September 10, 2025 • 10 mins
The NZ First leader, Foreign Minister, and former Deputy Prime Minister talks 9/11, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, KiwiSaver, National Super, ditching Paris, and Stuart Nash.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Winston Peters is the New Zealand first leader, former Deputy
Prime Minister Winston Today is nine to eleven New Zealand time.
I realized it's tomorrow, American time, twenty four years on.
What do you reflect back on? Where were you? What
were you doing?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
And I'm getting ready to go to work with my
colleague Ron Mark, a former MP and now mayor of Cartans,
rang me to say that it happened, and I found
it absolutely incredible.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Talking about horrible things happening in the United States. We've
had the assassination of right wing youth activist Charlie Kirk,
fears of more political violence. Gee, the world's in an
unstable place at the moment.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Winston Peters I look a'ts a tragedy, but I don't
know why people were describing him as a right winger.
The fact is he was out there at universities and
over campuses, talking openly to people, encouraging free debate. Here
on both sides of the story. He was always courteous,
He's always mentally and is worth watching. And to have
(01:03):
him just described as you know, right wingers, though, somehow
that justifies this assassination. I know you've met that of
what other people have said, but I dispute that. I
think that in a democracy, people have appeared to hear
beside the story very critical. That's the very nature of it. So, yes,
it's a sad, very very very sad event.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
We are getting more extreme on either side of the
political divide. We're heading further to the right and further
to the left. And I think back to when you
entered Parliament. It was kind of national and labor and
a better social credit thrown and for good measure.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Yes, but in those days, you know, the it was
understood that the politics was a place where people had
serious passions about what they believed, and so the debate
could be very very heated. But when it was over,
the difference was we leave the room and you were
back there having a lunch or or having it chat
(02:00):
with your opponent. Alf we realized that it was the debating
where the moment of matter started and that's where it
was left. But of later, of course I've come with
the total different attitude. It's twenty four to seven of
hatred and sadly not a widerness to have the debate,
or how shall I put if you're going to put
one powerful argument. You should have bear to hear another
(02:21):
one from the other side. If they're able to munt one,
that's what's been lost.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Now let's have a look at what you've been up
to in the past week and New Zealand first gathering
of the Faithful and Parmeister north of thousand there, your
big policy announcement was around key We Saver and I
think everyone would probably agree that ten percent would be
an ideal level to get contributions to. You have said
it will be funded via tax cuts, but you haven't
(02:47):
costed this.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Nook. The reality is, how can you cost it when
you've got and it just came out yesterday, So many
who have signed up for KEI we Save not actually saving.
This is the first time there's decline. This is the
very last announcement that made just yesterday. So we pit
the thing at the right time. And when you say
costed it, I'm saying to people, look at the cost
(03:10):
of not doing it. I came here. I came into
politics in my first interest when I was a young
lawyer fifty years ago, when there was a Labor Party
plan which immediately had two serious defects. Women in the
name because they weren't in the workforce, and then volumes
they are now were not included, and the maturity time
was so light. But instead of saying across party lines
(03:35):
on National's part, look we'll fix it, they got rid
of it. They said it some sort of communist plot.
They own their own country, the same sort of plan
that saw Singapore when Temasek have so much asset wealth
ownership in Singapore and indeed around the world. So the
trillion dollars we could have saved is not there. And
my point is you can't afford not to do it.
(03:56):
And the second thing is when I hear an economic answer,
let's say it's going to cost between twelve and twenty
eight billion dollars, right then he doesn't know what on
earth he's talking about. Nobody would have spread that wide,
has got any ability to do the calculations. But my
point is we can't afford not to do it. Here
we are fifty years on and we need to address it.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Why have you got your head still in the sand
over the age of eligibility for National super I know
you're back at that, but it would seem obvious to
a blind man, winstant Peters that we cannot afford to
keep it at sixty five years of age.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Yes, And here you go, you're just accepting that the
party you've backed in this economic failures, in this neoliberal
experiment of Ruth Witchison, has not been successful. And therefore
the economy that can easily afford five percent if it
was running properly, can't because it's not running properly. Now,
let's get the economy fixed up and not trying to
bland other people. Look, let me tell you this. A
(04:52):
new zeal superheuation was made for everybody so that everybody
would be equal who after some cases forty five years
hard work win titled to retire with some dignity and grace.
We said. So, then we've even raised it from twenty
to twenty five, from sixty to sixty five. And now
you start saying the same thing over again, because instead
(05:14):
of addressing your own failures as politicians, that is running
us better and much high performing economy, which we should
do and which we once did. You remember the Health
in days a barely layer party, and then the National
Party in the forties and the fifties, where we were
tripping along a GDP growth of five and a half
percent year upon year upon year. We met ourselves within
the top two three economies in the world. We were
(05:35):
voted to be the best Monday comby in the world
nineteen fifty two.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Nineteen fifty two. As you well know, Korean Wall boom
unhindered access to Mother England. They would take everything we
could produce. We live in different times.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
No, no, no, no, no, you did well until he
said that, because after the three and war was over,
then was your expect nation fifty seven, fifty eight, sixty
sixty one, sixty three, sixty five, all the way sixty nine.
What's your explanation now no Korean war? Then no, no, sorry. Look,
every time you try and say have one, needn't successful?
They say things like the beer or when you say
(06:09):
Singapore iss says, let's say, oh it's their location, or
when you talk about oh they're in the EU, oh yes,
and so all the rest of the country in the EU.
But the island was for many years after the early
eighties a standout success story. They went to the bottom
and they decided, I will do We'll start duplicating what
countries like Taiwan or time is like Taiwan and Singapore
are doing it much to their serious credit. We've got
(06:32):
a good repon ownership and an up to our failures
for goingness sake, and only then can we start getting
it right.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
Okay, just want to finish on. One of my correspondents
yesterday talked about the rush to come out of the
climate change closet, the fascinating arms race between Seymour and
Peters to claim who thought of getting out of Paris first?
Who did think of it first?
Speaker 2 (06:56):
I wish you guys in the mainstream you to do
some home. We'll go and look at but no, no,
don't laugh. Go and looked at the third reading. Right,
go and look at the third reading that brought this
matter into legislation as a result of the National Party
sending Bennett over to Paris to sign up. And there
is no non vote, there's no demur So the first
(07:19):
person that that raised it recently was me in an
interview on the thirty first of January issue. I said, look,
if four nations China, India, USA and Russia are not
part of it now sixty percent of the missions, how
can we not be questioning whether this is Bible anymore?
I raised the issue and guess what imitation's the most
(07:42):
sincere form of flattery outcomes another party and starts saying
the same thing. Go and look at the chronology. I'll
give you ten thousand dollars that I'm right and that
somebody else is in imitation mode. Are you disputing it? No,
you're not. So here's some facts there so you thought of.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
It first out there. Of course you and David can
be friends.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Oh look, now, look, let me tell you. We expect
in politics to make your contribution, put your own insight
inside internal thinking. You cannot progress if you have seen
some other colleague a party with a better writing, and
you started to see it and claim it as yours,
Because it just won't work. It doesn't work towards good,
foolish and arrangements. But I realize that some people are
(08:26):
new in their inexperienced and they've got a lot to learn.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
What dictates you being a member of the mainstream media?
And is that an insult if you are a member
of the mainstream media, No.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
It's not. There are some seriously good people in the
mainstream media. But in my view, and having analyzed it
as their producers and the people behind them who are
not letting them do the job of it, not giving
them time and resources for proper research and investigative journalism.
I don't just blame the mainstream media. I'm saying that
people behind them are not the mind quality sentence that
we were once proud of. I can recall a press
(08:58):
gathery in this kind used to be the pinnacle of
the profession. Now they've got people turn a turtle out
of dualism, schoore. It won't do. We're talking about an economy,
we're talking about politics, something that put twenty four seven
controls everybody's life. So we better have with this and
report what's going on. That's all I'm trying to say
to you. Present company accepted, Well.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Thank you. What are you going to do with Stuart
Nash quick final question?
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Well, he's apologized for making a mistake. He realizes it
was a bit of a clanger.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Though I know that you that you're a You've got
impeccable manners and etiquette. You would never ever utter that
from your lips.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
It's a clanger. But as I said to him when
he called me up to I said, thinking it's something
when you get out of pology at all, reactions don't
realize the studency and everything that's important. So if you
want to be back in the political game, then the
rules apply, and they apply now. But he apologize and
for I said to him, I think the person you're
(09:59):
most worried about what you wife thinks And he said yes.
I said, are you on? Are you sleeping on the
cows for the next month or worth? For that effect,
Now he's got it. People make mistakes, however, this is
the good part. He freely up to it and apologized unreservedly.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Winston Peters, thanks for your time today on the country,
always informative and entertaining.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
No thank you, good luck
Winston Peters is the New Zealand first leader, former Deputy
Prime Minister Winston Today is nine to eleven New Zealand time.
I realized it's tomorrow, American time, twenty four years on.
What do you reflect back on? Where were you? What
were you doing?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
And I'm getting ready to go to work with my
colleague Ron Mark, a former MP and now mayor of Cartans,
rang me to say that it happened, and I found
it absolutely incredible.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Talking about horrible things happening in the United States. We've
had the assassination of right wing youth activist Charlie Kirk,
fears of more political violence. Gee, the world's in an
unstable place at the moment.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Winston Peters I look a'ts a tragedy, but I don't
know why people were describing him as a right winger.
The fact is he was out there at universities and
over campuses, talking openly to people, encouraging free debate. Here
on both sides of the story. He was always courteous,
He's always mentally and is worth watching. And to have
(01:03):
him just described as you know, right wingers, though, somehow
that justifies this assassination. I know you've met that of
what other people have said, but I dispute that. I
think that in a democracy, people have appeared to hear
beside the story very critical. That's the very nature of it. So, yes,
it's a sad, very very very sad event.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
We are getting more extreme on either side of the
political divide. We're heading further to the right and further
to the left. And I think back to when you
entered Parliament. It was kind of national and labor and
a better social credit thrown and for good measure.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Yes, but in those days, you know, the it was
understood that the politics was a place where people had
serious passions about what they believed, and so the debate
could be very very heated. But when it was over,
the difference was we leave the room and you were
back there having a lunch or or having it chat
(02:00):
with your opponent. Alf we realized that it was the debating
where the moment of matter started and that's where it
was left. But of later, of course I've come with
the total different attitude. It's twenty four to seven of
hatred and sadly not a widerness to have the debate,
or how shall I put if you're going to put
one powerful argument. You should have bear to hear another
(02:21):
one from the other side. If they're able to munt one,
that's what's been lost.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Now let's have a look at what you've been up
to in the past week and New Zealand first gathering
of the Faithful and Parmeister north of thousand there, your
big policy announcement was around key We Saver and I
think everyone would probably agree that ten percent would be
an ideal level to get contributions to. You have said
it will be funded via tax cuts, but you haven't
(02:47):
costed this.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Nook. The reality is, how can you cost it when
you've got and it just came out yesterday, So many
who have signed up for KEI we Save not actually saving.
This is the first time there's decline. This is the
very last announcement that made just yesterday. So we pit
the thing at the right time. And when you say
costed it, I'm saying to people, look at the cost
(03:10):
of not doing it. I came here. I came into
politics in my first interest when I was a young
lawyer fifty years ago, when there was a Labor Party
plan which immediately had two serious defects. Women in the
name because they weren't in the workforce, and then volumes
they are now were not included, and the maturity time
was so light. But instead of saying across party lines
(03:35):
on National's part, look we'll fix it, they got rid
of it. They said it some sort of communist plot.
They own their own country, the same sort of plan
that saw Singapore when Temasek have so much asset wealth
ownership in Singapore and indeed around the world. So the
trillion dollars we could have saved is not there. And
my point is you can't afford not to do it.
(03:56):
And the second thing is when I hear an economic answer,
let's say it's going to cost between twelve and twenty
eight billion dollars, right then he doesn't know what on
earth he's talking about. Nobody would have spread that wide,
has got any ability to do the calculations. But my
point is we can't afford not to do it. Here
we are fifty years on and we need to address it.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Why have you got your head still in the sand
over the age of eligibility for National super I know
you're back at that, but it would seem obvious to
a blind man, winstant Peters that we cannot afford to
keep it at sixty five years of age.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Yes, And here you go, you're just accepting that the
party you've backed in this economic failures, in this neoliberal
experiment of Ruth Witchison, has not been successful. And therefore
the economy that can easily afford five percent if it
was running properly, can't because it's not running properly. Now,
let's get the economy fixed up and not trying to
bland other people. Look, let me tell you this. A
(04:52):
new zeal superheuation was made for everybody so that everybody
would be equal who after some cases forty five years
hard work win titled to retire with some dignity and grace.
We said. So, then we've even raised it from twenty
to twenty five, from sixty to sixty five. And now
you start saying the same thing over again, because instead
(05:14):
of addressing your own failures as politicians, that is running
us better and much high performing economy, which we should
do and which we once did. You remember the Health
in days a barely layer party, and then the National
Party in the forties and the fifties, where we were
tripping along a GDP growth of five and a half
percent year upon year upon year. We met ourselves within
the top two three economies in the world. We were
(05:35):
voted to be the best Monday comby in the world
nineteen fifty two.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Nineteen fifty two. As you well know, Korean Wall boom
unhindered access to Mother England. They would take everything we
could produce. We live in different times.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
No, no, no, no, no, you did well until he
said that, because after the three and war was over,
then was your expect nation fifty seven, fifty eight, sixty
sixty one, sixty three, sixty five, all the way sixty nine.
What's your explanation now no Korean war? Then no, no, sorry. Look,
every time you try and say have one, needn't successful?
They say things like the beer or when you say
(06:09):
Singapore iss says, let's say, oh it's their location, or
when you talk about oh they're in the EU, oh yes,
and so all the rest of the country in the EU.
But the island was for many years after the early
eighties a standout success story. They went to the bottom
and they decided, I will do We'll start duplicating what
countries like Taiwan or time is like Taiwan and Singapore
are doing it much to their serious credit. We've got
(06:32):
a good repon ownership and an up to our failures
for goingness sake, and only then can we start getting
it right.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
Okay, just want to finish on. One of my correspondents
yesterday talked about the rush to come out of the
climate change closet, the fascinating arms race between Seymour and
Peters to claim who thought of getting out of Paris first?
Who did think of it first?
Speaker 2 (06:56):
I wish you guys in the mainstream you to do
some home. We'll go and look at but no, no,
don't laugh. Go and looked at the third reading. Right,
go and look at the third reading that brought this
matter into legislation as a result of the National Party
sending Bennett over to Paris to sign up. And there
is no non vote, there's no demur So the first
(07:19):
person that that raised it recently was me in an
interview on the thirty first of January issue. I said, look,
if four nations China, India, USA and Russia are not
part of it now sixty percent of the missions, how
can we not be questioning whether this is Bible anymore?
I raised the issue and guess what imitation's the most
(07:42):
sincere form of flattery outcomes another party and starts saying
the same thing. Go and look at the chronology. I'll
give you ten thousand dollars that I'm right and that
somebody else is in imitation mode. Are you disputing it? No,
you're not. So here's some facts there so you thought of.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
It first out there. Of course you and David can
be friends.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Oh look, now, look, let me tell you. We expect
in politics to make your contribution, put your own insight
inside internal thinking. You cannot progress if you have seen
some other colleague a party with a better writing, and
you started to see it and claim it as yours,
Because it just won't work. It doesn't work towards good,
foolish and arrangements. But I realize that some people are
(08:26):
new in their inexperienced and they've got a lot to learn.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
What dictates you being a member of the mainstream media?
And is that an insult if you are a member
of the mainstream media, No.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
It's not. There are some seriously good people in the
mainstream media. But in my view, and having analyzed it
as their producers and the people behind them who are
not letting them do the job of it, not giving
them time and resources for proper research and investigative journalism.
I don't just blame the mainstream media. I'm saying that
people behind them are not the mind quality sentence that
we were once proud of. I can recall a press
(08:58):
gathery in this kind used to be the pinnacle of
the profession. Now they've got people turn a turtle out
of dualism, schoore. It won't do. We're talking about an economy,
we're talking about politics, something that put twenty four seven
controls everybody's life. So we better have with this and
report what's going on. That's all I'm trying to say
to you. Present company accepted, Well.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Thank you. What are you going to do with Stuart
Nash quick final question?
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Well, he's apologized for making a mistake. He realizes it
was a bit of a clanger.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Though I know that you that you're a You've got
impeccable manners and etiquette. You would never ever utter that
from your lips.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
It's a clanger. But as I said to him when
he called me up to I said, thinking it's something
when you get out of pology at all, reactions don't
realize the studency and everything that's important. So if you
want to be back in the political game, then the
rules apply, and they apply now. But he apologize and
for I said to him, I think the person you're
(09:59):
most worried about what you wife thinks And he said yes.
I said, are you on? Are you sleeping on the
cows for the next month or worth? For that effect,
Now he's got it. People make mistakes, however, this is
the good part. He freely up to it and apologized unreservedly.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Winston Peters, thanks for your time today on the country,
always informative and entertaining.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
No thank you, good luck
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Herd with Colin Cowherd
The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a thought-provoking, opinionated, and topic-driven journey through the top sports stories of the day.