[Full report: Final_Report_2012_Review_of_MMP.pdf]

Report of the Electoral Commission on the Review of the MMP Voting System

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

• The one electorate seat threshold for the allocation of list seats should be abolished.

• The party vote threshold should be lowered from 5% to 4%.

• There should be a statutory requirement for the Electoral Commission to review the operation of the 4% party vote threshold and report to the Minister of Justice for presentation to Parliament after three general elections.

• If the one electorate seat threshold is abolished, the provision for overhang seats should be abolished.

• Consideration should be given to fixing the ratio of electorate seats to list seats at 60:40 to help maintain the diversity of representation and proportionality in Parliament obtained through the list seats.

• Political parties should continue to have responsibility for the selection and ranking of candidates on their party lists.

• Political parties should be required to give a public assurance by statutory declaration that they have complied with their rules in selecting and ranking their list candidates.

• In any dispute relating to the selection of candidates for election as members of Parliament, the version of the party’s rules that should be applied is that supplied to the Commission under section 71B as at the time the dispute arose.

• Candidates should continue to be able to stand both for an electorate seat and be on a party list at a general election.

• List MPs should continue to be able to contest by-elections.

[Full report: Final_Report_2012_Review_of_MMP.pdf]

© Scoop Media

Public Address Link:
A (Sweary) Analysis Of Urgency Abuse And
The Consititution

Keith Ng: You’re looking at the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. Basically, the courts said that the Government had to pay family members who looked after people with disabilities (because not doing so was discriminatory), so the Government passed this law to say: “Yeah nah.”

The RIS isn’t just redacted for the public – it was redacted for MPs. *Parliament* voted on this, with all the relevant facts blacked out.

Sure, it’s understandable, right? If you’re passing a law that’s really dodgy, you don’t want advice from civil servants saying “uh, this is pretty illegal” to be public. But actually, that’s not really a problem here, because in the same piece of legislation, THEY SAID THEY CAN’T BE TAKEN TO COURT. More>>