THE POLITICAL REPRESENTATION OF ETHNIC GROUPS. THE CASE OF NEW ZEALAND. Fiona Barker fiona.barker@vuw.ac.nz Hilde Coffé hilde.coffe@vuw.ac.nz 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. 1
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 2
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 3
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, 4
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- 5
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 6
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 7
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. 8
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 9
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. 10
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. 11
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 12
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. 13
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). 14
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 15
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 16
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 26 th of 39 list positions. 17
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). 18
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. 19
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) 20
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). 21