1  

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.    

  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