Q+A: Greg Boyed Interviews Winston Peters
 
Winston Peters adds another bottom-line to New Zealand First coalition deals: Super rate must be increased from 66% of the average wage to 68%.
 
“Oh, look, it is a bottom line, and that’s why we had the law changed to 66%, because you can recall National took it down to 60%.”
 
“My stock-in-trade is to say we’re going to do something and do it.”
 
Peters says keeping superannuation entitlement age at 65 is a bottom line. But he won’t commit to no change while he’s leader and adds caveats:
·         “The fact is that nobody has made out a case for changing the age at this point in time.”
 
·         “65 is a date or time from which we’re not going to move until we see some fundamental facts as to why we should.”
 
·         “Well, no one can tell you the demographics of society 35, 50 years from now. They claim to, but that’s not correct.”
 
Peters confirms his belief that this is the week National lost the 2014 election, because of asset-sales legislation: “These are sort of issues that break a government’s back.”
 
Asked if National’s certain loss means no chance of a coalition deal, Peters says, “We have never ruled agreements in or out before the public has had a chance to vote.”
 
Despite John Key’s challenge, won’t rule out coalition deal with Labour: “Labour says [it wants to raise the super entitlement age to] 67 sometime after 2021. Well, there are three elections before that.”
 
Peters also won’t rule out becoming coalition partners with the Greens, as he did in 2005.
 
Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE. Repeats of Q&A will screen on TVNZ7 at 9pm Sundays and 9am and 1pm on Mondays.       
 
Thanks to the support from NZ ON Air.
 
Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA
 
 
Q+A
 
GREG BOYED INTERVIEWS WINSTON PETERS
 
 
GREG BOYED
Earlier this morning, I asked Winston Peters whether keeping super at 65 was a bottom line for him.
 
WINSTON PETERS - NZ First Leader
Well, of course it is. The fact is that nobody has made out a case for changing the age at this point in time. What you’ve got is a number of people who are seeking to panic the public with misinformation, and their design is to take over the superannuation industry and, in the end, have it privatised to their advantage. And so they’re putting all sorts of forecasts out there which are not accurate, and the reality is that any sound economy - and even with the sick economy we’ve got - at 4.7% of the GDP, we can afford what we’ve got now: a universal scheme at 66% of the net average wage.
 
GREG             You say at this point in time. Is there a time limit on that 65 age, or is it an indefinite thing as far as you’re concerned?
 
WINSTON      Well, no one can tell you the demographics of society 35, 50 years from now. They claim to, but that’s not correct. There’s a whole lot of things that could change all that, and if we want to have that debate, we could. But the fact is as far as we know and as far as all the calculations that I used for the super referendum of ’97 or the Cullen fund used for their Cullen fund predications, nothing has changed.
 
GREG             So we’ll get a bottom line on this: while you’re the leader of NZ First, 65 is the bottom line, end of story.
 
WINSTON      No, look, I’m not going to enter this stupid debate where people are trying to start at shadows and then think it’s substantial behaviour or substantive behaviour to respond to it.
 
GREG             It’s a simple question, though. Your stock-in-trade…  Is it going to stay at 65 while you’re the leader of NZ First or not? Yes or no?
 
WINSTON      It’s not a simple question at all. The plain fact is I’m putting it to you as to why are you asking this question? And you’re asking it because a number of people in the financial sector have decided they will get the political system to, as they have done in the past, switch the promises of universality and fairness at 65 to a private scheme, and there’ll be all sorts of changes coming with that as well - means test, a surtax - all of which Labour and National have done in the past. So when you think it’s a simple question, I’m telling you it’s not. It’s a question that is complex because it seeks to get political parties to go back on their word, which is the history of this fund since 1984 and as we all well know. One party stands out from all that. That party’s NZ First, and what you have today is because we have preserved it, and we’re going to go on preserving it. And, yes, 65 is a date or time from which we’re not going to move until we see some fundamental facts as to why we should.
 
GREG             So by that we can say that 65 is something that is going to prevent you ever having a coalition with Labour.
 
WINSTON      Well, look, we’re not going to engage in these trite ideas of having negotiations two and a half years before an election. That’s what Mr Key’s trying to do. That’s what, with respect to yourself, you’re trying to do. Well, we’re not going to fall for that. We’re going to be going into the 2014 election or whenever they fly a white flag earlier with a clear promise to a whole lot of people, including the elderly, to deliver as we have always done. We’re not going to compromise that.
 
GREG             Labour says 67.
 
WINSTON      No, they don’t. Labour says 67 sometime after 2021. Well, there are three elections before that. I can’t see how this is an issue unless, of course, someone gets sucked in to making it an issue, and we are not going to be doing that in NZ First.
 
GREG             So there is a possibility, then, with Labour.
 
WINSTON      Well, see, why are you asking this?
 
GREG             Well, I’m asking this, Winston, because it’s your stock-in-trade-
 
WINSTON      Let me ask you- It’s not my stock-in-trade.
 
GREG             This is what NZ First has built its reputation on, it’s hung it’s hat on, and now you don’t want to.
 
WINSTON      This is not my stock-intrade for me. My stock-in-trade is to say we’re going to do something and do it. And the superannuitants in this country know full well that what they’ve got now without the surtax and at 66% of the net average wage is what NZ First has delivered. The rest have had to comply with it. Now, my stock-in-trade is not also to go and have negotiations on a coalition deal if the next election is two and a half years away. Why would that be an intelligent response?
 
GREG             Let’s get away from the age, then.
 
WINSTON      Thank heavens for that.
 
GREG             Let’s talk about the contribution. 66% to 68%. Is that a bottom line for you?
 
WINSTON      Oh, look, it is a bottom line, and that’s why we had the law changed to 66, because you can recall National took it down to 60%. When they had the super accord of September 1993, all these political parties, with one exception, agreed the ceiling would be 72% and the floor 65. NZ First refused to go into that arrangement because we knew what was going to happen. The moment the arrangement was over, they all went straight to 65 and even as low as 60. The older people of this country and those soon to retire should remember these facts and this performance.
 
GREG             In 2005, you went into government with Labour, but only on the condition that Greens were not included. Do you still rule working with the Greens out?
 
WINSTON      Well, again, you know, if these discussions are important, the facts are important as well. We didn’t go into government with the Labour Party. We had a confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Party. At the time, we could not see how we could reconcile our policies with the Green Party’s policies, and that’s what we said. As for the future, well, we’ll see how things develop.
 
GREG             You said in Parliament this week on the subject of asset sales that this is the point where National lost the next election. Do you stand by that?
 
WINSTON      Yeah, I do. I believe this is the issue. These are sort of issues that break a government’s back. I believe that with respect to the anti-smack legislation for the Labour Government of 2005, 2008. I thought they made a fatal mistake. I think these people have made a fatal mistake as well in so arrogantly dismissing the concerns of the people of this country as to who should own what and where in New Zealand.
 
GREG             Well, despite you saying before how loathe you are to look forward to the next election, you’ve pretty much just ruled National out from winning the next election, so I guess any coalition with National is not even an issue. They’re not going to be there, according to you. (WINSTON LAUGHS)
 
WINSTON      Well, can I just remind you that since 1990, no political party has even won an election. I’m asking you and your commentator reporter colleagues to stop using old-fashioned, out of date vocabulary. It does not exist or pertain or is relevant anymore. No party has won since 1990, even though the first MMP election was in 1996. You recall 1993 - a hung Parliament. Jim Bolger had to get a Labour MP to be a speaker. In short, to cross the house.
 
GREG             Whatever you want to call it, though, can you rule out any NZ First-National coalition, supply, whatever you want to call it? Can you rule out any agreement with National come 2014?
 
WINSTON      We have never ruled agreements in or out before the public has had a chance to vote. And if I could just make this request: please do not ask Winston Peters or NZ First to start answering questions about forming coalitions two and a half years out from an election or one year out or six months out, because we have never fallen for that, and in that respect, we have been the only party who has never done that.
 
GREG             John Key has said he’s not going to rule out working with you. Is that not just a little bit insulting?
 
WINSTON      Well, I don’t really respond to what John Key says and does. He has all sorts of pretentious statements about things and values. This is someone who worked for one of the most corrupt business in the world, namely Merrill Lynch.
 
GREG             Given his horror week and with ACC and with asset sales and with even going back to education, what advice would you give to John Key?
 
WINSTON      Look, this government has no vision. It has no A plan. It has no B plan. If you look at ACC, Crafar farms, the asset sales and the teacher class sizes and the fiasco after fiasco on the Nick Smith and other things, this government is showing that it’s incompetent. It’s long since run out of any intellectual ideas, and all you’re getting now is a tawdry rerun of tired, old Treasury orthodoxy.
 
GREG             All right, NZ First Leader Winston Peters, we will have to leave it there. Thank you.
 
WINSTON      Thanks.

ENDS

© Scoop Media