\u201cIf we are Government, we will not be fulfilling those,\u201d McAnulty said. <\/p>\n
The Herald then asked Hipkins on Monday evening if Labour would reverse the IRRS change. <\/p>\n
\u201cAs you will have seen, we\u2019ve opposed those vigorously,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ll 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.\u201d <\/p>\n
While Hipkins mentioned Labour will have a policy on the issue that is different from the Government\u2019s approach, he fell short of committing to pulling back the change. <\/p>\n
\u201cWhen we set out our policy, you\u2019ll see what we\u2019re going to do about that and it will be different to what the current Government is proposing.\u201d <\/p>\n
Chris Hipkins wasn’t clear what Labour’s policy was on Monday night. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell <\/p>\n
On Tuesday morning, the Herald sought to clarify with McAnulty, Labour\u2019s plan for the IRRS adjustments. <\/p>\n
He reiterated that if Labour is elected, \u201cwe won\u2019t be continuing with them\u201d. <\/p>\n
McAnulty said he and Hipkins were \u201ccompletely in line\u201d. <\/p>\n
The Herald then went back to Hipkins and asked if it was Labour\u2019s policy not to go ahead with the IRRS changes. <\/p>\n
\u201cYes,\u201d he replied. <\/p>\n
Why couldn\u2019t he say that the night before? <\/p>\n
Hipkins said: \u201cWell, 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\u201d. <\/p>\n
Asked what had happened overnight for him to now be able to confirm the policy, the leader said: \u201cWell, I think I was saying that, but clearly I reflected on it and I wasn\u2019t specific enough\u201d. <\/p>\n
The issue of whether Labour will reverse the Government\u2019s IRRS change is a meaningful one, given it will save the coalition about $387.5 million over four years.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
But Labour won\u2019t set out what it plans to do until it releases its wider policy. <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe opposed it. It\u2019s morally bankrupt. It\u2019s cruel and we\u2019re not then going to turn around and say \u2018oh, we\u2019re not going to do anything about that\u2019.\u201d <\/p>\n
But Hipkins then said that doesn\u2019t 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. <\/p>\n
Labour has previously been rhetorically opposed to various Government policies, but then not confirmed whether it would repeal them if in power. <\/p>\n
It has criticised the likes of the Government\u2019s gang patch ban <\/a>and then decided not to repeal it<\/a>, while it continues to attack the so-called \u201ctax cuts for landlords\u201d, but has not set out a policy on whether to reverse them. <\/p>\n