Dunne now independent for parliamentary purposes

June 25th, 2013 at 2:18 pm by David Farrar

Speaker has ruled that as is no longer a registered political party, it is no longer eligible to be recognised as a parliamentary party under . Hence is now classified as an independent MP.

This means he loses $122,000 of annual leader and party funding. Also he no longer has the right to speaks on motions where all party leaders get to speak.

However the Speaker also indicated that if they do get re-registered they will likely again be recognised as a parliamentary party, so he is likely to regain his former status in a couple of months or so.

Tags: , , ,

33 Responses to “Dunne now independent for parliamentary purposes”

  1. RRM (9,467 comments) says:

    United History :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (7,628 comments) says:

    I’d just like him to tell us why he resigned from his semi-ministerial position.

    What is the big secret?

    Maybe he is frightened that if we knew what that reason was, he might have to quit altogether.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (22,850 comments) says:

    Not surprising, but a bit ironic coming on the same day the Auditor General ruled that the Speaker had previously acted legally when Mallard and Peters stomped out of the House.

    It’s a nuisance for Dunne and will presumably impact on staff, but as far as the party goes it’s business as usual. The party still exists outside Parliament and intends continuing to rebuild.

    The whole thing is very messy. One unfortunate effect could be that parties with dicey membership numbers may be more inclined to fib in their annual return, or at least not look very closely at how current all their members are.

    Dunne Accepts Speaker’s Funding Ruling

    UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne says he accepts the Speaker’s ruling regarding UnitedFuture’s Parliamentary funding and recognition being withdrawn while the Party’s registration is still under consideration by the Electoral Commission.

    “I think the Speaker had no credible alternative, given the intransigent attitude of the Electoral Commission to UnitedFuture’s re-registration process.

    “Once UnitedFuture has been re-registered in the next few weeks, I will look forward to discussing the matter once more with the Speaker,” he says.

    It’s odd that the EC requires signed paper but still independently verify members anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Samuel Smith (276 comments) says:

    He’s Dunne for.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. MT_Tinman (2,993 comments) says:

    Fantastic outcome.

    Now, how do we get rid of the rest of the one-man jokesters pretending to be party leaders (and getting well paid for it as a result)?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Alan Johnstone (1,064 comments) says:

    The speaker has finally faced the facts and applied the standing orders correctly, perhaps after getting legal advice.

    I’m tempted to ask why he didn’t do this a month ago though?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. hmmokrightitis (1,511 comments) says:

    He and Hone can eat at the Green Parrot together :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Matthew Percival (16 comments) says:

    This outcome seems fair enough to me.

    The speaker gave United Future a reasonable period of time to correct what was claimed to be an administrative error and they haven’t been able to do so.

    Personally I would like to see an audit of the other small parties to see how legitimate their claim to have 500 paid up members is.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    Not surprising, but a bit ironic coming on the same day the Auditor General ruled that the Speaker had previously acted legally when Mallard and Peters stomped out of the House.

    The Auditor-General’s ruling did not say that at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dime (9,439 comments) says:

    LMAO its a freakin joke he gets treated like a leader.

    Banks, Hone, Dung should all be counted as independent MP’s imho.

    I guess 2 MP’s and you can be leader? Should really be 5 or so

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (22,850 comments) says:

    Maybe I interpreted this wrong:

    In response to a letter from Hon Trevor Mallard, the Controller and Auditor-General has confirmed that, for as long as the United Future party is recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes under Standing Orders, there is lawful authority for the party to receive party funding under the relevant legislation.

    It follows that, if the Speaker ceases to recognise United Future as a party for parliamentary purposes, its funding entitlements will change accordingly.

    So there is lawful authority to fund parties if the Speaker recognises them as a party.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (13,375 comments) says:

    My hearts goes out to the now independent whorish MP. How sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Alan Johnstone (1,064 comments) says:

    @PG, yes, you interpreted it wrong.

    What you fail to address is the speakers right to recognize a party. He doesn’t have carte blanche, he is bound by the law.

    Today the speaker moved into compliance with the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

    My day just got exponentially better. Fuck off, parasite

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Monique Angel (252 comments) says:

    It’s ironic. It would seem that FPP was a better voting system to promote the presence of smaller parties within Parliament. MMP is a disaster. Handful of independents with some, like Peter Dunne better than others like no-show Hone or that chinese hating WP who are both idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. campit (466 comments) says:

    Speaker David Carter has ruled that as United Future is no longer a registered political party, it is no longer eligible to be recognised as a parliamentary party under Standing Orders.

    And yet on the 4th June (after United Future was deregistered by the Electoral Commission), the Land Transport Amendment Bill passed, with the speaker counting Dunne’s vote as “United Future”. I assume today’s ruling is effective from today only then, and that the fact that the Speaker previously counted United Future when it was no longer a registered political party falls into some kind of legal grey area… (not that UF’s vote mattered, it still passed with enough of a margin)

    Also does this announcement effectively revoke the confidence and supply agreement with United Future?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (22,850 comments) says:

    Apparently not campit, I asked Dunne:

    Today’s events have no impact on the agreement which will continue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    Apparently not campit, I asked Dunne:

    Why is it that the phrase “useful idiot” comes to mind when reading every one of your KB posts?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (22,850 comments) says:

    I think you’re the idiot nickb and not even a useful one. someone asked a question and I got an answer for them.

    You’ve contributing nothing useful. You’ve just demonstrated how pathetic and petty some of the comments are here.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wreck1080 (3,731 comments) says:

    He lacks 500 registered members?

    How on earth was he voted for in the first place if he cannot even rustle up 500 signatures?

    Sorry if it’s a stupid question but I generally have better things to do than study the minutiae of our parliamentary system.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Dave Mann (1,169 comments) says:

    @Pete, for what its worth I think you are an intelligent and thoughtful contributor to these comments. I don’t necessarily share all your political views, but I wouldn’t call you an idiot by any means.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    @campit,

    I don’t believe the law requires you to be a registered party in order to enter into a contract, so no.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pete George (22,850 comments) says:

    He lacks 500 registered members?

    No, it’s been publicly stated there’s well over a thousand members.

    And apparently the Electoral Commission accepts that the party has well over 500 members, but requires paper proof. And then they will still cross check the validity of the memberships anyway. Them’s the rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. publicwatchdog (2,107 comments) says:

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/peter-dunne-ruled-independent-mp-wb-141983

    Peter Dunne ruled an independent MP

    MY COMMENT – YET TO BE PUBLISHED:

    “When the people lead – the politicians follow”?

    Could this have had anything to do with Speaker David Carter’s rather abrupt ‘U-turn’?

    The very next day after this private prosecution against Peter Dunne was filed?

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________

    24 June 2013
    Peter Dunne Private Prosecution
    Filed in the Wellington District Court.

    The New Zealand Private Prosecution Service Limited filed commenced a private prosecution against the Honourable Peter Dunne by laying four Informations before the Wellington District Court.

    One is a fraud allegation under Section 228 of the Crimes Act 1961 that Dunne received $3,846.10 between 30 April and 1 June 2013 being a fortnightly instalment of his $100,000 payment as the leader of a registered political party. During this time the Party had determined that there were insufficient numbers to declare that the party gad 500 members and the Speaker had made no determination that Dunne could keep the money in the meantime.

    “Mr Dunne finds himself in the same position as a welfare beneficiary who has had a substantial change of circumstances, takes no steps to alert WINZ of the change and continues to receive the money when he has no ’colour of right’ to receive it. Nor did he take any steps to return the money or hold it in trust.”

    The other three Informations are allegations under Section 78A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 in that he:

    Disclosed the EXISTENCE of Official Information (The Ketteridge Report);
    Disclosed he HAD A COPY of the report;
    That he DISCLOSED IN WHOLE OR PART ITS CONTENTS to Andrea Vance of Fairfax Media.

    By way of a Memorandum a request has been served on Mr Dunne, Parliamentary Services and Ministerial Services request for evidence in the form of the 86 emails sent and received to and from Andrea Vance under both the Official Information Act and Privacy Principal 11(e)(iv) of the Privacy Act.

    Mr Dunne has the opportunity to make submissions opposing the Court issuing summonses on each of the four Informations. The Memorandum and Informations are attached

    Graham Mc Cready
    Informant for NZPPS Ltd
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. publicwatchdog (2,107 comments) says:

    Here you go Kiwibloggers – so you can read EXACTLY what the OAG said on this matter (published about 2 hours before Speaker David Carter ruled that Peter Dunne was an ‘Independent’ MP) ?

    OAG Comms
    12:03 PM (7 hours ago)

    to
    Tēnā koutou,

    In response to a letter from Hon Trevor Mallard, the Controller and Auditor-General has confirmed that, for as long as the United Future party is recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes under Standing Orders, there is lawful authority for the party to receive party funding under the relevant legislation.

    It follows that, if the Speaker ceases to recognise United Future as a party for parliamentary purposes, its funding entitlements will change accordingly.

    Funding entitlements are administered by the Parliamentary Service under the Parliamentary Service Act 2000.

    In considering Mr Mallard’s request, the Controller and Auditor-General took into account the relevant appropriation, the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, the ‘Directions by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 2011’, and Speaker’s ruling, on 6 June 2013, that the United Future party is for the time being recognised under the Standing Orders of the House.

    A full copy of the Controller and Auditor-General’s letter to Mr Mallard has been published on our website http://www.oag.govt.nz/media/2013/mallard-letter.

    Notes to editors: The Controller function

    The Auditor-General considered this matter using her powers as Controller, which are set out in section 15(2) of the Public Audit Act 2001 and sections 65Y to 65ZA of the Public Finance Act 1989. The controller function is one of the constitutional checks and balances in our Parliamentary system.

    The Controller provides independent assurance to Parliament that spending has been incurred for purposes that are both:

    · within the scope of the relevant appropriation (or other parliamentary authority); and

    · in accordance with the lawful authority provided by Parliament for the activity concerned.

    Put plainly, before a public entity spends money it must have an appropriation (that is authority) from Parliament and the expenditure must be for a legal purpose. Both tests must be satisfied or the Controller can either require reporting to the House of Representatives or can stop funding. The controller function is a legal requirement and is not a discretionary. Checks on the authority and purpose of government expenditure are carried out throughout the year but the sanctions are used rarely.

    …………………………..

    Ngā mihi,

    Reports and Communications Group
    Office of the Auditor-General (Te Mana Arotake) and
    Audit New Zealand (Mana Arotake Aotearoa)
    ……………………………………….

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Well done Penny. You’ve just pointed out that McCready has launched a private prosecution against funding the A-G has declared lawful up until this afternoon when the Speaker ruled UF no longer recognized as a party under Standing Orders.

    With friends like you McCready doesn’t need to be declared a vexatious litigant to screw his poorly conceived prosecution attempts

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (22,850 comments) says:

    Re Penny’s attempt to claim some effect of McCready’s speculative complaint:

    No case to answer

    Unlike his other cases against Trevor Mallard and John Banks, I think there’s not a hope in hell of any of these going anywhere.

    On the fraud charge, the Bill of Rights 1688 bars the courts from inquiring into Parliamentary business (and whether a disclosure is made to the Speaker / whether a party should be recognised by the Speaker is very much the business of Parliament).

    On the former cases, Stuff is sadly nonspecific about the exact charges, but they’re likely to be either espionage or some variations of wrongful communication, retention, or copying of official information.

    The first thing to note is that all of these offences require that the information disclosed be “likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand”. That’s a joke, and John Key has said as such.

    The second point is that they all require the consent of the Attorney-General, which given the first point is unlikely to be forthcoming. The third point is that one of the limbs of wrongful communication specifically refers to official information, defined in the same terms as used in the Official Information Act (that is, held by certain specified bodies).

    But if the allegation is that Dunne leaked official information held by the Intelligence and Security Committee, then that cannot be true, because the ISC is not subject to the OIA and so its information is not “official information”.

    Similarly he cannot have leaked material held by a Minister (in this case himself) in an official capacity because he did not hold the Kitteridge report in such a capacity (it was given to him as a government coalition partner, not as a Minister).

    What about the other limbs? They require the intent to prejudice the security and defence of New Zealand – see point one above – or that Dunne had been ordered to return the report before he leaked it (which there’s been no suggestion of). Basically its difficult to see any case whatsoever. And I think if there was, the police would have stepped in already.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/no-case-to-answer.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. KevinH (1,131 comments) says:

    Peter Dunne’s fall from grace has hit a new low with the Speakers ruling, surely this can only be interpreted as a complete arse kicking, question is however , we the public are not in possession of the full facts that have led to Dunne’s demise. Those pesky emails remain confidential, and it is those emails that would answer many questions, for instance, was national security threatened?
    As far as the private prosecution is concerned, it’s bollocks, hopefully the judiciary won’t waste to much taxpayers money before tossing it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. niggly (799 comments) says:

    And apparently the Electoral Commission accepts that the party has well over 500 members, but requires paper proof. And then they will still cross check the validity of the memberships anyway. Them’s the rules.

    I don’t understand – if there are over 500 (what some 1000 or so?) electronically signed up members, why not email these people with a form letter as an attachment in which they print it out, input their details, sign and then post back to the UF Party (or send them a form letter in a pre-paid return address envelope), which can be checked and then passed onto the EC?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. s.russell (1,563 comments) says:

    And what will happen to the staff in Dunne’s office?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ChardonnayGuy (1,136 comments) says:

    Perhaps Peter should rename his ensemble the Schrodingers Cat Party, given that it seems to be there one minute and gone the next, rather similar to the famous quantum physics thought experiment and animal rights violation involving a cat, a box and radioactive emissions leading to the uncertain corporeal status of the aforementioned moglet.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Mark (1,363 comments) says:

    United Future follows Act into political oblivion and the long past their use by date politicians that represent them in parliament are unlikely to be there after the next election

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    @Mark,

    The death of ACT has been predicted at virtually every election they have stood in. That should tell some people something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.