1
THE POLITICAL REPRESENTATION OF ETHNIC GROUPS.
THE CASE OF NEW ZEALAND.
Fiona Barker [email protected]
Hilde Coffé [email protected]
Abstract Our study examines the political representation of ethnic groups in the New Zealand Parliament since the first elections under the MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) electoral system in 1996. The data show that while the representation of ethnic minorities (Asian and Pasifika) has increased over time, they remain underrepresented, and this is particularly true of the fast-‐growing population with an Asian ethnic background. Because of the reserved seats for the indigenous Māori, they are overall relatively well represented, in particular within Labour, the Green party and the center-‐right populist party New Zealand First. Pasifika are better represented within Labour than the mainstream right-‐wing party National, while Asian people, who generally have a higher socioeconomic background than Pasifika, have in most electoral periods been better represented within National than Labour. Surprisingly, while the Māori are relatively well represented among the Green Party, the party has to date had no Asian or Pasifika MP. Finally, our study shows that ethnic minority MPs are significantly more likely to be elected as List MPs than European-‐descent MPs, although Pasifika MPs have been more successful than those of Asian background in winning seats as Electorate MPs. When ethnic minority and Māori MPs are elected as electorate MP, they tend to be elected in an electorate with a relatively higher proportion of people with their ethnic background
Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 2016 ECPR General Conference, Prague, September 7-‐10 2016.
Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Victoria University of Wellington. They thank Dr. John Wilson of the New Zealand Parliamentary Library for assistance and guidance on the parliamentary data, and Chloe FitzPatrick for her assistance with data collection.
2
INTRODUCTION
Whereas an extensive literature exists on the descriptive political representation of women,
and its causes and consequences, ethnic minorities’ representation has only more recently
begun to attract scholarly attention. Our paper contributes to this growing literature on the
political representation of ethnic minorities by examining the representation of migrant-‐
background minorities in New Zealand’s Parliament since the first elections under a Mixed
Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system in 1996.
It is well known that Proportional Representational (PR) systems tend to have
significantly higher percentages of female legislators than plurality systems with single-‐
member districts (e.g., Castles 1981; Rule 1981; 1987; Norris 1985). In PR systems, parties
tend to balance their lists by including female candidates in order to appeal to a broad
portion of the electorate. Ticket balancing is impossible, however, in single-‐member districts
(SMD) where only one candidate campaigns and where greater emphasis is put on individual
incumbency, which results in fewer opportunities for women (Matland and Studlar 1996).
Party list systems generally also have a relatively centralized nomination procedure, which
means that the party elite can increase the number of female candidates in response to a
demand for greater representation (Castles 1981; Gallagher and Marsh 1988).
Whether PR similarly facilitates the entry of ethnic minorities in parliament remains
an issue of debate. While the logic of ticket balancing could be extended to ensure greater
representation of ethnic minorities via party list systems, some scholars note that minority
groups can in fact do well under a SMD system, notably where their population is
geographically concentrated within constituency boundaries (Bloemraad and Schönwälder
2013). Looking at the representation of racial and ethnic groups in the US, Trounstine and
Valdini (2008) conclude that single-‐member district elections increase their representation,
though only when they are highly concentrated and compose moderate portions of the
population.
With its mixed proportional system, including MPs elected both via a party list and
via an electorate, New Zealand offers an interesting case to investigate within the scope of
this debate, as it allows an assessment of whether ethnic minority Members of Parliament
(MPs) are equally likely to be elected as list MPs (based on a PR system) or electorate MPs
(based on a SMD system). The focus on the MMP mechanism of list and electorate MPs, and
possible differences therein according to MPs’ ethnic background, is important since
electorate MPs are often perceived as having a more prestigious role and being more
recognizable to the constituents than list MPs (e.g. McLeay and Vowles 2007), and gender
3
research has shown that women tend to be more likely to be elected as list rather than
electorate MPs (Curtin 2014; Davidson-‐Schmich 2014). Hence, it is interesting to investigate
to what extent this pattern also holds among other groups which have been traditionally
marginalized or underrepresented in parliament, such as ethnic minorities.
The main research question motivating our study is thus: To what extent are ethnic
minorities more likely to be elected as list or electorate MPs compared with those of an
ethnic majority (European) or indigeneous (Māori) background in New Zealand? In
answering this we will also look at differences between ethnic minority groups, across
political parties, and over time. Specifically, we will examine changes between 1996, the first
New Zealand general election held under MMP, and 2014. During these two decades, New
Zealand has also become more diverse, with a significant growth in the Asian population in
particular. This growing ethnic diversity in New Zealand, which can also be observed in most
post-‐industrialized societies, makes it important to examine patterns of ethnic political
representation. This is even more crucial given that the existing research does indicate that
descriptive minority representation translates into substantive policy outcomes (Bird 2011;
Owens 2005, Preuhs 2007; Whitby 1997; Wüst 2011) and increased levels of political
participation of minorities (e.g., Pantoja and Segura 2003; Rocha et al. 2010).
Before turning to an introduction of our data and analyses, we present some
theories and expectations related to the descriptive representation of ethnic minorities over
time, and differences therein between parties and between various ethnic groups.
THEORY
As Western societies have become more diverse over the last few decades and ethnic
minorities started entering the political arena, the scholarly literature on the representation
of ethnic minorities has grown. Overall, the research shows that, while their proportion has
increased during the last few decades, ethnic minorities are still highly underrepresented in
most national parliaments (Bird 2005; Bloemraad and Schönwälder 2013). For example,
describing the representation of so-‐called visible minorities (Chinese, South Asians, Blacks,
Arabs and West Asians, Filipinos, Southeast Asians, Latin Americans, Japanese, Koreans and
Pacific Islanders) in Canada, Black (2008) concludes that while their proportion increased
between 1993 and 2004, it did not reflect their growing share in Canadian society. Similarly,
Fieldhouse and Sobolewska (2013) note that the proportion of ethnic minorities has
increased after the 2010 British elections, but was still below their proportion in society. A
similar pattern of increased representation of ethnic minorities, but one that is still below
4
their proportion in society has been observed in Germany (Schönwälder 2012). Particularly
striking examples of underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in national legislatures can be
found in France and Australia, while they are relatively well represented in the Netherlands.
While their presence in most parliaments is gradually increasing, scholars suggest
that ethnic minorities suffer from ‘imputed prejudice’ whereby the party selectorate
believes that the voters are not ready or willing to elect a candidate with an ethnic minority
background (Brouard and Tiberj 2011). In addition, the ‘incumbency factor’ works against
the entry of ethnic minority candidates, with parties often believing that they are more likely
to win with an incumbent candidate with proven electoral appeal than with an unknown and
unproven candidate (Black 2008). Further, no established democracy has adopted quota
laws for ethnic minorities in the way that many countries have done during the last couple
of decades for women, although some countries do reserve seats for the indigenous
population (Htun 2004).
The Representation of Ethnic Minorities in MMP systems
While ethnic minorities have been underrepresented in most parliaments, the extent to
which they are underrepresented differs significantly between countries and elections. One
explanation that has been suggested to explain these differences is the electoral system. In
particular, and while other politically marginalized groups such as women are arguably
better represented under PR systems, some scholars have contended that ethnic minorities
are better represented when a SMD electoral system is used, notably in electorates where
ethnic minorities are concentrated (Bloemraad and Schönwälder 2013; Trounstine and
Valdini 2008).
Countries with MMP systems offer interesting cases to explore this as they have
both the SMD component (electorate MPs) and a PR component (MPs elected via a party
list) operating in the same national socio-‐economic context and political culture. Looking at
Germany, which uses a MMP system, the limited existing research reveals that candidates
and parliamentarians with an ethnic-‐minority background are more frequently elected as a
list than as an electorate MP though there is a trend towards more electorate MPs with an
ethnic minority background and thus a closing gap (da Fonseca 2011; Wüst 2014). This
seems to contradict the idea that ethnic minorities would fare better under a SMD system,
but confirms the pattern found for female MPs, another group that has been traditionally
underrepresented. Since the start of MMP in 1996 in New Zealand, for example, women
have been significantly more likely to be list MPs than electorate MPs. The difference was,
5
however, marginal in 2002 and in the most recent 2014 election (Curtin 2014 and own
calculations). The gender bias in the way that women are elected (as list or electorate MP)
has also been confirmed for the German case (Davidson-‐Schmich 2014; Fortin-‐Rittberger
and Eder 2013; Manow 2016). Yet, there too, the gender bias of women being more likely to
be elected as list than electorate MP compared with men who show a more balanced
pattern, seems to have narrowed (Fortin-‐Rittberger and Eder 2013). One proposed
explanation of this gender bias is that when only one candidate can be chosen (as is the case
for the electorate seats), party leaders tend to choose male candidates who are thought to
be more likely to win a seat (Curtin 2014; Davidson-‐Schmich 2014). The incumbency-‐
advantages that a growing number of female electorate MPs experience and the openings
presented when male incumbents retire and which parties tend to fill with female
candidates have been suggested as an explanation for the declining bias over time
(Davidson-‐Schmich 2014).
While previous research suggested that the representation of ethnic minorities
would be better under an SMD electoral system, this is most notably when ethnic minorities
are geographically concentrated within electorate boundaries (Bloemraad and Schönwälder
2013). Research does indeed show that the electorates in which ethnic minority MPs have
been elected tend to be ethnically diverse and have a high concentration of ethnic
minorities. In Britain, for example, almost all ethnic minority MPs represented areas which
have the highest proportions of minority residents (Saggar and Geddes 2000; see also Clark
et al. 2010; Hampshire 2012). While this offers a promising vehicle for increasing the
representation of at least some ethnic minorities, it can also be argued to marginalize ethnic
politics and, de facto, to racialize or ghettoize the issue of minority participation and
representation (Saggar and Geddes 2000).
Party Differences in the Representation of Ethnic Groups
While ethnic minorities are expected to be underrepresented in Parliament, differences in
their representation are expected between parties. Indeed, since parties play a major role in
selecting candidates and shaping the composition of Parliament and vary significantly in the
way they select and nominate candidates, it seems fair to expect party differences in the
extent and way ethnic minorities are represented in Parliament. Overall, ethnic minorities
are expected to be better represented among left-‐wing parties, including the Greens, than
right-‐wing parties given left-‐wing parties’ ideology and attitudes towards equality and
egalitarianism. In Canada, for example, the affiliation of ethnic-‐minority MPs with the left-‐
6
leaning Liberal Party is apparent (Black 2008). Similar findings have been reported in
Germany, Britain, The Netherlands, and comparative assessments (e.g., Donovan 2007;
Geddes 1995; Hampshire 2012; Kittilson and Tate 2004; Michon 2012; Wüst 2011). The
higher representation of ethnic minorities in left-‐wing parties compared with right-‐wing
parties reflects socioeconomic and regional voting patterns, as ethnic minorities are
disproportionally located in lower socioeconomic groups and urban areas that are
traditionally more likely to support (mainstream) left-‐wing parties (Hampshire 2012). Left-‐
wing parties also tend to pay more attention to issues of inequality and egalitarianism, be
more likely to pursue minority-‐friendly policies, and be more open to immigrants, and are
consequently attractive for ethnic minority voters (Bird et al. 2011; Sobolewska 2013).
However, political parties of all stripes could—and have to varying degrees begun—using
ethnic minority candidates to attract the (growing) ethnic minority electorate. British
research (Martin 2016) has shown that, at least among some ethnic minority groups, ethnic
minority candidates are successful in mobilizing ‘their’ voters. Nonetheless, we would still
expect ethnic minority representation to be higher in left-‐wing parties.
Differences Between Ethnic Minority Groups in Their Political Representation
Variation in the level of representation exists not only across parties but can also be
expected among ethnic groups. In particular, the extent to which a group is represented in
parliament is anticipated to positively relate to its size. Size of an ethnic minority population
is an important benchmark for the level of representation, and large ethnic communities are
expected to be better represented in parliament than small communities. In addition, their
length of settlement in the society is expected to be salient, with those who have been
present for a longer time having higher political representation than communities who
arrived more recently in substantial numbers (Bird 2005). Factors other than length of
residence do, however, also play a role. In Canada, for example, the significant difference
between the representation of the two largest visible minority groups—ten South Asian
Canadians were elected to Parliament in 2004, but only one Chinese MP was elected—has
been explained by the South Asians’ recognized organizational skills among campaign chairs,
their geographic clustering, dense and overlapping networks of religious, social and business
memberships, and their strong elder-‐centric culture (Bird 2005). South Asians also have
good English language skills, experienced a tradition of democratic participation in their
countries of origin and have a high degree of economic security, which some studies find to
be crucial resources for political interest and participation (Bilodeau 2008). Similarly, the
7
higher proportion of African-‐Americans compared with Latinos in the United States House of
Representatives relative to their share of the population has been ascribed not only to the
relatively large share of Latino voters who are ineligible to vote, but also to the greater
strength of parallel economic, social and religious institutions in the Black community that
provide an important source of political leadership (Casellas and Leal 2011).
In general, group mobilization is argued to lead to better descriptive representation.
Maxwell (2013), for instance, argues that mobilization is in fact more likely among groups
that are segregated, as “social segregation increases incentives for co-‐ethnic collaboration
because it makes it difficult for migrants to interact with the host society.” (Maxwell 2013:
471). This suggests, perhaps counter-‐intuitively in light of standard integration theories, that
the ‘best’ integrated groups will not necessarily have the highest descriptive representation.
Finally, better representation may be expected for more homogeneous ethnic groups.
Saggar and Geddes (2000) have highlighted this argument for the Asian communities in the
United Kingdom. They argue that because of the diversity within these communities, an
Asian candidate of a particular background may unintentionally alienate other Asians from
different background, whereas a non-‐Asian candidate external to the divisions with the
Asian community can be seen as attractive. While they focus on the local level, it may also
hold at the national level, as parties and selectorates may prefer a candidate with appeal
across a community rather than someone who has loyalties and links to specific groups
within the community. In addition, parties may be more motivated to put forward a
candidate from large, homogeneous ethnic minority groups that have the potential to form
a voting bloc.
THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF NEW ZEALAND
Growing Ethnic Diversity
As a “settler society” (Castles and Miller 2009), New Zealand has historically been a country
of significant immigration. At the time of the most recent national census in 2013, just over
25 per cent of the population was foreign-‐born. Early immigration flows arrived
predominantly from the United Kingdom. After 1945, the “traditional source country” policy,
which de facto prioritized white immigration, reinforced the predominance of immigration
from the United Kingdom while also opening the door to immigration flows from other parts
of Europe. However, the composition of the immigrant population has changed significantly
over time. The 1950s and 1960s saw the start of significant labour migration flows from the
Pacific Island states, as the growing industrial sector in New Zealand recruited unskilled and
8
semi-‐skilled labour. Even greater diversification of the New Zealand population occurred
from the late 1980s and beginning of the 1990s when the traditional ‘source country
preference’ rule was abolished (Burke 1986), and a points-‐based immigration policy
introduced. This new policy selected applicants based on the skills, education level or
investment contributions they could make to the society. From this point onwards a
dramatic rise in the number of immigrants from Asia was evident, going from 6.4 per cent of
the foreign-‐born population in New Zealand in 1986 to 31.6 per cent of the immigrant
population in 2013 (Statistics New Zealand 2014b; Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment 2015). Over the same period, UK and Ireland-‐born immigrants almost halved,
from over 51 per cent of the total immigrant population in 1986 to 26.5 per cent in 2013.
Ethnic self-‐identification across the population confirms the extent of the
diversification in the past three decades. In the 2013 census 11.8 per cent identified as of
Asian ethnicity, up from 1.7 per cent in 1986, while the share of the population identifying as
of European origin had dropped from over 85 per cent in 1986 to 74 per cent. New
Zealanders identifying as of Pacific ethnicity had also increased from four in 1986 to 7.4 per
cent of the population in 2013, while the Māori share of the population rose slightly from
12.4 per cent to 14.9 per cent of New Zealand’s population between 1986 and 2013.1
The distinctive immigration patterns over time become further evident if we consider
ethnic groups in terms of length of residence. As of 2014, for instance, while 51.9 per cent of
those born in the United Kingdom or Ireland had lived in New Zealand for over 20 years, just
10 per cent of those from North East Asia had been in the country for such a lengthy period.
Conversely, over a quarter (25.8 per cent) of all those born in North-‐East Asia had been in
New Zealand for less than five years, compared with 13.9 per cent of the UK/Ireland-‐born.
The Pacific Island-‐born population displays a more constant pattern of arrivals over time.
While 34.7 per cent have been in New Zealand less than 10 years, 57.7 per cent have been in
the country for more than 10 years. Importantly from the perspective of theories of political
integration, 62.3 per cent of Pacific peoples are now New Zealand-‐born (Statistics New
Zealand 2014b).
The vast majority of the main ethnic minority groups (Asian and Pasifika) have settled
in New Zealand’s largest city, Auckland. Yet, while “Asian Auckland” is now very visible in
certain areas (Friesen 2015), even in the electorate with the highest share of Asian
population, Botany, the Asian share remains a minority at 39.7 per cent, compared with the
1 In these and all other statistics in the paper related to ethnic identification, ethnicity is a matter of self-‐identification and respondents may identify with multiple ethnicities, meaning that totals may sum to more than 100 per cent.
9
most Pacific electorate in New Zealand, Māngere, where 60.3 per cent of the population is
Pacific Peoples (New Zealand Parliamentary Library 2015).
Socioeconomic Differences Between Ethnic Groups
The various ethnic groups not only differ significantly in terms of their average length of
residence and geographical settlement in New Zealand; they also display quite different
socioeconomic characteristics, which the literature would expect to shape levels of political
participation and representation. Across the non-‐majority ethnic groups, the proportion of
people with a formal qualification is lowest for Māori (66.7 per cent) and Pacific Peoples
(70.1 per cent), while the Asian ethnic group has the highest proportion of people with a
qualification at 88 per cent (Statistics New Zealand 2014a). Similar socioeconomic disparities
are evident across the groups, with unemployment being much higher for Māori (12.2 per
cent) and Pasifika (11.6 per cent) than for the Asian ethnic group (6.9 per cent) (Statistics
New Zealand 2016).2 The gap between the Asian and Pacific ethnic groups is not
unsurprising if we reflect back on the distinctive immigration experiences of these groups—
whereas Pacific peoples originally arrived in New Zealand as semi-‐skilled workers in the
industrial sector and subsequent flows have largely been based on family reunification or
the quota schemes for Pacific nationals, most Asian immigrants have arrived under the
points-‐based system that demanded a particular level of skills, education or capital.
If we believe that the mobilization of ethnic communities makes political parties take
notice of, and provide candidates to represent, particular communities, then we might
expect participation, and thus representation, to be higher among Asian peoples, given the
general finding from international voting literature that higher socioeconomic status and
education correlate to higher political engagement and participation (e.g., Verba and Nie
1972). Some evidence from New Zealand supports this connection, such as Iustini and
Crother’s (2013, p. 171) finding that Pacific peoples tend to be less interested in politics and
“report lower self-‐rated knowledge about politics” than other New Zealanders. Yet, available
evidence from the General Social Survey and the New Zealand Election Study points to
Pacific Peoples having higher rates of voting than Asian New Zealanders (e.g., Vowles 2014),
although it is important to recognize variation that is likely to exist within the Asian category
(see Tossutti 2007; Lien 2004).3 While small sample sizes in New Zealand surveys mean we
2 The New Zealand European unemployment rate is 4.4 per cent, lower than for all non-‐majority ethnic groups. 3 Anyone with a resident visa, who has spent at least one year in New Zealand, is eligible to enrol and vote in New Zealand in both local and national elections. By international comparison, immigrants are
10
cannot make definitive statements about turnout, the data that do exist show that the
connections the literature usually makes between socioeconomic status, political
participation and representation may only be tenuous in the case of ethnic minorities in
New Zealand.
There are also features of the Pacific communities that may mitigate any negative
effects of low socioeconomic status on participation. While some research finds Pacific
Islanders (like Māori) to display lower levels of social trust than Europeans (Roskruge et al.
2010), they also have higher levels of participation in community activities, which would be
expected to flow on to political participation. In addition, given the high socioeconomic
needs of Pacific communities and New Zealand’s historical ties to the Pacific, government
frequently considers “Pasifika” or “Pacific Peoples” as a distinct category in policy
development, and a specific Ministry for Pacific Peoples exists in New Zealand. Pacific
Peoples therefore enjoy distinctive policy and political attention apart from other ethnic
minority groups of migrant origin, which might also be expected to inform how political
parties think about representation among their candidates.
When it comes to the Māori population, there is a consistent pattern of lower levels
of participation compared with the Pākehā. The New Zealand Parliament currently contains
seven Māori electorates which are dedicated seats for indigenous Māori.4 When people first
enrol as a voter they are asked whether they are of Māori descent and, if so, which electoral
roll (the General or Māori roll) they wish to register on.1 In 2014, 55 per cent of the 413,348
electors of Māori descent chose to be on the Māori Roll and 45 per cent on the General Roll
(Electoral Commission 2014b).5 Research has consistently found that turnout is significantly
lower in the Māori electorates compared with the General electorates (Sullivan et al. 2014).
The report of the Electoral Commission on the 2014 election (Electoral Commission 2014c)
also concluded that those who identified as being of Māori descent on the general roll were
less likely to vote than non-‐Māori of the same age, and those on the Māori roll were less
likely to vote than Māori of the same age on the general roll.
therefore treated as members of the political community after a short time in the country, and they need not acquire citizenship in order to vote (Barker and McMillan 2016). 4 Māori electorates overlay the General electorates. Candidates of any political party and any race or ethnicity may stand in a Māori electorate (Electoral Commission 2014a). 5 Since the Electoral Act 1993, which enacted the shift to the MMP electoral system, the number of Māori seats depends on how many of Māori descent voters choose to enrol on the Māori roll, rather than the General roll. As a result of this provision, the number of Māori seats has increased steadily, from five in 1996, to six in 1999, and to seven in 2002. At the most recent Māori Electoral Option in 2013 there was no change in the number of Māori seats.
11
Link Between Parties and Ethnic Minority Groups
Pacific Peoples have long had close ties with the Labour Party (Iusitini & Crothers 2013), and
the electorates with the highest Pacific concentration are safe Labour seats. The pattern for
Asian New Zealanders is much less clear, with possible variation over different generations
of ‘Asian’ migration. Historically, strong affiliations existed between the long-‐established
Indian communities from Gujarati and the Punjab and the Labour Party; such a pattern is,
however, less certain for newer migrants from the wide range of Asian countries who have
arrived since immigration policy became rooted so fully in economic criteria. The economic
basis of the points system generates a distinctive immigrant profile, and the high
socioeconomic status of Asian immigrants may make them less obvious natural supporters
of left-‐wing parties in the way that would be expected by the literature grounded in
European contexts where ‘guestworker’ or ‘postcolonial’ immigration have dominated.
Anecdotally, immigrants from East Asia have strong association with the National Party and
concentrations of East Asian immigrants exist in safe National electorates such as Botany,
East Coast Bays and North Shore. Overall, though, East Asian communities are viewed as
having weak partisan identification, with both political parties and some members of the
ethnic minority communities themselves noting in interviews that allegiances are as likely to
be given to the party in government at a given time as they are to be based on a particular
ideological preference.
For a long time, the Māori consistently voted Labour, and the Māori electorates
were always won by Labour which “had led the way in equalizing social welfare benefits and
progressing economic opportunities between Māori and non-‐ Māori” (Sullivan 2014: 143).
Since the 1990s, after radical social and economic reforms initiated by Labour and high
unemployment among Māori, Māori voting behaviour has, however, become less
predictable (Sullivan 2014). In fact, in the first elections under MMP, the populist right-‐wing
party NZ First, led by a charismatic Māori leader (Winston Peters) won all Māori electorates.
This was despite Peters’ and New Zealand First’s relative conservatism on Treaty issues
(Sullivan and Vowles 1998). The link between Māori politics and class politics had reset in
1999, though the Māori voting behaviour has shown more volatility than before (Sullivan
2014). In 2005 and 2008, for example, the Māori party captured four of the Māori seats and
a fifth was added in 2008, leaving Labour with respectively only three and two seats. At the
most recent 2014 election, Labour had a strong hold on the electorate and party votes
within the Māori electorates. It received 43.1 per cent of the party vote and won all but one
of the seven Māori seats.
12
Besides the Māori electorates, New Zealand does not have any reserved seats or
formal quotas for the representation of women or any other minority groups, and parties
also remain rather general in their commitment to increase the representation of different
groups. They do not have formal numerical requirements regarding the representation of
ethnic groups in either electorate candidate selection or list rankings, although some require
consideration for diversity as part of the selection process. The Green Party has explicit
‘balance criteria’ which suggest that no more than 60 per cent of list candidates can be male
(or female) (Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 2014). Their balance criteria also provide
for a minimum of ten per cent of candidates of Māori descent, ten per cent of candidates
under the age of 35, and regional balance. The Labour Party’s constitution likewise does not
include formal quota provisions; rather, it simply requires the central Moderating
Committee (like the regional selection panels) to finalise a list that “a) Fairly represents
tangata whenua, gender, ethnic groups such as Pacific Island peoples, people with
disabilities, sexual orientations, and age and youth; and b) Ensures there is regional
representation in proportion to the geographic spread of the population” (New Zealand
Labour Party 2014). For its part, New Zealand First requires its List Ranking Committee to
take into account the “need for different genders, social groups, ages and ethnic groups to
be represented” (New Zealand First 2015).
The National Party has no explicit mention of ethnicity, stating only that the ranking
should reflect the “need for balance across the totality of candidates” (New Zealand
National Party 2013). It does, though, give the party’s Board scope for nominating up to five
list-‐only candidates, which in practice could provide a means of central party action to
diversify the candidate pool arising from electorate committees.
Given the lack of formal quota, accommodation of immigrant ethnic minorities, such
as Pacific or Asian populations, within political parties has remained at an informal level, and
is influenced by the electoral strategies of central party selectorates or by the level of grass-‐
roots organization of particular ethnic groups within political parties. For instance, for a long
time a formally recognized Pasifika sector has existed within the Labour Party alongside Te
Kaunihera Māori, in contrast to the absence of sustained formal organization of other
(immigrant) ethnic groups. Similarly, the Pasifika Greens and the Māori network, Te Roopu
Pounamu, are two of several sectoral networks within the Green Party, but no other ethnic
network exists. Neither New Zealand First nor the National Party has such strong structures
of sectors or networks within the party, meaning ethnic organization is less explicit. In both
of these parties central party decision making and direction regarding attention to particular
13
ethnic groups dominates.
DATA
To examine the representation of ethnic groups in New Zealand Parliament, we created an
original dataset of all MPs since the first election under MMP in 1996 and until 2014 (seven
elections). The dataset includes a wide variety of information on the MPs’, including – and
most relevant for our study – their ethnicity, their gender, their party affiliation, how they
have been elected (as list or as electorate MP), and in which electorate they have been
elected (if electorate MP).
We drew on official biographies, party information, MPs’ public statements, and news
reports to determine MPs’ ethnic background. Where necessary, this information was cross-‐
checked with data collated by the New Zealand Parliamentary Library. We follow the main
ethnic categories used by Statistics New Zealand in the national census and other official
population statistics, which distinguish between the majority ethnic group, European, the
indigenous population, Māori, as well as Pasifika and Asian ethnic groups.6 Doing this
facilitates comparison of MPs with the distribution of ethnic groups in the population. The
effect of these categories is that for immigrants we measure what the Canadian government
calls ‘visible minorities’; i.e. those of immigrant-‐origin who are of non-‐majority ethnicity. In
relation to the indigenous Māori, government statistics refer to people as being of ‘Māori
descent’, and self-‐identification is central. Thus, within the Māori category MPs are included
who may not be ‘visible’ in the sense of ‘visible minority’, but nonetheless have at some
time stated their identification as of Māori descent.
ANALYSES
Representation of Ethnic Groups Over Time
Before moving to a detailed study of the MMP mechanism and representation of ethnic
minorities, we start by showing overall ethnic representation in the New Zealand Parliament
over time. Figure 1 presents the proportion of the various ethnic groups in parliament
between 1996 and 2014.
6 Statistics New Zealand also includes the MELAA category in census reporting, which is primarily a residual category including those of Middle Eastern, Latin American or African descent.
14
Figure 1. Overall Percentage of MPs Per Ethnic Group Over Time
As can be seen from Figure 1, the proportion of MPs with a European background has
decreased steadily over time, from 85 per cent in 1996 to 68.6 per cent in 2014. The
indigenous, Māori population, is the second best represented ethnic group, and its overall
representation increased substantially since the introduction of MMP in 1996, from 14.2 per
cent in 1996 to 20.7 per cent in 2014. As such, they have a higher representation in
parliament than in society where, according to the 2013 census data, one in seven people
(14.9 per cent) belong to the Māori ethnic group.7 The representation of Pasifika and Asian
has also increased over time and reached respectively 6.6 and 4.1 per cent after the 2014
elections. While the representation of Pasifika comes close to their proportion in society (7.4
per cent), the representation of Asian people is still well short of their proportion in society
(11.8 per cent).
A primary possible explanation for the Asian representation ‘gap’, especially if we
consider it alongside Pasifika representation, relates to the length of time that each ethnic
group has been in New Zealand. While Indian and Chinese immigration do in fact have a long
history in New Zealand (Leckie 2007; Ho 2015), the bulk of Asian immigration has been much
more recent, coming primarily from the early 1990s onwards. Pacific peoples, by contrast,
immigrated from the 1950s and 1960s and have, over time, consolidated a strong
population presence in the country, with the majority of the Pasifika population is now New
7 It is important to note that some MPs who identify as being of Māori descent do not, however, seek to profile themselves as representatives ‘of Māori’ (Crisp et al. 2016).
15
Zealand-‐born, as was noted earlier. To a degree, then, we could consider Pasifika to now be
a regular part of the societal landscape in a way that facilitates their incorporation into the
political system. The special attention given to Pacific Peoples in government institutions
and policy is also reflective of the distinctive trajectory so far for New Zealand’s Pasifika
population, when compared with other ethnic minority populations of migrant background.
Length of time in the country is sometimes associated with level of engagement with
the political system (Bird 2005). As noted earlier, Pasifika have higher levels of voter turnout
than those of Asian ethnicity, meaning that this link between duration of residence and
political participation may hold true for Asian and Pasifika, and may in turn have effects for
political parties’ selection patterns. Further, given that the basis for immigration and the
socioeconomic characteristics of these populations are quite different, the routes into
politics may be distinctive. For Pasifika, political integration via trade union activities in the
industrial labour force or via the dense network of community and religious organizations
may create pathways into the political system that are not possible for the Asian population
that is highly heterogeneous along linguistic, cultural, social and economic dimensions.
As suggested in the theoretical section, we do expect differences between parties to
occur. Therefore, in Figure 2, we present the proportion of the different ethnic groups over
time for the two major parties: National and Labour.
Figure 2. Percentage of MPs Per Ethnic Group Over Time For National and Labour
16
As can be seen from Figure 2, while MPs with a European background are better
represented among National than Labour, the declining pattern in their representation is
similar in both parties. The proportion of Māori is higher among Labour but has increased
over time in both parties. Pasifika have always been better represented among Labour
compared with National. Asian people, by contrast, have in most electoral periods been
better represented within National than Labour. The cross-‐party differences in the Pasifika
and Asian share of elected MPs is consistent with the earlier discussion that highlighted the
distinctive character of these groups’ socioeconomic composition and immigration
experiences that might drive participation patterns. As the dominant migrant working class,
Pasifika voters have traditionally voted strongly in support of Labour; in turn, the party
selected Pasifika candidates from the early 1990s. National, on the other hand, included
Asian candidates from early in the period under study and expanded this over time. Its
electoral success since 2008 also facilitated the election of a larger range of ‘ethnic’ list MPs
than in Labour, whose declining nationwide vote and relatively high success in individual
electorates diminished the number of MPs who were elected via list, which was – as we
discuss below – the primary vehicle for introducing non-‐Pasifika immigrant diversity.
Turning to the main minor parties, Figure 3 presents the proportion of the four
ethnic groups within the Green Party and NZ First over time.
Figure 3. Percentage of MPs Per Ethnic Group Over Time For the Green Party and NZ First
As can be seen from Figure 3, the Green Party has not had any Asian or Pasikifa MPs so far.
Their proportion of MPs with a Māori descent has increased over time, but they remain
17
mainly a party of Europeans. Indeed, compared with NZ First, as well as National and Labour,
they had the highest percentage of European MPs in 2014. Similar to the Green Party, New
Zealand First does poorly on the representation of Pasifika and Asian people. The party had
one Pacific MP in 2011 and one in 2014, and one Asian MP in 2014. The representation of
Māori MPs is, however, high compared with all other parties. In 2014, more than 36 per cent
of their MPs were of Māori descent.
Overall, the argument in the international literature (Donovan 2007; Geddes 1995;
Hampshire 2012; Kittilson and Tate 2004) that ethnic minorities will have the highest
representation in left-‐wing parties needs to be nuanced in the New Zealand context. While
the Pasifika are indeed better represented among Labour than National, they are not
represented at all in the Green Party. Moreover, Asian people are better represented among
National than Labour, and again, not represented at all within the Green Party. While the
Green party has had many ‘invisible’ (European) immigrant MPs, leaving aside the Māori
representation, visible diversity is non-‐existent within the Green party.8
The indigenous Māori population is better represented within Green and Labour than
National, which also reflects the voting behaviour of the Māori who tend to overrepresented
among the Labour electorate (Sullivan et al. 2014). Yet, the Māori population has the highest
representation over time within the centre-‐right populist party NZ First. From its
establishment, NZ First has had strong representation from Māori. Indeed, in the first MMP
election its candidates unexpectedly won all of the (five, at the time) Māori electorates,
which had historically been the preserve of the Labour Party. The representation of Māori
among its elected MPs has largely been sustained over time, even as the relationship with
Māori voters has fluctuated, going from initial “infatuation” with the party and its
charismatic former Minister of Māori Affairs, Winston Peters, through phases of rejection to
a “distant warmth” (Edwards 2010, p.94). NZ First has never advocated for Māori from the
point of view of ethnic or identity-‐based substantive representation; instead its policy has
been marked by the view that “progress for Māori should be based on quality education,
employment, health, housing and social services – not on the Treaty [of Waitangi]” (Edwards
2010, p.109). Nonetheless, relationships between the broader Māori community and NZ
First have been resilient over time and its number of Māori MPs reflects these ongoing
connections.
8 This also reflects the list composition of the Green Party over time. In 2014, for instance, Pasifika representation was absent, while the only visible minority candidate was ranked 26th of 39 list positions.
18
The Representation of Ethnic Groups and the List/Electorate MMP Mechanism
Next, we look at the way MPs of the various ethnic groups have been elected. Figure 4
illustrates the percentage of list and electorate MPs per ethnic group over time.
Figure 4. Overall Percentages of List and Electorate MPs Per Ethnic Group Over Time
(Number of MPs Between Brackets)
As can be seen from Figure 4, the majority of European MPs are electorate MPs, and the
percentage of electorate MPs within the group of European MPs is relatively constant over
time. The share of electorate representatives among MPs of Māori descent has ranged over
time from 30 to almost 60 per cent, fluctuating against the backdrop of a steadily rising
absolute number of Māori MPs (17 in 1996 up to 25 in 2014).
The difference in how Pasifika and Asian MPs enter parliament—via the list or via an
electorate—and the changes over time for Pasifika MPs, are perhaps the most striking
aspects of MMP-‐era ethnic minority representation. Among Pasifika MPs, there is a mild
pattern of some increase over time in the proportion being elected as electorate MPs, rather
than via the list. If we drill down to the level of individual MPs’ career paths, we can also see
for some MPs a longitudinal pattern of first entering parliament via the list mechanism and
subsequently gaining selection and election in an electorate. Pasifika MPs are also much
more likely to be elected as electorate MPs than Asian MPs; indeed, with the exception of
one National MP for (part of) one term, all Asian MPs since 1996 have been list MPs.9
9 The MP was elected in the Botany electorate in 2008, after having previously served as a list MP since 1996. Yet, she resigned as a Minister in late 2010, and then in early 2011 as an MP, due to allegations of improper use of taxpayer travel subsidies for her husband’s business purposes (Cheng 2010).
19
What could account for the striking difference in the mode of Pasifika and Asian
representation in New Zealand’s parliament? Both the Asian and Pasifika populations are
highly geographically concentrated in Auckland, and within particular suburbs of Auckland,
so the argument that concentrated ethnic minority populations are able to use the SMD
mechanism to their advantage does not obviously distinguish the groups in this context.
Similar to the drivers of higher Pasifika parliamentary representation overall, the
greater length of residence of Pasifika in New Zealand may not only lead to a greater
capacity to organize politically and to be considered for selection by political parties, but
also to Pasifika being perceived as having sufficiently broad-‐based appeal to win election as
electorate candidates.
Ordinarily, we think of incumbency has having a strong effect (Black 2008); that is,
once an ethnic minority MP has been elected as an electorate MP, then s/he is likely to be
re-‐elected, or another ethnic minority candidate could stand and win election in that
constituency. This point does appear to hold for the Pasifika electorate MPs, both at a
personal level and in relation to the ethnic group. For instance, in the ‘most Pacific’ Auckland
and Wellington electorates, from the time that a Pasifika MP was first selected and elected,
Pasifika MPs have always been nominated and elected there. The same effect did not,
however, hold for the sole Asian electorate MP. After her resignation in 2011, the candidate
nominated by the National Party to contest the Botany by-‐election was not Asian, but rather
of Māori descent. It is possible that the controversial circumstances of the MP’s resignation
played a part in the decision not to select another candidate of Asian ethnicity once the
electorate opening had been created.
An alternative explanation, though, relates to how both major political parties
envisage the representation role of Pasifika and Asian MPs respectively. While the selection
of Pasifika candidates to contest electorates and carry out the usual functions of a
constituency MP seems to have normalized in recent electoral cycles,10 political parties
continue to describe MPs of Asian ethnicity in terms of their capacity to represent a
particular ethnic or national community. Thus, all of Labour’s Asian MPs were not only
elected via the list, but were list-‐only candidates at the election, reflecting the view that
both their campaigning and subsequent representation should focus on their ethnic group,
on a nationwide basis. More dual candidacies are evident among the National Party’s Asian
MPs. However, aside from the sole MP who was successfully elected in the safe National and
high Asian-‐proportion seat of Botany, all of those with dual candidacies have been
10 Of the 29 successful candidacies by National and Labour’s 29 Pasifika MPs since 1996, only five of these were list-‐only, with the remaining 24 candidacies either dual or electorate only.
20
nominated in unsafe seats. Further, the party’s sole ethnic Chinese MP was selected as a list-‐
only candidate and neither was he subsequently assigned a ‘shadow’ electorate as is the
usual practice for List MPs; instead, his brief was explicitly to represent the Chinese
community. Whether it relates to parties’ conceptions of the different representation
‘requirements’ of Asian and Pasifika communities or to parties’ views about the electability
of Asian and Pasifika candidates in General electorates, a clear difference can be observed in
the approach towards the mode of representation of each community.
In order to explain these patterns and to shed further light on party approaches to
representation, it is useful to explore the extent to which there are cross-‐party differences in
the way different ethnic groups are elected. Figures 5 and 6 present the proportion of list
and electorate MPs per ethnic group for the two major parties, Labour and National. Those
are also the only parties with a substantial number of both electorate and list MPs.
Figure 5. Percentages of List and Electorate MPs Per Ethnic Group Over Time For Labour (Number of MPs Between Brackets)
21
Figure 6. Percentages of List and Electorate MPs Per Ethnic Group Over Time For National
(Number of MPs Between Brackets)
Labour’s Māori MPs have traditionally been more likely to be electorate MPs than Māori
National MPs. This can to a large extent be explained by the fact that National has not stood
candidates in Māori electorate since 2005, and has never won a Māori electorate.11 By
contrast, Labour has always presented candidates in the Māori electorates and has
traditionally been dominant in them. What is notable in the case of Labour’s Māori
representation is that the balance between list and electorate status among its Māori MPs
closely tracks the party’s fortunes in the Māori electorates. In the first MMP election in 1996
most of Labour’s Māori MPs were elected via the list due to NZ First’s clean sweep of the
Māori seats. Similarly, as the Māori Party established itself from the 2005 election and
onwards until 2011, Labour’s Māori MPs were primarily elected off the list, and only once it
regained control over the Māori seats did the balance tip back in the favour of electorate
representation. In other words, for Labour, electorate Māori MPs have primarily been Māori
MPs elected via the reserved Māori seats, and there has been much weaker Māori
representation in General electorates. Indeed, at the 2014 election, of its seven electorate
MPs of Māori descent, just one, was elected in a General electorate. In the National Party,
conversely, in five of the seven MMP elections 50 per cent or more of the party’s Māori MPs
11 Indeed, the National Party has a patchy history of Māori representation overall; for over thirty years, from 1943 until 1975, there were no Māori National Party MPs (Williams 2010).
22
have been electorate MPs, all elected in General electorates. The distinctive General
electorate/Māori electorate pattern observed between the parties has likely implications for
substantive representation within the main parties, as Crisp et al. (2016) confirm that those
elected in General electorates are much less likely to engage in ethnic substantive
representation than those elected in Māori electorates.
Pasifika are overall more likely to be electorate MPs within Labour than in National,
and they are also significantly higher in number. National’s Pasifika representation has been
low over time, with just three Pasifika MPs providing all of the party’s Pasifika
representation since 1996, of whom one has been elected via an electorate (in 2011 and
2014). For Asian MPs, the pattern of almost exclusive list representation is similar across
parties, with the exception of one Asian National MP mentioned above.
The Electorates of Various Ethnic Groups
We now consider whether there are differences in the composition of electorates that
Māori and Pasifika electorate MPs represent compared with the majority European ethnic
group.12 Table 1 presents the average proportion for the most recent 2014 legislature of
each ethnic group in the General electorates with a Māori electorate MP, a Pasifika
electorate MP and a European electorate MP.
Two electorates are significant outliers in their respective group of electorates.
Botany, which has a Māori electorate MP, has the sixth lowest share (5.7 per cent) of
residents of Māori descent, while the Christchurch East electorate has a dramatically
different demographic profile from the other electorates represented by Pasifika MPs
(around four per cent Pacific Peoples compared with 20 percent to 55 per cent in the other
electorates). For electorates with Māori and with Pasifika MPs we therefore calculate the
average demographic profile both including and excluding the outlier electorate in each
group.
12 No electorate MP of Asian ethnicity was elected in the 2014 election.
23
Table 1. Percentage of Ethnicities in Electorates with MPs with Various Ethnic Backgrounds
in 2014 European Māori Pasifika Asian Other and
non-‐identified
General electorates with Māori Electorate MP (N=6) 58.49 19.41 10.45 14.75 9.49 Excl. Botany* 61.08 21.84 10.21 10.61 9.87 General electorates with Pasifika Electorate MP (N=6) 46.92 13.62 27.07 16.30 9.23 Excl. Christchurch East* 40.14 14.08 31.61 18.65 9.33 General electorates with European Electorate MP (N=52) 74.09 13.51 4.23 10.07 7.85 General Electorates Total (N=64) 70.00 14.11 6.98 11.12 8.14 Source: New Zealand Parliamentary Library (2015), and own calculations. Notes: Since people may identify with more than one ethnicity, the total percentages are more than 100. * These are outliers (see text). Therefore, we calculated percentages both including and excluding these constituencies. As can be seen from Table 1, and in line with previous research (Saggar and Geddes 2000),
MPs with an indigenous or ethnic minority background are likely to be elected in an
electorate with a relatively higher proportion of people with their ethnic background. For
example, whereas the proportion of Māori is 14.11 per cent in New Zealand as a whole, it is
19.41 per cent in those electorates with a Māori electorate MP.
The effect is much greater, though, for Pasifika electorate MPs. In those electorates
Pasifika people are, at 27 per cent on average, significantly overrepresented among its
population. Furthermore, these electorates are distinctive because Europeans are
substantially underrepresented in the population, whereas there are proportionally more
Asian people living in electorates with a Pasifika MP than in New Zealand as whole. The
electorates where a Pasifika electorate MP has been elected are therefore more ethnically
diverse overall (in terms of the presence of Pasifika, Asian and other minority ethnic
backgrounds) than New Zealand society as a whole. The same holds, though to a lesser
extent, for the electorates with a Māori MP, where the proportion of Pasifika is also higher
than in New Zealand as a whole. The proportion of Asian people is also slightly higher in the
24
general electorates with a Māori MP, though this disappears when we exclude the Botany
electorate.
While the election of Pasifika MPs in electorates with a very high proportion of
Pasifika is consistent with the literature (Saggar and Geddes 2000), the more recent shift
towards Pasifika MPs also being selected and successfully elected beyond the initial ‘typical’
Pasifika electorates (e.g. Māngere) is of particular interest. In these cases the composition of
the electorate does not fully explain the election of the MP, although arguably highly diverse
(non-‐European) electorates may be more willing to elect a non-‐majority MP regardless of
their origin. Two other factors may contribute to explaining this trend. First, across both
Labour and National, the expanded group of electorate MPs consists of MPs of Pasifika
ethnicity who were New Zealand-‐born or moved to New Zealand at a very young age, and
they all have high levels of education and backgrounds in professional careers. Thus, for the
parties and electorates they may be seen to have as much appeal to ‘mainstream’
communities as to ‘their’ particular ethnic communities. The Asian MPs, while also generally
bringing high educational levels and professional backgrounds, are all first-‐generation
immigrants who arrived after their schooling years.
Second, in the case of the Labour Party, which has seen the highest recent growth in
the number of Pasifika electorate MPs, the existence of an official Pacific Island sector within
the party, alongside strong organizing at the local level (particularly across Auckland
electorates), has contributed to achieving the selection of a new cohort of Pasifika
electorate candidates. Not only have there been successful grass-‐roots efforts to have
Pasifika party members selected as electorate candidates, but in particular cases these
efforts have been focused on safe Labour electorates,13 which further adds to the possibility
of consolidating Pasifika representation over time. Patterns of diversification over time
therefore appear to rely not solely on the vision and goals of central party selectorates (e.g.
in strategically placing ethnic minority candidates on party lists), but also on the nature and
strength of bottom-‐up organizing within ethnic communities and among party members.
Moreover, a secular effect also appears to be at work, whereby the length of residence of
immigrant-‐origin ethnic communities, and generational change within them, also gradually
transform the opportunity structures for ethnic representation.
13 Electorates are considered to be safe for a party when the difference in votes won by the candidate of the party and the result of the second-‐placed candidate in the previous election is ten per cent or more (Hazan and Rahat 2010; Zittel and Gschwend 2008).
25
CONCLUSION
With the growing ethnic diversity in most societies, international literature has begun to
study the representation of ethnic minorities. In this paper we have examined the
representation of ethnic groups in the New Zealand Parliament under MMP. Using an
original dataset, the paper has addressed the question of whether ethnic minorities are
more likely to be elected as list or electorate MPs compared with those of an ethnic majority
(European) or indigenous (Māori) background, while also examining differences across
ethnic minority groups and political parties, as well as over time.
Our data show that the basic trend over time is, as the literature on the
representation of ethnic minorities predicts, one of ever-‐greater diversification of
parliament. European representation has gradually declined, with the Māori, Pasifika and
Asian presence growing. Notably, though, whereas Pasifika representation has almost
reached that population’s proportion in society, Asian representation remains comparatively
low. While the Labour Party was the leader in terms of ethnic diversity, and continues to
have markedly higher Māori and Pasifika presence in their caucus than the mainstream
right-‐wing National Party, the latter began achieving greater diversity in election of MPs
from the mid-‐2000s and has achieved higher Asian representation than Pasifika and higher
representation than in the Labour Party in 2014. Surprisingly, the Green Party has had no
Asian or Pasifika MPs under MMP. Thus, the New Zealand case points to the need to nuance
accounts in the literature that tend to assume that left-‐wing parties are the main vehicle for
higher descriptive representation of ethnic minorities. Given the economic basis of
immigration policy settings in New Zealand, the profile of the immigrant-‐origin population is
complex. While Pasifika are indeed better represented in Labour, the high education, high-‐
wealth profile of many in the newer Asian immigrant population makes them just as likely to
support parties of the right, and the higher Asian representation among National Party MPs
reflects party awareness of the electoral value of this growing population.
The mode of representation also shows differences across groups. Overall, we found
more list MPs among ethnic minorities than electorate MPs. This contradicts the literature
on the descriptive representation that suggests ethnic minorities’ representation would fare
better under SMD systems than proportional systems. It does to some extent appear to hold
partly true for the more highly-‐organized Pasifika population, but for Asian New Zealanders,
who also display high geographic concentration, our findings are instead in line with the
gender literature which has shown that women are better represented in proportional
systems and more likely to be elected as list than electorate MP in MMP systems. While
26
geographic concentration may have an effect, other factors are clearly at work, such as the
ethnic community’s length of residence in the society, the degree of ethnic organization and
heterogeneity, and party views on the type of representation its MPs should provide. The
MMP context therefore appears to be useful for the different opportunity structures—list
and SMD mechanisms—it offers ethnic minorities and political parties alike. In particular,
ethnic MPs may be seen as representative of their ethnic community and, as such, parties
(and sometimes ethnic communities) may prefer them to be elected as list MPs rather than
electorate MPs representing a geographical constituency. So far, ethnic minorities seem to
be particularly seen as representatives of their ethnic community, and when they are
elected as electorate MP, they is more likely to be in constituencies with a high number of
citizens of their own ethnicity. Our findings indeed confirm that the Pasifika MPs who were
elected as electorate MPs in 2014 were particularly likely to represent a constituency with a
high proportion of Pasifika peoples, which could create some limits to their representation.
Yet, the last two electoral cycles show some extension of Pasifika electorate representation
beyond these electorates, perhaps reflecting generational change within the Pasifika
population, as well as changing views from political party selectorates about the place of
Pasifika in ‘mainstream’ society and who they can represent.
The pattern of representation is overall more diffuse for Māori, which likely reflects a
distinctive dynamic of indigenous political representation. First, the existence of Māori
electorates creates a distinct sphere dedicated to ‘ethnic’ Māori representation. Second, the
expectations that people of Māori descent elected on the General roll prioritize this aspect
of identity are much weaker than the expectations or assumptions attributed to those of
immigrant-‐origin.
MMP appears to have been a success if we are concerned with diversifying
parliament and achieving higher levels of descriptive representation that reflect the rapid
growth in diversity in New Zealand’s population. Pasifika have achieved good levels of
descriptive representation, while indigenous Māori representation has benefited both from
the guaranteed representation provided by the rising number of Māori seats and, for parties
that are electorally weak in the Māori electorates, from the ability to include diversity in the
party list. Given the relative underrepresentation of the Asian population, thus far, a key
question for the future will be whether Asian representation in the political system becomes
‘normalized’ once the communities have been in New Zealand longer and generational
change occurs. As, aside from the system of reserved seats for Māori, there have been no
formal initiatives in law or in parties to assure higher representation of ethnic groups (as for
27
women), we must look to both bottom-‐up ethnic organizing and top-‐down party selectorate
strategies for future strengthening of descriptive representation.
REFERENCES
Barker, Fiona and Kate McMillan. 2016. Electoral Rights: Country Report New Zealand,
Florence: European Union Democracy Observatory.
Bilodeau, Antoine. 2008. Immigrants’ Voice Through Protest Politics in Canada and Australia:
Assessing the Impact of Pre-‐migration Repression. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies 34(6): 975–1002.
Bird, Karen. 2005. The Political Representation of Visible Minorities in Electoral Democracies.
A Comparison of France, Denmark and Canada. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 11:
425-‐265.
Bird, Karen. 2011. Patterns of Substantive Representation Among Visible Minority MPs. In:
Karen Bird, Thomas Saalfeld, and Andreas Wüst (Eds.). The Political Representation of
Immigrants and Minorities: Voters, Parties and Parliaments in Liberal Democracies.
London: Routledge. Pp. 207-‐229.
Bird, Karen, Thomas Saalfeld and Andreas Wüst (Eds.). 2011. The Political Representation of
Immigrants and Minorities: Voters, Parties and Parliaments in Liberal Democracies.
London: Routledge.
Black. Jerome H. 2008. Ethnoracial Minorities in the 38th Parliament: Patterns of Change and
Continuity. In Caroline Andrew, John Biles, Myer Siemiatycki and Erin Tolley (Eds.)
Electing a Diverse Canada. The Representation of Immigrants, Minorities, and Women.
Vancouver: UBC Press. Pp. 229-‐254.
Bloemraad, Irene and Karen Schönwälder. 2013. Immigrant and Ethnic Minority
Representation in Europe: Conceptual Challenges and Theoretical Approaches. West
European Politics 36(3): 564-‐579.
Brosnan, Peter. 1988. Pacific Island People: Migrant and Minority Workers in the New
Zealand Labour Market. Wellington: Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of
Wellington.
Brouard, Sylvain and Vincent Tiberj. 2011. Yes They Can: An Experimental Approach to the
Eligibility of Ethnic Minority Candidates in France. In Karen Bird, Thomas Saalfeld, &
Andrea M. Wüst (Eds.). The Political Representation of Immigrants and Minorities.
Abingdon: Routledge. Pp. 164–180.
28
Burke, Kerry. 1986. Review of Immigration Policy, August 1986. Wellington: New Zealand
Parliament.
Casellas, Jason P. and David L. Leal. 2011. Minority Representation in US Congress. In: Karen
Bird, Thomas Saalfeld, and Andreas Wüst (Eds.). The Political Representation of
Immigrants and Minorities: Voters, Parties and Parliaments in Liberal Democracies.
London: Routledge. Pp. 183-‐206.
Castles, Francis. 1981. Female Legislative Representation and the Electoral System. Politics 1:
21-‐26.
Castles, Stehpen and Mark J. Miller. 2009. The Age of Migration 4th ed. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Cheng, Derek. 2010. Pansy Wong resigns as MP. New Zealand Herald. Available at:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10694214
[Accessed August 25, 2016].
Clark, Tom, Robert Putnam and Edward Fieldhouse. 2010. The Age of Obama: The Changing
Place of Minorities in British and American Society. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Crisp, Brian F., Betul Demirkaya, Leslie A. Schwindt-‐Bayer and Courtney Millian. 2016. The
Role of Rules in Representation: Group Membership and Electoral Incentives. British
Journal of Political Science. FirstView Article. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123415000691
Curtin, Jennifer. 2014. From Presence to Absence? Where Were Women in 2011? In Jack
Vowles (Ed.) The New Electoral Politics in New Zealand. The Significance of the 2011
Election. Wellington: Institute for Governance and Policy Studies. Pp. 125-‐139.
da Fonseca, Sara Claro. 2011. New Citizens – New Candidates? Candidate Selection and the
Mobilization of Immigrant Voters in German Elections. In: Karen Bird, Thomas Saalfeld
and Andreas M. Wüst (Eds.) The Political Representation of Immigrants and Minorities.
Voters, Parties and Parliaments in Liberal Democracies. Oxon: Routledge/ECPR Studies
in European Politics. Pp. 109-‐127.
Davidson-‐Schmich, Louise. 2014. Closing the Gap. Gender and Constituency Candidate
Nomination in the 2013 Bundestag Election. German Politics and Society 32(2): 86-‐
105.
Donovan, Barbara. 2007. “Minority” Representation in Germany. German Politics 16(4): 455-‐
480.
29
Edwards, Damian. 2010. Breaking Barriers: Māori and New Zealand First. In Maria Bargh
(Ed.). Māori and Parliament: Diverse Strategies and Compromises. Wellington: Huia
Publishers. Pp. 93–114.
Electoral Commission. 2014a. Candidate Handbook. General Elections. Wellington: New
Zealand Electoral Commission.
Electoral Commission. 2014b. Māori Electoral Option 2013. Wellington: New Zealand
Electoral Commission. Available at: http://www.elections.org.nz/events/past-‐
events/maori-‐electoral-‐option-‐2013 [Accessed June 1, 2016].
Electoral Commission. 2014c. Report of the Electoral Commission on the 2014 General
Election. Wellington: Electoral Commission.
Fieldhouse, Edward and Maria Sobolewska. 2013. Introduction: Are British Ethnic Minorities
Politically Under-‐represented? Parliamentary Affairs 66: 235–245.
Fortin-‐Rittberger, Jessiva and Christina Eder. 2013 Towards a Gender-‐Equal Bundestag? The
Impact of Electoral Rules on Women’s Representation. West European Politics 36(5):
969-‐985.
Friesen, Wardlow. 2015. Asian Auckland: the Multiple Meanings of Diversity. Wellington:
Asia New Zealand Foundation.
Gallagher, Michael and Michael Marsh (Eds.). 1988. Candidate Selection in Comparative
Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics. London: Sage.
Geddes, Andrew. 1995. The ‘Logic’ of Positive Action? Ethnic Minority Representation in
Britain After the 1992 General Election. Party Politics 1(2): 275-‐285.
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. 2014. Candidate Selection and List Ranking
Procedures 2014. Wellington: Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. Available at:
http://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/bulk-‐
upload/documents/green_party_candidate_selection_and_list_ranking_processes_20
14.pdf [Accessed August 19, 2016].
Hampshire, James. 2012. Race and Representation: The BME Shortlist Debates in Britain. In
Terri E. Givens and Rahsaan Maxwell (Eds.) Immigrant Politics. Race and
Representation in Western Europe. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Pp. 33-‐52.
Hazan, Reuven Y. and Gideon Rahat. 2010. Democracy Within Parties. Candidate Selection
Methods and Their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ho, Elsie. 2015. The Changing Face of Asian Peoples in New Zealand. New Zealand
Population Review 41: 95–118.
30
Htun, Mala. 2004. Is Gender Like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity Groups.
Perspectives on Politics 2(3): 439-‐458.
Iustini, Leon and Charles Crothers. 2013. Turnout and voting choices at general elections of
Pacific peoples in New Zealand. Political Science 65(2): 157-‐177.
Kittilson, Miki C. and Katherine Tate. 2004. Political Parties, Minorities and Elected Office:
Comparing Opportunities for Inclusion in the U.S. and Britain. Center for the Study of
Democracy, Paper 04-‐06. Irvine: University of California, Irvine.
Kulich, Clara, Michelle K. Ryan and S. Alexander Haslam. 2014. The Political Glass Cliff.
Understanding How Seat Selection Contributes to the Underperformance of Ethnic
Minority Candidates. Political Research Quarterly 67(1): 84-‐95.
Leckie, Jacqueline. 2007. Indian Settlers: The Story of a New Zealand South Asian
Community. Dunedin: Otago University Press.
Lien, Pei-‐Te. 2004. Asian Americans and Voting Participation: Comparing Racial and Ethnic
Differences in Recent U.S. Elections. International Migration Review 38(2): 493–517.
Manow, Philip. 2016. Mixed Rules, Mixed Strategies. Parties and Candidates in Germany’s
Electoral System. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Martin, Nicole. 2016. Do Ethnic Minority Candidates Mobilise Ethnic Minority Voters?
Evidence from the 2010 UK General Election. Parliamentary Affairs 69(1): 169-‐180.
Matland, Richard E. and Donley T. Studlar. 1996. The Contagion of Women Candidates in
Single-‐Member District and Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: Canada
and Norway. Journal of Politics 58(3): 707-‐733.
Maxwell, Rahsaan. 2013. The Integration Trade-‐Offs of Political Representation. European
Political Science 12: 467-‐478.
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. 2015. Migration Trends and Outlook
2014/2015. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
McLeay, Elizabeth and Jack Vowles. 2007. Redefining Constituency Representation: the
Roles of New Zealand MPs Under MMP. Regional and Federal Studies 17(1): 71-‐95.
Michon, Laure. 2012. Successful Political Integration: Paradoxes in the Netherlands. In Terri
E. Givens and Rahsaan Maxwell (Eds.) Immigrant Politics. Race and Representation in
Western Europe. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Pp. 87-‐105.
New Zealand First. 2015. New Zealand First Party Constitution 2015 Wellington: New
Zealand First. Available at: http://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/bulk-‐
upload/documents/nzf_constitution_dec_2015.pdf [Accessed August 24, 2016].
31
New Zealand Labour Party. 2014. Constitution and Rules. Wellington: New Zealand Labour
Party. Available at:
https://www.labourparty.org.nz/sites/default/files/2014%20Constitution.pdf.
New Zealand National Party. 2013. Constitution and Rules of the New Zealand National
Party. Wellington: New Zealand National Party. Available at:
https://www.mynational.org.nz/Article?Action=View&Article_id=298 [Accessed
August 16, 2016].
New Zealand Parliamentary Library. 2015. Electorate Profiles -‐ Raw Data. Wellington:
Parliamentary Library. Available at: https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-‐and-‐
electorates/electorate-‐profiles/document/00PlibDBHOH_Lib_EP_2014data1/access-‐
raw-‐data-‐for-‐2014-‐electorate-‐profiles.
Norris, Pippa. 1985. Women's Legislative Representation in Western Europe. West European
Politics 8: 90-‐101.
Owens, Chris T. 2005. Black Substantive Representation in State Legislatures from 1971–
1994. Social Science Quarterly 86: 779–791.
Pantjoa, Adrian A. and Gary M. Segura. 2003. Does Ethnicity Matter? Descriptive
Representation in Legislatures and Political Alienation Among Latinos. Social Science
Quarterly 84(2): 441-‐460.
Preuhs, Robert R. 2007. Descriptive Representation as a Mechanism to Mitigate Policy
Backlash: Latino Incorporation and Welfare Policy in the American States. Political
Research Quarterly 60: 277–92.
Rocha, Rene R., Caroline J. Tolbert, Daniel C. Bowen and Christopher J. Clark. 2010. Race and
Turnout: Does Descriptive Representation in State Legislatures Increase Minority
Voting? Political Research Quarterly 63(4): 890-‐907.
Rule, Wilma. 1981. Why Women Don't Run: The Critical Contextual Factors in Women's
Representation. Western Political Quarterly 34:60-‐77.
Rule, Wilma. 1987. Electoral Systems, Contextual Factors and Women's Opportunity for
Election to Parliament in Twenty-‐Three Democracies. Western Political Quarterly 40:
477-‐498.
Roskruge, Matthew, Arthur Grimes, Philip McCann and Jacques Poot. 2010. Social Capital
and Regional Social Infrastructure Investment: Evidence from New Zealand. Motu
Working Paper 10-‐03. Wellington: Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
32
Saggar, Shamit and Andrew Geddes. 2000. Negative and Positive Racialisation: Re-‐Examining
Ethnic Minority Political Representation in the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies 26(1): 25–44.
Schönwälder, Karen. Cautious Steps: Minority Representation in Germany. In Terri E. Givens
and Rahsaan Maxwell (Eds.) Immigrant Politics. Race and Representation in Western
Europe. Boulder:Lynne Rienner Publishers. Pp. 67-‐85.
Sobolewska, Maria. 2013. Party Strategies and the Descriptive Representation of Ethnic
Minorities. The 2010 British Election. West European Politics 36(3): 615-‐633.
Statistics New Zealand. 2014a. 2013 Census QuickStats about Education and Training,
Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. Available at:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-‐census/profile-‐and-‐summary-‐reports/qstats-‐
education-‐training/highest-‐qualification.aspx# [Accessed August 24, 2016].
Statistics New Zealand. 2014b. 2013 QuickStats About Culture and Identity, Wellington:
Statistics New Zealand. Available at: www.stats.govt.nz.
Statistics New Zealand. 2016. New Zealand Social Indicators -‐ Unemployment, Wellington:
Statistics New Zealand. Available at:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-‐of-‐nz/nz-‐social-‐
indicators/Home/Labour%20market/unemployment.aspx.
Sullivan, Ann, Martin von Randow and Aimee Matiu. 2014. Māori Voters, Public Policy and
Privatisation. In: Jack Vowles (Ed.). The New Electoral Politics in New Zealand. The
Significance of the 2011 Election. Wellington: Institute for Governance and Policy
Studies. Pp. 141-‐159.
Sullivan, Ann and Jack Vowles, 1998. Realignment? Māori and the 1996 Election. In: Jack
Vowles, Peter Aimer, Susan Banducci and Jeffrey Karp (Eds.). Voters’ Victory? New
Zealand’s First Election Under Proportional Representation. Auckland: Auckland
University Press. Pp. 171-‐191.
Tossutti, Livianna. 2007. The Electoral Participation of Ethnocultural Communities. Available
at: http://www.elections.ca/res/rec/part/paper/ethnocultural/ethnocultural_e.pdf.
Troustine, Jessica and Melody Ellis Valdini. 2008. The Context Matters: The Effects of Single
Member vs At-‐Large Districts on City Council Diversity. American Journal of Political
Science 52(3): 554-‐569.
Verba, Sidney and Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social
Equality. New York: Harper and Row.
33
Vowles, Jack (Ed.). 2014. The New Electoral Politics in New Zealand. The Significance of the
2011 Election, Wellington: Institute for Governance and Policy Studies.
Whitby, Kenny J. 1997. The Color of Representation. Congressional Behavior and Black
Interests. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Williams, Charlotte. 2010. The National Party and Māori. In: Maria Bargh (Ed.) Māori and
Parliament: Diverse Strategies and Compromises. Wellington: Huia Publishers, pp.
81–92.
Wüst, Andreas M. 2011. Migrants as Parliamentary Actors in Germany. In: Karen Karen,
Thomas Saalfeld and Andreas M. Wüst (Eds.). The Political Representation of
Immigrants and Minorities. Voters, Parties and Parliaments in Liberal Democracies.
Oxon: Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Politics. Pp. 250-‐265.
Wüst, Andreas M. 2014. Immigration Into Politics. Immigrant-‐Origin Candidates and Their
Success in the 2013 Bundestag Election. German Politics and Society 32(3): 1-‐15.
Zittel, Thomas and Thomas Gschwend. 2008. Individualised Constituency Campaigns in
Mixed-‐Member Electoral Systems: Candidates in the 2005 German Elections. West
European Politics 31(5): 978–1003.
34
Appendix
Table A. Proportion and Number of Ethnic Groups in NZ Parliament Between 1996 and 2014
European Māori Pasifika Asian Total
N % N % N % N % N
1996 99 82.50 17 14.17 3 2.50 1 .83 120
1999 99 82.50 17 14.17 3 2.50 1 .83 120
2002 95 79.17 20 16.67 3 2.50 2 1.67 120
2005 93 76.86 23 19.01 3 2.48 2 1.65 121
2008 91 74.59 20 16.39 5 4.10 6 4.92 122
2011 88 73.73 22 18.18 6 4.96 5 4.13 121
2014 83 68.60 25 20.66 8 6.61 5 4.13 121
Table B. Percentages of Each Type of MP Per Ethnic Group in NZ Parliament Between 1996 and 2014
1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
European Total N 99 99 95 93 91 88 83
Electorate
MP 55.57 57.58 57.89 63.44 63.74 62.50 62.65
List MP 43.43 42.42 42.11 36.56 36.26 37.50 37.35
Māori Total N 17 17 20 23 20 22 25
Electorate
MP 47.06 58.82 55.00 30.43 45.00 54.55 52.00
List MP 52.94 41.18 45.00 69.57 55.00 45.45 48.00
Pasifika Total N 3 3 3 3 5 6 8
Electorate
MP 33.33 66.67 100.00 100.00 60.00 50.00 75.00
List MP 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 40.00 50.00 25.00
Asian Total N 1 1 2 2 6 5 5
Electorate
MP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00
List MP 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 83.33 100.00 100.00