A Woman's Place: Greens 2014

The Greens have a strongly stated commitment to gender balance both for internal party positions and candidates.  They currently have more women than men in their parliamentary caucus.

Historical representation of women:
The Greens first stood in their own right under MMP in 1999, and in that time they have had 23 MPs of whom 12 have been female (52%).  They have long had gender balance for shared leadership positions both of the caucus and the party.

2008 Green Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 20 out of 48 (42%), with 50% in the top 10.

2011 Green Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 16 out of 42 (38%), with 40% in the top 10.
 
Current representation of women:
The Greens currently have 14 MPs in total and 8 are women (Catherine Delahunty, Metiria Turei, Eugenie Sage, Jan Logie, Denise Roche, Holly Walker, Julie Anne Genter, Mojo Mathers), making 62% of the caucus. Turei is co-leader.  There have been some issues in the present term with Turei receiving some quite sexist treatment, in comparison with Russel Norman, the male co-leader.   


2014 Green Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 19/53 (36%), with 60% in the top 10.

Top 5: Two (Turei at 1, Sage at 4) 2/5 = 40% (Same as 2011)

Top 10: Six (as for Top 5, plus Delahunty at 6, Genter at 8, Mathers at 9, Logie at 10) 6/10 = 60% (Increase on 2011)

Top 20: Ten (as for Top 10, plus Walker at 12, Roche at 14, and non-MPs Marama Davidson at 16, Jeanette Elley at 20) 10/20 = 50% (Same as 2011)

Top 30: Fourteen (as for Top 20, plus Sea Rotmann at 23, Susanne Ruthven at 26, Teresa Moore at 27, Dora Roimata Langsbury at 28) 14/30 = 47% (Increase on 2011)

Top 38:  Sixteen (as for Top 30, plus Rachel Goldsmith at 31, Anne-Elise Smithson at 35) 16/38 = 42%

After 38 the list candidates are unranked, and include only 3 women, out of 15 (20%), which skews their total figures considerably.  The Greens followed a similar practice of unranking after a certain number in 2008 and 2011, which is a practice I still personally support for smaller parties.  


Likely future representation of women:
The Greens did much better than I anticipated when I did this analysis for 2011.  This time they are aiming for 20 MPs, which would require about 17% of the vote. The Greens have had a good term, and are currently polling at about 11% (which would see them return 14 MPs again). They have a history of coming up during the campaign too.  

If they do reach their 20 MPs they will have a 50/50 caucus, including two new women (Davidson and Elley).  If they get 14 again it will be 8 women (57%), 15 MPs (53%), 16 MPs (56%), 17 MPs (53%), 18 MPs (50%), 19 MPs (47%).  I'd say there was a deliberate intention there to ensure their caucus is likely to be 50%+ female, in the likely range of seats they will win, except that they could have achieved that if Elley was at 19, rather than 20, and they didn't.  Many considerations do go in to the ranking of a list! 

The co-leadership arrangements will continue to ensure a gender balance in the top spot for the forseeable future.  

Other observations on candidate diversity:
As always with this section, I am interested in comment from those with more knowledge than I. Gender is often easy to determine, other aspects of diversity less so.  I would note that there appear to be no candidates who identify as any gender other than male or female, and as far as I know none of the parties which have made it into, or close to, Parliament have put up anyone who identifies outside the binary.

In regard to Maori candidates in the top 20, Turei, Clendon, Roche, and Davidson all identify as such.  The rest of the top 20 are Pakeha though* and there is little evidence of Asian or Pasifika candidates (one Tamil that I could find).  

There's a lot of diversity on age, and some great experience on disability in the candidate pool, not least Mojo Mathers MP (who is deaf), Catherine Delahunty MP (who has personal experience of disability), and long time disability advocate Chris Ford (37) who I remember from my long-ago days in the Alliance.  

The Greens also have a good record on selecting people who identify as LGBTI, returning Kevin Hague last time and adding Jan Logie.  

The final observation I will make on their list is that for a party that many dismiss as Sensitive New Agers there are a lot of people with serious qualifications and experience in actual real science.  I stumbled across this interesting blog post about Green stereotypes that I thought many of you might like :-)

---

In 2011 when I did this analysis I was disappointed the Greens hadn't really lifted their gender balance from 2008, however that was because I vastly underestimated how many MPs they would get!  This time it looks pretty good to me in the higher portions of the list, but becomes troublesome as you get lower.  I wonder if this is a reflection that more men than women have put themselves forward?

Links:
Green Party candidates
Idiot/Savant's analysis, including ups and downs since 2011's list.
A Woman's Place Index for 2014
A Woman's Place Index for 2008 and 2011


*  Jan Logie gives "Tangata Tiriti" as her ethnicity which makes me want to give her a high five.  

A Woman's Place 2014: Internet Party

For 2008 and 2011 I did some analysis of the likely party caucuses after each election, based on list and electorate seat selections, in regard to women's political representation.  I'm hoping to do it again for 2014 but will depend a lot on time, as these can be very time-consuming for the bigger parties.  Here's my first for this time, cos it came up today and was easy to do.


The Internet Party is brand new this election, in fact this year, and released their 15 person list today.  It will be zipped in some fashion with the Mana list, and I'm not sure quite what that will look like yet (Mana have only announced their top 4 so far) so I'll have to do another post on this when that is all out.  

Historical representation of women:
New party so not relevant.

Current representation of women:
No current MPs, or caucus.  Leader (Laila Harre) is a woman.

2014 Internet Party selections:
Women represented across the whole list: 6 out of 15 (40%).  

The top ten are alternated female and male, 11 is a man, 12 a woman, and then 3 men for the lowest 3 spots.
 
Top 5 - Three (Harre at 1, Pierard at 3, Ballantine at5) 3/5 = 60%
Top 10 - Five (As for Top 5 plus Farvid at 7, Sami at 9) 5/10 = 50%
Top 15 - Six (As for Top 10 plus McClintock at 12) 6/15 = 40% 
Women selected for electoral seats: 6 out of 15 (40%)

All of the list candidates are running in electorates.  Realistically the list is far more important, as the Internet Party will be getting MPs from Hone Harawira winning Te Tai Tokerau rather than breaking the 5% threshold (although we shall see!).  They have clearly strategically picked seats where they think there will be wider spread media coverage than the immediate electorate - and it looks to me like the ones where the Alliance used to do well, but that could just be my own past filter* ;-).  Which makes me wonder if the seat Harre will run in may be Epsom?  Another theory is Upper Harbour, which is closer to Harre's roots in West Auckland and her past efforts in Waitakere, plus no worries in that seat of having to talk about coat-tailing more than usual.

Likely future representation of women: 
Depends very much on percentage of the vote for Internet/Mana combination, whether Harawira holds his seat, and how the combined list works after the sixth spot.  At this stage it seems that they might get down as far as the combined 5th spot, which would mean two Internet MPs, Harre and Yong, so 50/50 gender-wise.

Other comments on candidate diversity:
Youth is a big feature, deliberately and highlighted.  The youngest candidate is 23 (Ballantine at 5) and only two are over 40 (Harre at 1 and Keinzley at 11).  Salmon is a "digital Maori" at number 8, while there are a number of candidates who appear to have Asian heritage, and one (Farvid) who is Iranian.  No mention of disabilities or sexuality, that I can see.  


Links:
Internet Party List on their website
Index of A Women's Place posts for 2008 & 2011 - analysis of all the likely caucus outcomes for as many parties as I could a) get and b) give time to look at.  
Index of A Women's Place posts for 2014 


*  I was in the Alliance Party from 2000 to 2007, and ran for them in 2002 and 2005.  

Guestie: An eloquent explanation of benevolent sexism

A thought-provoking guest post by Sophie B.


Today someone on the internet asked me about 'benevolent sexism', and I was pleased by the opportunity to explain this concept with web links and studies to hand. I once tried to define it to a chivalrous acquaintance on a train, and by the time we reached our destination a guy near us had joined in and the rest of the men in our train car were quite openly eavesdropping. They all wanted to find out why I seemed so bizarrely against men being nice to me.

Benevolent sexism is a chivalrous attitude towards women which puts them on a pedestal and praises their performance of traditionally feminine roles. It seems to contrast with hostile sexism ("fuck bitches!"), but the two go hand-in-hand as a sort of punishment/reward system to keep women in their place.

Benevolent sexism reinforces gender roles just as much as hostile sexism, just more insidiously. It can seem to both the men who practice it and women like a sweet attitude, especially if we're used to the "fuck bitches" approach, but if you look at what is behind it, you find an ideology that supports gender inequality. Saying "Women are so good at childcare, men could never do that so well!" is easier to swallow than "Women should just focus on childcare while the men work", but they're both in the end saying the same thing in different ways. 

Most guys come at benevolent sexism with the best of intentions, because their point of reference is hostile sexism. Whenever I've talked to 'chivalrous' men about it, they ALWAYS ask me if I'd rather they stomped all over/disrespected women instead; I find it interesting that they see their only two options as benevolent and hostile sexism, and can't conceive of a non-sexist option.

Benevolent sexism is quite accepted by society, and seen as harmless, but it has documented detrimental effects on women. In the workplace it undermines women's confidence and performance, and informs their evaluation and treatment by men. It is one of the main contributors to the 'glass ceiling' effect. As one of the more subtle and socially acceptable forms of gender discrimination, it is definitely something to look out for.

Further reading
The studies referenced in this Wikipedia article are a good place to start

Paid Parental leave extension passes second hurdle

Fantastic to hear the first reading of the Private Member's Bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks pass tonight.  Labour, Greens, NZ First, the Maori Party, Mana and United Future all voted in favour, and only National and Act opposed.

The first hurdle was getting a Bill into the ballot and drawn - Sue Moroney undertook this and had some good luck to get it pop out relatively quickly, and now the second hurdle is dealt with we have a bit of distance to travel before the third, which will be submissions to the Select Committee process.

The 26 For Babies campaign is being launched tomorrow (Thursday) to support the Bill through to a hopefully successful third reading, and you can show your support by Liking their Facebook page (and no doubt participating in other forthcoming activities for those not into that kind of thing).

Please consider this an open thread to discuss the Bill, the concept of paid parental leave in general, and the political aspect of today's votes (another Opposition-sponsored Bill also passed its first reading, on Mondayising Waitangi and ANZAC Days). 



Snippets from the "Diary of a Caregiver" - Wellington August 9th

This event sounds totally amaze, many thanks to Rebecca for telling me about it.

Snippets from the “Diary of a Caregiver”

EEO Commissioner, Judy McGregor, will talk on her experiences as a caregiver and compiling the report Caring Counts

This event is hosted by the NZCTU Women’s Council and is a fundraiser for the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma Women’s Committee

August 9^th, 5.30- 7.00pm, 13^th Floor Education House, 178 Willis Street. Wellington

Serving soup, rolls and snacks at 6pm – a cash bar will be open

Cost $20 & $10.00 for low waged

Rsvp (required) to Karin Currie Karinc@nzctu.org.nz by  August the 7^th. 

Facebook event.

---

I'm keen to assist with organising something similar in Auckland if others are interested...

Women's work

Women's Political Representation

Long time no blog, sorry about that.

Here's something I prepared earlier - about three weeks' ago to be precise:  A presentation on women's political representation that I gave to the Social & Community Development Forum of Auckland Council.

It's about 19 minutes long, with the presentation itself taking up the first 8 minutes or so, then discussion with the panel, including a bit of a disagreement with one of the Governing Body members from 16 minutes onwards, and some rather, er, athletic chairing from Councillor Cathy Casey.

I can't seem to embed it, so click on the link above and it should start automagically - if not, go to this page on the Franklin Live website and scroll down to the second item under Meetings on the left hand side.  As far as I'm aware Franklin Live is the only media outlet doing really comprehensive coverage of the doings of Auckland Council's Governing Body, filming as much of the meetings and forums as they can and putting it up for all to see.

And big ups to erstwhile THM blogger and all-round awesome person Deborah, who you can visit at her own place and The Lady Garden.  She wrote a very timely article on the need for diversity in parliament, which I used for the back of my handout summarising the presentation.

some essential reading

a must-read piece, via blue milk, on the value of work:

When performed by married women in their own homes, domestic labor is work—difficult, sacred, noble work. Ann says Mitt called it more important work than his own, which does make you wonder why he didn’t stay home with the boys himself. When performed for pay, however, this supremely important, difficult job becomes low-wage labor that almost anyone can do—teenagers, elderly women, even despised illegal immigrants. But here’s the real magic: when performed by low-income single mothers in their own homes, those same exact tasks—changing diapers, going to the playground and the store, making dinner, washing the dishes, giving a bath—are not only not work; they are idleness itself.

[...]

So there it is: the difference between a stay-home mother and a welfare mother is money and a wedding ring. Unlike any other kind of labor I can think of, domestic labor is productive or not, depending on who performs it. For a college-educated married woman, it is the most valuable thing she could possibly do, totally off the scale of human endeavor. What is curing malaria compared with raising a couple of Ivy Leaguers? For these women, being supported by a man is good—the one exception to our American creed of self-reliance. Taking paid work, after all, poses all sorts of risks to the kids. (Watch out, though, ladies: if you expect the father of your children to underwrite your homemaking after divorce, you go straight from saint to gold-digger.) But for a low-income single woman, forgoing a job to raise children is an evasion of responsibility, which is to marry and/or support herself. For her children, staying home sets a bad example, breeding the next generation of criminals and layabouts.

brilliant.  please go across and read the whole thing.

also, i linked to this report on women's leadership in asia (pdf) on my own blog yesterday.  it's also worth a read.  a few key findings from the executive summary:

• The gender gap is closing on health and survival, educational attainment, economic opportunity, and political empowerment.  This implies that the women of Asia can leverage rising personal endowments as well as increasing structural opportunities for
  future leadership. Family and dynastic factors have also catapulted some women in Asia to the highest levels of political leadership.  Indeed, Asia has seen more women heads of state than any other region in the world. Asian women have also joined the ranks of the world’s most rich and powerful.
• the countries of South Asia, which perform worst in overall gender equality and women’s attainment, actually lead among the top five countries in political empowerment (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India); number of women in parliament (Nepal, Pakistan); number of women ministers (Bangladesh); and women leaders in subnational government (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh). This contradictory picture is partly due to the region having the most number of women who have become heads of state because of family and dynastic connections (and not because of greater gender equality). Moreover, affirmative action has significantly increased women’s representation at different levels of government.
• the relationship between human development and women’s leadership is not directly proportional. Some economies in Asia with the highest human development rankings (e.g., Japan and South Korea) also perform most poorly in some measures of women’s leadership (e.g., women in senior management, women on boards, wage equality, remuneration and political empowerment). Others, such as Singapore and Hong Kong SAR, China, continue to have significant gender leadership gaps despite their high human development.
• To address cultural and social norms that impede women’s leadership, a broad campaign is needed to educate people and push for change in the valuation and perception of girls and women. Three shifts need to happen: 1) societies must perceive girls to be as valuable as boys; 2) societies must view women as having roughly similar abilities and potential to lead as men; and 3) societies must be more open to gender roles that involve women leading outside the home and men doing more in the home.

that last is something we're still struggling with here, and we definitely need improvements in the areas listed in the second bullet point.  comparative to other countries, nz scores well.  but comparative to men in our own country, there's a lot of work to be done.

Down on the wharves and back in the homes

Currently I'm spending some of my time helping to raise funds for the Save Our Port campaign.  For me this is important work not just because of what it means for the union movement, or the workers involved, or progressive organisations who believe work is not serfdom.  For me it's more personal than that.

Quite recently I discovered that my grandfather, my mother's father, was one of those locked out of the wharves in 1951.  He died sometime before I was born, but my Nana, his wife, was my last living grandparent and closest to me, passing away when she was 80 and I was 16.  She lived in Mt Roskill most of her life, within the area I now represent in local government.

I never heard about the Lockout from my Nana.  I have only heard the stories my mother and her sisters have shared in the last few years.  But I do know that nothing remains, physically, of that period in my family's life; there is no Stood Loyal Right Through certificate for IC Deluca, signed by Toby Hill, that has been treasured and handed down.

And that's because of what the Lockout meant for my grandmother and for those at home while the workers were picketing.  It was illegal to help the families, illegal to give them food, or money, or indeed for the media to do any balanced reporting of the dispute.  From what I understand Nana struggled enormously with keeping herself and her three children in clothes in particular - no one was going to surreptitiously donate women's underwear to a wharfie family in 1951.  While efforts were undertaken to support the families of the workers locked out in my family's case it was still largely up to the housewife of the household to manage as best she could.  When an opportunity arose to dispose of reminders of this very very difficult period in her life, Nana took it, and so nothing remains.

Thus I'm helping to raise funds - for the campaign, and for the families.  There are queues of union members outside the Maritime Union office door in the morning to apply for hardship, literally to feed their kids, and I can tell you honestly that they look to me like they hate having to do that, hate having to rely on other people to get the necessities of life.  Now they are no longer on strike, having voted to go back to work last Thursday, but they are still not getting paid, thanks to an intransigent employer who they are taking back to court today.

The partners, mostly women that I've seen, are doing sterling work supporting the cause - they have a welfare committee that rings all the partners to check on them, see what support they need and let's them know what the options are, as well as coordinating supermarket vouchers, food parcels and financial grants.  I'm really glad to see this happening, and even more pleased to see it actively supported by the union itself.

Here's a small way you can help me to help them:

Special Screening of The Muppets - 3rd April, 6.10pm, Sylvia Park
Don't let those muppets at the Ports of Auckland get you down, come laugh at the real Muppets instead!  This could be your last chance to see The Muppets in a movie theatre, as we understand it is likely to stop showing on general release in the next few days.  $20 for adults, $10 for children.  Or a $20 solidarity ticket - to shout a wharfie or one of their whanau.  Email julie.fairey@gmail.com to secure your tickets - limited number!  Please put MOVIE in the subject line.

There are other ways to donate too, please check out this link for more information.

Of children and protests and taking the former to the latter

Port workers and their families on the picket line. 
Child holds placard saying "All my daddy wants is a roster".

On Saturday I will be going to the Rally to Save Our Port (4pm at Britomart for those not into Facespy).  I'll try to communicate my outrage at the union-busting tactics of Ports of Auckland management in an appropriate manner for someone who is part of the co-governance structure of POAL's inevitable owner (Auckland Council) in another post, if I can find a way. 

My children will be coming with me, and their father, to the rally.  I expect to see many other children there too, not least because at the heart of the issue of the Ports dispute is the impact of casualisation on families.

Wriggly and Snuffly are unlikely to be holding placards or chanting (neither can read and one can't talk) but they will be there and we will talk to them about what it is and why and see what the verbal one things and so on.

Part of my reason for taking the kids is to show them the possibilities of collective action, of standing up together with others, and give them experiences that are about challenging authority.  In time I shall possibly be the authority that gets challenged, but no matter as long as they are thinking critically. 

But the main reason they are going, and the main reason most small children who go to protests are there, is because I simply cannot participate unless I can bring my children with me.

Do I think that Wriggly and Snuffly understand precisely the cause and the chants and the speeches flying around above their heads?  No.  And I don't expect anyone who sees them to think "wow those kids are big supporters of this cause."  They are there primarily because I am there.

Is that selfish on my part, to take them along so that I can participate?  I don't think so.  I'm not putting them in danger or depriving them of something vital; in fact I'm showing them a part of civil society that lots of kids probably only see from the outside, on the television. 

If I go shopping and I take them with me no one says I am cruel for making Wriggly and Snuffly tag along.  Whenever I've taken the kids to council work I haven't faced any criticism for forcing them to be in a workshop or meeting; rather I've been apologising for when they are a bit noisy or try to steal someone's shoe. 

When they get older and it becomes more feasible to do so, I will ask them if they want to come and if they say no then I'll try to arrange a babysitter or something.  We'll see how that goes. 

And as with protests so with so much else in life - if you make it so that children are unwelcome then you are also effectively shutting out their primary caregivers, and most of the time that's going to be women.  Let's see if we can change that.

Too few women leaders

Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg talking at TEDWomen

Sheryl Sandberg's TEDWomen talk on the lack of women in boardrooms is worth a watch.  There is a very helpful transcript as well as multi-lingual subtitles available too (at the same link)

Three ideas she puts forward for addressing the lack of women in leadership:

1.  Sit at the table - Sandberg contends that women often systematically underestimate their own abilities, and success and likeability tend to be negatively correlated for women (and positively for men). 

2.  Make your partner a real partner - The idea that we've made more progress in balance outside the home than inside it. 

3.  Don't leave before you leave - Meaning don't make changes in your work plans to accomodate children you don't even have yet.

Watch/listen/read for an interesting expansion on all the above.

As is often the case with these kinds of analyses from women who have "made it" there is more focus on the choices of individual women than looking at the systematic and cultural stuff that drives those decisions, which I find annoying. It's as if we just devalue ourselves and make crap decisions about our lives for absolutely no reason whatsoever. While there is some implicit stuff for men to take out of this talk too, it isn't made very explicit, although that may be due to the audience of the talk (i.e. mainly female I think).


What did you think?

Open thread on new Cabinet announced today

No time to write an actual post, but please do feel free to discuss it here.  This is currently the only linkable thing that comes close to a list that I can find.  If you come across a proper list please do share!  UPDATE:  Here it is in PDF on the National party website.  I did look there earlier with no luck, shouldn't this kind of thing, as a Government announcement, go up at DPMC first/simultaneously??

Haven't done any numbers yet but looks to me like there is possibly a slight increase in the number of women - lost Georgina Te Heu Heu (retired), but gained Jo Goodhew and Amy Adams.

Also massive promotion for Hekia Parata, who now has Education and is ranked higher than Paula Bennett, but loses Women's Affairs, now gone to Cabinet newbie Jo Goodhew.   Anne Tolley has been shifted from Education to Corrections and Police, while, in a problem for pro-choice peeps, Judith Collins gets Justice and ACC.

Further comment in comments (funny that) please!

A Woman's Place - Maori Party 2011

When I looked at this in 2008 the Maori Party were the youngest party in Parliament.  No longer!

Historical representation of women:
The Maori Party has had five MPs so far in its history, and two of them have been women, making 40% representation. Tariana Turia has been co-leader, and has been a Minister outside of Cabinet as a result.  After the 2008 election they had a 40% female caucus (2/5).

Current representation of women:

Since Hone Harawira's resignation (and subsequent re-election for the Mana Party), the caucus is now evenly balanced - 2 men and 2 women.  There is also a balance in the co-leadership position.

2008 Maori Party selections:
Women represented across the whole list: 11 out of 19 (55%).  It should be noted that the electoral seats are more important than the list for the Maori Party, so far anyway.  In 2008 they selected women for two of the three Maori seats they didn't already hold, and one of those women (Rahui Katene) was successful.

2011 Maori Party selections:
The Maori Party have taken a different approach to their list from other parties, putting only some of their current MPs on it and ranking them relatively lowly.  There is clearly an intention from this to bring in new people if they go beyond overhang, by getting a higher proportion of the party vote than they would already have in the House by dint of winning a number of electorate seats.  This may be part of a succession plan for the Maori seats, ensuring they have people in Parliament who can work away on those seats held by Labour and Mana, and also set up those who will follow in the steps of Turia and Sharples in the future.

Women represented across the whole list:   out of 30 (27%).
 
Top 5 - Three (Kaapua Smith at 2, Wheturangi Walsh-Tapiata at 3, Tina Porou at 4) 3/5 = 60%
Top 10 - Six (As for Top 5 plus Davina Murray at 6, Tariana Turia at 7, Josie Peita at 10) 6/10 = 60%
Top 17 - Eight (As for Top 10 plus Fallyn Flavell at 12, Aroha Rickus at 17) 8/17 = 47%


Women selected for electoral seats:  4 out of 11 (36%)


There are seven Maori seats and the Maori Party hold 4.  They are widely expected to retain at least three of these (with Te Tai Tonga, Rahui Katene's seat, looking somewhat vulnerable to Labour).  They aren't rated as having much chance of picking up any of the three seats held by other parties, and have selected men for all of those seats.  Thus they have selected 2 women out of the 7 Maori seats, both incumbents (29%).  The Maori Party also have candidates running in four general electorates - Hunua, Tauranga, Rongotai and Northland - with a gender balance of 2 and 2.  


This looks very much to me, from the outside, as a deliberate effort to increase women's representation, and indeed the voice of Wahine Maori in the political sphere.  I'd be very interested in any confirmation/contradiction of this from people actually involved in the Maori Party.




Likely future representation of women: 
Turia will be returned, and if the other three Maori Party MPs will win again they will maintain their current proportion of 40% women. If they lose Katene then they will be back to the 25% they had in the previous term.  


Other comments on candidate diversity:
The Maori Party is an unashamedly Maori political organisation.  All of their candidates list at least one iwi affiliation.  No doubt there will be some who also identify with other ethnic backgrounds too, but none are apparent from names/photos/profiles on my swift perusal.  There appears to be a bit of a range of age, in particular several younger women, one of whom is ranked at no. 2.  Very open to feedback giving info on other diversity issues too.

Links:
Maori Party list on their website
Index of A Women's Place posts for 2008 & 2011 - including National, Labour, Act, Conservative, NZ First, United Future and the Greens for 2011, along with this addition.

A Woman's Place - United Future 2011

United Future, like NZ First, does exist beyond it's well known leader.  Here's some proof. 

Historical representation of women:
United Future have had 9 people make it to Parliament of whom 2 have been female (22%).  However one of those women, Kelly Chal was never actually sworn in as an MP as it turned out she was ineligible to stand for election due to her immigration status.  Thus they've actually had 1 female MP out of 8 total (12.5%).

United Future did have equal representation in the 2005 term, as a result of having 2 MPs - Peter Dunne and Judy Turner.  The latter is the only woman on United Future's board presently, and has a long history in leadership roles within the party. 

2008 United Future Party List:
Women represented across the whole party list:  5 out of 22 (23%)

Current representation of women:
None; only one MP who is male.  I think the current president is Judy Turner, open to confirmation/correction in comments. 

2011 United Future Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 2 out of 17 (12%).
 
Top 5 - None 0/5 = 0%
Top 10 - One (Vanessa Roberts at 7) 1/10 = 10%
Top 17 - Two (As for Top 10 plus Diane Brown at 14) 2/17 = 12%
The List ends at 17 on the Electoral Commission list (and at 15 on the United Future website). 
 
Likely future representation of women:
At the current time it seems most likely that Peter Dunne will return alone, if he returns at all.  Even if he did win Ohariu and bring in a friend, it's men all the way down to number 7.

Other observations on candidate diversity:
As with most of the other parties so far, the list looks pretty Pakeha.  Two candidates of colour stand out - Singaporean-born Muslim at 4 Sultan Eusoff and a man I'm pretty sure is Fijian Indian, Ram Parkash, at 9. 

As always, open to further intell in comments, thanks.

Links:
United Future's list on their website (note Electoral Commission list shows Johnny Miller at 16 and Ian Camden Gaskin at 17).
Index of A Woman's Place posts from 2008 and 2011 - so far Act, Conservative Party, Greens, National, Labour, NZ First in addition to this post for 2011
 

A Woman's Place - NZ First 2011

When people mention NZ First it's hard to think past Winston Peters, but there is more to this party's candidates than just the former MP for Tauranga. 

Historical representation of women:
NZ First was founded in 1993, after Peters left National in 1992.  Since then they have had 25 MPs of whom 5 have been female (20%):

In 1996 NZF won 17 seats - 11 from the List, 6 electorates (Tauranga plus the five Maori seats).  In this caucus 4 MPs were women, all from the List, and two of them were Ministers for at least part of the Coalition.  In 1999 they were reduced to 5 seats, and only made it back in because of Peters' retaining Tauranga.  None of these MPs were women.  In 2002 they bounced back, with 13 MPs, but only one was a woman, and she remained the only woman in the caucus after the 2005 election when they were reduced again, this time to 7 MPs.  They haven't had any MPs since dipping out in 2008.  Of the 5 female MPs throughout their history to date, only one lasted more than a term (Barbara Stewart, 2002-2008). 



According to Wikipedia, NZ First have never had a woman in the roles of leader, deputy leader or president.

2008 NZ First Party List:
I didn't analyse it!  This seems astonishing to me, but I can't find the blog post so it must be true.

Current representation of women:
Not in Parliament, two women as party Vice Presidents currently, and while there is no deputy leader at the moment that position is often given to no. 2 on the party List, who is female.

2011 NZ First Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 5 out of 33 (15%).
 
Top 5 - Two (Tracey Martin at 2, Barbara Stewart at 5) 2/5 = 40%
Top 10 - Four (As for Top 5 plus Asenati Taylor at 8, Helen Mulford at 9) 4/10 = 40%
Top 20 - Four (As for Top 10) 4/20 = 20%
Top 30 - Five (As for Top 20 plus Olivia Ilalio at 28, ) 5/30 = 17%


The List ends at 33 and there are no women in those last three.
 
Likely future representation of women:
The only chance for NZ First to get back in is to crack the 5% threshold.  If they did get 5% they'd likely bring in Martin and Stewart, in a caucus of at least 7.  At this time it is looking like they won't be back (although personally I never think it's totally wise to rule Winston out!)

Other observations on candidate diversity:
As throughout the history of NZ First, there are a number of candidates of Maori descent.  Also there is a candidate each from Indian, Chinese and Samoan descent, according to the profiles on the website.

As always, open to further intell in comments, thanks.

Links:
NZ First's List (scroll up for profiles and electorate candidates)
Index of A Woman's Place posts from 2008 and 2011 - so far Act, Conservative Party, Greens, National, Labour in addition to this post for 2011

A Woman's Place - Conservative Party 2011

The Conservative Party is a new political vehicle, so this will be a shorter than usual post!

Historical representation of women:
The Conservative Party was founded very recently, in August this year.  It has an alliance with the Kiwi Party and the New Citizen Party, which stands candidates under their banner rather than compete.

They have had no MPs to date and have had only one, male, leader (Colin Craig). 

Current representation of women:
The Conservative Party's internal structure is unknown to me, and their website gives little hint.

2011 Conservative Party List:
Women represented across the whole list:  8 out of 30 (27%).
 
Top 5 - One (Kathy Sheldrake at 2) 1/5 = 20%
Top 10 - Three (As for Top 5 plus Simonne Dyer at 7, Litia Simpson at 9) 3/10 = 30%
Top 20 - Five (As for Top 10 plus Claire Holley at 14, Robyn Jackson at 20) 5/20 = 25%
Top 30 - Eight (As for Top 20 plus Pat Gregory at 21, Melanie Taylor at 23, Cynthia Liu at 24) 8/30 = 27%



There are a further 22 candidates standing for the Conservative Party in electorates, who are not on the List, and of these only one is a woman (Grace Haden, contesting Maungakiekie). Thus in the whole candidate pool 17% are women.  (9/52).
 
Likely future representation of women:
It doesn't seem credible that Colin Craig will take Rodney.  That said I have been wrong, oh so very wrong, before.  If he did win it then chances are the party would bring in Kathy Sheldrake as well, but after that there are no more women until the 7th spot.  

Other observations on candidate diversity:
The influence of the New Citizen Party appears to have provided some ethnic diversity, with a number of Pasifika and Asian candidates present on the list.  The age range looks quite wide too.  Many of the profiles are scant or non-existence, so as always please add what you know in comments and I'll be happy to update.

Links:
Index of A Woman's Place posts from 2008 and 2011 - so far Act, Greens, National, Labour in addition to this post for 2011

A Woman's Place - Act's List 2011- Take 2

I've redone this post because ACT re-did their list for various Reasons.  If you're interested in the original post it is still up here (the first parts are basically the same.)


The Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, more generally known these days as ACT (or Act if you aren't into inadvertent shouting), are an interesting bunch. 

Historical representation of women:
Act was founded in 1993, as a lobby group, and became a political party in 1994.  The first election they contested was in 1996.  Since then they have had 18 MPs of whom 7 have been female (31%). 

Of the 7 female MPs, four so far have only lasted one term (or less), namely Deborah Coddington, Penny Webster, Patricia Schnauer, and the most recent caucus addition (and subtraction) Hilary Calvert.  In contrast all but two of the 11 male MPs have been in for more than a term; Derek Quigley who had previously been an MP for National during the 1980s, and David Garrett who resigned from Parliament after revelations about some criminal dealings in his past.  However Roger Douglas will join them in the one-term male ranks shortly, and John Boscawen may too depending on their result on November 26th. 

Act has only had male party leaders but have had two women MPs fill the deputy leader position; Muriel Newman from 2004-2006, followed by Heather Roy from 2006 - 2010.  They've have had one female president (Catherine Isaac from 2001- 2006) out of 6 to date, and have never had a female vice-president.

Electorate selections have played a role in Act's representation, through using an electorate seat to nullify the need to break the 5% threshold.  Both of the electorates Act have focused on for this strategy have had male Act candidates - Wellington Central with Richard Prebble, and Epsom with Rodney Hide and now John Banks.  Act's electorate selection processes are shrouded in mystery to this blogger, so it is unclear whether there may have been female candidates overlooked for selection for either of these seats.  As electorates otherwise form a minor part of Act's overall selections I won't be analysing them further.

2008 Act Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 9 out of 60 (15%), with 20% in the top 10.  (Note, this post was updated 22nd Sept 2011 as I had missed two women in my previous calculation)

Current representation of women:
Act currently have 5 MPs in total and two are women (Heather Roy and Hilary Calvert), making 40% of the caucus. Roy is a former deputy leader, while Calvert came into Parliament after the resignation of David Garrett. Roy's antagonism with former leader Hide, while he was still in ascendance, meant she lost her place as a Minister and did not nominate for selection for the 2011 election.  Calvert does not appear on the party list, and it remains unclear whether she was offered a place too low for her to accept or she decided not to stand before the list was finalised. None of ACT's current MPs are standing again, male or female.

2011 Act Party List:
Women represented across the whole list: 12 out of 55 (22%), with 23% in the ranked portion (top 26).
 
Top 5 - One (Catherine Isaac at 2) 1/5 = 40%
Top 10 - Three (As for Top 5 plus Kath McCabe at 8, Robyn Stent at 9) 3/10 = 30%
Top 20 - Six (As for Top 10 plus Lyn Murphy at 12, Pratima Nand at 15, Toni Severin at 17) 6/20 = 30%
Top 26 - Six (As for Top 20) 6/26 = 23%


From 27 down the list is ranked alphabetically (with the strange exception of Vince Ashworth at 55 which I assume means he was a last minute addition, or has really annoyed a big backer).



There are a further six women on ACT's list (Casey Costello at 34, Alwyn Courtenay at 35, Kimberly Hannah at 37, Beth Houlbrooke at 38, Roseanne Jollands at 40, Barbara Steinijans at 53). 
 
Likely future representation of women:
Act's return is looking far from certain.  On current polling it is pretty unlikely they'll make 5%.  Falling short of that they must rely on John Banks winning the Epsom seat.  This too hangs in the balance (Banks and Key having just had tea in the last few days and prior polls showing Banks not likely to win).  On current polling Banks would bring one person on the list in, Don Brash, and maybe on election night they could stretch to a second, which would mean Catherine Isaac makes it in too.  After Isaac there are five more men before the next woman on the list.  Of course a major point of speculation as I type this is the future of Brash as leader of ACT.  Were he to be deposed and resign that could also be a pathway for Isaac to come in. 

Other observations on candidate diversity:
A quick scan of the Act list reveals predominantly male Pakeha names.  Pratima Nand, at 15 and their Mt Roskill candidate, is Fijian Indian, and comments on the original post provided further info that Dominic Costello is Maori and Richard Evans is African.  Casey Costello is also Maori, Alan Davidson is Russian/Scottish/Portugese, and there appear to be a large number of young candidates, including two in the top ten (David Seymour at 5 is aged 28, Stephen Whittington at 7 is aged 25).While there are some profiles up there are still many missing, so further intell in comments will be appreciated. As with the 2008 list for Act, many seem to be new candidates.

I don't imagine the lack of diversity will bother many in Act, or voting for them.  But it should. 

Links:
Act's Candidate list
Index of A Woman's Place posts from 2008 and 2011 - so far just Greens, National, Labour in addition to this post for 2011

Representation of women in TV campaign openings

I'm not going to be looking at broader issues about the addresses in the post, but am quite happy to have those discussions in comments.  Just wanted to focus this bit directly on the representation of women aspect.  I'm laying out these brief observations in the order that they have appeared on telly.

Friday night
National
Outline:  John Key giving a speech, getting applause and then taking questions from the astonishingly well behaved audience.  Whole 20 minutes of this.  Visuals only of audience &; Key in that context, nothing else.  Only people who got to say anything other than Key were the questioners, whose faces you couldn't see.
Representation of women:  Only known National person featured was John Key.  He would have been speaking probably 80%+ of the time.  Of the questioners two were men and four were women.  Guess who asked about the Global Financial Crisis and infrastructue and who asked about education, health and benefits?  Yep, the former for the men, the latter for the women.  The other question was about crime, and framed from a personal safety angle, and thus naturally asked by a woman.  

Labour
Outline:  Started with history of Labour, contrasting their achievements in Government since 1938 with National's, highlighting a lot of their key themes such as keeping state assets, looking after the vulnerable, being first in the world at various things.  Next section featured current Labour MPs talking about why they are Labour, how their backgrounds connect with their political values. Final section more policy focused, particularly on the differences between National & Labour, still featuring MPs (including Goff) doing the talking.   
Representation of women:  Voice over was done by a woman.  In the history section mostly Labour men featured.  Lots of archival footage that featured women as well as men, some with voice-overs or speeches which were male voices.  Of the Labour MPs featured there were 7 men (Goff plus his father briefly, O'Connor, Cunliffe, Nash, Robertson, Davis briefly) and 2 women (Sepuloni, Ardern).  Have no idea what proportion of time they all spoke for, but definitely more time for the men than the women.  Subjects covered quite disparate, didn't notice a clear gendered trend around subject matter for Sepuloni and Ardern versus the rest.  E.g. Cunliffe talked about tax, and so did Sepuloni.

Greens
Outline:  More traditional opening.  Featured co-leaders walking around Wynyard Quarter (mainly) talking about various policy areas and principles with some examples and vox pops from a variety of people.
Representation of women:  Only Greens featured are the two co-leaders, so that's an equal balance in terms of female/male.  However I did feel that Metiria got more speaking segments than Russel.  For the vox pops which were scattered through-out there were 10 women and 5 men.  Some of these individuals appeared more than once.  It seemed like there were more appearances from women than men, dd anyone actually count? NB:  I'm not intending to address other diversity issues thoroughly with this post, but the ethnic diversity was very clear, and one of the vox pops was in sign language.

Saturday night:
ACT
Outline:  Started with Brash talking to camera, then his voice over footage of him talking with small groups of people (one, two or three), then a group of ACT candidates talking around a table (very similar to 2008 iirc). 
Representation of women:  Brash dominated through-out.  With the footage of him with other people it really was almost entirely Brash and other men.  I am pretty sure I only saw one woman actually in conversation with him, although there was one shot with a lot of women seated behind where he and a man were talking together.  When it came to the candidate roundtable there were four men featured (Brash, Seymour, Whittington and Banks) and two women (Isaac and McCabe).  Brash, Seymour and Isaac got the most screen time I thought, McCabe definitely the least, with Banks getting surprisingly little too.

Maori Party

Outline:  Basically a recitation of value statements of the Maori Party, jumping back and forth between different people, including MPs, candidates and vox pop.  Ended with scrolling list of achievements. 

Representation of women:  Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia seemed to get roughly equal time to me, the other candidates featured were four men and one woman.  The cuts between people were very fast and I couldn’t keep up but it looked like it was pretty even between male and female, with the exception of the issue with more male candidates than female. Music featured both male and female voices.

 

United Future

Outline:  Peter Dunne talking through-out, either to camera or over clear animated footage illustrating his points.  People were represented throughout it by stick-figure types.  

Representation of women:  Only live person was Dunne.  A family was always represented by a man, woman and 2 young children.  In regard to income splitting used a pie chart in which the woman earnt less than the man.  Did have a picture with the woman going out to work (in a skirt suit).  When Dunne talked about their credentials as the "real outdoors party" it only seemed to be men in the outdoors.  Five pictures of old people, only one openly female and she was clearly engaged in childcare.

NZ First

Outline:  Winston talking, then voiceover from Winston over representations of stock footage to match the key problems he mentions.  Brief vox pops speaking to specific past NZF achievements – one middle aged man, one . 

Representation of women:  The vox pops featured one late middle aged man,  3 young women, one young girl, one young man.  The impression I formed of the stock footage was that it was not from NZ, probably from the USA, and thus did reflect some of the gender bias we see in media from there; e.g. most people were slim and white, men were shown doing manual jobs.

The Conservative Party:
Outline:  Colin Craig talking direct to camera through-out.
Representation of women:  None.

Alliance

Outline:  Woman voiceover.  Kevin Campbell talking through-out, directly to camera alternating with very fast moving footage of street/park scenes.  

Representation of women:  There was definitely a mix of men and women in the footage but hard to discern due to being sped-up.

Libertarianz

Outline:  Man and woman in front of fenced off Christchurch CBD. Chch, both talking to camera, with some short bits that were like Powerpoint slides of key points. Mostly talked about proposing a free enterprise zone for Chch.

Representation of women:  Pretty equal balance between the two presenters (both are candidates).  The woman did refer to the response to the Christchurch earthquake now being “a man-made disaster”.

ALCP

Outline:  Man and woman in first shot, alternate between them for talking, with other half of the screen dedicated to1989 styles graphics illustrating their point about decriminalisation of marijuana.

Representation of women:  Looked roughly equal between the male and female presenters (again, both are candidates) to me.

In honour of the Vice Chancellor's Debate at Vic

Public meeting, stage has panel with five men in suits, audience is mixed gender.  Chair of panel:  "The subject of tonight's discussion is:  Why are there no women on this panel?"

For all those taking part in election debates by attending or speaking, when you are faced with an all male line-up please consider pointing it out publicly, and that it is not ok.  I find it highly unlikely that there are many electorates which have no female candidates in the contest, and when it is a forum not run along strict electorate lines then there is even less excuse.

Quickie: Act now have more women in their top 10 than National

Very very quickly.

Act have confirmed their party list and I will re-do my analysis of it at some point soonish.

What leapt out at me is that they now have three women in their top ten, while National only have 2.

Act:
Top 5 - One (Catherine Isaac at 2) 1/5 = 20%
Top 10 - Three (plus Kath McCabe at 8, Robyn Stent at 9) = 30%

National:
Top 5 - None (yes that's right, none) 0/5 = 0%
Top 10 - Two (Collins at 7, Anne Tolley at 8) 2/10 = 20%