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.

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!

Not quite a year of it

2011 Calendar cover:  a llama in the High Country

"Well on November 26th we will know whether we know or we don't know" I'd said to everyone who kept asking whether or not my partner* would become an MP on the weekend.   As it turned out what we now know is that he's not an MP and he's unlikely to be one before 2014, given Labour's result on the party vote.

It's been an odd year for my family, politically.   To start with I was still in an electoral hangover from being unexpectedly elected to the Puketapapa Local Board in late 2010; an amazing experience which I now feel I am starting to understand better and enjoy thoroughly.  Balancing this significant commitment of time and mental energy with everything else has been a challenge, and sometimes I've had to go back to just operating on Essentials Only mode.  Whenever I feel bogged down I find contact with constituents truly rejuvenating, even when we are disagreeing about something.  People really appreciate getting a response, making an effort to find something out or give them the right contact person; it's an amazing testament actually to how low expectations of politicians are, which is something I hope to play a part in changing.

In late January I became a candidate's wife (again) several months before I'd thought I might, due to the Botany by-election.  That was an eye-opener.  I have seen my partner work very hard, but that campaign was another level again from previous campaigns, even the ones where we had both been candidates.  Not only did we have two kids under 4, one of whom was still breast-feeding, we also had not a lot of spare cash and suddenly one of the adults was away from 6am to 11pm, and then doing a couple of hours of campaign admin when he did get home too.  The phones would ring at most hours (midnight to 5am appears to still be sacrocanct), I was constantly washing (but not ironing) white shirts for him and red clothes for me, and then the dishwasher broke.  The Botany result was a predictable loss for the Labour candidate, but a gratifying one in that the margin wasn't embarassing and both the candidate and the party organisation around him did well. 

Two weeks later I went back to regular paid employment, after taking maternity leave since the previous August.  I moved back into a different role at the same union - less responsibility, less pay, shorter hours and a whole new sector to learn about.  That too has been incredibly challenging.  New acronyms and lingo, new people to meet, new structures to understand, and a sense of disconcerting disconnection from my previous work area which I had cared passionately about.  I care about the new stuff too, and am now slowly building my understanding of the issues and people, nurturing my passion for this part of the education sector too.  Most people have assumed I am part time because of my childcare responsibilities, so I have to explain regularly that actually I have two paid part time jobs and share the childcare with my partner.  It's a bit tedious.

Another fortnight or so on in time and the Labour list was announced.  We were on edge, waiting for the phone to ring, wondering who would call and whether it would be good news or bad.  We'd estimated a top 40 ranking would be sufficient to be within consideration (how wrong we were!) but when the call came and it was 32 we were both a bit stunned.  That seemed certain, something we could plan around.  We didn't really start planning, other than to not make any Big Plans beyond November.  Who knew what could happen after all.

The Day After The Night Before

Whatever happened last night no doubt some here will be feeling a bit urgh today. 

Consider this an open thread for a bit of a social chit chat, debrief, speculation about what next, which of course will be subject to normal moderation rules.  Be kind to each other please :-)

In the Red Corner - Election Night Live Blog 2011

Tonight I'll be live-blogging from Labour's Mt Roskill headquarters, which is at the Mt Roskill War Memorial Hall on May Rd.

Sorry I disappeared after 10pm - I wasn't in a corner crying, but did end up lending my laptop to another and doing stuff that wasn't commensurate with live blogging (largely running numbers and the projection of the results onto a screen). No tears for me on the night, although a few shed the next day for Carol and Carmel in particular, as well as the policy implications. 

10.02pm  The figures being run here now are not so much about which new MPs Labour will get as how many current MPs will be back in.  Still surprisingly upbeat mood here given the political reality of this situation.  

10pm  Carmel 468 ahead in Waitakere, huge cheer here, Jackie singing "ding dong the witch is dead".  

9.57pm  Jackie has noted lots of vote splitting in Te Atatu, largely benefiting NZF at the expense of Labour it appears.

9.54pm  Labour is slowly slowly edging up. but so so slowly.  

9.48pm  On current numbers we are looking at a big loss of Labour MPs - with only 10 in off the List but Cosgrove looking shakey in Waimakariri that would mean probably last one in for Labour at this stage would be Moana Mackey or Rajen Prasad.  Losing Carol Beaumont (who is 12 on the effective list) would be a huge blow for the women's caucus and the union affiliates.

9.47pm  Big cheer here as Phil Goff's majority with 60% counted is announced to the crowd.   Goff hasn't arrived yet and will be waiting until the result is clearer apparently.

9.44pm  With nearly 80% counted it's looking like National won't make 50% (currently falling from 49%) but Labour is struggling to rise above 26%. 

9.42pm  Winston on two screens simultaneously, with screens within screens behind that.  Somehow fitting for his return. 

9.41pm  Scube is confused about why ALCP isn't doing better in the party vote in Waitakere.

9.38pm  The man whose chair I stole never came back to claim it. 

9.34pm  As Cosgrove is 8th on the Labour list, if he loses Waimakariri he will still be there.  Hipkins is looking safe in Rimutaka now.  

9.31pm  Bennett ahead now in Waitakere, and Wilkinson in Waimakariri.  Labour currently looking like 32 seats - 10 list - and National 61 - 19 list.  

9.27pm  The room here is packed, with many people using their phones to check various things.   Banks ahead in Epsom but the count there seems to be incredibly slow.

9.24pm  Informals on the second part of the MMP referendum show the lack of understanding of the fact people were allowed to do the second vote even if they voted to keep MMP.  Looking like MMP is a reasonable margin ahead with 95% of the advance votes counted - it hasn't moved from 95% for a while so I'm going to stop looking at that - we won't know for real until Dec 10th anyway, but yay MMP!

9.22pm  Lots of people taking photographs of those us pouring over the laptops and running the projectors and the numbers - Scube is doing the laptop with the projector, stef is trying to get her laptop to work, Jackie is providing moral support and trying to work out how to take photos.

9.16pm  Big cheer here for Carmel Sepuloni as she is just ahead in Waitakere.  Just been looking at Auckland Central in a bit more depth - very close, with almost no votes going to other candidates than Kaye and Ardern - Denise Roche (Greens) has under 1000 with over 2365 for their party vote.

9.13pm  Alright I am back up, and so is the live projection of the results here at Labour HQ.  There was an insufficiently large cheer imho.

8.41pm  Quite close in Ohariu and Maungakiekie.  OK, I have to go again, hopefully back in another half hour.

8.38pm  Now, on the radio before I heard Pete Hodgson doing some extrapolating from Advance votes, based on how they worked out last time, and he said iirc something like 46% for National, 30% for Labour, 11% for the Greens and 6% for NZF.  Someone who was actually listening properly may wish to comment with more precision.

8.34pm  Ok, that took longer than expected, sorry.  Currently O'Connor ahead in  WCT, Sepuloni ahead in Waitakere, Kaye ahead in Auckland Central.  Young well ahead in New Plymouth.  Mood here is quite god, lots of people here and they're all quietly watching the various screens - we've got TV3 and TVNZ with a massive flat screen each showing their channel and now, just now, we have up a projector screen showing results from electionresults.org.nz and basically responding to requests from the crowd to look at various electorate results.  Lots of tense waiting, it's incredibly warm with all these ridiculous media lights. 

7.24pm  In terms of results to date, looking like MMP may be safe, if the 150,000 advance votes are extrapolated - 54% to keep, 42% to change last I checked.  We won't know for sure until 10th December.

 7.21pm  Well I'm live now, for a brief period, then I'm going to run away to pick up something forgotten and be back by 8pm I hope.  The Labour HQ is probably going to lack space and be very hot by the end of the night - the media are taking up an enormous amount of the available space, setting up their live cross thingies, and insisting on media tables that must NOT be moved as apparently everyone is about to go live, or something.  I feel positively low impact as a lowly blogger sitting here at a table tapping away.  Anyway, the feeling here is tense, as you'd expect, surprisingly upbeat, as you might not, and I really love the dress the TV3 reporter is wearing.  Certainly a very diverse crowd so far - Pakeha in a minority

What follows is a little bit I've prepared in advance, to go up at 7.01pm.

 Mt Roskill is a safe Labour seat, and the electorate of the Labour leader, Phil Goff.  In the interests of disclaimer and context, I am on the Puketapapa Local Board, along with my partner, which covers most of the electorate of Mt Roskill.  I was elected to this role on a Labour/Greens/Alliance affiliated ! ticket which also features independent lefties such as myself.  My aforementioned partner is a Labour list candidate, at no. 32, and part of the nail biting this evening will be in regard to whether or not he gets in.  

What I'm hoping to cover tonight is the key events and feel here at Labour HQ, as well as some of the progress of the voting results through-out the night.  I'll be keeping my eye on a number of electorates - ones of particular interest to me are Auckland Central, Epsom, West Coast-Tasman, Ohariu, Maungakiekie, Te Tai Tonga, Hunua, Waikato, Waitakere.  Some because they have broader political implications (e.g. Epsom), others because I have friends standing in them.  Jordan Carter was my little light of happiness in the gloom of 2008, beating Roger Douglas to a strong second in Hunua, and this election I'll no doubt grasp something else as a similar touchstone. 

I'm going to have some mates around me, whose witticisms and observations may make it onto the web, and I'll try to give them nicknames so that there is some form of credit going their way.  Hopefully one or two of them might be familiar to you from past endeavours...

Okay, back to actual live blogging now, as interesting things happen, here in the Red Corner.

Election night live-blogging 2011 - Index

Live-blogging from different bloggers here:

•  Julie - at Labour HQ in Mt Roskill
•  Luddite Journo - at the Greens HQ in Wellington
•  Maia - in front of the telly and the interwebs

If you click on the links above you'll go straight to that person's live-blogging post, which they will update through-out the night. (The links will be going as soon as people have started putting their post up).

Comments will be off moderation, for all posts, from 7pm-ish, unless we find we need to turn them back on cos people aren't playing nice.

On moderation until 7pm Sat 26th Nov

Line drawing of a woman with a cool scarf.  "Wear your nicest t-shirt tomorrow" (But please don't if it's a political one!)

To avoid the mess and inconvenience of some idiot getting us in trouble with the Electoral Commission, I'm about to put all comments on moderation.

There's been various advice swirling around the interwebs which basically seems to me to come down to the following:

No new posts, and no new comments, about election stuff (even whether the weather is good for voting or not!) between 12 midnight Friday and 7pm Saturday. 

We may be putting up new posts, but they won't be about the election.  We will allow new comments that aren't about the election through during the day (as time allows), but won't publish any that are about the election, even loosely, until after 7pm. 

Normal moderation rules as to content and anonymous comments will apply.

Thanks for participating in our pre-election blogging here - there was quite a lot more I had personally hoped to get to (like finishing my party list gender analyses and doing a bit of a wrap up post on that), but hey, there's always next time. 

And don't forget - at least three of us will be live-blogging here from 7pm Saturday night.  Which could be fun or horribly depressing or a bit of both. 

See you on the other side.

How I'm voting

So in my last election related post before the polls I thought I'd describe my plans for tomorrow. 


Electorate Vote

As I live in Wellington Central I can't use the ridiculously complex analysis I did of electorate seats. On top of that familiarity has certainly bred contempt when it comes to the parliamentary parties' candidates.  

As it happens I can more easily make a case for voting for Paul Foster-Bell the National candidate than either Grant Robertson or James Shaw.  If the polls were swinging differently Paul Foster-Bell could be a tactical abortion vote, but they're not so he's not. James Shaw appears to have been grown in a lab to personify everything those on the left criticise the Greens for.

Then there's Grant Robertson - who gets a lot of support round Wellington.  I don't like him - not just because other people do - I think I sometimes come across as more contrarian than I am. But for actual good policy based reasons on an issue that is important to me.  Grant Robertson was involved in designing the PBRF (performance based research fund) system that is currently doing such damage to tertiary education (and was always going to do damage in exactly the way that it did).  And I am a little bit contrary so any time people on facebook are nice about him I mutter PBRF and get a little more entrenched.  Plus my second rule of voting is "1984: Never forget, Never forgive." - and I take that very seriously.

So who am I going to vote for? I have two choices: Kelly Buchanan - the Alliance candidate I know and broadly agree with (she posted her responses to the Right to Life on The Hand Mirror).  Or the Pirate Party candidate - because I believe new episodes of Joss Whedon TV shows are a fundamental human right.

I will probably vote for Kelly - mostly because I'm very good friends with her partner - and they're going to drink a shot every vote Kelly gets.  It's been a hard year and it's time for my friend to have fun.   Also I don't know the Pirate Party Candidate's position on abortion - and a girl has to have standards.

Party Vote

A few days ago my facebook status was "I think I'm a reasonably unprincipled voter; all I want is to vote for a left-wing party, where no-one in an achievable position on the list is anti-abortion or a rape apologist."  So obviously I've been having trouble figuring out if I can vote at all.

Rule 2 obviously rules out Labour (and I'm looking for a left-wing party).

I've written at some length with my problems with the Greens in general and Russel Norman in particular.  But my not voting for the Greens this time is more fundamental, because my first rule of voting is "Tories are evil": 

I don't care it's a 1 in a 100 chance that the Greens will abstain on confidence and supply for a National party government after the election (and I think it may be higher than that) - it's still astronomically too high. 

So if I'm voting with my party vote I'm voting for Mana.  I was doing a pretty good job of convincing myself to vote for the lizards so the wrong lizards don't get in.  But then I read their policies.  Now some Mana policies are great - the disability policy is radical, and clearly addresses many of the problems with the current system in a way that takes disabled people's lives and liberty really seriously.  And (as you'd expect) their Te Reo and Te Tiriti policy are awesome.   They released their Industrial Relations Policy today and it's very impressive (I am a little worried that a 25% loading which made casualised labour a legal category would entrench casualisation - but since it's not going to happen that's of rather minor concern).

However, their education policy is just weird.  In some places it is strangely specific, but it ignores or is unclear many of the really important education.   So it's very clear that every school needs a community garden, but doesn't mention the level of the operation grant.  It appears to be promoting a work for the student allowance system (but that isn't really clear).

Then there's their National Standards policy:

Abolish National Standards and replace with information that lets parents know how well their children are doing compared to other children, nationally, without the bad effects of the current direction.

On one level the statement is so incoherent to be laughable: abolish National Standards, but standardise where children are nationally in a way that would magically get rid of unspecified 'bad effects'.  This is such a damaging attitude to what education is for.  The point of education should not be measuring children against other children - but about learning.  Children differ so much in what they find hard and what they find easy, what they love and what they struggle with.  I want an education system the values in every child what they are good at, and but also values learning and improving from where a child is.  Measuring children with other children is the antithesis of that.

Their policy to make NZ tobacco free is so ridiculous that it's hard to know how to respond.  The failure of prohibition is pretty well documented when it comes to alcohol and drugs.  Criminalising marijuana has hardly been liberatory for anyone.

On one level it doesn't matter because it's never going to happen.  But I think it shows a fundamentally problematic attitude towards working-class people's lives.  Working-class people are making complex choices about their survival strategies and the path towards liberation involves fighting for more resources and more choices.  Taking away the chance to find a break, breath deeply, and get a hit of nicotine so they can keep going from those who feel like they need it is not liberatory.*  They're ignoring all that and instead asking how can we use the power of the state to get people to behave how we want them to behave?

With National Standards and Tobacco in particular - my problem is not just that the policy is bad, but that it shows a way of thinking about society and state roles that I fundamentally disagree with and makes me distrust the way they are thinking about politics.  

See writing this I have almost persuaded myself not to vote for them.  But I really do want to vote for the least worst option, and they are it.  Unless something dramatic happens in the next 24 hours I'll party-vote Mana.

Referendum Part 1

MMP.

(I can on occasion be brief)

Referendum Part 2

I think I've decided to vote for STV.

STV is the least bad of the four options.  It also has the added advantage that it'll struggle against MMP, because then it'll be seen as just as (if not more complicated).  In general I don't like it, because I think it kind of formalises protest votes and encourages (or forces in Australia) people to vote for candidates who will win, and it has a high threshold for minor parties.  Although it  would make voting on abortion easy.

If SM was in the picture at all, I would consider voting FPP - but as the choice is between STV and FPP - it's pretty simple.

I'll be live-blogging the election at The Hand Mirror.   Expect mostly mockery, bile, depression, and obsessive attention to who is in parliament and where they stand on abortion.

* I guess I should be clear here that I addiction isn't liberatory either.  I totally support any moves that makes it harder for people to get addicted to ciagerettes and assistance towards quitting.

Political Parties and Family Violence

Jared at Left Wing rants has written an excellent overview of political parties and their attitudes to/policies on reducing family violence:

The most worrying thing for me is the lack of discussion around education. Something that has struck me in my research is that many people aren’t aware of what is actually health in a relationship. This is something that people should be educated about in school (similar to with sex education) to prevent them being trapped in an unhealthy relationship without knowing. This would make it easier for people to talk about it and seek help when they need it, as well as making it more likely that perpetrators would seek help. But overall, Labour, the Greens and Mana have good policies focusing on support for victims as well as prevention. National, on the other hand, have more punishment, while ACT don’t seem to care. The Māori Party seem to fit somewhere in the middle.

Check out the whole post.

Get Stuff to talk about abortion politics

So I've spent the last few days googling candidates names and 'abortion' and coming up with little.  I've written about the information vaccuum and the strongest principle on abortion seems to be: DON'T MAKE ME TALK ABOUT IT.

And now abortoin is an options in Stuff's poll on what topic they should cover next.  I encourage people who share my interest in abortion politics to go vote.

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.

Why I support keeping MMP

MMP is loved by babies:

MMP is loved by dogs:

MMP is loved by cats:

MMP is loved by Don McGlashan (!!!):

MMP is loved by people with cool sneakers:

An Idiosyncratic Guide for Abortion Law Reform: Part 2 Electorates

So yesterday I looked at the party vote at this election.  Today some thoughts on the electorate vote.

It's fairly easy to vote on principal when it comes to the electorate vote.  All you need to do is find out where your various candidates stand and then decide how you're going to vote accordingly.  Which obviously isn't that easier because many candidates are not particularly willing to tell you where they stand on abortion.  But if you can get information (and do share in the comments anything you have) voting on principal isn't complex.  If you live in Rotorua choosing between Steve Chadwick and Todd McClay is clear - McClay has only voted on abortion once and voted reactionary.  Although choosing what to do in Invercargill where Lesley Soper - known SPUCer, runs against Eric Roy would require careful inquisition of the minor candidates.

What I'm going to concentrate in this post is how to vote tactically pro-choice in this election.  For example, even if you know that Andrew Little has better politics on abortion law reform than Jonathan Young (which seems likely) - the reality is they're both probably going to be in parliament anyway.  So you can vote on a principal basis on that occasion - but it's going to have very little tactical effect.

This post is going to focus on marginal electorates where the local vote may have an impact on the make-up of parliament.  A basic assumption is that the make-up of parliament is more important than whether a paticular MP has a label as the local MP.  I know this is an assumption many in parliament don't share (see the ridiculous focus on New Plymouth or Auckland Central).  But I think the make-up of parliament is what matters when it comes to abortion law reform.   So what are the marginals seats where voting can make a difference to the make up of parliamentary support for Abortion Law Reform?

Ōhariu
This is the simplest and most obvious - if you support abortion law reform vote Charles Chavel (I believe Katrina Shanks is also liberal for a National MP on abortion law, but she has a lesser chance of getting in).  Peter Dunne is not as bad on the issue as he once was (the rumour is that in 2002 no move on abortion law was an unwritten part of United Future and Labour's coalition deal - this is ) and amusingly right to life are mad at him.  However, he is not a reliable on the issue, and likely to vote conservatively on incrementalist legislation.  Charles Chavel is an advocate.  Getting rid of Peter Dunne would be a victory for abortion law reform - and supporters of abortion law reform can vote for Charles Chavel with a clear conscious.

I would vote for Charles Chavel and I can't bring myself to vote for the Greens because they're too right wing  (and because of Russel Norman).

Epsom
The same principle applies in Epsom as John Banks is a known reactionary and Don Brash is completely incoherent on the matter.  This applies even though Paul Goldsmith's position is less clear than Charles Chavel's.

Te Tai Tokerau
My understanding is that Hone is broadly supportive of abortion rights.  He would bring in other candidates who are more likely to support abortion law reform than the rest of parliament.  Kelvin Davis will be in anyway.  From an abortion politics point of view, this is the reverse of Epsom.

Rimutaka
This one is also simple for another reason: Jonathon Fletcher is incredibly reactionary on abortion (see the smiley faces on Value your vote).  He is number 67 on the National party list - and so won't get in unless he wins the seat.

Chris Hipkins' ability to enter parliament is also looking shaky - Labour need to do better than the polls say for him to be in on the list (but not by much).  I don't know where he stands on abortion (and would like to know), but he's not going to be as conservative as Jonathon Fletcher.

West-Coast Tasman
Here is where things start to get nice and complex.  Both Damien O'Connor and Chris Auchinvole are conservative on abortion.  However, Chris Auchivole is 43 on National's list and looking pretty safe, whereas Damien O'Connor is not on Labour's list.  Therefore, in terms of abortion law reform there is definitely a reason to not vote for Damien O'Connor and a reason to vote for Chris Auchinvole to keep Damien O'Connor out.

On top of that there is another way of looking at the make-up of parliament.  As well as looking at who we're bringing in on electorate seats, we also need to consider which list seat candidate they're replacing.  Now this gets super complicated - but I think from the point of view of abortion law reform the people who are looking tantalising close but not close enough are Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton - at number 34 and 35.  Every electorate seat that Labour wins from someone who is further down the list than they are makes it harder for Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton to get in.  If you're voting in marginal electorates consider where the Labour candidate is on the list before voting for them (note that Chris Hipkins is further up the list than Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton, otherwise I wouldn't be as supportive of voting for him in Rimutaka).

Voting against Damien O'Connor doesn't just keep an anti-abortion voice out of parliament - it also makes it more likely that abortion law reform advocates will get in.

Mana
I think there is both a principled and a practical reason for voting for Hekia Parata in Mana.  The first is that my understanding is that she is more liberal than Kris Faafoi on the issue (who was both incoherent and reactionary when he talked about parental notification in May- does anyone have the link - I ranted about it on facebook but didn't keep a link).  The principled issue needs more research and I think it's important to hear what they say when asked specific questions.

But the practical choice is clear.  Hekia Parata will be in parliament anyway, and Kris Faafoi is higher on the list than Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton.  Voting for Hekia Parata also makes it more likely that abortion law reform advocates will get in.

Palmerston North  Ōtaki & Christchurch East

So how far do you take this approach?  In Palmerston North, two people whose position on abortion is unkinown are running, in Otaki the National candidate is Nathan Guy, an arch-reactionary (who will get in anyway) and in Christchurch East the Labour candidate is Lianne Dalziel who is a known supporter of abortion law reform.

I think it's counter-productive to vote against supporters of abortion law reform to try and get better supporters of abortion law reform in.  There are too many variables, and I think MPs are such cowards on abortion those who are prepared to say their position should be rewarded in a pavlovian kind of way.  I also wouldn't vote for Nathan Guy myself - partly because it's not necessarily - there's no way Labour is picking up that seat.  But I would  probably avoid voting for the Labour candidate.  And I would seriously think about voting for the Nat in Palmerston North.

Te Tai Tonga
The same argument about Labour applies when it comes to Te Tai Tonga as Rino Tirikatene is higher up the list than Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton.  However, there the effect is more complicated because Rahui Katene won't get in on the list anyway. I don't know about Rahui Katene.  Without knowledge that she supports abortion law reform I think it's risky to vote for her on the basis that she might bring in advocates on the labour list.

Tamaki Makaura
Here the key piece of information is Pita Sharples position on abortion - which I don't think we can judge on his very limited voting record.  Pita Sharples won't get in unless he wins Tamaki Makaura (whereas Shane Jones is in no matter what), so if enough information could be found about his position it would be a relatively simple decision.


There are many other arguments you could make.  For example, there is probably a case for voting Paul Foster-Bell in Wellington Central, since he is not guaranteed a place and a support of abortion law reform in National's caucus would be useful.  However, given that Grant Robertson is demonstrably better on the issue than Foster-Bell, and Foster-Bell isn't really borderline because National are polling at a gajillion, and Wellington Central isn't actually marginal - I don't think the argument is very convincing. But I think talking and thinking about electorate seats in this way is useful.  I'd be really interested in hearing where people's analysis, judgement and information differs from mine.

Of course the line is somewhat subjective.  Could I get up in the morning and look myself in the mirror knowing I'd voted for a Nat - even for the best reasons?  I'm not sure, but I do know that I'd vote for Paul Goldsmith if I lived in Epsom.  And abortion law reform is more important to me than keeping ACT out of parliament.

Updated: I got Kelvin Davis's place on the list wrong so I've edited that.  On top of that I've realized that on current polling (things have changed a bit since I started writing this post) more pro-choice women are in hazardous positions further down the list - on what Curia says today Carmel Sepoluni and Carol Beaumont are only just in if no marginals change hand.  The bottom line is that in the labour party the people who most vocally support abortion law reform tend to be on the list rather than in winnable seats.  Therefore, supporting Labour electorate candidates does not necessarily support the abortion law reform voices within the party.


Note In case the repeated use of the first person singular in this piece passed you by this is a piece by Maia, and does not represent the views of other Hand Mirror writers or anyone else.

MODERATION: Please note this thread is for the discussion of how to vote to support abortion law reform - not whether that's a good idea.

An Idiosyncratic guide for voting for abortion law reform this election: Part 1 Party Vote

Voting for abortion law reform* is notoriously hard in New Zealand.  In 1978, after parliament passed our current laws – Eric Geireinger wrote an entire book on how to vote for abortion law reform (and the effort generally failed).  In desperation some women suggested ‘Vote prohibition for repeal’ – so there’s this very weird increase in the vote about whether alcohol should be banned in 1978.

It is impossible to vote on a principled basis on abortion – because no party has solid policy on the issue.  The Greens do have some sort of policy, but it does not promise abortion law reform, and other parties just say ‘it’s a conscience vote’.  On top of this most politicians’ strongest view about abortion is “DON’T MAKE ME TALK ABOUT IT”.  So finding out what various candidates’ views are is a combination of taking opportunities to ask questions, gossip, and instinct.

More than that - voting won’t get us abortion law reform.  That will only come about if we educate, agitate, and organise - force MPs’ hands. 

However, I think it’s worth talking about the different parties and some electorate races.  Mostly because it allows for complicated nerdy calculations (I have made spreadsheets to assist me with this post).  There are other places with great information ALRANZ have a blog post discussing the campaign, they also have party guide and a record of how MPs have voted.  Although the voting records need to be read with a careful eye of the history of the votes. Tertiary Women's Focus Group include abortion in their voting guide. There's also Family First's guide which I find amusing.

The second part of this post will be about electorate seats and is considerably more idiosyncratic than this first part, which just runs down the parties. I’ll mostly be talking about MPs who stand out from what is usual in their parties, known supporters of abortion law reform in right wing parties and known opponents in left wing parties (while people’s position on abortion doesn’t shake down along party lines exactly – what is normal within a party does).  But I will also be talking about advocates – mostly on our side who we have reason to believe will actively advocate for abortion law reform.  But I’ll also talk about the leaders of the reactionaries as well. 

I have also focused on the candidates on the cusp of being elected.  Paul Hutchinson from National is the only member of National's caucus to vote against Judith Collins bill for parental notification but he’s number 26 on National’s list and has a seat so he’s going to get elected whatever happens.  Likewise we can’t do much about Clayton Cosgrove, who is anti-abortion, and at number 8 on Labour’s list.

Note: All calculations in this post are based on the assumption that no seats change party and the figures are based on the Curia poll of polls. These are unlikely to pan out exactly.  So it’s probably wise not to be too tactical with your vote

Labour

The predominant view in Labour is that abortion law reform in theory (practice is another matter), but that doesn’t mean that we can safely assume any individual Labour MP or candidate supports abortion law reform.  There are definite anti-abortion voices in the party, and unless they’ve been in parliament long enough to have their position on record – or are as vocal as Lesley Soper down in Invercargill – we won’t know who they are.

However, Steve Chadwick is the strongest advocate for abortion law reform currently in parliament.  She is number 34 on the Labour party list, and Kate Sutton, who should be pretty strong on this issue, is number 35.  On current polling neither of them will get in – but it is close.

If Labour rises a little in the polls (or stops sinking) a vote for Labour could be bringing in Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton.  If the polls continue to sink then it’ll be about bringing in Rick Barker, Deborah Mahuta-Coyle, Stuart Nash, Michael Wood, or Phil Twyford.  Rick Barker spoke reasonably well to oppose Judith Collins parental notification bill, so can probably be relied upon; the others appear to have avoided making any public record of their position on abortion (although I think this post demonstrates the priority Phil Twyford gives to abortion).

A record of anti-abortion labour MPs and candidates would be useful, but unfortunately the DON’T TALK ABOUT IT desire is strong, and the recent voting record is not necessarily a reliable indicator.  Damien O’Connor and Clayton Cosgrove are the two labour MPs that I know are anti-abortion – if people know of others share them in the comments.

The other, equally important and far less accessible information, is who was it who refused to let Steve Chadwick’s bill go forward.

Greens

The Greens have policy on abortion – but not policy for abortion law reform.  And that’s not an accident – people are holding that policy up because they are anti-abortion.  I don’t know who that is – I’m not inside the Greens, but I think it’s important to understand that there must be some anti-abortion advocates in there somewhere for the policy not to have got further.

Both Holly Walker and Jan Logie appeared interested in being advocates for abortion law reform at Ladies in the House.  And while you can’t necessarily expect MPs to act based on what they said as candidates to the most sympathetic audience in the country, it’s better than most candidates (another advocate at Ladies in the House was Jordan Carter who is number 40 on the Labour list and unlikely to get in on election night, but may well come in mid-term).  Jan Logie is 9 on the list and currently looking pretty certain, while Holly Walker is 12 and in on current polling – but the Greens have a history of shedding several seats between polling and election day.

The views of other Green candidates on the cusp would be pretty useful to know, but I don’t know them.  I’ve no idea about Steffan Browning, Denise Roche, Julie Genter and Mojo Mathers.  James Shaw who is number 15 supports abortion law reform – my aim is to ensure that at least the Wellington Central candidates don’t get to hide their views.

Mana

I actually think Mana is the best bet for ensuring no-one in caucus in opposes abortion law reform.  But that’s mostly based on instinct (and the fact they won’t get many MPs – I certainly wouldn’t begin to guess the position of anyone past Sue Bradford). However, there is no-one who stands out as an abortion law reform advocate in Mana. Mana don’t have policy at the moment, but have said that it will be set by Mana Wahine (and I’d expect that group to come up with good policy).  Getting that position out of Mana took quite a lot of work. 

I do think it’s to Hone’s credit that he answered Family First’s survey and indicated where he stood on abortion. I find the arrogance of people who want to be representatives, but refuse to say where they stand on issues repulsive and offensive.

Maori Party

The Maori party have taken consistently reactionary positions about abortion.  While I’ve no idea of the position of Waihoroi Shortland or Kaapua Smith (the first two people on the Maori party list) without any indication otherwise it’s probably safest to assume they will not support abortion law reform (and anyway the Maori party are very unlikely to get any list MPs so there’s not much point giving them your list vote – even if you support their actions over the last three years).

National

National are actually going to get very few list MPs, because they win the vast majority of the electorate seats.  However, any known abortion law reform voices within National would be valuable. Two that I know of are Paul Foster-Bell, who is 56 on the National list and Jackie Blue, who is 46 – and because of the way the electorate seats shake down there’s only 2 actual list places between them. At current polling they are both in, and Claudette Hauiti, Joanne Hayes, Leonie Hapeta, are on the border line. Their opinions are unknown, but people going to electorate meetings in Mangere, Dunedin South, Palmerston North and Wigram could usefully ask.

If polling does slip then voting National will be more likely to bring in Paul Foster-Bell and Jackie Blue.  But then if it slips a bit further (or National does very well in marginals) then Tau Henare number 40 on the list and 57^th in if no electorate seats change hands, is probably in trouble.  This would be a very good thing, because he is an extreme reactionary.  However, there are many hazards in the National party when it comes to Abortion Law Reform, starting at number 2.

Fun fact, in 2002, before he was even an MP I wrote to John Key the candidate and asked him where he stood on abortion.  He replied with one of the clearest statements that abortion law should be based the right of the pregnant person to control their body that I received from anyone (I didn’t receive many responses).  Make of that what you will.

ACT

To the surprise of no-one ACT’s supposed liberalism is optional when it comes to women.  John Banks is an absolute reactionary.  The only person he is likely to bring in is Don Brash – who doesn’t seem to know what he thinks about abortion (see the family first site I will give ACT candidates some credit for sharing their opinions).

New Zealand First, Conservative Party and United Future must all be considered anti-abortion parties based on their history and their leaders’ positions.

Abortion isn’t the only consideration about how I’m going to party vote – and I’m pretty intense about the issue – so I don’t think it’ll be the only consideration of many readers.  But I think information about who is on the cut off, and their position on abortion can be useful for people who are choosing between parties (which again I’m not).

If you’re choosing between Labour and the Greens, for example, figuring out which vote is more likely to bring in advocates based on polling would be useful.  On the other hand if you’re choosing between National and ACT, figuring out whether you’re bringing in unknowns, vague supporters of abortion law reform or arch reactionaries by voting National is probably relevant – voting for ACT almost certainly brings in someone who doesn’t know what he thinks about abortion (if it brings in anyone).

There are big gaps in this post – a lot of people on the cusp whose views on abortion are a big black hole.  So if you’re at an electorate meeting, or someone wants to shake your hand or kiss your baby, then ask them where they stand and share it in the comments.

But to return to a theme – the sorry state of the information really does demonstrate that it won’t be by voting that we’ll bring about abortion law reform. 

* I have deliberately avoided using the term ‘pro-choice’ in this post.  I believe to support the right of women (and all pregnant people) to choose, you must also support the right to have children. 

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
 

Election night intentions at The Hand Mirror

We've had a bit of a chat behind the scenes and a few people have been keen to live blog on Saturday 26th November.  If you don't know why that might be then you're probably going to find Saturday night's blogging really really dull.  And confusing.

At this stage there will likely be three of us, doing separate live blog posts which we'll update sporadically:

• Luddite Journo - at the Greens Wellington HQ
• Julie - at the Mt Roskill Labour HQ
• Maia - in front of the telly and the interwebs

I reckon Maia will have the most fun; her favourite part of elections is when people she hates lose their seats, and it looks like there could be a lot of people on the losing end of things - sitting MPs, hopeful newbies, and everyone in between.  It's going to be a tense tense night.

If you are going to be busy on election day itself then I strongly endorse doing an Advance (Early) Vote.  I did mine on Friday afternoon; very simple, didn't need my EasyVote card, no queue, and was much more do-able with two kids under 4 than voting would be on E Day itself.

How much does gender matter this election?

Feeling guilty about my big P political lethargy this election, I've decided to compare each parties women's or gender policies as a measure for commitment to gender equity, and share them with you all, complete with an exciting rating system. A more detailed review would examine every party policy for gender implications, but I'm still mildly lethargic so here's the short sharp version. Enjoy.

United Future has a Gender Affairs policy. Highlights include targeting family violence policy towards recognising men and women are both perpetrators and victims of family violence. This despite Peter Dunne's Families Commission confirming family violence is heavily gendered, not gender neutral requiring equal opportunity responses. There's also a new Gender Ministry to replace Women's Affairs and "recognise the specific needs of both genders." Rating: Patriarchal.

New Zealand First has a policy manifesto. No women's policy, but women are mentioned six times in the 116 page document. Rating: Negligent.

ACT has no policy on women or gender inequality. There's no need, because market forces ensure girls can do anything.

The Mana Party Social Wellbeing policy and Maori Party Whanau Ora policy do not mention gender or women, disappointing given the fact colonisation has done wahine Maori no favours. While I recognise there are world view issues here, honouring Mana Wahine is readily available within Te Ao Maori - and Mana's Annette Sykes in particular is an expert. Given the horrific rates of violence against Maori women and the education, employment and health stats which Maori women wrestle with, a Mana Wahine policy seems critical to true whanau ora. Ratings: Neglectful x 3.

Now, the big three in the polls. National's two page policy explains upcoming plans and describes their achievements in government, including the lowest ever gender pay gap, at 9.6%, based on the NZ Income Survey. I decided to have a look at hourly wages from the Quarterly Employment Survey:

Which looks more like a steady gender gap of 13% to me.

National also trumpet their improved services for survivors of sexual violence - court advisors and a discretionary victim grant of $500. Both good (court advisors training was a couple of weeks ago so just squeaking under the wire) and a testament to Simon Power's commitment to these issues. But disingenous from a government which slashed funding for therapy for sexual violence survivors, then did an about turn six months and several survivor suicides later when said funding cut miserably failed an independent review.

National are planning, if re-elected, to continue contributing to intiatives to end violence against women. Difficult to square with the funding cuts last term to the award winning "It's Not Ok" campaign. Let's hope there are some genuine prevention measures in the pipeline. Rating: Could Do Better.

Now to Labour and the Greens. Both have women's policies. The Greens are the only party to acknowledge a variety of gender identities, in their "Sexual Orientation and Gender/Sex Identity Policy." Labour's Rainbow policy in contrast is silent on gender identity.

Labour gets a tick for fronting up on the gender pay gap, work-life balance, mothering and care-giving and women's health. Their plans to address violence against women are strong and sensible, moving the sexual and domestic violence sectors into greater collaboration and suggesting a cross party approach. It's about time, particularly since it was the last Labour government which repeatedly back-tracked in naming "family" violence as a gendered issue, and allowed the courts to move away from fully implementing the Domestic Violence Act under pressure from men's rights groups.

The Labour policy also repeatedly recognises that women of different ethnicities, ages and abilities may have different needs, which is a welcome relief. Requiring information about pay rates to be available, for example, will impact very differently on women in different sectors of paid work, even if it benefits all women.

Some of the policy is aspirational, without clear steps being described, which undermines credibility. But overall, this is a strong policy. Rating: Good.

The Greens policy clearly aims for gender equity for all women. The key principles are aspirational, including the only reference in any policy to Te Tiriti - vital, I'd have thought, for talking about gender equity in Aotearoa. They also embed state responsibilities in an international human rights context - so place gender firmly in both the local and global - and name structural and indirect discrimination as concerns. Pay equity, mothering and violence against women all get a mention.

Even more impressive is the detailed policy plan the Greens produce, naming the legislation they will use to implement their aspirations. They detail plans to financially and socially support mothers, including in the workplace, increase workplace flexibility, monitor pay rates with a view to enforcing equal pay legislation and ensure women in low paid work/living on benefits have adequate resources. The healthcare plans are comprehensive too.

The Greens fall down a little on violence against women, where their policy is almost exclusively focussed on domestic violence rather than including sexual violence, and their prevention plans - innovative in focussing on violence in the media - do not include evidence based skills focused education in learning respectful and ethical negotiation behaviours.

The education policy ideas would allow higher education to be accessible to more than middle-class women by reducing costs; similarly the justice plans to review protection order costs and increase law centre funding. And asking wahine Maori and migrant women what they need is welcome. Though using "lesbian relationships" to talk about same-sex couples is clumsy and out-of-context in terms of human rights, overall this is an excellent policy document with easily the most substance of all those on offer. Rating: Green Star.

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