The cost of being: An independent contractor who just left their full-time salaried job
Want to be part of The Cost of Being? Fill out the questionnaire here.
Gender: Female.
Age: 30.
Ethnicity: Pākehā.
Role: Independent contractor in the arts and NGO space.
Salary/income/assets: I've just left a full-time salaried role to work as a sole trader. I hope to make at least $70,000 this financial year from contract work. I also own a home in Auckland with an ex-spouse, which is currently rented to tenants.
My living location is: Urban.
Rent/mortgage per week: Rent $200 per week (living with two parents), mortgage top up after our tenants' rent contribution is $225.
Student loan or other debt payments per week: None, however this will change in 2026 with further study.
Typical weekly food costs
Groceries: $200 – $300 per week.
Eating out: $50, usually only once a month.
Takeaways: $60.
Workday lunches: $50 – $80.
Cafe coffees/snacks: $40.
Other food costs: $0, I'm rubbish at indoor and outdoor gardening.
Savings: I have an emergency savings fund for things like teeth and my car. I'm rebuilding my KiwiSaver after withdrawing for my house deposit in 2021, and I have a separate investment fund which I contribute to weekly with a goal to use for retirement – this was started off with an inheritance from a grandparent. I also have a fun money savings account – my best friend and I are saving for a Christmas beach holiday.
I worry about money: Always.
Three words to describe my financial situation: Lucky, thrifty, precarious.
My biggest edible indulgence would be: I've recently become gluten free and low carb for health, so delicious meat and cheese are my indulgences.
In a typical week my alcohol expenditure would be: $0 – I don't drink regularly anymore for health reasons, when I do it is usually one or two $20 cocktails max.
In a typical week my transport expenditure would be: I drive a hybrid car and work remotely, travel is generally close by for meetings, I spend $50 on half a tank which can last between 10 days to two weeks depending on my schedule.
I estimate in the past year the ballpark amount I spent on my personal clothing (including sleepwear and underwear) was: $200 – an outlier this year as I've lost a significant amount of weight, and my underwear and most pants became too big.
My most expensive clothing in the past year was: $150 – an emerald green silk wrap dress, hand-made to measure in Vietnam. A souvenir from a trip I took in September 2024, but also well worth the long term investment of a beautiful dress style that doesn't always fit bigger bodies off the rack.
My last pair of shoes cost: $97.99 – Converse Unisex Chuck Taylor Leather Ox from Rebel Sport. This is the third pair of these shoes I've owned in my lifetime, and this particular pair has lasted me eight glorious years.
My grooming/beauty expenditure in a year is about: Haircut and dye at a salon (this cost is ending now I am no longer permanent employed :') ), acrylic gel manicure sets every 6-8 weeks, laser hair removal and facial treatments secured at a family referral rate as a gift from a family member who also struggles with hormonal hair growth and acne.
My exercise expenditure in a year is about: $5,000, however I probably pay approximately $2000 myself, the rest is gifted.
My last Friday night cost: $75.
Most regrettable purchase in the last 12 months was: A meal kit subscription – I am recently aware that I am ADHD, and it was too much to keep up with, so I found I was giving food I paid for in the subscription away to avoid it going totally to waste.
Most indulgent purchase (that I don't regret) in the last 12 months was: A gold and zirconia septum ring.
One area where I'm a bit of a tightwad is: Furniture/appliances – I like to find a bargain and am a big believer in Kmart's homewares section.
Five words to describe my financial personality would be: Calculated, safe, realistic.
I grew up in a house where money was: My family had periods of financial struggle, but we were always comfortable and our health (food, hygiene products, power) always came first during those times. My parents both worked very hard to ensure my sister and I felt we had everything we needed, but we did not live in excess. We were very lucky to live in a home they owned, and continue to be grateful for this.
The last time my Eftpos card was declined was: November 2020.
In five years, in financial terms, I see myself: In student debt, working steadily in a new industry, comfortable.
I would love to have more money for: Travel – this is such a big investment and as a contractor, I also lose money not being available to work, but I want to see more of the world.
Describe your financial low: About two years ago, when I left my ex-spouse. Going from two combined incomes with a partner who earns more than you, to a single income with assets that require a 50% contribution, is tough. I was lucky to be able to get support from family with somewhere affordable to live, and have been able to figure out the new balance since our separation, but I am now driven to make sure I can look after myself as a single woman, which so far I've proven I can.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The Government says it's fixing the cost of living, so what happens if voters don't believe it?
It was clearly designed to assuage fears, fanned by the Opposition, that the Government had put the entire Crown infrastructure build on ice, leading to the mass exodus of construction labour to Australia. The tactic isn't an unfair one. All Governments indulge in the vice of reannouncing things to focus attention on them. A billion or so dollars spent on a road earns the Government a few hundred bites of the PR cherry, or so the political arithmetic goes. So no, the tactic wasn't unfair or even ridiculous - but nor was Labour's criticism that a fair whack of the projects were funded by the last Government. (Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop's riposte that Labour might have funded some of the projects, but it certainly didn't do a good job of delivering them, was equally true.) This early success evaporated on Monday, when Luxon held one of the most bizarre press conferences since taking office. Alongside Finance Minister Nicola Willis, he spoke for more than 10 minutes to mark the first anniversary of the Government's tax package coming into effect. He listed every other cost-of-living policy the Government had implemented since taking office. Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Trade Minister Todd McClay spoke about US tariffs yesterday. Photo / Mark Mitchell Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with reannouncing something old. Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern liked to mark anniversaries too. Some years, she'd put out a press release celebrating the fact that superannuation payments were increasing in line with wages - despite the fact that this annual increase is written into primary legislation. But Monday's announcement, coming as voters' economic sentiment bounces along the bottom and the country seems on the verge of rioting over the butter price, seemed vacuous. There was something ever so faintly Soviet about a Government thinking that, simply by telling voters it had a policy to fix their problems, they'd believe those problems were being fixed. There are two obvious pathways for how the next few months might pan out. The Government is clinging to several good forward economic indicators: business confidence surveys report okay-ish vibes from firms and suggest something of a recovery next year; the primary sector, far from being the villain of the butter crisis, is driving an export-led recovery in the regions; the Reserve Bank is likely to continue cutting interest rates, spurring investment and growth in 2026, giving Luxon an economic tailwind of good vibes and rising house prices in election year. The snow will soon melt, the ground will thaw, and New Zealanders may spend their summer holidays contemplating having endured the worst of it. Luxon and his colleagues may return to work in January, set the election date and wonder what on earth they were so worried about in winter. That's one scenario, sure. There's another. For every positive data point, there is an equally negative one. The Reserve Bank's GDP tracker suggests what every New Zealander feels in their bones: the economy has been shrinking, and could shrink further. A small recession, measured by the glib but powerful two-negative-quarters definition, could be on the cards. The most recent ANZ business confidence survey showed residential construction intentions tanking, to use the words of the bank's economists. If things continue to follow that negative trajectory, another scenario opens up: one of panic, as the once-distant prospect of a first-term defeat becomes more plausible. If the economy continues to worsen, and National's polling materialises into gloomy party vote numbers, don't entirely rule out a leadership change. A change is not 'on' - you'd be a fool to put money on it — but you'd also be a fool to bet against it. There's no real affection for Luxon in the caucus room, and National has little patience for underperformance, particularly from its leaders. Luxon's intense self-belief could count against him. He does not seem to observe that, of all his frontbenchers, he is the one who is struggling the most. Despite the whole Cabinet fighting fires on every front, National's ministers do a decent job of rebuffing their Labour opposite numbers during Question Time. Health Minister Simeon Brown has come under the most pressure, but has so far survived in the House. Chris Bishop seems unbothered by Kieran McAnulty and seemed to be enjoying himself on Thursday when he answered finance questions on behalf of Willis, who was away (the caucus enjoyed it too). Willis herself never breaks a sweat debating her opposite number, Barbara Edmonds. FBI director Kash Patel visited Wellington to open a new office. Photo / Ola Thorsen Luxon is the most challenged of the lot and was devoured, degustation-style, by Chris Hipkins in the debating chamber this week. Hipkins, who can excel in the House when he wants to, wasn't even trying a particularly sophisticated line of questioning. He resorted to a past Luxon tactic of using each supplementary question to list another case of something going terribly wrong in the economy - migration to Australia, construction jobs, board director remuneration - and then asking the Prime Minister what he thinks about it. Luxon should be able to answer questions like that easily, but could not. His belief in the power of political marketing is so fundamental that he undervalues the importance of backing up that marketing with substance; even more than most prime ministers, he's too quick to answer every question with a canned line and not quick enough to respond by substantively dismantling the question and defending himself. He seems to think this doesn't matter. He's disdainful of Question Time, or of anything that happens in Wellington. But it does matter - and you could tell from the ashen faces behind Luxon as he answered Hipkins' questions that the backbench is worried. If the economy doesn't turn around meaningfully, there's a chance the Government could be in serious trouble, however scary they think a Labour-Green-Te Pāti Māori Government might be. Slumps such as this one are difficult for centre-right governments. They're instinctively anti-intervention. When the public demands 'something must be done', centre-left governments have no shortage of ideas for that 'something'. The National benches regularly look despondent during Question Time - as pictured here in March. Photo / Mark Mitchell For the right, recovery comes from automatic stabilisers like benefits doing their job, before the fiscal part of the Government gets out of the way of the monetary side, allowing the reduction of interest rates to encourage firms to borrow and invest. It's a less politically attractive recovery because it involves substantially less ribbon-cutting, but that doesn't make it any less sensible a strategy. Ultimately, however much a government tries to pump-prime an economy back to life with fiscal policy, eventually private firms will need to pick up some slack too - and that means low interest rates. Luxon, to his credit, has been explicitly articulating this as his vision for the economic recovery. Last month, he successfully rebuffed one of Hipkins' questions, noting that the construction sector was 'hit hard because of high interest rates. High interest rates happened because Government spending was out of control, and you let inflation get out of control'. Not bad. Grim economic times will always be tough for a government, but they needn't be as tough as these. Back in 2012, net migration to Australia was even higher than it is now and the unemployment rate, in September of that year, was higher than at any point in the past 25 years. Yet that economic malaise failed to find its way into politics. National's party vote polling peaked at 48.8% in October 2012, rising - strangely - in tandem with the unemployment rate. Prime Minister John Key's popularity was unassailable. A government can be popular when an economy is under strain. But that appears to require the public to have faith that the government has a plan to make things better. Voters don't have that faith currently and, after this week, who could blame them?
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
I've got cancer so how should I invest my KiwiSaver?
True, you miss out on higher average returns. But you don't need the worry that the markets might be down at the very time you might have to withdraw. If anything, you should perhaps move all your money into a lowest-risk defensive fund. These funds, sometimes called cash funds, typically invest in bank term deposits and the like. Investors' balances usually just keep growing steadily. It's slow but smooth sailing. But if you want to be 'in the market' to some extent, your current mix is fair enough. And perhaps you could encourage other family members to take a bit of risk with their KiwiSaver choices. Note, though, that you may not be able to withdraw your KiwiSaver money when you want to. Inland Revenue says your health reason has to be either: 'An illness, injury or disability that permanently affects your ability to work or poses a risk of death. 'A life-shortening congenital condition that lowers your life expectancy below the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation (currently 65).' Some people have been turned down because they don't quite fit the criteria. You can read about a woman in a similar situation to you on the Financial Services Complaints website, here: You might want to ask your provider about your eligibility before you count on it. I hope the time ahead of you goes as well as possible. Yes, but what about mortgages? Q: We hear much about the need to increase retirement savings, compulsory contributions to KiwiSaver etc – often from obviously self-interested providers. Have you seen any analysis about whether more people are retiring with mortgage debt who wouldn't have previously, or more debt than they would have had if they hadn't been contributing so much to savings? Is everybody truly better off at retirement? It's always presented as if it is a pure win. A: You raise an interesting point. It must be true that at least some contributions to KiwiSaver would otherwise have gone into reducing mortgages or other debt. While it sounds good to reach 65 with, say, $100,000 in KiwiSaver, nothing is gained if the person owes $100,000 more on their mortgage. Actually, that's not quite accurate. Because of the extra KiwiSaver input from the Government and employers, our person's KiwiSaver balance would probably be higher than the extra mortgage debt. But still, encouraging people – or forcing them by compulsion – to increase their KiwiSaver contributions would probably make people better off at retirement only if there are added KiwiSaver incentives. And they need to be genuine incentives, not increased employer contributions – as in this year's Budget – that Treasury assumes will largely come out of people's future pay rises. There doesn't seem to be any research specifically on this issue. NZIER says 2022 research shows 66% of people 65 and over own their homes mortgage-free, 13% have a mortgage and 20% rent. It adds: 'Less than half of Māori seniors and about one-quarter of Pacific seniors own their homes outright.' It also says: 'The number of people 65 and over with mortgage debt has grown from 118,000 in 2018 to 134,000 in 2022.' Associate professor Susan St John, of the University of Auckland's Pensions and Intergenerational Equity (PIE) research hub, doesn't link that trend to KiwiSaver. 'While I think that we see more people coming into retirement renting, or with a mortgage, I don't think there is evidence to attribute that to KiwiSaver contributions.' However, Treasury seems to disagree. It assumes about 80% of the 2025 Budget increase in employee contributions to KiwiSaver 'will come from a redirection of other forms of saving (eg, lower mortgage repayments or contributions to other investments)'. Either way, St John sums up the situation: 'Saving for retirement should not be viewed as an alternative to home ownership. It may mean that homes have to be more modest. It may mean governments have to increase attractiveness with subsidies rather than reduce them.' Hear, hear! Tax break for homeowners? Q: In a Q&A last week you pointed out that the mortgage interest rate was, say, 5.5% and that the return on savings is 'unlikely to be anywhere near 5.5%' – after tax and fees. True indeed. However, the equation is probably even worse. Mortgage interest is paid with tax-paid money – so if the person's top tax marginal rate is, say, 33%, the 5.5% mortgage rate is really 8.2%. You need to earn $8200 to have the $5500 after tax to pay the interest on $100,000. The mortgage interest rate is always way worse than it looks. Unfortunately, mortgage interest is a case of the miracle of compound interest – but in reverse. A: I think your point is that mortgage interest is not tax-deductible in New Zealand. A 2023 OECD report on tax relief for home ownership lists 17 countries as giving some kind of tax relief for homeowners' mortgage interest. They are Austria, Belgium, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United States. Should New Zealand do the same? Wikipedia points out: 'Most economists believe mortgage interest deduction is bad policy and is counterproductive. They note that it increases inequality, is an unnecessary market distortion, and contributes to housing unaffordability.' While the idea has strong appeal for homeowners, New Zealand doesn't really need to further encourage home ownership, which is already overrated as the only way to do well financially. Nor do we need more tax dollars flowing towards generally better-off people. So I'm afraid I'm not on that particular bandwagon! Your final comment is really a different issue. But you're right – interest on any debt compounds in the same way as interest on savings. It's not uncommon for people to take out, say, a $400,000 mortgage and end up paying more than twice that over the years. It's always a great move to cut any debt as fast as possible to reduce the compounding. Go with lowest fees Q: With so many index funds tracking the same index, such as the S&P500, why don't investors just invest with the fund offering the lowest fees? What other points of difference do funds offer? A: I reckon the lowest fee should be the main basis on which you choose a fund. However, if you're investing in KiwiSaver, there's also data on which providers offer better services and that could sway your decision somewhat. Here are the KiwiSaver providers that have told the Retirement Commission, in its regular services survey, that several or all of their funds are 'passively managed in their entirety and track an index': AMP, InvestNow, Kernel, Koura, Sharesies, SuperEasy and SuperLife, Also, NZ Funds' Balanced Fund is passive. Of these providers, NZ Funds got the highest score for services. Then came AMP, SuperLife, Koura, Kernel, Sharesies and, in a draw for the bottom slot were InvestNow and SuperEasy. But of course many of their services might not interest you. If there's a particular issue for you – perhaps ease of deposits or withdrawals – you can always ask providers if they offer it. Email or phone them, and if they don't reply within a few days, cross them off the 'good services' list. You can compare the different funds' fees using the Smart Investor tool on Or use Sorted's KiwiSaver Fund Finder to get an estimate of the total fees you will pay in each fund until you retire. What if you want to invest outside KiwiSaver? Many of the above providers also offer non-KiwiSaver funds. And Smart Investor also ranks fees on non-KiwiSaver managed funds. Another option is to use overseas-based funds. But that introduces complications with tax, settling estates and so on. It's much simpler to use a New Zealand-based fund that invests in overseas indexes. Many baskets? Q: Interesting stuff in last week's column about low fees and index funds. I note you do though also emphasise diversification. I recently switched from a major bank to a fund that allows me to split my KiwiSaver over several providers. So I can invest with Generate, Milford, Pathfinder and Nikko to name but four, and can do so in a mixture of conservative, balanced and growth funds. Thus my eggs go into many baskets. The trade-off is of course higher fees. Would it be better to go with a pure index fund that has low fees? I like Buffett's idea of 20% bonds and 80% index funds for people like me who are total amateurs. Which KiwiSaver provides this option? A: Several KiwiSaver providers enable you to invest in a range of funds run by other providers. And it's true that would give you further diversification. But that comes at the price of simplicity. And you won't necessarily get a higher total after-fees return, or less volatility. The providers you name tend to offer actively managed funds, as opposed to the passive index funds discussed above. And their fees are almost always higher, sometimes a lot higher. In any given year, some actively managed funds will perform better than the always middle-of-the-road passive funds, while some will do worse. But over time, it doesn't tend to be the same ones that outperform. Looking at what has done well so far doesn't guarantee their success will continue. Passive funds, with their lower fees, tend to be the best bet. Choose one that follows an index with many shares in it, such as the MSCI world share index, and you will have wonderful diversification. Rentals in retirement Q: I was surprised when you stated that most people invest in rental properties for the capital gain. We purchased a two-bedroom, cross-lease property in 1986 only to provide extra income on retirement. If we sold the property now for the Auckland Council capital valuation we would receive more income from a term deposit at 4% than we do from our rental, even before deducting expenses, rates, insurance, agent's fees, maintenance etc. A: At the risk of sounding mean, why don't you sell then? I don't really understand using rental property as a retirement investment – unless you are wealthy and enjoy being a landlord, or regard the property as your children's inheritance. But if you're having anything less than a financially comfortable retirement, it doesn't make sense to tie up all the money in a property when you could be gradually spending the proceeds from selling it, along with returns earned on that money in the meantime. On your first sentence, I've looked through recent columns and I don't think I've said that. I have, though, written that many new landlords find their expenses exceed their rental income, so they have to top up mortgage payments. Presumably they hope this imbalance will ease over time. But my guess is that many also hope to sell at a gain. Exempt employers Q: The Financial Markets Authority administers the register of exempt employers of KiwiSaver. The full list is available to view on the FMA website. A: You're right. You can see the list here: However, that list includes only employers who had qualifying employee superannuation schemes back in the early days of KiwiSaver, before November 2009, says the FMA. 'A scheme offered to employees by the employer had to have a minimum contribution rate of 4% of gross base salary of the member, which could be from either the member or the employer or a combination of both. 'Today only a new employee who joins the employment of an employer who holds exempt employer status and who is not already a KiwiSaver member would be covered by these provisions.' The FMA list does not include employers discussed in last week's Q&A, such as an employer that is not a New Zealand resident or does not carry on a business 'from a fixed establishment in NZ'. Mary Holm, ONZM, is a freelance journalist, a seminar presenter and a bestselling author on personal finance. She is a director of Financial Services Complaints Ltd (FSCL) and a former director of the Financial Markets Authority. Her opinions do not reflect the position of any organisation in which she holds office. Mary's advice is of a general nature, and she is not responsible for any loss that any reader may suffer from following it. Send questions to mary@ Letters should not exceed 200 words. We won't publish your name. Please provide a (preferably daytime) phone number. Unfortunately, Mary cannot answer all questions, correspond directly with readers, or give financial advice.
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Offshore oil ban repeal: Coalition seeks consensus amid opposition
However, in a statement on Thursday, Jones said the ban was 'ill-fated' and 'has exacerbated shortages in our domestic gas supply by obliterating new investment in the exploration and development needed to meet our future gas needs'. 'New Zealanders are bearing the brunt of this constrained gas supply, and energy security concerns are impacting investor sentiment ... we are seeing businesses in the regions closing as a result with Kiwis losing their jobs, and we're importing hundreds of tonnes of Indonesian coal to meet peak energy demand. 'This legislation is just one of many actions we are taking to get the right settings in place to resuscitate sector confidence, shore up energy supply, and protect electricity affordability.' He was absent from Parliament on Thursday, leaving the main Government speech to the National Party's Simon Watts – the Minister for Energy and Climate Change. Watts said the opposition's argument that reversing the ban would not yield new gas for a decade was 'a distraction'. 'The immediate signal that this bill sends to investors is critical now. It encourages immediate investment in long-term exploration and in maximising production from our existing fields, which can deliver benefits far sooner. 'New Zealand is committed to a clean-energy transition and meeting our emissions targets. We have committed to deliver net zero by 2050, including by doubling renewable electricity, and removing consenting barriers. Natural gas remains critical to our energy security. Without gas, we would need to either rely on more coal, which results in around twice the carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas, or face energy insecurity and higher prices.' His Labour Party counterpart Megan Woods, however, said the evidence showed record investment in existing fields after 2018. Labour MP Megan Woods has slammed the Government's offshore exploration push. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'For this Government to claim that it had a chilling effect on investment is simply wrong. What we had was those offshore oil and gas operators looking for every last bit they could eke out of the existing fields, and it is not there. 'Then we had Shane Jones saying that this will open up opportunities off the East Coast of the South Island. Well, news flash: billions of dollars have been spent looking for that particular El Dorado ... this Government is going to give $200 million to offshore companies to go and have a look again where they've already decided there are not commercial finds available.' She pointed to official analysis showing reversing the ban would add 14.2 million tonnes of emissions, and 'a bit that should have been redacted from the regulatory impact statement' showing it could affect trade. 'Let me read from that: 'Legally privileged: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade assessed that reversing the 2018 ban would likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand's free-trade agreements' – so farmers need to be worried, our access to the EU and the UK are being put at risk.' The Green Party spokesman for just transitions, Steve Abel, was also sceptical the oil industry could be attracted back. He was part of the Oil-Free Seas Flotilla in 2011 that harried Petrobras' surveying ship for 42 days, welcomed to the area by a 500-strong haka 'said by Te Whānau-a-Apanui, the iwi greeting us, to be the biggest haka since James Cook had arrived in that part of the country – I'm hoping we were more worthy of it than he was', Abel said. The Green Party's Steve Abel says the 2018 ban simply sealed the fate of an oil industry already in decline. Photo / Marty Melville He listed off a series of oil companies that exited New Zealand before the ban came into place: Exxon Mobil abandoning its southern oil and gas hunt in November 2010 after three years, Petrobras in December 2012, Texan driller Anadarko exiting its permit on the North Island's west coast in May 2014, Statoil quitting its Northland permit in October 2016, and Shell selling its remaining assets to OMV in March 2018. He said the ban was the 'final nail in the coffin of an industry that was already declaring its own demise in this country, because they came, they prospected, they found nothing, and they found nothing but overwhelming public opposition from the people of this country'. Echelon Resources – the company formerly known as New Zealand Oil and Gas, last month told RNZ the best wells are typically drilled first, so new drilling will be more difficult and expensive. Its managing director, Andrew Jeffries, said other countries had more political consensus, making New Zealand an even more unattractive option for investment. Act Party MP Simon Court said the repeal would restore certainty, credibility and confidence, but called on Labour not to reimpose the ban if it won power. 'Today marks the end of an era – a really bad one. It marks the end of a six-year reign of economic vandalism and energy illiteracy by the previous New Zealand Labour Government. 'Even the Honourable Shane Jones said at the time – bless his soul – that ending oil and gas exploration 'is the only scenario'. When he stood at that podium, I was shocked, but I'm pleased that minister has come to his senses – but profoundly disappointed that the Labour Party still has not.' Court's leader, David Seymour, said it was 'very possible that they won't find the gas, but the impediment to people getting cheaper energy should not be our own Government, and that's why I say if New Zealand First can change their mind then Labour should be able to do that too'.
