When is a proportional electoral system not proportional? The current 5% threshold limits true proportionality in our system and issues relating to proportionality might well be key in the just-launched Electoral Commission public consultation phase of the required MMP review. Although Amelia Romanos has described the review as 'MMP nit-picking', there's no doubt that the decisions made will directly determine which parties are in government in the future. This is particularly true with the threshold - as well as the exemption from the threshold for parties that win an electorate seat.
Kicking off the debate, David Farrar canvasses the options and details how various thresholds would have affected minor parties in recent elections. Farrar himself seems to favour the original Royal Commission recommendation of 4% - see: What should the MMP threshold be?. Electoral law expert Andrew Geddis tends towards 2.5% (or three MPs), believing this would ensure that we weren't electing 'one-man bands' - see: It's time to put up or shut up.
Meanwhile, those recently arguing in favour of abolishing the 5% threshold altogether include Danyl Mclauchlan at the Dim Post, No Right Turn, and myself. One of MMP's main attractions was, and is, that each vote is supposed to count. But, as Mclauchlan points out, those who voted for the Conservative Party in November, ended up with no representation in Parliament, while Act, who got 33,000 votes less, ended up with ministerial roles. He also makes the point that smaller parties have not generally wielded disproportionate power under MMP and actually struggle to survive. See: Danyl Mclauchlan's MMP Review, No Right Turn's Against the threshold, and my Undemocratic 5pc threshold at fault, not MMP.
Bob Parker's leadership of Christchurch has now been called into question by Fran O'Sullivan, who believes that his use-by date has passed and that the Quake city needs firmer leadership. She says 'tough choices do have to be made', and although she does not discuss asset sales directly, James Henderson at The Standard says O'Sullivan is using 'firmer leadership' as code for a slash and sell programme in Christchurch - see: The circling vultures. Similarly, Marta Steeman reports that Christchurch's airport and power company Orion are seen as very attractive investments 'if circumstances forced the hand of the city council' - see: Quake city assets set to be popular.
There is a must-read article in the Press newspaper by Ann Brower who is a senior lecturer in public policy at Lincoln University - see: 'Manifold sins' cost 12 lives. Brower was the sole survivor of 13 people crushed by a Colombo St building last February. She has found the Royal Commission hearings on the building collapse disturbing as they have revealed numerous bureaucratic failures to protect people from what is clearly public danger before the February quake. Her article is an indictment of not only the building owner, who failed to protect the public, but also of central and local government who govern by 'privatising profits and socialisng risks', which in this case ended in 12 preventable deaths. Fellow Christchurch academic Eric Crampton responds that although the building in question wasn't on the heritage register, heritage requirements generally may be stopping building owners from making their buildings safe or demolishing them if that can't be done - see: In praise of liability.