November 20, 2025 • 7 mins
Winston Peters says the Coalition is doing just fine after his change of position on ACT's Regulatory Standards Bill.
The NZ First Leader says next year he will campaign on getting rid of the legislation, despite supporting it just last week.
ACT Leader David Seymour finds that worrying.
But Peters told Mike Hosking he rejects any claim the Coalition is crumbling.
He says their number one responsibility is providing a stable Government, which it is doing.
LISTEN ABOVE
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):
So some of the media got their wish yesterday as
New Zealand first lined up to tell the world they
will campaign on flipping the new regulatory Standards law. There's
nothing like a perceived fissure in a coalition to light
the fire under a journal of course. Anyway, Winston Peters
is with us. Very good morning to you.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Good morning.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Are you stirring?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
No? I tell you what I was asked a question,
And here's the point. When that letization came in twenty
twenty two, it had a referendum with it, that is,
it'd be passed but subject to a public referendum, and
we had a feeling that, well a national actor, that
at least they'll go back to that. What didn't happen
and happened to be overseas and as a consequence, we
(00:39):
didn't make as clear as we should have that we
would vote for it. But we agree to disagree. Right,
it never changed on that.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Okay, that's fine, and I accept that. I did watch
some comments on the House from Casey Costello who said,
you've got no qualms of recommending it to the House.
Does that seem at odds with what you see yesterday?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Yes, it does. But that point was Look, I a
season at the time, forget where in the world, and
that's sometimes happens. We at the heck up. We admit
that wasn't case his fault, but I've been there. I said,
don't bother to speak on an apartment and say, look,
we disagree with this, but we're going to vote for
what is part of the college agreements.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Okay, So can I also clarify that in campaigning against it,
because it's not what you wanted and you've been consistent
that it's not a bottom line and you're not going
to dine the ditch on it or is it a
bottom line?
Speaker 2 (01:26):
No, it's it's not a bottom line because I tell
you what we used to have. Doug Head, a colleague
of mine who I came into Parliament with way back
in seventy eight. The head of the Regulation of your
Committee was a serious lawyer and it was a parliament
responsibility and he was responsible to the pax Paths and
the voters of this country. To get a separate group,
it's just wrong. Look, twenty seven thousand submissions came in
(01:47):
saying nothing that they weren't off on the left. A
lot of them have planned common sense lawyers.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Yeah, I get Look, I get all that you're you're
entitled a campaign. Here's my concern is that is that
you know what's going on here is that there's to
the media just are whitting their pencil of excitement over
the fact that your coalition's falling apart headline and stuff
this morning. Is the coalition crumbling? I mean you don't
want that, do you?
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Of course not. I mean I made the point the
number one responsibility with God a matter of our difference,
is to provide a stable government to the next election,
and then stable government after that and after that that's
our responsibility. That's what the product want. But these Gennists
are celebrating and shouting, all shouting at once, and I
feel like saying, you know, I'm just discussed by the
fact that when I first came to Parliament, people in
(02:31):
the press gallery had been around fifteen twenty years and
the top of the class best to genis where now
you've got a whold of journeys that don't what yesterday
look like.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
So we can also can we to a degree? And
I don't want to cause trouble here, but Seymore shouldn't
have said what he said. Either should he because you're
not going labor.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
I don't know why if you would say that. The
real point is I met as clear as daylight that
having been betrayed and stabed in the back and lied
to and misled or the product being misled, never trust Sepkins.
That's the end of it. I've mete it very clear.
But I'm not going to go on my whole career,
every meeting getting up with a question, who are you
going to go? If this is the real question of askings,
(03:10):
they don't ask themselves who's going to go with us? Yeah,
that's the real listue coming on twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Well, that's fine, that's fine, But my concern, my overarching concern,
is that we are in desperate need of cohesive government
who are turning this country around and providing us with
the opportunities that we once enjoyed. And the more time
we spend on the frippery and the headline clickbait nonsense,
the less time and energy goes into the main job.
Is that fair?
Speaker 2 (03:35):
That's fair enough, that's fair enough. But we're do journists,
ask you an honest question, and in this strange and
none of the other people haven't bothered what we care, we think,
but what do journals ask you? An honest question there
titled to an answer, and I quietly said, look, we
didn't like this here we're campaign against the next lesson.
In the meantime, it stands we've all got our right
to lay out our manifesto, surely, But no, these journalists
(03:56):
are just screaming from the rooftop because I think they
might see a schism that's artificially being created.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Well exactly. Well, that's my other concern about a MMP.
It seems odd that after thirty years, we still don't
understand that you've got to delineate and differentiate yourself from national,
from act or from anyone else you Otherwise, what's the
point of being a party?
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yes, but around the rest of the world they understand
that the medium understand it. But an assuming they have
been abs to abdurate stubborn obs in the extreme as
to not telling the public outworks. We're in the market
share business. But we get on as a country and
we get on as a democracy.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Right, So for the record, you guys as a government
as a coalition are getting on getting on fine. And
there is nothing to see here. Is that fair?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
That's precisely the position. But more importantly, we always knew
and we said so that twenty twenty three was a
two election victory, that we had a win in twenty
twenty six because the country was on the cusp of
Banilla Millanma another Venezuela. And I'm telling it that's exactly
where it was going to go if these people we
got back in have a good hard look across the house.
(05:05):
Please don't tell me you can see even half a
cabinet over there.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
So where are we at with lux and getting rolled
and Bishop being the new leader before Christmas?
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Now you see this? Is that the kind of thing
that what am I doing on this thing? Talking about
the National Party leadership? Well, you're talking about the primary leadership. First.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
It would material change your relationship a bishop turned up
to be the leader of the National Party, wouldn't it.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
But look it's the National Party leadership and it's over
to them after they're the question becomes what do other
people think of that? But they're not going to get
me as I would love to say, Oh, Winston Peters
have been involved in the National Party leadership question. No
I'm not. You're not going to get me or any
of my colleagues involved in that. We get on do
our job properly, and.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Are you doing your job properly? Do you think?
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Well, if you can find anybody else who's doing the hours,
or rather putting the time and getting the results that
we have, please tell me. But I just say this
country two point three but in dolls, and I had
half the media scare me out trying to make out
that it wasn't that. And I thought, there's Heather Simpsons,
he's pretty tough. They've got Chris McKenzie hither there I
mean other people there, all the on the committee of
(06:12):
people who got this together a fairy holdings and there
they're saying that the people who gave that information must
be lying. This is extraordinary stuff. These people are so negative.
I can see why the mainstream ministry is collapsing in media.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
The reference I was asking was the ipsoce can you
explain how it is? And this is not a criticism
because I can't explain it. How is it that the
bulk of New Zealanders don't perceive labor as being in
charge of a number of policies when they've got no
policies and they haven't done anything apart from bug of
the country. How is it a poll comes up with
life and why are you not getting more credit for
what you're doing?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Well? Some of us are, but here's the point, and
that doesn't help. But the reility is, yes, it is.
I don't mind you. Some of these poles are seriously
worry about. But it's this. Politics is a complex business.
You've got to understand. You've got to have a neck.
You've got to be able to read the room and
hear the room. That's all I'm gonna say.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Okay, appreciate your time, have a good weekend, have a
good trip to China. Winston Peters there was twice this week,
wasn't weird? I'm on you, it's virtually irregular. For more
from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks
it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
So some of the media got their wish yesterday as
New Zealand first lined up to tell the world they
will campaign on flipping the new regulatory Standards law. There's
nothing like a perceived fissure in a coalition to light
the fire under a journal of course. Anyway, Winston Peters
is with us. Very good morning to you.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Good morning.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Are you stirring?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
No? I tell you what I was asked a question,
And here's the point. When that letization came in twenty
twenty two, it had a referendum with it, that is,
it'd be passed but subject to a public referendum, and
we had a feeling that, well a national actor, that
at least they'll go back to that. What didn't happen
and happened to be overseas and as a consequence, we
(00:39):
didn't make as clear as we should have that we
would vote for it. But we agree to disagree. Right,
it never changed on that.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Okay, that's fine, and I accept that. I did watch
some comments on the House from Casey Costello who said,
you've got no qualms of recommending it to the House.
Does that seem at odds with what you see yesterday?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Yes, it does. But that point was Look, I a
season at the time, forget where in the world, and
that's sometimes happens. We at the heck up. We admit
that wasn't case his fault, but I've been there. I said,
don't bother to speak on an apartment and say, look,
we disagree with this, but we're going to vote for
what is part of the college agreements.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Okay, So can I also clarify that in campaigning against it,
because it's not what you wanted and you've been consistent
that it's not a bottom line and you're not going
to dine the ditch on it or is it a
bottom line?
Speaker 2 (01:26):
No, it's it's not a bottom line because I tell
you what we used to have. Doug Head, a colleague
of mine who I came into Parliament with way back
in seventy eight. The head of the Regulation of your
Committee was a serious lawyer and it was a parliament
responsibility and he was responsible to the pax Paths and
the voters of this country. To get a separate group,
it's just wrong. Look, twenty seven thousand submissions came in
(01:47):
saying nothing that they weren't off on the left. A
lot of them have planned common sense lawyers.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Yeah, I get Look, I get all that you're you're
entitled a campaign. Here's my concern is that is that
you know what's going on here is that there's to
the media just are whitting their pencil of excitement over
the fact that your coalition's falling apart headline and stuff
this morning. Is the coalition crumbling? I mean you don't
want that, do you?
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Of course not. I mean I made the point the
number one responsibility with God a matter of our difference,
is to provide a stable government to the next election,
and then stable government after that and after that that's
our responsibility. That's what the product want. But these Gennists
are celebrating and shouting, all shouting at once, and I
feel like saying, you know, I'm just discussed by the
fact that when I first came to Parliament, people in
(02:31):
the press gallery had been around fifteen twenty years and
the top of the class best to genis where now
you've got a whold of journeys that don't what yesterday
look like.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
So we can also can we to a degree? And
I don't want to cause trouble here, but Seymore shouldn't
have said what he said. Either should he because you're
not going labor.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
I don't know why if you would say that. The
real point is I met as clear as daylight that
having been betrayed and stabed in the back and lied
to and misled or the product being misled, never trust Sepkins.
That's the end of it. I've mete it very clear.
But I'm not going to go on my whole career,
every meeting getting up with a question, who are you
going to go? If this is the real question of askings,
(03:10):
they don't ask themselves who's going to go with us? Yeah,
that's the real listue coming on twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Well, that's fine, that's fine, But my concern, my overarching concern,
is that we are in desperate need of cohesive government
who are turning this country around and providing us with
the opportunities that we once enjoyed. And the more time
we spend on the frippery and the headline clickbait nonsense,
the less time and energy goes into the main job.
Is that fair?
Speaker 2 (03:35):
That's fair enough, that's fair enough. But we're do journists,
ask you an honest question, and in this strange and
none of the other people haven't bothered what we care, we think,
but what do journals ask you? An honest question there
titled to an answer, and I quietly said, look, we
didn't like this here we're campaign against the next lesson.
In the meantime, it stands we've all got our right
to lay out our manifesto, surely, But no, these journalists
(03:56):
are just screaming from the rooftop because I think they
might see a schism that's artificially being created.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Well exactly. Well, that's my other concern about a MMP.
It seems odd that after thirty years, we still don't
understand that you've got to delineate and differentiate yourself from national,
from act or from anyone else you Otherwise, what's the
point of being a party?
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yes, but around the rest of the world they understand
that the medium understand it. But an assuming they have
been abs to abdurate stubborn obs in the extreme as
to not telling the public outworks. We're in the market
share business. But we get on as a country and
we get on as a democracy.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Right, So for the record, you guys as a government
as a coalition are getting on getting on fine. And
there is nothing to see here. Is that fair?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
That's precisely the position. But more importantly, we always knew
and we said so that twenty twenty three was a
two election victory, that we had a win in twenty
twenty six because the country was on the cusp of
Banilla Millanma another Venezuela. And I'm telling it that's exactly
where it was going to go if these people we
got back in have a good hard look across the house.
(05:05):
Please don't tell me you can see even half a
cabinet over there.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
So where are we at with lux and getting rolled
and Bishop being the new leader before Christmas?
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Now you see this? Is that the kind of thing
that what am I doing on this thing? Talking about
the National Party leadership? Well, you're talking about the primary leadership. First.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
It would material change your relationship a bishop turned up
to be the leader of the National Party, wouldn't it.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
But look it's the National Party leadership and it's over
to them after they're the question becomes what do other
people think of that? But they're not going to get
me as I would love to say, Oh, Winston Peters
have been involved in the National Party leadership question. No
I'm not. You're not going to get me or any
of my colleagues involved in that. We get on do
our job properly, and.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Are you doing your job properly? Do you think?
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Well, if you can find anybody else who's doing the hours,
or rather putting the time and getting the results that
we have, please tell me. But I just say this
country two point three but in dolls, and I had
half the media scare me out trying to make out
that it wasn't that. And I thought, there's Heather Simpsons,
he's pretty tough. They've got Chris McKenzie hither there I
mean other people there, all the on the committee of
(06:12):
people who got this together a fairy holdings and there
they're saying that the people who gave that information must
be lying. This is extraordinary stuff. These people are so negative.
I can see why the mainstream ministry is collapsing in media.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
The reference I was asking was the ipsoce can you
explain how it is? And this is not a criticism
because I can't explain it. How is it that the
bulk of New Zealanders don't perceive labor as being in
charge of a number of policies when they've got no
policies and they haven't done anything apart from bug of
the country. How is it a poll comes up with
life and why are you not getting more credit for
what you're doing?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Well? Some of us are, but here's the point, and
that doesn't help. But the reility is, yes, it is.
I don't mind you. Some of these poles are seriously
worry about. But it's this. Politics is a complex business.
You've got to understand. You've got to have a neck.
You've got to be able to read the room and
hear the room. That's all I'm gonna say.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Okay, appreciate your time, have a good weekend, have a
good trip to China. Winston Peters there was twice this week,
wasn't weird? I'm on you, it's virtually irregular. For more
from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks
it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
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.