Proposals Paper
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REVIEW OF THE MMP VOTING SYSTEM PROPOSALS PAPER 13 AUGUST 2012 INTRODUCTION A majority of voters in the 26 November 2011 referendum voted to keep the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system.1 As a result, and as required by law, the Electoral Commission (the Commission) launched a review of MMP. On 13 February 2012 the Commission issued a Consultation Paper, a dedicated website, and an appeal for public submissions. Parliament said the review must include— • the two thresholds for the allocation of list seats • the effects of the ratio of electorate seats to list seats on proportionality in certain circumstances • the rules allowing candidates to contest an electorate and be on a party list, and list members to contest by-elections • the rules for ordering candidates on party lists • other matters referred to the Commission by the Minister of Justice or Parliament (there were none). Other issues raised by the public during the review could also be considered.2 Parliament excluded two matters from the review – Māori representation and the number of members of Parliament. These issues are being considered by the Constitutional Advisory Panel as part of the review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.3 This paper sets out the conclusions the Commission has reached to date and the recommendations we propose making to Parliament when we report to the Minister of Justice, as required, by 31 October 2012. We have been greatly assisted by the 4,698 written submissions and the 116 oral presentations we received from around the country and overseas. People from all walks of life presented a wide variety of views. We also heard from experts, academics, and a range of organisations including political parties. Considerable time, thought and effort was put into their submissions and we thank them for their contributions. We also wish to acknowledge the valuable advice on thresholds provided by members of the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System (the Royal Commission), Hon Sir John Wallace QC, Rt Hon Sir Kenneth Keith QC, and Professor Richard Mulgan. 1 See Appendix A for the results of the referendum vote. 2 See Appendix B for section 76 of the Electoral Referendum Act 2010. 3 http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/consideration-of-constitutional-issues. 2 The Commission now seeks public comment on the proposals. Submissions must be in writing or provided online and with us by 5.00pm on Friday, 7 September 2012. Our timetable for reporting does not allow for further general hearings. However, we do want to know what the public thinks about the proposals. Submissions are encouraged and all will be considered before we finalise our report. The context for the review and our proposals This is the first review of New Zealand’s voting system by an independent body since the Royal Commission reported in 1986—26 years ago. In undertaking this review the Commission has been mindful of the following points: • A voting system should be as fair and simple as possible to facilitate public trust, understanding and participation. • The criteria adopted by the Royal Commission for fair and effective electoral systems are highly regarded and widely accepted and should guide the Commission’s considerations.4 • The system of MMP adopted in 1993 by New Zealand is a moderate system of proportional representation, reflecting a concern to balance the need for effective Parliaments and government with the virtues of proportionality. • New Zealand voted in November 2011 to keep the MMP voting system. Its defining characteristics are a mix of members of Parliament (MPs) from single-member electorates and those elected from a party list, and a Parliament in which parties’ shares of seats roughly mirror their share of the nationwide party vote.5 The Commission has considered all the aspects of New Zealand’s MMP voting system put to us by Parliament. We have concluded that relatively few changes are required. But those we propose are important. They would greatly enhance public confidence in the fairness and operation of our MMP voting system and parliamentary democracy. We have considered the process for implementing these proposals, should we adopt them as final recommendations, and should they be accepted by Parliament. Since 1956, where significant change to a defining characteristic of the electoral system has been proposed, a referendum has usually been held. For example, the term of Parliament has been the subject of referendums in 1967 and 1990, and the type of voting system in 1992, 1993 and 2011. 4 See Appendix C for the criteria adopted by the Royal Commission. 5 It is this feature of the voting system that makes it proportional. 3 Important changes to aspects of the operation of our voting system (such as, in 1965, the basis for determining the number of electorate seats, or, in 1995, the form of the ballot paper) have been enacted by a broad consensus of Parliament. While our proposals are important and some require legislation, they would not fundamentally alter the nature of the voting system. For this reason a referendum would not be required to implement them. The review timetable, with the Commission being required to report by the end of October 2012, is designed to enable Parliament to enact recommendations in time for the 2014 General Election. If Parliament agrees with our recommendations this should be achievable. Hon Sir Hugh Williams, KNZM, QC Jane Huria, CNZM Robert Peden Chairperson Deputy Chairperson Chief Electoral Officer Electoral Commission Electoral Commission Electoral Commission 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS 6 HAVE YOUR SAY 7 BASIS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR LIST SEATS 9 DUAL CANDIDACY 17 BY-ELECTION CANDIDATES 20 ORDER OF CANDIDATES ON PARTY LIST 22 OVERHANG 26 PROPORTION OF ELECTORATE SEATS TO LIST SEATS 29 OTHER ISSUES 34 HAVE YOUR SAY SUBMISSION FORM 36 APPENDIX A Results of the Referendum on New Zealand’s Voting System 38 APPENDIX B Scope of review as provided for in section 76 of the Electoral Referendum Act 2010 39 APPENDIX C Criteria for judging voting systems as determined by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System 40 APPENDIX D Number of parties that would have been represented under different threshold levels 42 APPENDIX E Levels of disproportionality in the 2005, 2008, and 2011 General Elections 44 APPENDIX F Seat allocations under current and proposed thresholds for 1996-2011 General Elections 45 APPENDIX G Calculations showing level of risk to proportionality for the General Elections 1996-2011 46 APPENDIX H Explanatory notes on Sainte-Laguë and list seat allocation for 2011 General Election 48 5 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS • The one electorate seat threshold for the allocation of list seats should be abolished. • The party vote threshold for the allocation of list seats should be lowered to 4%. • Candidates should continue to be able to stand both in an electorate and on a party list at general elections. • List MPs should continue to be able to contest by-elections. • Political parties should continue to have responsibility for the composition and ranking of candidates on their party lists. • The provision for overhang seats should be abolished for parties that do not cross the party vote threshold. • On the basis of current information it would be prudent to identify 76 electorate seats (in a 120 seat Parliament) as the point at which the risk to proportionality from insufficient list seats becomes unacceptable. New Zealand is unlikely to reach that point before 2026. • The gradual erosion of list seats relative to electorate seats risks undermining the diversity of representation in Parliament. Parliament should review this matter. Each of the proposals above is independent but there would be little point in adopting the proposal to abolish overhang seats unless the proposal to abolish the one electorate seat threshold is adopted. 6 HAVE YOUR SAY The Electoral Commission welcomes and invites any person or group to make a submission on the proposals set out in this paper. There is no particular form that you need to make a submission but you can use the form at the end of this document for your comments (see page 36). You do not have to respond to all the issues raised in this paper. Submissions can be made online or by uploading your own document at www.mmpreview.org.nz. Alternatively, submissions can be emailed to [email protected]. Submissions can also be posted or delivered to— Mail address Street address MMP Review MMP Review Electoral Commission Electoral Commission PO Box 3220 Level 9 Wellington 6140 17–21 Whitmore Street Wellington The deadline for submissions is 5.00pm on 7 September 2012. The Commission is asking for written submissions only. As the Commission must report by 31 October 2012, it will not be possible to hold further hearings. To receive the latest information on the review, you can sign up to the MMP review eNewsletter at www.mmpreview.org.nz/eNewsletter You can also call 0800 36 76 56 to get this information. 7 WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO YOUR SUBMISSION? The Commission will publish all the submissions it receives on its website www. mmpreview.org.nz. This will include your name or the name of your group but not your contact details. Submissions may be subject to a request to the Commission under the Official Information Act 1982. Personal details can be withheld under this Act, including names and addresses. If you or your group do not want any information contained in your submission to be released, you need to make this clear in the submission and explain why. For example, you might want some information to remain confidential because it is commercially sensitive or personal.