Should the government buy something just because it's made here in New Zealand, even if it costs us more. That's basically the question you've got to ask yourself after the latest wool snub. This time it was kying order saying no in bold text, by the way to keyp we made woolen carpet for state houses and yes to synthetic imported stuff. Why it's cheaper. We've been here before, you'll remember the school classroom's same story. And it happens despite a coalition agreement deal with New Zealand first ensuring where practical, and that might be the caveat that KAO is using here to get out of wool, that the local product be used in government procurement and in government buildings. But Ko, like a good kid in class, has been listening to the government's main lecture, which has cut costs. Wool is thirty percent more expensive on average in carpets for state houses than the nylon equivalent. But the industry, says KO, and the deal could revitalize a flailing product and its fortunes. So we have a clash of competing priorities cost versus localism. The answer to the question posed at the start of this is another question which is never It's kind of annoying when people do that. But here we are what is the net benefit to New Zealand's economy as a whole of government buying wool carpet, including the jobs that you would create, including the spending that you would encourage, and the increased cost of wool on the taxpayer. That surely is your number. That is the number that you would base a decision on whether to use a New Zealand made product over a synthetic, imported equivalent. For more from Early edition with Ryan Bridge, listen live to News Talk Set B from five am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.

Should the government buy something just because it's made here in New Zealand, even if it costs us more. That's basically the question you've got to ask yourself after the latest wool snub. This time it was kying order saying no in bold text, by the way to keyp we made woolen carpet for state houses and yes to synthetic imported stuff. Why it's cheaper. We've been here before, you'll remember the school classroom's same story. And it happens despite a coalition agreement deal with New Zealand first ensuring where practical, and that might be the caveat that KAO is using here to get out of wool, that the local product be used in government procurement and in government buildings. But Ko, like a good kid in class, has been listening to the government's main lecture, which has cut costs. Wool is thirty percent more expensive on average in carpets for state houses than the nylon equivalent. But the industry, says KO, and the deal could revitalize a flailing product and its fortunes. So we have a clash of competing priorities cost versus localism. The answer to the question posed at the start of this is another question which is never It's kind of annoying when people do that. But here we are what is the net benefit to New Zealand's economy as a whole of government buying wool carpet, including the jobs that you would create, including the spending that you would encourage, and the increased cost of wool on the taxpayer. That surely is your number. That is the number that you would base a decision on whether to use a New Zealand made product over a synthetic, imported equivalent. For more from Early edition with Ryan Bridge, listen live to News Talk Set B from five am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.