“If we are Government, we will not be fulfilling those,” McAnulty said.
The Herald then asked Hipkins on Monday evening if Labour would reverse the IRRS change.
“As you will have seen, we’ve opposed those vigorously,” he said.
“We’ll set out our own policies on that in due course, around how we would deal with those issues, how we would make sure that state house tenants are being well looked after, what we would do around the accommodation supplement. We will set that all out in due course.”
While Hipkins mentioned Labour will have a policy on the issue that is different from the Government’s approach, he fell short of committing to pulling back the change.
“When we set out our policy, you’ll see what we’re going to do about that and it will be different to what the current Government is proposing.”
Chris Hipkins wasn’t clear what Labour’s policy was on Monday night. Photo / Mark Mitchell
On Tuesday morning, the Herald sought to clarify with McAnulty, Labour’s plan for the IRRS adjustments.
He reiterated that if Labour is elected, “we won’t be continuing with them”.
McAnulty said he and Hipkins were “completely in line”.
The Herald then went back to Hipkins and asked if it was Labour’s policy not to go ahead with the IRRS changes.
“Yes,” he replied.
Why couldn’t he say that the night before?
Hipkins said: “Well, because we will set out more detail on that in due course, including how we pay for it and what we do around the accommodation supplement”.
Asked what had happened overnight for him to now be able to confirm the policy, the leader said: “Well, I think I was saying that, but clearly I reflected on it and I wasn’t specific enough”.
The issue of whether Labour will reverse the Government’s IRRS change is a meaningful one, given it will save the coalition about $387.5 million over four years.
The Government is using the bulk of that money, about $374.3m, to increase the Accommodation Supplement rates by between $10 and $30 a week.
That means if Labour was to not go ahead with the IRRS change, but retain the Accommodation Supplement increase, it would need to find the money to pay for that.
But Labour won’t set out what it plans to do until it releases its wider policy.
Asked by the Herald why his MPs were going on TV and making policy promises, if it cannot yet provide the detail around funding, Hipkins suggested Labour has had the same position since the change was announced.
“We opposed it. It’s morally bankrupt. It’s cruel and we’re not then going to turn around and say ‘oh, we’re not going to do anything about that’.”
But Hipkins then said that doesn’t mean if Labour opposed something this term, it would be party policy to reverse it. He only meant that in regard to the IRRS matter, he said.
Labour has previously been rhetorically opposed to various Government policies, but then not confirmed whether it would repeal them if in power.
It has criticised the likes of the Government’s gang patch ban and then decided not to repeal it, while it continues to attack the so-called “tax cuts for landlords”, but has not set out a policy on whether to reverse them.
It also is yet to set out whether it will repeal Three Strikes legislation, despite lambasting it.
Jamie Ensor is the NZ Herald’s chief political reporter, based in the press gallery at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. He was a finalist in 2025 for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.