I did not have policy relations with REINZ

23 comments on “I did not have policy relations with REINZ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robinsod 1

   12 June 2008 at 11:59 am

   I’d say more like tones of the Insurance Council debacle…
2. Steve Pierson 2

   12 June 2008 at 12:11 pm

   great title.

   agree with the ‘sod though. This is more secret dealings with big business to set up a secret agenda in the narrow intersts of big business
3. lemsip 3

   12 June 2008 at 12:29 pm

   no where does she say she has met with reinz since the bill, not Act at time of her comment (you dimwit), went for submissions.

   This is such a purile beat up – unless you have other evidence.
4. Hoolian 4

   12 June 2008 at 12:30 pm

   “Yet MP Kate Wilkinson – well known for speaking honestly about National Party policy – says she has. She writes that she has “a strong interest in this area’ and is also sitting on the Select Committee.”

   Just because Wilkinson has met with RIENZ does not mean that National has, nor does it support your position of another “conspiracy”. An MP, List or otherwise, has various roles and it is entirely up to the MP to do as they wish in that regard.

   In fact, you have deliberately copied and pasted Wilkinson’s comments out of context. What she actually said was:

   Having held a public meeting in Rangiora on this issue, meeting with Real Estate Institute and having a strong interest in this area, I am delighted to be sitting in on the Select Committee for the duration of the Bill.

   So all Wilkinson has done is admit that she has met with REINZ at some point. In fact, she even speaks of it in the past tense. It directly contradicts your idea that she has met with RIENZ since the Bill has been tabled before the SC, which is what Power has confirmed didn’t happen.

   Good try though. But next time, stick to lies that aren’t so easily detected.
5. Robinsod 5

   12 June 2008 at 12:31 pm

   Considering the REINZ National President has apparently said this:

   “the National Party, that may well win the election, would probably make changes that better suited the institute.”

   I’d say this could shape up to be a pretty major issue. Assuming of course there isn’t another “stock photo” or balloon scandal (interestingly I haven’t seen anything of this matter mentioned on the Herald site).
6. all_your_base 6

   12 June 2008 at 12:56 pm

   Hoolian: Let’s hope she or Simon clear it up then for us eh?
7. BeShakey 7

   12 June 2008 at 12:57 pm

   Hoolian – “In fact, she even speaks of it in the past tense”.

   It’d be great if she spoke of it in the present tense. “I am currently meeting with REINZ. Can’t you see them. They are everywhere, little floating real estate agents with fairy wings.”

   More seriously – I’d be interested to hear your opinions on the Nats getting ‘policy input’ from big business. You don’t seem to think it is acceptable, or else why would you feel the need to defend the NAts from the charge. So would you criticise the Nats if they have been getting input from big business on this, or other issues.
8. andy 8

   12 June 2008 at 1:01 pm

   Robinson

   I am interested in the way the herald is treating Mr Carter and the REINZ claims as opposed to the stock photo.

   1 comment on Audrey Young’s blog by 1pm.

   And nothing on the your views page

   Seems like they don’t want people to have a view that does not align with their own. Seems unusual to me?
9. Steve Withers 9

   12 June 2008 at 1:03 pm

   Nothing wrong with National talking to the Real Estate Institute.

   What would be wrong is selling policy in return for donations.

   Especially when the law that may be weakened in any such deal would have made RE agents more accountable. That would be a clear case of a political party putting its own coffers ahead of the country’s interest.

   A party like that would deserve censure. Wouldn’t matter what party it was.
10. Hoolian 10

    12 June 2008 at 2:08 pm

    More seriously – I’d be interested to hear your opinions on the Nats getting ‘policy input’ from big business. You don’t seem to think it is acceptable, or else why would you feel the need to defend the NAts from the charge. So would you criticise the Nats if they have been getting input from big business on this, or other issues.

    I absolutely insist on big businesses talking to political parties. When any party makes policy or seeks to bring in new legislation, it is paramount that those parties consult everyone – yes, incl. big business.

    It is well-known that Labour takes advice from the Unions before making adjustmetns to Labour laws, so what’s the difference? The Govt consistantly ropes in private and public sector organisations and companies in order to get their opinions and perspective. Hell, even businesses were consulted for Nandor’s Waste Minimalisation Bill.

    Just because you lefties have an obessesion with how evil big businesses are, doesn’t justify these consiracy theories. No one is saying that big money buying politics is a good thing – its clearly not. But what is downright OK is for businesses and sector-related orgnaisations to have a say in legislation and select committee.

    I’d say this could shape up to be a pretty major issue.

    Ooooh, I imagine it’s going to be the next Big Bang. You need to get out more. There are few who will sponsor these conspiracies of the left. Keep to the ones about the Arizona desert…
11. Quoth the Raven 11

    12 June 2008 at 2:25 pm

    Hoolian – Don’t you mean Nevada desert. Don’t worry we won’t let facts impinge on your right wing rant.
12. bill brown 12

    12 June 2008 at 3:08 pm

    This is great: shock! stock photo used in pamphlet

    – quick, hold the front page of the National Herald!

    Nats concoct anti-worker policy behind doors to be rolled out after election (and probably don’t even tell their MP’s that aren’t in the kitchen cabinet)

    – “I absolutely insist on big businesses talking to political parties”
13. Vanilla Eis 13

    12 June 2008 at 3:37 pm

    Steady on ayb, as you said – Wilkinson is on the select committee. Having been involved with said committee, REINZ had a fairly substantial presentation, as well as presence at other sittings of the committee where they weren’t presenting. As a member, it is perfectly acceptable for Kate Wilkinson to have contact with submitters. That is the point of submissions. And the committee members are able to ask for follow up information and feedback from the submitters, after their submission, so neither National Party member is necessarily being dishonest.

    Of course, I still don’t trust the Nats as far as I can throw them, but what the hey…
14. Ari 14

    12 June 2008 at 4:29 pm

    I don’t think MPs should be meeting with big business behind closed doors at all, personally, regardless of what they’re discussing. Yes, submitters should have a voice- but it should be a public one so that we can see for ourselves exactly what is going on in our select committees.
15. Vanilla Eis 15

    12 June 2008 at 6:19 pm

    Ari: I wholeheartedly agree. However, I am not one to judge whether Wilkinson had contact with REINZ as part of her select committee role, or whether she was acting as an intermediary for the National Party.

    Captcha: Great Issue. Sure is.
16. Former Labour Voter 16

    13 June 2008 at 8:02 am

    As opposed to what, the narrow interests of the EPMU, it’s multi multi-million-dollar asset-base, its attempts to run a parallel campaign attacking National on behalf of the Labour Party in contravention of the very same Electoral Finance Act that it supported, and the EPMU paying for at least two people to effectively blog full-time for the Standard?

    Or as opposed to the secret collusion with taxpayer-funded staff from Ministerial Services, working in the Prime Minister’s office, pushing out talking points for Labour at the Standard?

    Yes, yes, lprent, I know this post is going to get deleted, because you hypocrites simply cannot stand it when your hypocrisy is pointed out. What’s the bet that IrishBill is going to issue an on-the-spot four-month ban, which never gets lifted, while you allow freaks like Robinsod to go around abusing anybody who disagrees with the official Labour Party line.

    The truth hurts. Despite the Standard’s attempt to infect everybody with Key Derangement syndrome, your beloved Labour Party is still sliding further and further in the polls.

    [lprent: Crap. You are just spinning this out of your arse. I’m sure that source material gets squirted intro the mail accounts. Just as I’m sure that DPF or Frogblog gets material as well. Spin doctors love media outlets. I know that ideas for posts get sent there from all sorts of commentators, because some of them wind up at my system, and I forward them on.

    But in the end the posters make up their own mind about what they present.

    The KDS looks to me like diversion by someone. Face it – the guy looks like an idiot next to Helen. Hell he looks like political idiot against Winston. Someone somewhere really don’t want the sock-puppet looked at too closely, so they invented KDS.

    BTW: You avoided my usual harsh response because you didn’t comment on the financing of the blog, which is what I boot people for. Of course you could get a different response if you accuse a specific poster. But if you want to become a marytr…]
17. Lew 17

    13 June 2008 at 8:24 am

    FLV: Might be time to change your handle to `Former Standard Commenter’.

    L
18. Tane 18

    13 June 2008 at 9:00 am

    Lynn, you’re too kind. “Former Labour Voter” is on his last warning. He appears to be using an IP mask, though I suspect he’s one of our regular right-wing commenters from Parliament. You’d be amazed the number of people coming on here accusing us of being paid to blog who turn out to be using a Parliamentary IP address.

    [lprent: Probably worried about relative wage rates? I’ve seen some really weird press releases from the nat’s spin doctors]
19. Former Labour Voter 19

    13 June 2008 at 9:19 am

    [Tane: Lynn, don’t waste your time. FLV is banned. People can’t come on here and accuse me of lying, without evidence, and expect to be allowed to stick around.]

    [lprent: For a change I didn’t get accused of lying about who pays for the site. But I’d agree that he was saying that you were. As per normal, not even a pretense at backing up the claim. Just another person with a martyr complex. I’ll track down the previous accesses later and put in the kill list. I presume it is a permanent ban?]
20. ghostwhowalks 20

    13 June 2008 at 9:26 am

    The REINZ has been ‘talking’ to the newspaper proprietors as well. There was talk of all the advertising done by the industry at risk.

    Money talks as it always has. And the REINZ has big wallets to do the talking for them
21. Phil 21

    13 June 2008 at 9:41 am

    “Face it – the guy looks like an idiot next to Helen. Hell he looks like political idiot against Winston. ”

    Short memory…

    In ’05, Key held his own quite well against Cullen in the deputy- leaders / finance-portfolio debate. Do you think our (soon to be former) Minister of Finance looks like an idiot too? I doubt it.

    Whether or not Key is able to perform evenly with Helen Clark remains to be seen, in the eventual leaders debates. Anything prior to that is politically skewed personal speculation, and premature load-blowing.

    [lprent: I don’t watch a lot of TV – but I did have a look at the ‘detail’ of their broadband policy that Key released. Now that is idiotic]
22. Tane 22

    13 June 2008 at 12:08 pm

    [Tane: I presume it is a permanent ban?]

    Lynn, yes. Thanks.

Links to post

1. Behind the secrecy at The Standard 2.01: posted on 12 June 2008 at 2:06 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS