United Future submits 500 members

July 9th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Independent MP Peter Dunne will submit 500 individually signed declarations from members in an effort to register the party today. …

He said he was disappointed the commission would not take six to eight weeks to check the validity of the members’ forms.

“Even if it was to check every one of the memberships, not just a sample, it would not be unrealistic to expect the process to be completed within five working days,” Mr Dunne said.

The time frame just seems unusually long. It takes around a minute to check a name and address against the electoral roll. I know this from experience as years ago one of my jobs was to check that all of National’s candidates were actually on the electoral roll, before we submitted the nominations forms!

I think five working days should be more than enough to verify some or all of the names.

Tags: ,

48 Responses to “United Future submits 500 members”

  1. Prince (102 comments) says:

    Welcome to the world of Government depts in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. huckleberryfinsbrother (25 comments) says:

    good show, I am number 501 on the waiting list for Peter Dunne, United Future.
    My punt is that Peter Dunne will gain strength here.
    He will help keep the ravages of the mad left from us, with this life threatening move,
    our own sad liitle version of the wider game which USA Obama will lose,

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Judith (8,531 comments) says:

    I think it is more than just a matter of checking names against the electoral roll. Anyone can flick through a roll and pull out a few names to include.

    The requirement is verification, and whilst I don’t see the need to contact all 500 members, I would expect a percentage of them to be personally contacted to ensure there has been no ‘borrowing’ of names, inadvertently or on-purpose.

    The acceptance of a name and address, whilst a few years ago, was deemed appropriate, due to the drop in standards, technology etc, further investigation is required before such information can be deemed as ‘verified’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Graeme Edgeler (3,280 comments) says:

    The delay isn’t caused by checking the names against the electoral roll.

    The delay is mostly caused by following up with people to make sure they personally signed up. Most of them can be dealt with quickly, but practice has shown there will usually be a few who are difficult to track down, won’t return calls or mail, etc.

    Also, I would note you don’t actually have to be on the electoral roll (you just have to be eligible to be on it), which the Commission has asked Parliament to change, but it hasn’t, so this makes it more complicated to check. Also, not everyone who is on the electoral roll is on the public electoral roll, and that is very closely held.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. huckleberryfinsbrother (25 comments) says:

    Quite frankly it is amazing that United Future got the numbers so fast.
    The pay system for membership asked me which State I live in.
    I had only just started to advise Mr Dunne rthat i live in NZ as the results came in.
    Beat that Winston, go on stand out from the crowd and put your name where your name is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. huckleberryfinsbrother (25 comments) says:

    try to get real brothers Peter Dunne has associated himslef with hero whistleblowers, case closed.
    a must win

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    The Electoral Commission seems intent on sticking to the letter of it’s own rules. And instead of making rules some to fit a new situation, a re-registering party, they have decided to treat UF as a totally new party.

    The Commission says that new party registration takes 6-8 weeks so this process is being given the same timeframe. This is despite having already acknowledged that previously submitted information complied with all of their requirements – except that there were no signatures on paper, which they keep insisting on.

    PM yesterday on Electoral Commission rules on written signatures: “a bit of an old fashioned way of viewing things”

    But the Commission can insist on following their rules and they can choose to not adapt rules for new circumstances. That’s just how it is and getting frustrated and grizzling won’t make any difference – except perhaps ensure that they take all of the 6-8 weeks allocated before they will re-register.

    At least it means another opportunity in a month or two for United Future to be noticed by the media.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. lastmanstanding (1,267 comments) says:

    IMHO the real reason is the Electoral Commission is staffed by Socialist and Green Party supporters so the longer they can string it out the longer before Dunn gets his funding back.

    That’s the real reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    The requirement is verification, and whilst I don’t see the need to contact all 500 members, I would expect a percentage of them to be personally contacted…

    That’s as I understand it, and from what I’ve heard it’s about 10% which is 50 to check.

    In the meantime they will be checking a lot more than that (thousands) in a similar timeframe for the asset sale petition.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. peterwn (3,238 comments) says:

    If UF merely produced 500 sign-ups, then they all need to be checked to ensure they are all valid. If UF produced 5000 sign-ups, it would only be necessary to check 50 or 100 and if say 90% are OK the probability of there being less than 500 valid ones in all would be extremely slim.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wreck1080 (3,863 comments) says:

    1 minute to check an address, 59 minutes for checking facebook / downloading porn / buying rubbish from trademe.

    I guess this is why they take so long.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    499 are Pete George sock puppets.

    Don’t fall for it, New Zealand!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    lastmanstanding – no, they are just pedantic public servants.

    The Greens have not been involved in trying to impede UF’s return, they have supported UF on some things. They will be well aware that they may have trouble complying with Commission requirements should they be audited, as like all parties they do a lot of registrations online and could have difficulty coming up with signed membership forms.

    Winston Peters (for obvious reasons) and Trevor Mallard (for unknown reasons that could backfire on Labour) have been trying to eliminate a party – nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with self interested politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. huckleberryfinsbrother (25 comments) says:

    pull fingers brothers,
    Dunne is assured. His membership programme is a disaster, but if I move in there,
    I will clean it up within one week. Dunne will be back , and with assured membership.
    Pete Dunne is a good MP for New Zealand

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Who cares? The Electoral Commission should drop everything for 500 deluded souls?

    It isn’t as if they are under threat of physical harm (although the mental damage appears to have already occurred).

    BTW, nice cameo huckleberryBWAV.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    How many times does P.G.’s name appear on the list? :D

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. huckleberryfinsbrother (25 comments) says:

    what I can tell you is that United Future party has 500 members
    If any are refused there are many more,
    you have to realise how global this thing is

    does that ring a bell rednecks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Paulus (2,591 comments) says:

    Would love to see Winston’s 500.
    Bet he couldn’t make it legally.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. graham (2,326 comments) says:

    I’m trying to work out whether huckleberryfinsbrother is:

    a. for real
    b. drunk
    c. taking the p!ss

    If (a) … is this really the quality of United Future’s members nowadays?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Judith (8,531 comments) says:

    huckleberryfinsbrother (7) Says:
    July 9th, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    ———————————

    Get back to work Peter, we don’t pay you to sit around posting on blogs! :P

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    Funny you should say that Judith, looks like Dunne ahs staretd up his own blog – Dunne Speaks

    His first post is on the GCSB and security and privacy issues.

    A couple of things emerge from this. First, there are very few people arguing that that such surveillance should never occur, especially in cases involving crime or national security.

    But second, and certainly more important is the reality that there needs to be greater awareness and tighter controls and accountability of what is going on. Surveillance, regardless of the agency undertaking it, has to be appropriate to the circumstances, and not just the default position.

    To ensure there is always some there to speak for us and that we can go about our lives freely and openly without the threat of unwarranted surveillance, our security services need to be made far more accountable, and the incidence of surveillance at all levels limited to cases of genuine threat, rather than continuing on a casual, low-level, “nothing to worry about” basis, as recent events here have shown.

    He said the other day that he was looking for things to do since his workload had significantly reduced.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    My interpretation of the act is that this is being (and should) treated as a new party and not a resurrection of the now dead united future. As such it will require 6 mps to qualify for funding.

    Unless of course he has the stones to call a by election and win a mandate like Hone did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Correction: the whore’s blog is Dunne Speaks Leaks.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (9,769 comments) says:

    500 people believe passionately enough in the cause of agreeing with the government of the day (whoever they may be) that they’ve joined the party.

    >What do we want?

    WHATEVER THEY SAID!

    When do we want it?

    NOW!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Judith (8,531 comments) says:

    Pete George (18,239) Says:
    July 9th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    ———————————-

    I was just joking, but good on Dunne for starting a blog.
    I first met Peter about 12 years ago, and have to say, the man I see today is very different from back then.

    Peter Dunne seems to have ‘lost’ himself somewhere along the way. Once a principled man, I feel he became easily influenced and bought. Perhaps sometime out, a bit of reflection, and getting to know the people in the street a little better will provide him with some guidance. I think he became too coerced by his advisers, and let go of the common cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    Judith – he has been a minister for the last seven or eight years. Despite what some say that’s a full on job. And it’s very much in a beltway type bubble.

    Dunne saw some of this, he realised a few years ago he had become more remote from his electorate and made a big effort to do much more there, which I think he has done.

    He recently went from a staff of 9 to a staff of one, with a much reduced workload. He has committed himself to getting around meeting more party members and the public, he has seen it as an opportunity to reconnect.

    I haven’t been a fan of some of the things from his past, but that would be the same for any longstanding politician. I simply saw an opportunity to contribute an outside view to someone on the inside and with some influence. I first offerd this to Labour after they lost in 2008 but they weren’t interested.

    There’s no point in getting biter and twisted about what has happened, the best hope for positive change is to prepare for opportunities, look out for opportunities and to grab them when they come up. I see such an opportunity now.

    Dunne has a lot of experience and is still an important part of the current Government. Being able to play a small part in that is kinda cool but I have consciously remained on the outside giving an outside perspective. I think that’s how I can contribute the most, for now at least.

    And for me it’s a lot more fun than being a perpetual blog grizzler.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dime (9,793 comments) says:

    just an amazing achievement! a political “party” that has been in govt for over a decade manages to scrape together 500 members.

    i love it because even though its a tiny party, it has a huge say in the laws of the land. just awesome.

    mainly i love it because its just so damn sensible!!!!

    stoked that Dung will get his 100k of funding back! thats AWESOME! hopefully he can use it in his campaign to eradicate old 737’s from Air NZ. speed up the process of changing over to airbus..

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    manages to scrape together 500 members.

    Actually no, it’s well over a thousand and still climbing, only 500 were required on paper for the Commission. Like most parties most enrolments are done online.

    The de-registration was an almighty ballsup – well, it was the correct thing to do but the party should never had let it get to that.

    But ironically all the publicity and the wish of many people to see the party survive (and more than a few wanting to stick one up Winston) has been an excellent aid to recruitment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RRM (9,769 comments) says:

    Why hello there, Peter Quixote!

    Shiny new user name, same deranged dribble as ever…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. MT_Tinman (3,092 comments) says:

    You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
    Abraham Lincoln,

    Obviously “some” is more than 500 in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. dime (9,793 comments) says:

    “Actually no, it’s well over a thousand and still climbing”

    well in that case it is an incredible achievement lmao

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. graham (2,326 comments) says:

    I see that Dunne STILL feels that whoever leaked the Kitteridge report was hard done by.

    “Surveillance … has to be appropriate to the circumstances … Keeping an eye on people who pose a genuine criminal or national security threat to the country arguably fits that bill, but snooping on MPs and journalists in a low-level inquiry into the early release of a report most definitely does not.”

    I really cannot understand how Dunne can feel that the breaking of security protocols and trust at the very highest level somehow “doesn’t really matter” and doesn’t warrant being investigated. I have to agree with Judith, too many years in politics have desensitized Dunne to what is right and what is wrong. This is not just a problem with Dunne, by the way – the more years that anyone spends in politics, the more removed from reality they tend to become.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,422 comments) says:

    graham – yes, and it’s not just the MPs who get desensitized or isolated from the real world, it’s also parliamentary staff, some public servants closely associated with Parliament, and many party officials and party activists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    500? That’s a really bad case of multiple personality disorder!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    @RRM,

    Snap – that was my pick also

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. wiseowl (858 comments) says:

    Bugger!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Steve (North Shore) (4,539 comments) says:

    500 members at $10 each is a good investment to regain a Party Leader salary and many other privileges – just saying

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. huckleberryfinsbrother (25 comments) says:

    the rules are the rules, and so United Future will pass the test. What would you have rednecks another squeaky litle number like andrew from the lawyers office in christchurch, number 65 , or a real MP, you rednecks make us sick. You will get Peter Dunne and you will get Winston Peters and suck that Farrar wimps, suck here, suck here judith

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    PG, do you think Dunne will reward your undying loyalty by passing a new anti male hate law ? A man-ban seems like a topical sort of thing and he can get some support from Labour and the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. huckleberryfinsbrother (25 comments) says:

    we do what we can do, and we try to influence, that is what the electorate is about, pq can not change everything,
    but we do what we can

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. huckleberryfinsbrother (25 comments) says:

    And to you Judith, my work is to see that we return a NZ NAT Government both in 2014, and 2017.
    Who of you will lay me for that Judith.
    Who of you will see the journal ledger right

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I hope it takes about 15 months . The little shit has proved himself to be the equal of the drunken dwarf regards narcissistic tendencies. Keep him on the poverty line as a MP only and he might leave Parliament – what I am saying,leave Parliament, must be tired.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    500 members at $10 each is a good investment to regain a Party Leader salary and many other privileges – just saying

    Steve (North Shore)

    Shell out 5k to pick up $185K, that my friend is genius. Even I’d front him for 50% of the ‘entitlements’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Reid (16,183 comments) says:

    The little shit has proved himself to be the equal of the drunken dwarf regards narcissistic tendencies.

    Yeah but talk about drop-dead morons in the media, giving him air-time to talk about his stupid amendments to the GCSB bill, which makes the drop-dead morons in his electorate think that the little bint actually does a fucking thing. Oh wait. He does do a fucking thing. Too bad it’s not the fucking thing the electorate thinks he does. Isn’t it.

    But seriously, it’s a real tossup isn’t it: whose dumberer? The media for giving him airtime on a bullshit excuse for publicity as if he gives a shit about anyone’s privacy or his electorate and those assorted other morons who really do think “he’s not so bad after all, I mean just look at how he’s pwotecting our civil wights…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. big bruv (13,672 comments) says:

    I hope they check each and every one of these members and that it takes months and months.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. kiwi in america (2,495 comments) says:

    I suspect that they had close to the 500 all along but just got a bit slack with following up with renewals. Remember it was Dunn who flagged this with the Electoral Commission not them discovering it via an audit. I suspect that ACT, Mana, Maori and the Conservatives will all be checking their records to make sure they aren’t treated the same way.

    The legislation seems not to incorporate the possibility of online or electronic renewals and perhaps UF had moved to an online system of renewal without the hard copy paperwork to back it up.

    Peter Dunn has always struck me as a principled person and indeed for some years after I left Labour I voted for UF in the days when a vote for them counted. His lapse of judgment over the Kitteridge Report seems clearly to be some midlife crisis that saw him have a crush on Andrea Vance and seek to find some way to impress her.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. hj (6,802 comments) says:

    I suppose Dunnne could have sent a message out to the Real Estate Institute or Property Investors Assn or Tobacco Institute or any other organization who needs a swinging vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. hj (6,802 comments) says:

    Screening for Ministerial appointments? Systems failure in Peter Dunne’s appointment as a New Zealand Revenue and Associate Health Minister

    MP Peter Dunne has recently been appointed as a Minister outside cabinet for two positions, Associate Minister of Health and Minister of Revenue. These appointments may be relevant to a wide range of health issues in New Zealand, the Pacific region, and elsewhere. This letter focuses on his record on tobacco issues, and considers some of the implications of his appointments.

    For nearly 20 years, Mr Dunne has taken a public position opposed to tobacco control. In 1987, while an Undersecretary of Health in the Labour Government, he was reported as describing those who wanted a ban on tobacco advertising as ‘elitist zealots’.1 Since he left the Labour Party in 1994, he has consistently voted against tobacco control initiatives.

    Mr Dunne has described the efforts in New Zealand to prevent the sale of tobacco to underage children as ‘fascist’,2 and tobacco control spending as a ‘scandalous waste of money in pursuit of some health zealots’ beady eyed political correctness.’3 Mr Dunne also described the 2003 New Zealand legislation for smokefree bars as ‘extremism’.4

    Speaking in Parliament to oppose the legislation,5 the evidence indicates that he used (without attribution) statements previously published on a website by Barry McKay of the Canadian tobacco industry front group PUBCO: The Pub and Bar Coalition of Canada.6 He incorrectly attributed these statements (about ventilation being a solution to secondhand smoke dangers) to a British Medical Journal article.

    A December 1994 note from Paul Adams of British American Tobacco, to Peter Dunne, stated that it accompanied 100 pounds:

    ‘to help pay for your ‘Awayday’. I do hope you will enjoy yourselves.

    I would be grateful if you could get receipts for your expenses and pass them to the driver, even large companies have to account for their money!

    Enjoy your visit to England.’7

    In 2003, the month before this tobacco industry document was revealed, he was reported as saying:

    ‘I am constantly labelled by the health sector as a tool of the tobacco industry or a stooge … I cannot remember when I last met with someone from the industry.’ 8

    In 2000, when the possibility of tobacco companies being sued by government was raised, Mr Dunne stated that Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark had a ‘fanatical anti-smoking obsession’ and described ASH NZ as an extremist pressure group.9 In 2001, Prime Minister Helen Clark said that ‘he had consistently picked up issues in support of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries.’10

    That a politician with this track record can be appointed to a Ministerial role in the health portfolio is a side effect of the MMP political system New Zealand now has (given he is a leader of a minor party in a type of government coalition). Nevertheless, it also indicates a design fault in the way the New Zealand political process selects new ministers.

    That is, there is no systematic publicly transparent review process for ministerial appointments, or a public appraisal of a ministerial candidate’s past support for commercial vested interests in the portfolio area they are considered for. Until such a transparent and effective system is established, it may be appropriate for the public (and the rest of Parliament) to at least tightly monitor the performance of such Ministers. In particular, non-governmental organisations need to take a monitoring and advocacy role to minimise any damage by such Ministers to important regulatory and legislative controls that protect public health and society.

    Or perhaps Mr Dunne should come with a warning label?

    George Thomson

    Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences

    University of Otago, Wellington

    Nick Wilson

    Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences

    University of Otago, Wellington

    Competing interests: Both authors have worked for health sector agencies concerned with tobacco control.

    References:
    1.
    ASH NZ. Tax take influences Undersecretary for Health. ASH Newsletter. December 1987. (28): p.1. [Reporting a statement on Radio New Zealand December 1, 1989]

    2.
    Dunne P: Speech on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill (No. 2) 10 July 1997. In. Parliamentary Debates: In Committee. Wellington; 1997.

    3.
    New Zealand Press Association. Smoke-free Act ‘$44 million waste of money’. Dominion (newspaper). Wellington: 20 March 1998.

    4.
    Watkins T. Secret smoking agenda denied. Dominion Post (newspaper). Wellington: 5 July 2003.

    5.
    Dunne P: Speech on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill: In Committee: November 12, 2003. In. New Zealand House of Representatives Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Wellington; 2003. Available online. URL: http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Hansard.aspx Accessed November 2005.

    6.
    McKay B. New UK ventilation study proves succesful? PUBCO: Pub and Bar Coalition of Canada. Available online. URL: http://www.pubcoalition.com/html/articles_uk_vent.htm Accessed November 2005.

    7.
    Adams P. [Note to Peter Dunne]. British American Tobacco; 19 December 1994. Available online. URL: http://tobaccodocuments.org/guildford_misc/500016895.html Accessed http://tobaccodocuments.org/guildford_misc/500016895.html November 2005

    8.
    Luke P. Dunne sees fine future in United. The Press (newspaper), Christchurch: 27 September 2003.

    9.
    Dunne P. Press release: Clark’s anti smoking obsession shows government’s dark and frightening side. Wellington: United New Zealand Party; 16 March 2000.

    10.
    Edwards B. PM, husband in huge row. The Evening Post (newspaper). Wellington: 15 March 2001.

    *
    …………….
    What a cockroach!

    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.