Correspondence with Phil Saxby
Phil is secretary of the Electoral Reform Coalition, a group dedicated to electoral reform
who were one of the major forces behind the change to MMP during the 1993 referendum campaign.
Danna Glendinning, the 1996 Alliance candidate in Wellington Central, was also a prominent member.

Usenet message posted to nz.general, nz.politics and other groups
(2 February 1999)

Gidday all.

I'm making a feature-length documentary showing the behind-the-scenes
reality of MMP election campaigning. And we really need your help to get it
finished!

"Campaign" was shot during the 1996 Wellington Central election campaign.
That was the one where Mark Thomas, up and coming National Party favourite,
was locked in an increasingly bitter struggle with Act's Richard Prebble.
Sitting MP Pauline Gardiner of United thought she'd worked hard enough for
her electorate to be rewarded. As these big players seemed set to split the
rightwing vote, Labour's Alick Shaw and The Alliance's Danna Glendinning
hoped to outflank the opposition... and each other... on the left.

With MMP quirks and strategic voting offering the strong possibility that
this one seat would give Act 6 MPs and determine the government, the heat of
the national political spotlight was soon focusing on this one local
battle... and betrayal was in the air.

The film is about all that, but tells the story at a very intimate level. We
put you right along side the would-be politicians in this bruising battle
that only one can win. What does it take to be that one, and what is the
cost? If you've had the feeling that something didn't work quite as it was
supposed to with MMP, this is a documentary film that you must see.

You can read about it yourself on www.unreal.co.nz, and download the
just-finished 90 second movie trailer. Please do stop by, and if you can see
a way you could help us get this thing finished I'd really love to hear from
you.

Tony Sutorius
Director & Producer
"Campaign"

Email from Phil Saxby to Tony Sutorius
(3 February 1999)

Dear Tony

The message below was forwarded to me.

I realise you have to make some sort of story connected with MMP to arouse
interest in your film.  But I hope the theme of "something has gone wrong"
is not part of the film as it is in your advert.

I often use Wgtn Central as an example of the success of MMP, when writing
for an NZ audience and overseas.

Wgtn Central proved the the voters there understood how to use the system
to achieve what MMP is supposed to achieve: fair, proportional
representation.

Another electorate where voters had a strategic option was Ohariu-Belmont,
but in that electorate the National voters were almost obliged to support
Peter Dunne as there was no National candidate.  More comparable was the
Christian Coalition's Graham Lee.

In Wellington Central, the broad hint from Bolger to back Prebble was
played up by the media, so voters had an good idea of what to do.  The
apparent betrayal of Mark Thomas made it a far more interesting contest
than Ohariu and a good subject for a film.

But I dispute it was an example of MMP not working out.  Quite the contrary
- even if in the end ACT got over the 5% and didn't need Prebble to win.
The point is that voters had the power to help ACT get fair representation,
they knew it and they did it.  They had the same chance with the Christian
Coalition, but did not take it....  A good example of MMP in practice.

Phil Saxby
Secretary
Electoral Reform Coalition

Email from Tony Sutorius to Phil Saxby
(3 February 1999)

Gidday Phil, thanks for your email.

>I realise you have to make some sort of story connected with MMP to arouse
>interest in your film.  But I hope the theme of "something has gone wrong"
>is not part of the film as it is in your advert.


I'm not saying that MMP failed in Wellington Central. I'm not saying it
didn't either...  I don't think its my job to answer that question. But
asking the question seems a reasonable thing for a documentary to do, don't
you think?

I think there is a pretty widespread feeling of unease out there about the
whole issue, and the film is partly an attempt to get its audience to think
about these issues for a couple of hours.

It is likely that the film will end with a title describing the Electoral
Commission's subsequent recommendation to ditch the exemption to the 5%
threshold if a constituency seat is won, and the fact that the politicians
have ignored that recommendation. My personal feeling is that this quirk did
produce an unintended corruption to MMP in practice, though one that should
be addressed democratically. However, it isn't my intention to make a
polemic about my views in this film.

Look, it's great to hear from you, and I really hope that the Electoral
Reform Coalition will support the film as a serious attempt to inform public
debate on the issue. That's what we're all here for, right?

Cheers.

Tony Sutorius

Email from Phil Saxby to Tony Sutorius
(3 February 1999)

Tony

I only ever expected the 5% rule to be relevant to a Maori party, where a
party could easily have just 2-4% of the nationwide vote yet win a Maori
electorate.

That scenario is second best to the Royal Commision' s recommendation on
Maori representation (no 5% threshold), sure, but it is sufficiently
plausible, important and likely that it should be taken into account in
this discussion.

I favour keeping the "win at least one seat" threshold, and of course
changing the 5% threshold to 4% as the R/C wanted.  That is still the ERC
postition, too.

Phil

Email from Phil Saxby to Tony Sutorius
(3 February 1999)

Wellington Central

The operation of MMP in Wellington Central is well worth a film.

In practice, all it meant in the end was one more National list MP and one
less National electorate MP (or perhaps the analogous result for Labour).
Prebble would have been elected anyway.

I don't call that a "corruption of MMP".

One of the lessons is that, having set a high 5% threshold (one of the
highest in the world for any list PR system) the party which pushed it
through (National) then discovered it needed allies who might well be
(unfairly) excluded by the high threshold.  Backing United, by giving Dunne
a free run, was an easy call.  Covertly assisting the unlovely ACT team was
a difficult call, made almost too late by Bolger.

Now Labour is wondering if it should help the Greens win Coromandel this
year by abstention, as National did in Ohariu.  (But the Greens are hardly
more desirable as partners of Labour than ACT was for National!)

National and Labour should remember that MMP is supposed to be about
fairness to voters and (therefore) the fair representation of significant
parties.  The proper conclusion is that the threshold should be lowered.
National and Labour should admit they made a mistake with the change from a
4% to a 5% threshold.  (Fat chance!)  But even mere self-interest, as
evidenced by the Wellington Central campaign, could and should lead the big
parties to re-consider.

Phil

Email from Phil Saxby to Tony Sutorius
(22 February 1999)

Re: Carolyn Adams - "Phil Saxby seems just a little touchy"

1. I have not seen the trailer (cannot seem to uplift it) so I cannot say
whether I need to write any more by way of clarification.

2.  The idea that voters did not get what they voted for (1978, 1981
elections)  under FPP was vital in its overthrow.

Attempts to show the same of MMP hit right at the heart of what we were
trying to achieve.  Some of those who lost the referendum are still trying
to claim that MMP works in quirky or unexpected ways  - I see red whenever
those words appear!

Obviously the main debate is about NZ First's Coalition - this is  not the
place to debate what happened with NZ FIrst, and the success or otherwise
of MMP in the formation of the first MMP government.  The point is that
political decisions after an MMP election are affected by many other
factors; MMP is not solely responsible for the behaviour of Winston Peters.
But MMP is directly concerned with the matters you raise - the
representation of the people via the electoral process.

My assertion from 1996 onwards has always been that MMP worked almost
perfectly in producing the composition of Parliament wanted by voters,
intended by its designers, and indeed as promised by reformers.

We always claimed it would improve the numbers of Maori, women and ethnic
reps - previiously much under-represented.  It did so.

We intended that parties would be fairly represented: with a 4% threshold
they would have been (except for the ALCP - my own party!).  The raising of
the threshold from 4% to 5% turned out to be quite significant, and
represents a small defeat for democracy by the big parties.

With most MPs steeped in FPP traditions, its not surprising that the first
MMP parliament has taken a while to settle down.  This year, MMP meets its
first test as an accountability mechanism, and I am confident that voters
will be able to make an informed choice on the behaviour of the parties
under MMP, and the ability to have their wishes translated effectively and
accurately into representation.

The mechanics of MMP are extremely well-designed and efficient - now its a
matter of the public gaining experience of those who offer themselves for
election.  I think the public is ready now to give its judgement on these
parties!

I look forward to hearing more about the film, but not about the "quirks"
of MMP.

Phil