1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,519 Speaker 1: Thomas Coglan, the Herald's political editors and for Barrisoba Hi Thomas. 2 00:00:03,440 --> 00:00:04,400 Speaker 2: Had a good afternoon. 3 00:00:04,480 --> 00:00:06,600 Speaker 1: Now, what is it that Nicola Willison and David Seymour 4 00:00:06,640 --> 00:00:09,000 Speaker 1: are so worked up about? Ree Barbara Edmonds. 5 00:00:09,600 --> 00:00:11,840 Speaker 2: Yeah, look a number of things. So Barbara Edmonds did 6 00:00:11,840 --> 00:00:13,760 Speaker 2: an interview with me. Actually we published it in The 7 00:00:13,760 --> 00:00:18,360 Speaker 2: Herald on Monday. The interview basically runs through a whole 8 00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:25,200 Speaker 2: bunch of labor policy areas and essentially, as your listeners 9 00:00:25,200 --> 00:00:27,800 Speaker 2: will be very well aware, Labour doesn't really have a 10 00:00:27,800 --> 00:00:30,360 Speaker 2: lot of policy in these areas. Doesn't have a plan 11 00:00:30,440 --> 00:00:32,320 Speaker 2: to pay for the pay equity reversal. It's got the 12 00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:35,080 Speaker 2: policy to reverse the pay equity decision. It doesn't have 13 00:00:35,120 --> 00:00:36,760 Speaker 2: a plan to pay for the twelve point eight billion 14 00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:39,960 Speaker 2: dollars to fund. It doesn't have a policy around getting 15 00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:41,960 Speaker 2: rid of investment boosts. You know, will they do it, 16 00:00:41,960 --> 00:00:45,520 Speaker 2: will they not do it? It is looking at doing stuff 17 00:00:45,520 --> 00:00:48,479 Speaker 2: around the Reserve Bank, bringing back the dual mandate. But 18 00:00:48,840 --> 00:00:51,800 Speaker 2: essentially they just they criticized large parts of the interview. 19 00:00:52,440 --> 00:00:54,520 Speaker 2: They were particularly critical of the fact that there is 20 00:00:54,520 --> 00:00:57,560 Speaker 2: no plan to pay for that pay equity pay equity policy, 21 00:00:58,200 --> 00:01:00,240 Speaker 2: and they were also critical of that planned to bring 22 00:01:00,280 --> 00:01:02,680 Speaker 2: back the dual mandate, which Labour hasn't said it's one 23 00:01:02,720 --> 00:01:04,880 Speaker 2: hundred percent going to bring back that employment mandate. But 24 00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:07,800 Speaker 2: Edmund's remarks in now story she said it was an 25 00:01:07,840 --> 00:01:10,760 Speaker 2: idea with looking at which would suggest that they're very 26 00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:11,319 Speaker 2: keen on it. 27 00:01:11,480 --> 00:01:14,280 Speaker 1: Now the dual mandates correct me if I'm wrong. But 28 00:01:14,319 --> 00:01:16,880 Speaker 1: that is not that contentious, is it? Because isn't this 29 00:01:16,920 --> 00:01:17,840 Speaker 1: pretty orthodox? 30 00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:21,520 Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a fun I mean, I personally think it's 31 00:01:21,520 --> 00:01:22,760 Speaker 2: a bit of a storm in a tea cup. A 32 00:01:22,800 --> 00:01:26,440 Speaker 2: lot of countries overseas have a dual mandate for employment 33 00:01:26,480 --> 00:01:30,039 Speaker 2: and inflation. We obviously had it between twenty eighteen and 34 00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:32,319 Speaker 2: twenty twenty three. It was a period of high inflation 35 00:01:32,360 --> 00:01:33,600 Speaker 2: in New Zealand, but it was a high period of 36 00:01:33,640 --> 00:01:36,640 Speaker 2: high inflation everywhere, and people at the time said, like, 37 00:01:36,680 --> 00:01:39,000 Speaker 2: look at the margins, at the margins if you had 38 00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:42,000 Speaker 2: if you had that employment inflation mandate, it might have 39 00:01:42,080 --> 00:01:44,880 Speaker 2: made certain decisions happen at a different time. Maybe you 40 00:01:44,920 --> 00:01:47,720 Speaker 2: would have maybe you would have held off cutting so 41 00:01:48,160 --> 00:01:50,800 Speaker 2: you would have cut sooner. Maybe you'd hold off tightening 42 00:01:51,040 --> 00:01:53,720 Speaker 2: at the moment for longer, so you'd have lower interest 43 00:01:53,800 --> 00:01:56,440 Speaker 2: rates for longer. But really it's probably not going to 44 00:01:56,480 --> 00:02:00,160 Speaker 2: affect the direction of travel too much. So it is 45 00:02:00,920 --> 00:02:04,480 Speaker 2: it's it's certainly interesting, but I really don't think that 46 00:02:04,800 --> 00:02:09,360 Speaker 2: this policy, or Labor's policy keeping it or scraping it, 47 00:02:09,480 --> 00:02:10,959 Speaker 2: is really going to have a massive impact. 48 00:02:11,000 --> 00:02:14,000 Speaker 1: Okay, Now, a prime a minister. Prime minister never wants 49 00:02:14,040 --> 00:02:15,680 Speaker 1: to go back to the House to correct the record, 50 00:02:15,919 --> 00:02:17,920 Speaker 1: so he wouldn't have want to have to do this. 51 00:02:18,040 --> 00:02:19,000 Speaker 1: But how bad is it? 52 00:02:20,000 --> 00:02:22,840 Speaker 2: Look, it's it's not the end of the world. It's embarrassing. 53 00:02:22,880 --> 00:02:26,480 Speaker 2: It's very embarrassing to to sort of sneak into Parliament. 54 00:02:27,080 --> 00:02:29,480 Speaker 2: Close Swapert uses the word sneak, and I suppose there's 55 00:02:29,480 --> 00:02:31,440 Speaker 2: a bit of a sneaky snuck into Parliament last night 56 00:02:31,480 --> 00:02:34,959 Speaker 2: to correct an answer he made about this Iranian visa situation. 57 00:02:35,639 --> 00:02:38,880 Speaker 2: Iranians who are in New Zealand on visas will be 58 00:02:38,960 --> 00:02:41,360 Speaker 2: able to apply to have those visas extended on a 59 00:02:41,360 --> 00:02:43,720 Speaker 2: case by case basis. That sounds like the one hundred 60 00:02:43,720 --> 00:02:46,240 Speaker 2: and thirty one hundred and forty Iranians currently here on visas, 61 00:02:47,280 --> 00:02:49,640 Speaker 2: which which with visas that will expire in the next 62 00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:53,440 Speaker 2: eight weeks, will will probably have the the visas extended, 63 00:02:54,040 --> 00:02:56,440 Speaker 2: but the remarks that he made in the house about 64 00:02:56,480 --> 00:03:00,560 Speaker 2: that that extension being automatic were incorrect and he had 65 00:03:00,560 --> 00:03:02,040 Speaker 2: to go back to the House and correct them. 66 00:03:02,080 --> 00:03:03,760 Speaker 1: It brings us to the question, why aren't they being 67 00:03:03,760 --> 00:03:05,840 Speaker 1: automatically extended? Why is it case by case? 68 00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:09,480 Speaker 2: I honestly don't know. It would seems to me an 69 00:03:09,480 --> 00:03:11,359 Speaker 2: easy to tweak to make to just take it to 70 00:03:11,400 --> 00:03:13,080 Speaker 2: kebin at a paper which says like, look, you know, 71 00:03:13,880 --> 00:03:16,160 Speaker 2: we'll extend these visas by six months or a year 72 00:03:16,280 --> 00:03:18,480 Speaker 2: or something, And I honestly don't know why that's not 73 00:03:18,520 --> 00:03:18,919 Speaker 2: the case. 74 00:03:19,440 --> 00:03:21,000 Speaker 1: Thomas, always good to talk to you. Thank you for 75 00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:23,000 Speaker 1: filling in it such all I noticed. That's Thomas Cogland, 76 00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:26,919 Speaker 1: the Herald's political edison. For more from Hither Duplessy Alan Drive, 77 00:03:27,080 --> 00:03:30,480 Speaker 1: listen live to news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, 78 00:03:30,600 --> 00:03:32,800 Speaker 1: or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.