 You're listening to The Crunch with Cam Slater, right here on RCR, Reality Check Radio. With me on The Crunch this afternoon is the leader of the New Zealand First Party, Winston Peters. Welcome. Good afternoon. So in the last couple of days, Winston, we've had a poll come out from Labor's own pollsters, Talbot Mills. And it's showing that New Zealand First was on 4% in that poll, which is to my mind is someone who analyzes polls and has been doing so for 30 odd years. That's New Zealand First on the cusp of re-entering Parliament. So what can you tell Reality Check Radio listeners about why they should think about voting for New Zealand First at this election, given that you're so close to that 5% threshold? Well, first of all, we are confident that the polls will just take off from here on and the answer is based on the fact that we're packing the halls now. And that is a local poll wherever you go. So the second thing is, New Zealand First brings balance and experience and common sense to politics. And it's shown in our time in politics, the things that we have taken on, the matters that have had to be raised before the public, which others were prepared to shut down and keep quiet, we've had the courage to take them on and bring them out in the interests of the country and keep the system honest. And there's a lot of reasons for people to vote New Zealand First, but right here right now in this election, it is that there is one party with the experience and that theme to make a serious difference to a future improved government in this country. And we are a country in desperate economic and social circumstances now. And it's no time for experimentation or inexperience. It's time for people who know what they're doing to get this country to the decision that it should and could be, but not with the policy to vote at the moment. In terms of the listeners of Reality Check Radio, there's a couple of things that they're interested in, particularly your experience at the Freedom Village when you walk through there and talk to those people. That we're protesting vaccine mandates and protesting the restrictions that we had on. And in many cases, some fine New Zealand people lost their jobs. You've said that you'll reinstate those people who lost their jobs through vaccine mandates and recompense them. Will this be a bottom line for the coalition? Look, I've heard of people talking about the bottom lines, but we have never talked about them lines as a political party in our 30 years because you need the people to vote for you in the numbers that you need to get the influence to be able to deliver on things. And often your media will come to you and say, well, is this a bottom line or that a bottom line? And frankly, we've never talked like that. But we have as has been evidenced by two senior reporters over a period of time. First of all, it was Barry Schover that first said it and then George Young said in 2019 or 2020 that we deliver more on our policies than any other political party. That's not my comment. They said it. And so it's making all sorts of commitments and not delivering won't do. Our record is to have delivered as much as we possibly could in short spaces of crime. And we're part of that record. But is that one of the things that you want to see that these people who have lost their jobs can get their jobs back and maybe get some compensation out of it for the appalling segregation that occurred under the Arduan regime? Look, I've said that these people need their jobs back. They've been unfairly and I believe illegally mandated out of their work, but they were hit with a kaleidoscope and a cacophony of what you might call gaslighting from the system itself, from politicians. And there I say the media. And so that you have people who are losing their businesses that they've run for 35 years. There were tens of thousands of workers who are badly affected as well. The cost of the country was massive, and that's why there should have been an inquiry into this in the first place. But of course, it's been delayed until after the election. Guess why? Because they can't be exposed to the unraveling of the truth. I supported the first lockdown in 2020 when we didn't know what we were dealing with. But I've never supported since then. And I said that this was appalling and that people should be mandated out of existence and out of work and out of their futures. And most of the people down there at that protest in Wellington had been vaccinated. They weren't anti-vaccine. They were anti what was going on in their private lives and their business lives. And it was just simply tragic. And I went down to when I found out that parliamentarians had signed a pact not to talk to them. I could not believe in a democracy that was happening. And my colleague and I directly all decided that we're going to go down and talk to these people. And we didn't give a hoot what the media thought. And even though they try to prove to me the truth is we need to talk to those people and they need to get justice. And when it comes to compensation, the level of that compensation, I don't know because I know businesses that after 35 years were just collapsed. They lost everything. Yeah. No, that's. You know, we've seen governments apologize for actions of past decisions. We saw Jacinda Ardern humble herself in front of the Pacifica community to apologize for the dawn raids. We've seen apologies to, you know, to various different Maori tribes. Do you think that the people who have suffered through these vaccine mandates and the injuries that have occurred with that deserve an apology from the government? A proper and comprehensive inquiry, in my view, done properly will lead to the government having to apologize on behalf of the decision that was made by the Indian government. I believe that long as there's a proper inquiry. And right now, the parameters for that inquiry, in my view, are not sufficient for us to have any confidence in the inquiry that's going to come. It needs to change. So that's something for the other parties to be thinking about. Now, the second thing is, yes, I know she apologizes to the Pacific people for the dawn raids and then about the dawn rates procedures to carry on. Well, there's been a report come out this week that shown that the dawn raids have carried on. And it was in the report, it says it was a hollow apology. Well, exactly. But this is all done for PR and for spin. And when it comes to the reality, if you were actually sincere in your apology on that, then you would have changed the procedure. But they didn't. So it just shows you that politics has become more spin and hype and no substance. And just a final question about the vaccine mandates and things like that. Back in early 2021, before the protests got underway, there was a few tweets that you put out that have people are throwing up now, given your stance about talking about, you know, investigating inquiries, all these things. I know the tweet. I know the tweet. I know the tweet. And I know the Facebook entry, both medical. And I wasn't responsible for that. But after that date, I made sure that at nine thirty morning I was there for everyone since that time to light this morning. Yeah. So do you agree things? I regret it because I didn't mean that. And it was never my position in that context. But sometimes you can't be there. You can't be at the lighthouse every day, so to speak. And sometimes it's all might get up and you might there. But I've decided after that. And I'm not going to say who did it, but I've got to take responsibility. But it was never my sentiment. And I've proven that over and over again. Because I've taken the trouble to listen to better advice of those who are neutral, academic, and they're not got any barrier to push who are saying certain things about the vaccine, which, in my view, are legitimate. Now, the media would love to try and say that is this guy's a vaccine deny. It's a lie. I'm vaccinated. Yeah. But the people were not given the information to which is most essential in any operation or any medical procedure. They would give the information to make an informed choice. So the system was simply letting them down. And these people who can try and paint you in the corner need to answer the question, are they for freedom, for their democracy, are they for people's rights or they just for some political lousy advantage when they attack these things? This is this is my first show. And I believe I've probably the first person who's ever managed to get Winston Peters to say you regret something. Well, I'm the media. No, it's not the first time you try in your politics. The key is to ask good questions and keep on asking to get the answers. And also that should have taken the oversight that happened. And I was asked that by a lady the other day down underneath. And I said, I know exactly the tweet and that post just about madam. I'm sorry that it happened, but I didn't do it myself. But I have that responsibility because it's my Facebook and it's my tweet. So that's been corrected. And thereafter, as we've built to, you know, 120,000 plus and rising rapidly now, that's been the oversight of kept. Look, I get comments all the time on my articles when I'm commenting about using the first rising in the polls. Or, you know, you've said something that that I support or whatever. People comment all the time on my articles along the lines of Winston Peters betrayed us in 2017, presumably because you you chose Labour instead of National. Why don't you tell us, you know, for the first time what really happened in those negotiations and why you felt that you had to go with Labour instead of National in 2017? Well, first of all, look, I've been a lot of people and I say to them, did you vote for me in 2000? You asked me that question and I said, do you vote for New Zealand first in 2017? No. So you didn't vote for us, but you wanted to tell us what to do. I mean, you're a communist is what I'm saying. That's what communists want to do. No right to have an input in terms of that is no support whatsoever. No democracy whatsoever. But even though they voted to make sure you couldn't do anything for them, when you did win, they hadn't voted for you. They now think you're guilty. And there are 440, maybe 460,000 in 2020 that left a national and went across and voted. Apparently it was all your fault. Excuse me, I'm laughing. Fact is they all in 2020 went across there and she took all the credit. And here we go. But two thousand seventy. Look, we started the first meeting not with Labour, but with National. Yeah. But there was a lot of things happened. And I could talk to you about whether people either or not. But I have a given explanation that Bill English knows about. And he's never gone public. I said, Winston's not telling the truth there. Yeah. Never. He's heard what I've said. He knows what I said. And I know Bill English won't have to know that he's not going to go out there and lie about the circumstance. It wasn't Bill's fault so much. But we know that a spill was on against Bill from the word go. Yeah. Like I faced with when I shook Jim Bolder's hand after all that rouse we'd had, I decided the government needs a country. We've got to put all that behind us. I shook Bolder's hand and found out that an organised coup and spill was being organised by a person called Jenny Shipley. Those are the facts and people need to face them. But I started with National and then I became really alarmed. And so we just kept on negotiating. And when we're negotiating, it was clear that Labour didn't get it. The National didn't get it. But there was a housing crisis. There was a health crisis. There was a crisis in education, in a sense. All those things were there a long time before the election of 2017. And we believed that we could get far more done with Labour. And we did. We turned railways around, never gone us. We turned our defence, 16 billion dollars of board spending with not one cent put aside. Well, all those Poseidon four planes are in this country at the moment and we've turned that around. And then a whole lot of other things that were crucial to this country's financial development we did as well. But here's the rub. Labour put them all in their pamphlets. The whole lot, all the things we did in 2020, the thing that were theirs. That is a shocking. Is that why you've ruled them out after the election? I've ruled them out because I found out they simply lied to me on a number of occasions. The first time I saw the Poor Poor report was it came out after the 2020 election. Go back and look at the chronology. It had been done secretly under my nose. And when I said publicly, this was a massive betrayal of a coalition arrangement and a seat against the people of this country and accused them of hiding the document from me. The Prime Minister, I don't deny it, but we Jackson at the Canada Bank, we said, well, we'd have told him. He told everybody on the Deputy Prime Minister for a second. He thought he had a right to hide it from me. Now, that sort of thing means and I said, no one gets a chance to lie to me twice. We've ruled them out in this election. Yeah, and there's no weasel words in that. That was their Winston. There's no ifs. There's no buts. There's no maybes. If you, I mean, I want you to say right here, right now on this show, if the cards fall in such a way that Labour needs New Zealand First to form a government and there aren't enough votes on the centre right to form a government with you. Will you go on the cross benches? I made it clear to the interview with Audrey Young that in a big page in the Herald, that we had ruled them out and the reason why we ruled them out was their deceit and the lack of integrity when it came to these matters and also the racist separatist pathway down which their policies are taking us. That is categorically what I've said and I don't want to keep on saying it the whole damn campaign. And the second thing of course is at the end of the day, there are options such as going on the cross benches and keeping the system on us because my concern in this election is you've got some people saying it's our turn now and the question is our turn to do what? If it's not to dramatically improve in every respect this country's economy and social fabric, then what is there a turn to do? And the second thing is some of these promises are being made at the moment reflect that they have got no understanding of the fiscal so this country is broke. This country is particularly in the worst situation it was in terms of our balance of payments since 1972. And how can people make all these promises in this campaign in the way they do? I'm asking listeners examine what these promises that these politicians are saying and ask yourself could this possibly ever be something that they can put into action? Well just on that and going back to 2017 and the negotiations with National and Labor you proposed the Provincial Growth Fund and there was outrage at that at the time some $3 billion worth of spending in the provinces. Hindsight being 2020 would suggest that that was actually a bargain. Now given that the government has borrowed in excess of $150 billion with all of the COVID stuff that's gone on that $3 billion for Provincial Growth Fund which that was actually could have been seen as a bargain at now of Hindsight. You're quite right and thank you for saying that but you see I'm saying to some of my critics look take your blink and biased eyes of what you're saying for a while and look at this fact everything we spent on the Provincial Growth Fund will be there 50 years from now. Yeah. 60 years from now. We were not spending on consumption we were spending it on infrastructure critical infrastructure and critical changes. We built a huge muscle farm for example in the port of we're building the biggest muscle farm in the whole world. This is all what started by Provincial Growth Fund but now know you had the media and they're inside the Beltway and Wellington. No understanding of Provincial Growth Fund saying it was in a bag. They didn't give a hoot about the provinces or had this respect at all. What saved us during COVID? It was the provinces and our exports that saved us and how quickly these people inside the Beltway and Wellington could get it. Well that's the problem. We can always look backwards and think about if only if only Bill English had agreed to the Provincial Growth Fund we might have had a different outcome in 2020 or whatever. But we started there. We started those negotiations with national being would have been the preference. Yeah. No doubt about that because I knew that Labour just didn't have any in-depth experience. We were worried from the word go. They had no in-depth understanding or business of our life works or dare I say it so many were disconnected from ordinary workers because they've never done a manual job in their life. Exactly. So instead of looking backwards, let's look forwards but we're going to have to touch on a couple of things looking backwards because I've noticed in a couple of your speeches and some of your Facebook posts and tweets that you've been talking about New Zealand sovereignty. And there's a couple of key agreements that New Zealand signed up to. We had the undripped the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous People that Key and McCully signed us up to. And then there's the infamous global migration pact which under cabinet rules I guess the government wanted to pursue that and you were the foreign minister so you had to go and sign that. And then there's the latest who's pandemic treaty. If you're elected back into Parliament what concrete steps would you take to act for New Zealand sovereignty in the face of some of those things and the outcomes that have come about as a result of us signing those? Well, here's my record. It's 2007 when UNDRIP came along and I said Helen Clark, we're not signing that. You and I have an agreement not to go down that pathway and she agreed. Yeah. It was not Helen Clark that signed up to it or me and I was the foreign minister I was in charge of it. Yeah. I'm directing responsible there. And so we didn't sign it. And John Key let Peter Sharples go on the dead of night without any information or public disclosure and sign up to it. So that's UNDRIP. And I'm utterly opposed to it because it gives the UN and their view sovereignty over New Zealand's law and New Zealand's democracy and that's why it was wrong and that's why Helen Clark agreed with me. Then when you come to the global migration pact here's the change here. The global migration pact admitted by our changes and our reference to them that none of that had anything to do or any control over domestic New Zealand policy on migration. I forced them to admit that before we signed up. But no, no, you had national party in that place saying all sorts of things without knowing that that was the key rider that made all the difference. Yeah. And the WHO, the first party to attack the WHO's recent pandemic treaty and their new rules was New Zealand first. Because what I'm saying is there's no way that they should be allowed to determine what is a pandemic in New Zealand. And that's what they've set out to do. And I've alerted a number of the countries as well in the Pacific and talked to them about how dangerous this is to them and they're starting to get it. So I think they'll be kicked back on that. So what you're saying is if New Zealand first is part of a government after the election that you will be acting to make sure that New Zealand sovereignty takes primacy over any of these, you know, UN or WHO or any of these other quango type impositions onto our sovereignty, you're gonna be the bullwalk against that and say, no, not on my watch. Well, that's the benchmark. Because remember, I inherited the global migration pact when I came along. And then when I looked at it, I thought, hang on a second, what you're trying to do is tell us what to do. We're not having that, we're a sovereign nation. We've had a democracy since 1854. We're the first comprehensive democracy since 1893 when women got the vote before any other country. And so we're not, we have that. That's what I said, and that's why the changes were made and that's why it was acknowledged. And the foreign, I can have it a producer from foreign affairs, the documentation. But you're quite right. On whatever the international system might be, our country's sovereignty, nevertheless, comes first. That's a principle. Well, that's good to hear that with no equivocation and no weasel words. That's what you're standing for. What about? What I was wrong with Winston Peters. No one's ever accused me before of weasel words. No, well, you know, the National Party people do. Winston, you know that. No, they don't accuse me of weasel words. They accuse me of being too harsh and too frank and too candid. But I've never said anybody to say in part when that guy speaks weasel words. When they wouldn't raise a finger, I'd raise the roof. That's my record. Somebody said this to me the other day. They were saying, you know, when Winston Peters is laughing and joking and smiling, he's the guy that we want to vote for, not Grumpy Winston. This campaign, are we going to see Happy Winston or are we going to see Grumpy Winston? You're going to see Happy Winston because the reason is we've got ourselves seriously organized, clinically ready for this campaign. We're confident they are planning. The halls are being packed. We've got a tower on the next week. And I bet we get three times that the last speaker from another party got, maybe four times. And that's what in the matter, Indian matters. And in the end, the media who've tried to send a rail arise and marginalize us are going to find out it won't work. You better start covering our meetings. Funny enough, out of left field, two media people have come to me tonight. Can we talk to you about the campaign? This is amazing. I haven't heard from you for 33 months. 33 months. And now they're talking. Now they're talking. Just last touch on some foreign affairs things. Are you concerned as a former foreign affairs minister with what we're seeing happening around China, particularly with the way Australia is, you know, butting up against China that we're starting to see, you know, more issues happening in the South China Sea, particularly around the Spratly Islands and the invidious expansion of China's belt and road policies, particularly in the Pacific. Is this a point where we need to say, perhaps we need to decouple a bit from China or look at that from a different perspective? Because you know something, it's where you imagine you should ask that question because it was the national party that signed up the One Belt, One Road. It was then called Obor, One Belt, One Road. And then they realized it's not a very good PR because China's point of view. So they changed it to belts and roads, but it wasn't that when they started off. Now I went and saw Wang Yi, the foreign minister of China in China, in Beijing, and I said to him, could you please send me in detail what this policy means? And you know what, I'm still waiting. I asked him that five years ago and I'm still waiting. Second thing is though, I've made counter speeches saying that New Zealand's engaging itself by having one product milk powder, one company, Fonterra, and one market China. This is a disaster for this country in terms of spreading our risk and spreading our market. And we need to get our much diverser and market going as hard as we can possibly go. But in the end, New Zealand has got to look after its economic interests but never ever while we're doing it, the sacrifice, our belief and freedom and democracy in the blue content from which we come, that is the Pacific. That is our role and we must never compromise it. Again, that comes back to your previous comment about New Zealand's sovereignty being the primary driver in everything rather than. Has New Zealand first taken donations from Chinese interests? To the very best and that is absolutely of my knowledge. No, we haven't. We know where they have been given mine too. And I've even got four pages of a graph saying where they've spent this money. You remember two members of parliament, one from Labour, one from National Left, in the space of one week. Yeah. You know why? Because they were Manchurian candidates. And when they were about to come out, they both resigned together. Isn't it disgusting that there's no disclosure of that? Well, that's part of the problem that we have with the media taking all of these subsidies. They just run the government lines and they don't want to talk about these uncomfortable truths that are out there. Yeah, well, to be honest with you, I seriously am sorry for certain sections of the media because at once the fourth of state is a seriously great profession. It's an honourable profession. It is actually a critical profession for any performing democracy. And what has happened here, they've been so corrupted by the public and its journalism fund that we actually have to print the government's narrative that the belief in the public's belief in the media now has been so destroyed. And we've lost two thirds. They've lost two thirds of their readership. Well, they're not giving the people what they want. That's the thing is that, you know... We're not giving balance, not telling both sides of the story. The public want to make up their own mind, they're sick and tired of journalists who think they're editorial writers. Maybe there's a case, Winston, that you could have a policy at this election where those recipients of the Public Interest Journalism Fund have to pay their grants back. That would get some attention, wouldn't it? Well, you know, it's a fascinating thing when you say that, but look, this is the personal circumstances which I despise in the way it happened. That was put to us when we were in government with Labour. Yeah. We said to them, we said to them, you have got to be joking. Every political party will be screaming and bribing corruption. So what did they do, Labour? They quietly went around and told all the media ownership, look, we're paid to you now, but Winston Peters is stopping us. And boy did we get to run the last campaign. You see what I mean? We had to run for 33 months. And you now know why. Well, it's a cabal of collusion really happening, isn't it? A confluence of coincidences. Well, I met a speech 33 years ago about the media and said that it's coming and I can find the speech, but it's coming that the media is going to be destroyed because they've been denied and best get a journalist the space and the time and the money to do their job properly. But I made that speech 33 years ago. I never thought that turned on me, though. That's time went by. I'm surprised that you're surprised that they turned on you. No, I'm not surprised anymore. I just got an enduring faith in people because you got to have it. So I do feel sorry for those genuine journalists starting to do their job properly because it must be difficult. And remember this, you know, they've all got mortgages. They've got wives, they've got husbands, they've got all sorts of kids, they've got all sorts of responsibility. When the government misuses their need for an economic survivorship to get their outcomes and that's when things are corrupted and that's exactly what happened. Yeah. Now one last question before we finish up because you're on a timeframe to get to your next interview. This is something that's dear to my heart being a firearms owner. We've seen some very draconian laws come into place that has seen what was supposed to be an independent firearms authority created as in fact a business unit of the police with a profit driver. And the way that they're treating firearms owners, some of the most vetted and, you know, checked people in New Zealand is absolutely appalling. Do you feel responsible for some of that occurring despite attempting to nobble that legislation in the parliament and did New Zealand first drop the ball there and basically hand a whole lot of votes to act as a result? And the last bit to that is, and what do you think you can do about that? Look, when the March 15th, the massacre happened down in Christchurch, I said New Zealand will never be the same again. I'd also watch very clearly somebody I know and have met called John Howard who did the same thing about the gun ownership in Australia and I've watched what he did. And so we set out to pay people compensation properly back to get guns, but we never ever accepted that the controls should be in the hands of the police. We were then and we still are for an independent commission handling this matter. That's our position. We didn't drop the ball when we hadn't got it completed by the time with COVID and all the lockdowns coming in 2020 and the layer party went on and the deal we had with Stuart Nash, they changed and ban on the independent commission. Our policy is to have an independent commission no Fs, no Bs, no Mabies. And it's not a bottom line, it's our policy. We're the ones that thought of it in the first place. So firearms owners who at the moment, I mean, I'm going through this process at the moment with registration and the doctrinaire high-handed behavior of the so-called firearms safety authority is making people like me who were formerly great supporters of the police become hostile to the police. And I don't see the police management to the senior people in police actually caring too much that they've lost the goodwill of 250,000 honest Kiwis in the way that they have treated us as a result of actually crimes committed by a foreign person through the failings of the New Zealand police. Yeah, that has to remember it was through the failings of the New Zealand police. That wasn't the first failings, there were a number of failings in the past as well. The second thing I've not lost my respect for the police because I'm a registered gun owner myself and I've defended for thousands of reasons the right to have a gun. But the fact is that we can and will fix the system up. My decision is that I want to set up the election, get together and sort of a couple of key barristers that I know who also are hunters. I want to get them all in the one room and say, look, let's sort this stuff out right here right now so we can go forward with people supporting the law. Are you suggesting that we, instead of amending the arms act like it's been done multiple times and it's essentially not for the purpose anymore? Are you talking about perhaps a complete rewrite of arms laws that will bring things into alignment to make things a whole lot easier for control and registration and all of these sorts of things that are causing problems now? Well, I'm sort of saying that this fit out the election. I've already had a talk to some lawyers. I can't say who. Because these people are seriously barristers. You have the ownership of interest and their right to go hunting and they enjoy it. But what I want to do is say, look guys, you got yourself exactly two months to rewrite things and fix it up right here right now. We're not going to go on with a system that doesn't do its best to get the full cooperation of legitimate gun owners. So it's from my perspective, and I'm a member of antique arms and I collect things. I just feel I'm being treated worse than a gang member who seems to have open access to firearms and no interest from the police in controlling them. But they're very interested in controlling us. But that's where the police's focus should be and that's why they should not be in charge of gun ownership. They should be getting the guns off the gangs. And as hard and fast as possible, usually every means they possibly can. But people out there legitimately using guns and on a farm when an animal breaks its leg, and you can't get a bed, you can't do a thing. It is only mercy that puts that animal down right here. They've got to be put down out of their pain, so to speak. And I'll have people who are engaging in these debates don't understand the practical circumstances of humanity that is required where gun ownership is concerned. So yes, we have got to make that a priority, but we're not standing around for three years to fix it up. We want it fixed up in three months. That sounds like an admiral goal. I hope you can A, get the support to be able to influence that and B, then make it happen. Well, you know, let me ask you this. I know that a lot of people went off the act party. Let me ask all those gun owners. So tell me one thing the act party has done about it. Just one thing, one line, just tell me. I'll just tell you what our policy is and what we've done already. Well, it's a contest of ideas. That's what we live in a democracy for. And that's why I've had you on my first show, Winston, so that we can actually hear from the horse's mouth, so to speak, exactly what you stand for and what you've regretted in the past and what you're going to fix up in the future. So I thank you very much for coming on my show. And I say the queen out of horse called Winston. She named it after Winston Churchill. So I don't like the analogy of the horse from the horse's mouth, but I get you what you're saying. Well, John Banks had a dog called Muldoon once. You must remember that. That's right. And there's a journalist in Parliament who's got a dog called Winston, if you please. And he tried to tell me and I said to him, well, then that was information you could have transcript yourself. Well, I hope to have you on again closer to the election, Winston. It's been a pleasure talking to you. Thank you very much. Well, thank you for the chance to talk to your listeners. And I hope in this campaign, people do one thing. Listen to what the debate, listen to the subjects and listen to the policies, but get on the roll and get out and vote. The democracy is imperiled if they just sit there and think, let it to someone else. They can't listen to this campaign. We've reached an inflection point and it's time for action from everybody. So thank you very much for the chance to talk to you and your listeners. You're most welcome. You've been listening to The Crunch with Cam Slater. Remember, you can check out the replays for today's show on our website at www.realitycheck.radio forward slash replays. Tune in every Thursday at 4 p.m. for more with Cam Slater. Right here on RCR, realitycheckradio.