [email protected].
Well, we’re just three days to go until the election. The race between the two major parties is too close to call. The temperatures are rising. One of the hottest spots of late is, of course, Tauranga, and I’ll speak with Tauranga MP and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters later in the programme. But first, welcome, Dr Brash.
DON BRASH (National Leader): Good evening, Kim.
HILL: How do you respond to the allegations that Winston Peters has come up with against your candidate in Tauranga, by the way – Bob Clarkson?
BRASH: Oh, I say, look, those allegations are entirely unproven. They’re cropping- coming up, what, three days before the election, four days before the election, maximum. They refer to an incident which took place three or four years ago, and you have to ask serious questions about why these allegations are being made now.
HILL: Nevertheless, with the spotlight on Mr Clarkson, he has been shown to be a kind of strange candidate. I mean, he doesn’t wanna be an MP, he doesn’t wanna debate, he doesn’t wanna go to Wellington, and maybe he’ll try it for a while.
BRASH: Bob Clarkson is a rough diamond. He’s a doer.
HILL: That’s what people usually say about people who are odd.
BRASH: He’s a doer, rather than a talker, and he has done great things for the city of Tauranga. I’ve got no doubt that as an MP for Tauranga, he’d do a great job.
HILL: But you know – I know – that you feel uncomfortable with the kind of persona that he’s projected. I mean, the preoccupation with genitalia is not your thing, is it?
BRASH: Well, that’s not my particular thing, no. That’s absolutely true. But, look, the National Party’s a broad church party and Bob Clarkson has got a great contribution to make.
HILL: Would you be able to work with Winston Peters after this?
BRASH: Well, that’s a good question. There are three centre-right parties, I think, with which the National Party could work in principle… HILL: Well, no, there aren’t. In principle, you’ve already killed ACT off.
BRASH: Well, I think it’s fair to say that since the last election, the National Party has taken probably six or seven percentage points off each of the other three centre-right parties, so that certainly, they’re not looking terribly healthy at the moment, any of them. But we could work with any one of the three, or indeed, any combination of the three.
HILL: Do you think you can win outright? Is that the plan?
BRASH: No, no, no.
HILL: Have you at any stage thought you can win outright – no coalition?
1 BRASH: No, no. Frankly, we’ve always thought a coalition was the most likely outcome, but, I mean, what’s the objective in MMP? The objective in MMP is to maximise your own party’s party vote. You can’t help your prospects of forming an alternative government by assisting some other party to increase their party vote.
HILL: So you do think you can win outright?
BRASH: No. No, no. No. I want to maximise the National Party’s party vote.
HILL: Yes.
BRASH: The National Party is the only party which can plausibly form an alternative government to the current lot, and for that reason, we are keen to maximise that party vote. But there are other centre-right parties, and we could, in principle, talk to any one of the three of them.
HILL: Some suggest that the only way that your strategy so far of not nurturing coalition partners as Labour have done, but in fact spurning them until the last minute – when you might have a cup of tea with Peter Dunne and how many MPs is he going to have – the only explanation for the strategy is if you don’t really want to win this election, you want to be strongly branded for the next one.
BRASH: Kim, I can absolutely assure you I am not in this game to lose.
HILL: You might not be…
BRASH: I want to win this election…
HILL: You may not be….
BRASH: …for New Zealand’s sake. Not just for my sake, for New Zealand’s sake.
HILL: But do your backers, do your supporters and do your advisors, perhaps, have a longer- term view in mind?
BRASH: Uh, I don’t know who you’re referring to as my backers and my advisors and so on, but everyone associated with this campaign – the campaign director, my key advisors in the caucus, my key staff members – want to win this campaign. I can promise you that.
HILL: Because it’s been suggested that you don’t understand MMP, you can’t possibly understand MMP.
BRASH: Last election, we didn’t understand MMP, I have to say. We fought a lot of electorate campaigns thinking we could win the election by winning electorates. The fact of the matter is no matter how many electorates we win, we cannot win the election unless we win the party vote. Now, that point has got through to us, and we’re driving as hard as we can to maximise the party vote for the National Party.
HILL: So that you can,…
BRASH: No, so…
HILL: …with a bit of luck, go it alone.
BRASH: No, so that we have the best prospect of forming a coalition government. United Future has said they will talk first to the party which has the larger party vote, Labour or National. New Zealand First has said they will not go into coalition with either National or Labour, but will support, in a confidence and supply sense, the larger of the two. So we need to be the larger of the two major parties.
2
HILL: Well, let’s talk about that. If you are the larger of the two major parties and New Zealand First comes along to you and says, you know, “A promise is a promise, Don, and here we are. We’re prepared to talk to you.” What will you give up for them? Your tax policy’s going to have to be amended, because Winston Peters doesn’t like it.
BRASH: I simply cannot begin to conduct coalition negotiations on TV, Kim. The reality is if New Zealanders want those tax reductions, if they want a Treaty policy of the kind that the National Party is offering, they should use their party vote for National.
HILL: All right. And so what you’ll say to Winston Peters is, “Here we are. We’re the biggest party,” hypothetically, “and this means that we have a mandate for the tax cuts and we have a mandate for our Treaty of Waitangi policies.”
BRASH: That’s right.
HILL: And Winston Peters says to you, “Yeah, but here we are, and we’re here too because we’ve got the five unwavering principles. What you gonna do about it?”
BRASH: Well, I mean, there may be some areas of policy where—
HILL: What are they?
BRASH: Well, for example, let’s take the Treaty issue. Winston Peters introduced a bill to remove the expression— the principles of the Treaty from a whole series of bills, of laws. Now, we didn’t much like that particular bill, because there are some bits of it we felt were a bit clumsy, but the general principle of taking that expression out of law was one we totally agree with.
HILL: Well, I haven’t heard you give up much yet. Is there anything you’d be prepared to give up?
BRASH: No, no. I’m talking about the things where Winston Peters and I could reach agreement without difficulty.
HILL: Yeah. But as you well know from the history of Mr Peters, what you’re going to have to maybe concentrate on are the things you’re not going to be able to get along on, the things that he will have to score victory on.
BRASH: Yeah. And I will not negotiate those here tonight, though, Kim.
HILL: All right. But you are confident that you might be able to negotiate with him.
BRASH: Uh, reasonably confident. I guess you should ask him that question. Perhaps you will later on in the programme.
HILL: I certainly will.
BRASH: Yes. I guess I’m more confident, frankly, of being able to form a negotiation with Rodney Hide or Peter Dunne.
HILL: Why?
BRASH: Well, I’ve known Rodney Hide for a long time – more than a decade. He’s been a personal friend of mine. Uh, Peter Dunne, I have not actually had the same kind of close relationship with, but I’ve known him for more than a decade. He has, of course, worked in a National Party coalition government previously. I’ve got no doubt at all that we could reach an agreement on most policy issues.
3 HILL: You see, I mean, back to ACT, then. The reason that they’re floundering is that many of their supporters have crossed to you.
BRASH: Mm-hm.
HILL: Doesn’t that speak volumes about where you are on the political spectrum?
BRASH: I’m sure that if you ask people who have been supporting ACT and are now supporting National, they would say National has not gone nearly as far as they would like us to, because we are a centre-right party, not a right-wing party.
HILL: They’d be sticking with ACT, then, if you hadn’t gone far enough.
BRASH: Well, but they’re also facing the fact at the moment that ACT, or a vote for ACT, may not count for much, so they’ve decided, “Look, better to have National than to have Labour.”
HILL: Then you would have been helped by the suspicions that you’re not quite your own person, that…
BRASH: (LAUGHS) Come on.
HILL: Well, hello – email advice from ACT, Business Roundtable, the Exclusive Brethren campaign, the suggestions of American influence.
BRASH: This is a Labour Party spin to scare voters. Look, we make our policy in the National Party, by the National Party caucus, approved by the National Party board, not influenced by American bagmen, Australian crafty strategists,…
HILL: But we’ve read…
BRASH: …Roundtable, ACT, or anybody else.
HILL: We’ve read the email.
BRASH: Sure. That’s OK.
HILL: The email said, “Don’t get painted hard Right.” The email said, “Slosh those funds around and buy your way into the Treasury ventures.”
BRASH: That particular email came not from an ACT person or a Roundtable person, but one of my staff. Right? That was his view.
HILL: One of your staff said, “Don’t get painted hard right”?
BRASH: Uh, that one I can’t remember, but the “sloshing the money around” was one of my staff.
HILL: I think you’ll find that it was Business Roundtable.
BRASH: But the reality is I get advice from a whole range of people – from Presbyterians, Catholics, Brethrens…
HILL: And as we know, that’s what the Business Roundtable told you to say. I mean, QED.
BRASH: No, but that’s the truth.
HILL: I know.
BRASH: That’s the truth.
4 HILL: It may be the truth, but the perception is…
BRASH: But we’re talking truth now.
HILL: …that you are some kind of Trojan Horse, if you like.
BRASH: Look, I can’t deal with a Labour Party-constructed perception. We’re talking truth here, and you recognise and I recognise that I get advice from a whole range of people, some of them on the left of the spectrum, some on the right of the spectrum.
HILL: All right.
BRASH: The person I quoted in both my two Orewa speeches was Chris Trotter. I’ve had a great regard for Chris Trotter. He’s not of my persuasion politically, but he’s someone whose advice I listen to.
HILL: There is a suspicion, you see – and it’s more than the secret agenda, or maybe it is the secret agenda – there’s a suspicion that you have more in mind than you are able to admit. And there’s a speech in 1998 – you know the one – in which you suggested that politicians have a moral obligation to lie if their reforms are likely to be so unpopular that by admitting them, they won’t get voted in.
BRASH: Ironically, in that particular speech, I was defending the Labour Government’s actions.
HILL: I know. I know what you were doing.
BRASH: Right. Right. But listen, this situation is totally and completely different. What we’re saying very clearly is what we would do on asset sales, what we would do on tax, what we’d do on Treaty. There’s nothing hidden there at all. It’s very explicit.
HILL: I’ll tell you what the suggestion is of what the hidden bit is. It’s that it is your policy to reduce the size of government, and by… Per se, in itself, that is your aim. It’s certainly the Business Roundtable’s aim, it’s certainly ACT’s aim, and by offering tax cuts, it’s a way through to get there.
BRASH: Yeah, but if you look at what John Key said before we announced our tax reduction package, he spelt out exactly what we’d have to do to achieve that tax reduction package. Government spending not only rises in the next three or four years, it rises relative to national income. It rises relative to national income. That ain’t a shrinking state.
HILL: It’s a shrinking state compared to what one could expect to be spent on it by people who don’t believe in a shrinking state.
BRASH: It rises less rapidly than Labour, to be frank, but it’s still rising. No one could describe this as a shrinking state under a National Party government.
HILL: How-? Just, by the way, talking about the tax cuts and the figures, I mean, one minute, you were saying it’s not possible to have petrol price relief and have our tax cuts, but all of a sudden, you’re offering it.
BRASH: Well, we’re talking about two quite different things, frankly. We’re not talking about a general abolition of the 5c excise tax. We’re talking about a bridging situation until we get our main tax package in. New Zealanders are being overtaxed, Kim. New Zealanders are paying $7.5 billion more in tax than is required to cover current government spending.
HILL: How much will you borrow for your tax cuts?
BRASH: Less than Labour will have to borrow for its student loan package.
5 HILL: How much will you borrow for your tax cuts?
BRASH: We won’t be borrowing…
HILL: The reason I ask…
BRASH: We’re not borrowing for tax cuts at all. At all. Not one dollar for tax cuts.
HILL: Excuse me. That is playing with words,…
BRASH: No, no. It’s not.
HILL: …because you’re borrowing for other stuff that you wouldn’t have to borrow for if you didn’t have the tax cuts, right?
BRASH: Kim, in the first fours years from now till the next four years of financial years, we will have a fiscal surplus of 2.6% of GDP on our numbers after the tax cuts.
HILL: Yeah, yeah.
BRASH: Labour had less than that in their first four years.
HILL: How much do you anticipate borrowing in your first term?
BRASH: Uh, frankly, the point I’m making to you is less than Labour.
HILL: How much?
BRASH: Less than Labour – that’s the critical point.
HILL: No, no, no. Well, just, I mean, you’ve- I know you’re very happy, because Treasury’s forced Labour to release its student loan- Absolutely.
BRASH: And what a nasty situation.
HILL: But hang on, before we get too complacent about it, give me a figure on how much you’re gonna borrow.
BRASH: About $3 billion or $4 billion over four years.
HILL: It’s not like you to slap-happy about the odd opinion.
BRASH: Well… Well, the point I know is that it’s less than Labour will be borrowing.
HILL: I know. (LAUGHS) We’re gonna hang on to that thought. We’ll be back. We have to break.
BRASH: It’s a very important point.
HILL: I understand. Breaking. When we come back – if National forms the next government, will the Treaty of Waitangi be “gone by lunchtime”? That’s next.
HILL: Welcome back. I’m talking to National leader Don Brash. Yesterday, you went to the wananga – Te Wananga o Aotearoa – to give a speech. You ended up giving a watered-down speech inside, where you were delivered a powhiri, and you gave a harsh speech outside. That looked very odd.
BRASH: When I went to the wananga – when I planned to go to the wananga – it was made clear to me that we should not ask to go on to the campus, because of the tension between the wananga and the Labour Government. So we accepted that we would not be going on to
6 the wananga campus, and when we got there, we were going to give a presentation to the media. When we did get there, in fact, to our surprise, we were invited on to the campus, and greeted with a formal powhiri.
HILL: Which you don’t agree with. Powhiri.
BRASH: No, no, no, no. I’ve never said I don’t agree with powhiri. What I did say, and have said, is that the powhiri on every single state occasion, every single university occasion, is a bit over the top.
HILL: You’ve said, actually, that “a half-naked man poking his tongue out is not a civilized way to greet foreign dignitaries.”
BRASH: Mm-hm.
HILL: And that’s what you believe?
BRASH: I think the powhiri is a totally appropriate form of greeting for some situations, but not for every situation. Let’s come back to the wananga. I made a brief speech – a very brief speech – inside, because that was the nature of the powhiri – all the speeches were quite brief. I made a comment that we were very unhappy with much of what had happened to the wananga, but also acknowledged that they had achieved many good things. I also said that under a National-led government, the wananga could look forward to a good future.
HILL: And then outside, you trashed ‘em.
BRASH: No. I said that this was a huge embarrassment for the Labour Government, funding for which had gone from $5 million to $239 million in five years, a huge extravagance.
HILL: Well, I mean, I know what you said, but it just seems as if you should have had the courage of your convictions. Not only do you not think—
BRASH: The speech was 10% of the length, Kim. 10% of the length – very short; a very short speech – and I was not in there attacking the Government. I came outside and attacked the Government.
HILL: I know.
BRASH: That’s where I should attack the Government – outside.
HILL: I know, but that’s the point. I mean, you go in, you say what you don’t really mean, you are subjected—
BRASH: No, no, I did not say what I did not— No, no. No, no, Kim, that’s not right.
HILL: You were subjected to a powhiri that you don’t agree with—
BRASH: No, no. It’s entirely appropriate in a Maori context to be greeted by a powhiri.
HILL: And it’s entirely, as far as I can understand it, it’s entirely appropriate at a powhiri to speak your mind.
BRASH: Well, I understood that it was to be a courteous greeting from them and a courteous greeting from me. I made it quite clear I was very unhappy with a number of things at the wananga, and made that very clear. I was very intent on making sure there was nothing inconsistent, in fact, between what I said inside and what I said outside. The difference was that outside, I also attacked the Government, and that wasn’t what I was doing at the powhiri.
HILL: As a matter of interest, what situations do you think a powhiri is appropriate for?
7 BRASH: I think it’s particularly appropriate for a wananga, which is built around Maori culture and Maori language. That seemed to me entirely appropriate.
HILL: So it should be, kind of, ghettoised, as it were?
BRASH: Well, no. No, no. But, I mean, I go to a university graduation ceremony where nobody there speaks Maori, and they have a powhiri.
HILL: Right.
BRASH: That seems to me strike— somewhat odd.
HILL: You plan to abolish Maori agencies if you win power.
BRASH: I’ve said that there are five Maori agencies currently. Two of them, the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlements, should be finished their task by 2010.
HILL: You’d get rid of Te Puni Kokiri?
BRASH: In due course—
HILL: Te Mangai Paho?
BRASH: Uh, in due— The reason for having a separate agency of that kind is entirely unclear to me.
HILL: All right. Do you accept that we have international obligations to respect the culture of indigenous people?
BRASH: It’s not a question of international obligations at all, in my view. Maori are an important part of New Zealand, the Maori language is an important part of New Zealand, and I certainly respect, or acknowledge, the Crown has an obligation to encourage the Maori language.
HILL: And how would you do that? How would you encourage, preserve, integrate, and be proud of, the Maori language and culture, if you were in power?
BRASH: Well, that’s a question of what is empirically effective. We’ve raised questions, for example, about the effectiveness of Maori television. Now, we have not committed to scrapping that. What we have said is, let’s assess whether it is effective as a means of encouraging the Maori language. If it is, let’s continue to fund it. If it’s not, let’s look at teachers or books or other forms of encouragement.
HILL: How would you rate the effectiveness of a powhiri for visiting foreign dignitaries, for example?
BRASH: Uh, I can see value in having some powhiri for some occasions, but to have it at every occasion gives the impression that Maori culture is the only New Zealand form of culture, and it’s not.
HILL: It doesn’t deserve a special status?
BRASH: It deserves an important part of New Zealand life. It is an important part of New Zealand life, and I welcome that.
HILL: Does it deserve a special status as the indigenous culture?
BRASH: I’m not even quite sure what you mean by a special status. I’ve acknowledged the need to encourage the Maori language, but listen, Kim—
8 HILL: You don’t mind having a haka before every All Blacks match?
BRASH: No. I’m very comfortable with that.
HILL: Why?
BRASH: Because that’s been part of New Zealand tradition for a very long time. Even I used to perform the haka, when I was at school. So, I mean, I’ve got no problem with that at all. All I’m saying is that for situations where there are no Maori involved at all, it’s somewhat forced to have a powhiri.
HILL: You want to get rid of the Maori seats in Parliament. Your potential allies, Winston Peters and Peter Dunne, want to do it more gradually – they want a referendum, they want consultation. You don’t?
BRASH: But they also share the objective of getting rid of them.
HILL: But you’d get rid of them… (SMACKS HAND ON TABLE)
BRASH: Look, they were formed in 1867 for five years. We’ve had them for 140 years.
HILL: Yeah, yeah. I know the history.
BRASH: We’ve now got 19 Maori in Parliament, only seven of them elected in the Maori seats. The logic for them, as the Royal Commission on the Electoral System said in the 1980s, has gone.
HILL: But you were just justifying the haka to me because it’s been done for years. All of a sudden, the Maori seats can’t benefit from tradition?
BRASH: Look, what worries me is that the Maori seats have become the thin edge of the wedge of a totally separate form of political representation. The Labour Government has changed the local government laws so that local governments can create separate Maori wards. They’ve created separate Maori representation on District Health Boards, on Primary Health Organisations. Where does it stop?
HILL: Treaty’s not a partnership – you say you’d change the school curriculum so there are no references to the Treaty as a living partnership.
BRASH: No, no— Uh, yes, that’s— Look. The Treaty is a very important historical document – very important. It is not a living partnership.
HILL: Right. So you would change the school curriculum to avoid all mention of the Treaty as a living partnership.
BRASH: I want to avoid our children being taught something which is historically nonsense.
HILL: Labour have portrayed you as not being trustworthy when it comes to our anti-nuclear legislation. If you become government—
BRASH: Boy, that’s rich from Labour right now. It’s rich from Labour, Kim.
HILL: If you become government, is the anti-nuclear legislation safe?
BRASH: It is safe. I made it very clear that we will not change it— I’ve made it very clear that we will not change it without a referendum, and we have no plans for a referendum.
HILL: No, you said you won’t hold a referendum unless it’s in New Zealand’s interests to consider a change.
9 BRASH: Of course. Of course.
HILL: But you obviously do think it’s in New Zealand’s interests, because you have blamed the anti-nuclear legislation for New Zealand failing to get a free-trade agreement with the United States. Have you or not?
BRASH: Look, the free-trade agreement with the United States was the most important foreign-policy objective of the Labour Government, and they have failed.
HILL: Yes, yes. Because why?
BRASH: I don’t know why.
HILL: You attribute it, in part, to the anti-nuclear legislation.
BRASH: I don’t know why.
HILL: You have.
BRASH: Have I?
HILL: Yes. You clearly have. You have said if we were still in ANZUS, we would have gone along with Australia with the tripartite trade talks with the United States. Have you not?
BRASH: I don’t believe I’ve ever said that, quite frankly.
HILL: All right. If it doesn’t matter, then – if the anti-nuclear legislation doesn’t matter to New Zealand’s interests – then you would never have a referendum, and you would never go to the United States and talk to them about it.
BRASH: Of course. Exactly true. Absolutely true.
HILL: So that’s written in concrete now?
BRASH: I’ve said there will be no change, unless it’s judged to be in New Zealand’s interest and we have a referendum. And we have a referendum.
HILL: Why would you have a referendum on that, but not on something as potentially divisive as the Maori seats?
BRASH: Because we are going into this election with a very clear manifesto position on the Maori seats.
HILL: But you just told me you were going in with a very clear position on the anti-nuclear legislation as well – no change.
BRASH: No change. OK. So if we get elected, no change.
HILL: All right.
BRASH: If we want to depart from that manifesto commitment—
HILL: So why even mention a referendum, actually?
BRASH: Because the public have asked, “Under what circumstances could that be changed?” And we’ve said we’re not planning a referendum, but if we were to think that was in New Zealand’s best interests – if we thought that – then we would put it to the public of New Zealand to make the decision.
10 HILL: But not to the United States, as you’ve formerly suggested you’d put it to the United States first to see if they liked the—
BRASH: No, no, no. Kim, that is a gross misrepresentation—
HILL: No, it’s not.
BRASH: It is. Look, you negotiate with another country to find out whether there’s any advantage to New Zealand in a change, and if there is, you ask the New Zealand people.
HILL: But only in the context of whether the other country thinks there’s an advantage?
BRASH: To us?
HILL: Yeah.
BRASH: Yeah, of course. Yeah.
HILL: OK. And just clarify for me, why not a referendum on the Maori seats?
BRASH: Because I believe that if the National Party wins a substantial share of the party vote in this election, we will have a mandate to abolish the Maori seats. It’s been crystal-clear National Party policy since May 2003.
HILL: And you’ll go with that mandate no matter how divisive it may be?
BRASH: Look, Kim, half the Maori in New Zealand are on the general roll now.
HILL: Yes.
BRASH: So half the Maori in the country don’t believe in the general seats either.
HILL: Not necessarily true. You mean the Maori seats – they don’t believe in the Maori seats.
BRASH: Yeah, that’s what I meant. Yeah.
HILL: All right. Not necessarily true. Just because they’re not on the roll doesn’t mean they don’t believe in them.
BRASH: Well, they’ve been encouraged to join the Maori roll many, many times.
HILL: You are confident that refusing to have a referendum on the future of the Maori seats is not going to cause more harm than good?
BRASH: I believe that, yes. Kim, I think this divisiveness we’ve got in New Zealand over the Treaty and over Maori issues is doing us huge damage, and we have to resolve these issues as soon as we possibly can.
HILL: People are blaming you for a lot of that.
BRASH: I think they’re totally wrong. Totally wrong. How can you be blamed for being racist, as certain people have been blaming me, when I want every person in New Zealand treated equally under the law?
HILL: I appreciate your time. Dr Brash. After the break, I’m face to face with Winston Peters, the New Zealand First leader, and we would like your comments tonight, so email us at [email protected]. Back shortly.
HILL: Welcome back. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has long said that he’s happy simply to be the MP for Tauranga. Well, he might need some luck staying happy this election.
11 He’s polling well behind National candidate Bob Clarkson. But this week Mr Peters revived an historic allegation of inappropriate behaviour against Mr Clarkson, and while Mr Clarkson says he’s consulting his lawyers, Mr Peters will be consulting the polls. Welcome, Winston Peters. Good evening.
WINSTON PETERS (New Zealand First leader): Thank you.
HILL: Can I—? There is some confusion. What are you alleging that Mr Clarkson’s done?
PETERS: Well, that’s the curious thing. He made the statement himself to the Bay of Plenty Times. He entered a pre-emptive strike, I believe, against a woman and then had the paper publish the woman’s name, even though she’s got victims’ rights—
HILL: This is two or three years ago now.
PETERS: It is two or three years ago.
HILL: So why are we talking about it now?
PETERS: Because a newspaper, not being able to finish the research on it, gave it to me on the weekend. And I looked at it and thought, “Well, this is alarming that this person’s rights have been totally forgotten.” And the facts didn’t stack up.
HILL: You mean the newspaper itself gave it to you.
PETERS: Yes.
HILL: A journalist on the newspaper?
PETERS: No, they’re a Sunday paper that wasn’t able to complete the investigations in time.
HILL: What, after three years?
PETERS: No, no, I think they had it for a brief time – maybe a few days.
HILL: All right. And so, what, the Sunday News or the Sunday Star-Times or the Herald on Sunday—
PETERS: Well, I’m not gonna give over the source.
HILL: All right. We’re talking about— We have three Sunday newspapers in this country, so one of them, right?
PETERS: Well, take the pick, yes.
HILL: And they gave it to you…
PETERS: To my office in Wellington, yes.
HILL: …after three years—
PETERS: No, no, no. They had it themselves, I think, for—
HILL: But you would’ve known about it. You’ve been in town. You would’ve seen it on the front page anyway, at the time.
PETERS: No, no. On the 5th of October 2002 I did not see it. Now, there may be a thousand reasons for that, but I didn’t see it. Because the moment I saw it I thought, “This is alarming.
12 This statement has been made by the person to an accusation that hasn’t been made against him, and there’s an indemnity involved.” Now, this is rather surprising.
HILL: Don’t you think it’s odd that a—?
PETERS: Oh, it’s odd, all right. It’s very strange.
HILL: No, no, no, no, no. Well, that’s odd – whatever. But, I mean, it’s really odd that a Sunday newspaper should hand a piece of information to you because they haven’t got the resources to explore it properly.
PETERS: No, they couldn’t track the woman down.
HILL: And how were you able to?
PETERS: Well, simply by finding out from her friends where she was. And she was on holiday in Australia.
HILL: And the newspaper couldn’t do that?
PETERS: Well, apparently not in the time frame they had. But it took me a couple of days to find it.
HILL: But the newspaper wanted you to be able to what?
PETERS: Look, I can’t explain why they gave it to me and not to someone else, but I do know that parts of this information had to come from within the National Party, ‘cause no one else could possibly have the information. For example, the hoarding costs. I haven’t released that, ‘cause it’s immaterial, but I couldn’t have got it from anyone else but somebody inside the organisation, and I did not.
HILL: As a matter of interest, the journalist who passed on this piece of information to you, is this a friend or simply…?
PETERS: I don’t even know who the person’s name is. It came to my office in Wellington while I was campaigning back in Tauranga.
HILL: How do you know it was from a journalist?
PETERS: ‘Cause my staff told me.
HILL: And they know who it was?
PETERS: Well, I took them as having, you know, significant experience of not passing on any information that was not accurate.
HILL: See, the public may well see this as dirty politics. It may well rebound on you.
PETERS: Well, that may be the case, but I’ll tell you this, in a long career, when a woman has made complaints to me, as both a lawyer and as a parliamentarian, about that sort of treatment, I’ve taken it deadly seriously, even to the extent of spending my own personal money to find out the truth.
HILL: I understand that, but the woman didn’t come to you, Mr Peters.
PETERS: No, no, but I realised that there was something amiss about this case, and I made an enquiry of a Tauranga person, and he said, “This is truly alarming. This is not her position, and she’d be most upset to learn about it.” HILL: But the woman didn’t want help and she didn’t come to you.
13 PETERS: Look, what happened was when I contacted her and told her what it meant as far as the ramifications went—
HILL: Told her what Bob Clarkson had said?
PETERS: That’s right.
HILL: And Bob Clarkson only said what he said because you were coming at him, right?
PETERS: No, no, no, I didn’t tell her that. One of her friends sent that information to Australia, and her reaction was… And I think it was courageous, I think she’s brave, and I don’t understand why so many commentators are deriding her response when, in fact, far too much of that goes on in our community and it’s simply wrong.
HILL: I don’t think commentators are deriding her response. I think commentators are suspicious of your motives.
PETERS: No, look, I saw Susan Wood last night. It was a disgraceful interview where she spent her time attacking an innocent woman who, on all the chronological and legal evidence—
HILL: You’ve said there’s more to come. Want to share?
PETERS: At that interview, at Pukekohe, yesterday before she—
HILL: We’re over that now. Do you want to share what you’ve said is more to come?
PETERS: If you’ll wait – just let your blood pressure come down, and so will I – take it more slowly, I’ll tell you what actually happened on that comment. I was being interviewed before she got off the plane, and I said, “Well, there’s more to come, and you’d better see her at the airport.” And there was more to come.
HILL: And that was it?
PETERS: Well, she got off the plane and added a whole lot of things that I had no idea were the case.
HILL: OK. Neither Helen Clark nor Don Brash seem particularly keen to work with you. Why would that be?
PETERS: Well, it’s perhaps because we don’t lie down and roll over, as some people do, for the baubles and perks of office. We believe that our five unwavering principles are worth fighting for. We’ve already got there on three of them, almost, already because so many parties in Parliament, who once called us racist on those issues, like the Treaty of Waitangi, now have fully adopted them as their own. Or law and order, or immigration, which both now Labour and National say is a dog’s breakfast. That’s three out of five. Not bad.
HILL: And you have your five priorities: law and order; the Treaty industry, as you call it; immigration; the elderly – the Golden Age Card; and the economy.
PETERS: Well, and the economy because, you know, when I look at what’s going on in New Zealand and our perpetual slide down in the wealth of nations, we’ve gotta acknowledge the guilt of the two old parties with respect to that. In the last 21 years we’ve just kept on sliding. We’ve had a huge economic revolution. Now, just remember one thing. If you look at our economy and our total earnings as a people, and then look what happens after the foreign ownership content is taken out each year, we slide hugely. And that’s why we’re just going flat out – people working harder than ever before – and we’re not going anywhere.
HILL: All right. Can you spell out – ‘cause there’s, similarly, some confusion about this – New Zealand First’s post-election position? You’ll go with the single biggest party?
14
PETERS: Oh, look, there’s no confusion other than—
HILL: Well, all right. Is it the single biggest party or the highest number of seats in a coalition block?
PETERS: Can I just say, there’s no confusion other than the singular mischief of people who report it. And I regret that.
HILL: Well, whatever. We’ll move on. What is the position—?
PETERS: Let me explain. Let me explain what I said. I said New Zealand First does not have enough that is compatible with Labour and National to go in coalition. So we are not going to go into coalition. What we’ll do – because the country needs stable government – is support the party with the most seats to form a government, and we can guarantee that it will not need to be the victim of the extreme Left or the extreme Right, by ensuring that if our vote is needed on supply and confidence, they will get it for the full three years.
HILL: You will guarantee supply and confidence to the party with the most seats.
PETERS: For the full three years. But we do have these five unwavering principles that we’d like to discuss with them.
HILL: So despite the fact that you oppose National’s tax package, if National gets—?
PETERS: No. No.
HILL: No, but I’m just checking. Let me finish the question.
PETERS: I have not opposed National’s tax package. I’m asking them, how do you stack it up? You asked Mr Brash a little while ago, “How much are you gonna borrow?” And he said between $3 billion or $4 billion. Right then I could see one thing that as the automatic corollary of that, he’s going to have tolled roads, public/private partnerships, and that’s a disaster for the new bridge in Tauranga.
HILL: So despite the fact that you oppose National’s tax package, if National gets the most—
PETERS: No, no, no, no, no. Look, there’s no one in their right mind that opposes personal tax cuts. I was the treasurer who gave the biggest one this country’s even seen – $1.1 billion in the budget of 1998. I just want to remind some people about that. But I did, in the crisis of the Asian economies toppling over everywhere and us losing 60% of our exports, still had a surplus.
HILL: Do you support National’s tax package?
PETERS: Well, of course I do if they can show me how they stack it up and what else is going to go as a consequence. I’m entitled to know that, you know, and so is every voter.
HILL: If they can show you how they stack it up and persuade you that not a nurse, not a teacher, will lose their jobs in their three years of power, you’ll support it?
PETERS: And we’re not gonna borrow for it.
HILL: You seem to have an awful lot of bottom lines, here.
PETERS: No, no, no. I haven’t got any bottom lines other than the singular experience of having been a treasurer trying to keep a surplus of $1.8 billion to $2.2 billion over those two years.
15 HILL: And, of course, then you’ve got your Golden Age Card, which National may well say, “We can’t afford that with our tax package.”
PETERS: Well, big difficulty saying that when they promised it. I didn’t sign the Super Accord of September ’93. They all did. Every other party did. I’m trying to keep them to their word.
HILL: You’re going back 12 years?
PETERS: No, no. No. What’s happened here is that they’re now on not 65 or 66, 68, which is what Mr Cullen promised them, they’re on 63.8% and falling. I’m going back 12 years because I’m saying to these parties, these people are living on incomes way below what you promised, all of you. And they’re paying for things that they cannot afford – rising power prices, rates going through the roof, insurances. They’re up against it.
HILL: Mr Peters, I’m getting the clear idea here that your guarantee on supply and confidence isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
PETERS: Well, that is a conclusion improperly arrived at on your part, because, you see, it’s not difficult to go to people and say, “Do you remember that promise you made? When are you going to keep it?”
HILL: At what point do you become the tail wagging the dog, then?
PETERS: No, no, the great thing about the elderly in this country, who need our support – as do the sick – is that those payments are a direct injection back into the economy. They’re not lost to New Zealand. And so you create enormous activity as a consequence. That’s the benefit of a direct transfer payment. Now, the elderly spend it on their towns, their cities, their children and their grandchildren.
HILL: At what point do you become the tail wagging the dog?
PETERS: Well, if you’re not in coalition, how do you ever become that point? But what we will do—
HILL: I’ll tell you how.
PETERS: No, no, I’ll tell you how.
HILL: Well, I’ll tell you how. You asked me the question; I’ll give you the answer. You withdraw supply and conf—
PETERS: I didn’t ask you—
HILL: Yes, you did.
PETERS: No, I didn’t ask the question at all.
HILL: (LAUGHS)
PETERS: I asked you to wait till I answered the question. I’m the one who’s actually out there campaigning for the vote, not you. Let me get to the point here. We intend to keep them honest. We intend to keep them accountable. That’s our long contribution to Parliament as a party and as a party leader. I’m going to make sure that what they promise people, they’re gonna deliver on.
HILL: What they promised people 12 years ago they’re gonna deliver on?
PETERS: Well, I mean, the fact of the matter is a promise never reneged upon still remains a current promise, doesn’t it?
16 HILL: How far back are you gonna go, then?
PETERS: Well, I’m not gonna go far back other than to say that on certain issues, you say to them, “Now, look, you promised this on the Treaty of Waitangi. Why are you reneging on it?”
HILL: Didn’t National once promise to have the air combat force?
PETERS: Oh, yes, they did until a few days ago.
HILL: Are you gonna hold them to that now?
PETERS: Well, I cannot see how we can possibly have a military contribution to make in the West and the South Pacific and alongside Australia unless we pull our weight, and I think without having a strike force, you don’t have, really, any force at all.
HILL: You are gonna keep them to that, then.
PETERS: Well, they’ve promised that, and I just want them to keep their promises.
HILL: So you are going to make them stick with the air combat force.
PETERS: Well, I’m gonna make sure that at every point where they seek to deviate, that there’s someone in Parliament not trying to get a ministerial post or car or office happy to say, “You’re wrong there. You should keep your promises.”
HILL: Could be an interesting session of historical promises over the next three years, then, if you and National get in.
PETERS: Well, you know, I thought that parliamentary scrutiny was about accountability and about debate. And healthy debate is about commitments kept or not kept.
HILL: We’ll take a break now. After the break, immigration.
HILL: Welcome back. I'm talking with Winston Peters, New Zealand First leader. I just want to go back a bit. At the start of your election campaign you made, quote, an iron-clad guarantee: “Your support and your party vote will not be wasted. There will be no surprises.”
PETERS: That’s right.
HILL: Unless you are more specific about what you will want as an unwavering principle, then there can be no certainty.
PETERS: I started off with those five things.
HILL: Yeah, but those five things go back into the reaches of time, Mr Peters.
PETERS: No, they don't. The great thing about it is that we’ve won, without even having to go to the election, on three things already. They all want, now, more police — more resources; they all want, now, an end to the division and separatism of the Treaty of Waitangi industry.
HILL: All in shades, though.
PETERS: No, no, no, no. Oh, no. The wonderful thing is that I'm reading my mail in their speeches. The last one is the question of the infernal constant use of the powhiri. Who made that speech? Well, I did, actually. But the reality is I can pronounce the word properly, and I know what its majesty is and when its untimely use is.
HILL: It doesn't get you back into Parliament, necessarily, with the same number of MPs you've got now, though.
17 PETERS: Ah, it just may get me back with a lot more.
HILL: Do you think?
PETERS: Ah, yes, I do think. That's the reason why I'm sitting here. And I do watch what the changed perceptions are in this country.
HILL: Your policy on immigration is to drastically reduce the inflow of migrants.
PETERS: No, no. It is to ensure that everyone comes here is coming — where there's a job concerned — to a job, to fill the skills that we can't fill.
HILL: I'm quoting you. Your policy is to drastically reduce the inflow of migrants.
PETERS: That's right, because one out of two, now, is not employed in the economy.
HILL: So you agree with my statement.
PETERS: Well, I agree with the statement, but I just want you to understand the rest of the speech.
HILL: Is 10,000 the number you want?
PETERS: Well, it would seem that if you look at who is employed in our economy, then more are required right now. And the reason for that is that we have got a flight from this country that is huge, and it's because of our low wage structure and better jobs being offered overseas. So we need to address that, to stop this flood from New Zealand and ensure the people we bring here come here to jobs, as we once did.
HILL: See, the problem is that nine years ago you campaigned for the 10,000 number.
PETERS: Yes.
HILL: And in your nearly two years as deputy prime minister, the target stayed at 35,000.
PETERS: Not so. Go and look at those figures. They fell dramatically, which was the complaint you people made the two years I was the Treasurer.
HILL: The target stayed at 35,000.
PETERS: Oh, no, no, no. I'm sorry. Go back and look on the figures. The complaint you were making back then is that immigration has fallen off dramatically with New Zealand First in government. But here's my— I had a population conference. The objective was to try and understand what wise nations do with immigration. They bring immigration to their country to fill gaps.
HILL: So, in your two years as deputy prime minister, what was the target?
PETERS: Well, I said the target should be about 15,000, because—
HILL: The target was 35,000, though, wasn't it?
PETERS: No, no, no. No. I was in coalition with National. You've got to give up and compromise some things in this business.
HILL: So, am I right or not? Was the target 35,000?
PETERS: No, the target was never for me or my party. Again — I'll say it to you slowly — the target was never for me or my party — that figure of 35,000.
18 HILL: But for the government of which you were deputy prime minister, 35,000, right?
PETERS: No, quite wrong. Quite wrong, and the figures don't bear you out. But let me tell you this. You see, the figure that I've got is the commensurate, comparative figure that Australia would have in real terms. Australia has about 82,000 per year. A country of that massive size — seven times bigger — and we have 58,000 coming every year, sometimes. How do you explain that? And yet we’ve got the bigger skills gap, after the endless 14-year exercise of mass immigration, than we've ever had in New Zealand's history.
HILL: How far back to have to go to get that quantity? We've got about 39,000 now, right?
PETERS: No, no, no. Sorry. Last year was 48,000 came here.
HILL: Right. Which is not 58,000.
PETERS: Just the last— No, three years ago 58,000. We've gone up and down — 55,000, 58,000. What I'm trying to say to you is, how can you say this has been a success when I go to the business forum in Wellington, where they say our most critical problem is not tax; it's not even red tape and compliance costs; it is a lack of skilled people to fill our workforce.
HILL: I didn't say it was a success, Mr Peters. I'm just trying to get your policy. Refugees—
PETERS: No, no, no, no.
HILL: You support the annual quota 750 refugees.
PETERS: Roll this back a bit. Just roll this back a bit. On the 4th— On the 5th of August the Minister of Immigration said that our immigration laws after six years of Labour were, quote, “a dog's breakfast”. Now, it is quite possible that if you've got a dog's breakfast to describe your laws, the results will be a dog's breakfast as well.
HILL: You support the annual quota of 750 refugees.
PETERS: I always have. That's our UN obligation.
HILL: UN obligation. Part of the UN obligation is family reunification.
PETERS: No, no, no. Not the proportions that we've got them.
HILL: What proportions would you like to see?
PETERS: Well, you know, the proportions I'd like to see is some result that doesn't see 93% of those reunified with the refugees going straight on the dole.
HILL: So, you want the reunification numbers built into the 750.
PETERS: No, no, I don't. No, I don't want that, either. I don't think that's fair. Which have got to say is, just because you've been allowed in as refugee, you cannot become, like just three boys off the Tampa, who have brought in 33 people between them already. Which part of that is our UN obligation?
HILL: You blamed the media for misrepresenting your views on immigration, especially in terms of Muslims, after a speech he gave called 'the end of tolerance”, right?
PETERS: That's right.
HILL: What is to misrepresent when the media quoted you are saying that moderate and militant Muslims and New Zealand are “like the mythical Hydra — a serpent underbelly with multiple heads capable of striking at any time, and in any direction”?
19 PETERS: Well, I'm asking the Muslim community, how do you explain the knowledge you had of a number of people being in this country — but one was a former diplomat; the other one was the former minister of agrarian reform and agriculture — and you never told anyone?
HILL: So, you are blaming the entire Muslim community.
PETERS: Well, somebody has to explain how someone is walking our streets, to their knowledge, which they would know would be of concern to our authorities, and no one knows, and no one's saying. And the Prime Minister doesn't know. The head of our Security and Intelligence Service doesn't know. What sort of country have we got when a community that's got obligations to us, because of the way we have allowed them in, are simply not telling us, as we would expect any ethnic group to give advice to the Government on this matter?
HILL: So, when the media reported you as calling the Muslim community in New Zealand “a serpent underbelly with multiple heads capable of striking at any time and in any direction”, was that misrepresenting you?
PETERS: Can I just have that there, quickly?
HILL: (HANDS DOCUMENT TO PETERS) Sure. It's your speech.
PETERS: Point to it. Where's that part?
HILL: (TURNS PAGE FOR PETERS) Page two.
PETERS: No, the part about the Muslim community in New Zealand being that.
HILL: (READS FROM DOCUMENT) The two-faced approach is how radical Islam works. In New Zealand the Muslim community have been quick to show us their more moderate face—
PETERS: Ah, so it wasn't that part there before. The quote that you put New Zealand in, it wasn't there, was it?
HILL: (CHUCKLES)
PETERS: You see, I write my speeches. I know what I say.
HILL: I just quoted it, Mr Peters.
PETERS: No, you didn't quote it. You said “the Muslim community in New Zealand”, and you added those words.
HILL: I'm sure that the—
PETERS: That is not what I said.
HILL: The Muslim community understood you.
PETERS: Good try, Kim, but I'm glad I actually looked at it.
HILL: No, well, I'm very glad that I quoted you accurately.
PETERS: The second time on this programme that you've tried that, and not accurately — with respect.
HILL: The Muslim community understood you.
PETERS: No, here we go. Read it back to them now, so the audience will know who's telling the truth here. Where's the part where the Muslim community—?
20 HILL: I can, Mr Peters. But the fact is that you were reported absolutely accurately. And the Muslim community understood what you were saying.
PETERS: I think I'm entitled to being quoted accurately.
HILL: And even your supporters understood what you were saying, because, immediately after that speech, you fell in the polls. Do you think there's a connection?
PETERS: No, I don't think there's any connection at all. At all. I have a fall in the polls when someone misrepresents what I've said – just like you did, sadly, right then. So thanks for showing me the authority, which wasn't authority at all.
HILL: It's a remarkably disingenuous position you take, Mr Peters.
PETERS: No, no, I expect to be accurately quoted. That's what good journalism is about. It's not editorialising and adding what somebody didn't say into the quote. That's bad journalism.
HILL: Did you misread the mood of the electorate when you gave the speech?
PETERS: No, look, there's no— Can you perhaps show me the poll that says I fell instantly after that?
HILL: Well, you went down after that.
PETERS: I see. So, we’re going off your authority again. Well, I don't remember that being the case. But if you say so, I’ll grant you you might be right.
HILL: You didn't go down in the polls?
PETERS: But I don't think it would relate to this speech.
HILL: How would you know?
PETERS: Well, precisely. How would I know?
HILL: See, people don't seem to be responding to you in same way as they used to.
PETERS: Do you think so?
HILL: Well, I can only go by the polls. What's your feeling?
PETERS: Well, my feeling is that we're on the rise rapidly in these closing three days— the closing week of this campaign.
HILL: Why do you think that would be?
PETERS: That's because people have withheld making a decision on the vote until the last week, which is why we’ve put all our advertising in this last week, believing that that would be the case. And because the people have had a chance to say, “Well, I’ve seen everything that's on offer, and some of it I don't like.” And what I am disturbed about in these polls is the non-announcement of the non-declared or non-vote statement to the pollsters. We don't see that. Is it 15%? Is it 25%? Is it sometimes as high as 32%? That's pretty significant in a campaign. It's important knowledge to know.
HILL: You've portrayed New Zealand First — and this is where you see the party in the spectrum of politics in New Zealand — as a moderate party, keeping them honest, keeping both Labour and National in line.
PETERS: That's right.
21 HILL: But Peter Dunne's got that role now, hasn't he?
PETERS: Look, when we talk about middle-of-the-road, centre party, we're talking about home. Those people, by their past record, are talking about a foreign country, and we all know what it is.
HILL: What is it?
PETERS: They will move depending where it is they can gain advancement to Cabinet. Mr Dunne has switched horses in the middle of the campaign. You don't see me sitting around coffee bars forlornly looking for a political lover to turn up, do you?
HILL: What happened in 1996?
PETERS: Well, nothing of the sort.
HILL: Well, hello?
PETERS: We campaigned hard—
HILL: I'm sorry, you can’t accuse me of misquoting you again, but I'm sure you'll try. (READS FROM NOTES) “Bolger, Birch and Shipley — we will not have any truck with any of those people. If you want National out, vote New Zealand First.”
PETERS: Who said that?
HILL: Uh, you did.
PETERS: You sure? Show me.
HILL: Absolutely. And you know you did. But don't go down that track. You know why people don't trust you now — because you went with National in 1996.
PETERS: No, I think Tau Henare made that statement. That's why I'm asking you.
HILL: I don't think you left anybody in any doubt, Mr Peters, that you would not have a bar of National and you would go with Labour.
PETERS: Isn't it amazing? Here we are in 2005, listening to this argument from you which is totally false. Why can I say that? Because every editorial writer, right to the last day of the 1996 campaign, said, “Mr Peters and New Zealand First refuse to declare who they will go with.”
HILL: No.
PETERS: You can't have it both ways.
HILL: Yes, one can, because you did.
PETERS: You can, but most people can't.
HILL: You had it both ways, and that's why you have now had to foreswear coalition with both National and Labour.
PETERS: No, I did not have it both ways. With respect, I did not have it both ways at all. Look at the Dom editorial writers, the Christchurch Press, The New Zealand Herald, the ODT — all said that. And I'm happy to furnish you with them, because we took copies of that out when people started saying, “Oh, but you already declared.”
HILL: It must be dreadful to be misrepresented so constantly.
22
PETERS: It's horrible. That's why I'm a stickler for the facts.
HILL: Is there anybody you respect in Parliament at the moment?
PETERS: A lot of people I respect. A lot of people I quite admire. A lot of people who I think—
HILL: Who's top of the list?
PETERS: Um, well, I wouldn't say I have a favourite. But you've got to respect people who have been around a while, who have got experience, who you know are capable.
HILL: Just give me a name.
PETERS: In what sense? Across the divide of politics?
HILL: I don't care. Who do most respect in Parliament?
PETERS: Well, I respect a lot of people. I'm not going to make that sort of decision tonight, just off the top of my head.
HILL: Is it that hard?
PETERS: No, it's not that hard. But what's it got to do with—?
HILL: I want misquote you, I promise.
PETERS: Well, you won’t have a chance to, because I'm live.
HILL: That’s right. Say it yourself. Go for it. Name a name — someone you like.
PETERS: Look, could you just quieten down and listen to me? I thought I was here to talk about New Zealand First policies, not something so transparently flippant as, “Who do you like?”
HILL: I'm sorry.
PETERS: With respect, you know, this is serious business.
HILL: Thank you for your time, Mr Peters. After the break, what you have to say about Don Brash and Winston Peters.
HILL: Welcome back. To your comments, now. And, on Don Brash, Kenn of Golden Bay says, “Don Brash has a fresh honesty about him, never seen in a politician before.”
While Pauline Kumar of Auckland asks, “Have National had their policies costed out by Treasury? And if not, why not? It's hypocritical for National to bag Labour for not releasing its student-loan figures.”
Bryan Hackett writes, “Given Don Brash’s memory problems, how can we rely on him to keep any of his election promises after the election?”
And Gianna writes, “Why is it that all the major parties except for National have women somewhere in the first four places on their party lists? National's first woman appears at number 10, and the first nine places are taken up by white men. How can this party claim to represent mainstream New Zealand?”
Dawn Griffiths asks, “Would Dr Brash like to explain to all New Zealanders why someone on his salary needs a $90 tax cut? Someone on a hell of a lot less will end up with $10.”
23 And on the interview with Winston Peters, one viewer says, “Winston, I was going to vote for you, but I want to see Labour back in. Why would I now vote New Zealand First, as you may be supporting the party I don't want to see get in? Please make a stand so I know whether I should vote for you or not.”
And Corrilee Eichler says, “Regardless of Mr Peters’ motives for exposing Mr Clarkson's past transgressions, I would like to remind the people of New Zealand that if schoolchildren behaved as Mr Clarkson does, grabbing his crotch and talking about his genitals in public, they would be referred to child psychologists.”
If you want a transcript of tonight's interviews, you can visit www.tvnz.co.nz and enter the keyword “decision ‘05”. And it'll be there tomorrow afternoon.
That’s the last interview in our leaders series special. We're back next Wednesday with another Face To Face. Join us then.
Transcripts are copyright to TVNZ and may contain errors. Transcripts should be checked against a copy of the programme to ensure accuracy.
24